Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Porchcrop

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

Porchcrop

Final (0/8/0); Ended 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC) - closed per WP:SNOW GlassCobra 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porchcrop (talk · contribs) - I think I need to be an administrator now. Whenever I see vandalism, I look up in the page's history and investigate who did that vandalism, so I revert and warn them about vandalism on their talk pages. I sometimes find out about vandalism by checking the page's history and and the user's contributions. I also improve articles. So I think I should be an administrator. Porchcrop (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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: Investigating and preventing vandalism and improving articles.

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

A: I haven't discovered any vandalism but in 'SpongeBob SquarePants', I saw vandalism so I left a warning on that user's talk page.

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:This did not happen.

General comments

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

Links for Porchcrop: Porchcrop (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/Porchcrop before commenting.

Discussion

May I suggest you look through some of the relevant adminship pages linked at the top of WP:RFA and return when you have a bit more experience? I don't think you're quite ready yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Oppose With only 149 edits, over half (at current) of them on your own user page or subpages, I am afraid that you do not fully understand the requirements of the janitorial work needed as a sysop, nor have you given the community enough evidence on which they can determine your ability to be trusted with the tools. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above reasoning. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 08:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry but you do not have the experience or time on this project to be a suitable admin candidate yet. I suggest taking Dihydrogen Monoxide's advice in the discussion section above.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong (SNOW?) oppose - with all due respect, becoming an admin with only 150 edits is utterly ridiculous; you clearly don't understand the process here, or how Wikipedia functions in general. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, your heart is in the right place, and I encourage you to apply again when you've got a bit more experience under your belt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose, You're off to a great start, but there's a lot more to being an admin. For now, when you find persistent active vandalism, log an entry at WP:AIV. Usually it gets handled in a few minutes—if an admin agree it's a valid report. There are plenty of editors with 6+ months experience and thousands of edits who have been deemed too inexperienced for adminship, so don't let this widespread round of opposition to your nomination get you down. As a non-admin, you can revert vandalism and warn vandals. That is extremely valuable work. —EncMstr 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: As per WP:SNOW, I reccomend that you withdraw your RfA until you have more experience to avoid disappointment. You do not have a snowball in hell's chance of passing with only 149 edits. Your arguments were not very well presented. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not anytime soon. Sorry. Jmlk 1 7 09:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.