Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jetstar888

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

FINAL (1/14/2); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 19:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jetstar888 (talk · contribs) I would like Jetstar888 to become an administrator cause there has been lots of vandalism on Penshurst, Victoria by Horry46. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.174.223 (talk • contribs)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Probably articles related to the Southern Grampians Shire Council, if that is what you mean.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Most likely "Penshurst, Victoria" because that is currently as of 9 December 2007 where I live, and when I first stumbled across the article, it was a measley three lines. Then I expanded it to about 10 lines.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been caused some annoyance by robots, but I have dealt with it by correcting the error I have made and that is how I will deal with it.

4. Question from Crockspot: I see that prior to your nomination, you haven't edited since July, and you have less than 70 edits total. I also notice that an IP address added this nomination initially. Do you use other accounts, or edit logged out frequently? - Crockspot (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• See Jetstar888's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Jetstar888: Jetstar888 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jetstar888 before commenting.

• This should be closed. Just use common sense, this is not getting any further, what's had to be said has been said. ^Dlae│_here 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this should be snow-closed, it is unlikely that an editor with so few edits will receive comprehensive feedback beyond what is already written. Avruch^Talk 18:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral support, but suggest withdrawal. (or is that politically incorrect nowadays?) I dorftrottel I talk I 12:02, December 9, 2007

   I shouldn't think so. — Rudget _speak.work 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Apparently there is a current push to not WP:SNOW-close RfAs any more. I dorftrottel I talk I 13:30, December 9, 2007

1. Oppose. 52 edits does not indicate experience. Paiev (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong Oppose You called Penshurst, Victoria your best contribution in your answer to question 2. The page history says you haven't even touched the page. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose with Moral Support your here for the right reasons, but you need more experience editing. Sorry for the harshness of my first comment, I missed you edit to the page, but flowerpotman showed me it. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Sorry, but I'm afraid the lack of experience of editing will probably mean that this particular request for adminship will fail. As for your concerns about particular articles, they could be addressed through other means, such as Administrator intervention against vandalism if necessary. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 05:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose You need more experience, although you make constructive edits. Continue to edit! Midorihana_{(talk)(contribs)} 06:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Far too little experience. Jmlk17 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - too little experience. Miranda 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Not enough experience. Doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools. — Rudget _speak.work 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - Lack of experience --Jeanenawhitney (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose I don't believe that you understand what an administrator does. Yes, you reverted vandalism to one article. No, you don't need the admin tools to protect that one article from vandalism by one user. While it's good that you're reverting vandalism in the first place, you don't have nearly enough experience to become an admin. May I suggest you read the guide to requests for adminship so you know what is expected of you next time? NF24^{(radio me!)} 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - Not enough experience, no knowledge of what adminship is about. Od Mishehu 14:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Not enough experience. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Would suggest that admins should not use admin powers on articles in which they have a strong editing interest, but instead choose topics on which they can be disinterested third parties. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose per above. Wizardman 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. per above and to avoid further pile on. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the project. I would suggest that the nom withdraw at this time. Speaking only for myself, I tend to support noms who have greater that 2500 edits and who have demonstrated a knowledge of how to use the tools safely. I would recommend planning on trying again in another 2500 edits and at least another 3 months time with the project. I would also suggest seeking an editor review at that time to iron out any rough spots. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Come back after getting more experience, and I'll be happy to support then. Malinaccier (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.