Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jempcorp
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final: (0/7/0); Closed per WP:NOTNOW by Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination
[edit]Jempcorp (talk · contribs) – I am a user of Wikipedia that wishes to become an admin for purposes in trying to stop vandalism in pages that have information about religous beliefs, the Queen, the President etc... I wish to allow Wikipedia to be safe and not sorry for people who have edited and abused this website. Wikipedia, as I know it, is a great way to learn new things in life. Mainly when I work and dont know things, Wikipedia is the first place I look at, because I can trust it. I am here to maintain that trust for people, and I hope I am accepted for Administrator. I hope I have explained fully why I have nominated for this privilege, and hope to make Wikipedia a better place for the community. Wikipedia is not just an online Encyclopedia, but a very detailed, full of users, open to the community website! NOTE: I have a question: How do I gain trust from the community? Do I just edit pages that have vandalism? JEMP 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
[edit]Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Protecting pages, editing other pages to erase vandalism and block users that I have found that vandalised the page.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I would like to improve Wikipedia by stopping users that vandalise pages that contain religous or royal information or pages that have protection on them. I hope to keep the community with trust of Wikipedia.
- 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: No, I haven't had any bad reports off anyone.
General comments
[edit]- Links for Jempcorp: Jempcorp (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Jempcorp can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Discussion
[edit]RfA/RfB toolbox | |
|---|---|
| Counters | |
| Analysis | |
| Cross-wiki | |
Support
[edit]
Oppose
[edit]- Can't support a candidate who's never had a conflict on Wikipedia, because there are guaranteed to be conflicts after you start using the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to strong oppose, as the candidate has no mainspace edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - I'm glad you're interested, but you need way more experience first. Definitely a WP:NOTNOW case. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This is a WP:NOTNOW if I ever saw one. As of 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC), all of the edits this user has made (apart from the ones for this RfA) are to User:Jempcorp, User talk:Jempcorp, User:Jempcorp/Secure/TestPage and the deleted File:Dwmovie2008.GIF. There are no edits to the encyclopedia, none to AIV, none to other Wikipedia: namespace pages. Come back when you have more experience of the site using this account, and can show that you understand the role of an administrator. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Needless to say, not close to the the editing experience needed. Candidate needs a minimum of 6-8 months of work to get a handle on the many mansions of Wikipedia. Suggest this Rfa be closed asap per WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 15:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Good faith self nom, but WP:NOTNOW is appropriate. I would ask the user to withdraw their nomination, and if they did, i'd commend them on their zeal and recommend them to come back after far more experience is obtained. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose My goodness; I haven't seen any contributions to the article mainspace at all. Just reading the admin-policies is not the only way to get adminship. Contributing is key. Minimac (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. No mainspace contributions. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 16:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]- 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.