Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xerocs

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

xerocs

Final (0/3/0) ended 19:38 6 January 2006

Xerocs (talk · contribs) – Great Guy Why Not Vote For Him xerocs 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination

Support

Oppose

Oppose, has only been here a couple of days. You need a lot more time here to understand how Wikipedia works before we would consider voting for you for adminship. Most people expect a candidate to have been here at least three months and to have 1000 edits. Please try again in April or later, and in the meantime get constructively involved in as many aspects of Wikipedia as you can.-gadfium 19:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain flat out no. You need to be here for at LEAST 3 months, preferrably 6, before you should ask for this. We have no way to trust you after just one day, especially when you've just now been blocked for 24 hours for spamming your RfA. Mo0[talk] 19:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You'll need a much larger amount of experience in both time and edits to become an administrator. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 19:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Edit summary usage: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 0 major and and 0 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 19:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) This data is wrong because the user did not format this RfA properly. Yet one more sign of inexperience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?

A. I would do whatever I could whenever I could for the general cleanup in the monthly catergories and I would try and get some of the 1 year old requests for articles filled.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I am particularly proud of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Sather because he was a great guy and I had the honor of serving in Iraq and part of my time was spent at a base camp dedicated to him.

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

A. Yes I have been in one editing conflict in the past over a biograpghy of an American soldier. At first I just tried to repost it, then I tried getting back at the Admins that kept deleting it, then I asked them why the did that and saw thier reasoning behind doing what they did (which by the way was poor reasoning), in the end the issue is still unresolved, but I am adamant that I am in the right and I will continue to work the issue through the proper channels until my work is seen for its value to wikipedia and it becomes published.

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.