Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Snake311

< Wikiquote:Requests for adminship
This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments to another page, but not here.

Closed as unsuccessful. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snake311

Snake311 (talk • changes)

End date: September 27, 2009

Hello everyone. I have been editing at this wiki for 1 month. During that time, I've done extensive work on articles (i.e., creating and expanding dozens of articles, participating in the QOTW, copyediting, redirecting, reviewing, categorizing, etc.) and been trying to my best to revive this wiki. I feel that I am competent at handling the extra tools, and I have a decent knowlege of wiki policies. The tools would help me in editing and continuing my work. I would be greatly appreciated if the community can trust me with the admin tools. Regards, —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nom

Support

  1. Support, the most active user. Knows how to edit here, and can be trusted. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I was actually considering nominating you for admin a whiles back, but forgot about it. You do good work around here and I trust you with the bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to neutral/abstain. See comments section. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support - Changed to weak after Julian brought up some important issues. but I nonetheless believe the user can be trusted with the tools. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am neutral for now. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak-support - Some concerns on SEWP, but I believe you should only be judged on the wiki the rfa is on. Yotcmdr (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Per rather immature and rude behavior on simplewiki, such as implying another user was "bitching around" and creating mediocre articles to prove a point. Here is another example. Upon the initiation of a thread on simplewiki's Administrators' Noticeboard, Snake311 emigrated here, presumably to avoid being scrutinized, and ran for adminship less than one month later. I have other concerns, some of which are more relevant to this wiki. Specifically, he makes dozens of minor edits to build a stub with a single quote. I don't view this as a huge issue, but it smacks of "editcountitis". Sorry, but I cannot support until this editor takes more time to mature. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I usually hate to do this, but "per Julian". He has voiced my concerns about this candidate perfectly. Please come back after you've taken some time to mature. Regards, Javert (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose after mulling it over a bit. I wanted to remain neutral, but the baseless, uncivil accusations against Julian in the below section prompted me to oppose. I don't think this is the way an administrator should interact with other users. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I fully agree with the concerns. This isn't how an admin should be. Editcounties are not all and less important. I also monitored the the things on sewp. Therfore, you shouldn't be an admin right now. Barras (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. You've not done great to disprove the immaturity concerns on this very RfA. Accusing someone of trying to "destroy" you is not the way to answer legitimate concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Would have to agree with Peter. -Djsasso (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per concerns by JC and PS and per the fact that Snake won't listen to others before doing something. I'd like to support, but incivility issues prevent me from doing so. Sorry Snake, you're a good editor, but not now. Try later. PmlineditorTalk 16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per the concerns laid out by JulianColton and PeterSymonds. I would love to support you, however, you have not done anything to prove that you have matured at all in the past year or so. The differences provided are clear and concise things that I don't want to see out of an administrator. Razorflame 16:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Abstain Changed from a support. I was initially not aware of the issues at Wikipedia. After looking at the diffs provided by Julian, I've become a bit concerned. This is not the way I think an administrator should interact with other users. At the same time, I don't really want to oppose, seeing as Snake has done such a good job of improving and expanding this wiki. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does my actions at SEWP affect my reputation here at SEWQ? I believe that these are two different wikis. If you can find evdience proving that I am a disruptive user at SEWQ, then I may withdraw this nomination. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the thread about me at simple:WP:AN, it was resolved and should no longer be a problem. Can we all move on and forget the past? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Behavior doesn't change with the site, unfortunately. And I pointed out issues with your editing on this specific project. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: HotCat allows you only one make one edit at a time. B: Define "mature" for me if you may. C: Ever since a year ago at SEWP, you have been relentlessly following and watching me; don't you have articles to edit instead of getting into other people's business? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. That's fine, but you make many, many other manual edits. B. I'm not sure what you mean here. I just want to see that you can interact with other editors without making baseless and inaccurate claims, such as the one you've just directed at me. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my time here at this wiki, no user has ever complained about my actions here. Instead they believe that I am a productive editor. The reason why I have a lot of edits is because I work hard on improving this wiki. I have created dozens of articles over the past month. Literally I earned my reputation as a hard worker. You claim that I am an "extremely unproductive" user. *cough* harrassement *cough* Nonetheless, even if I ever gained adminship, would it ever so harm this wiki to have one more admin? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be brutally honest here. I never said you're "extremely unproductive", and that you've made this up to make me look like the bad guy furthers the strength of my oppose. Struck upon clarification. As an admin on any project you're going to deal with difficult and at times stressful situations, and if you can't handle even good-faith criticism from a fellow editor who respects you as a contributor, I'm afraid you are unfit to be an admin at this time. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so all this arguement that has been going on for almost a year, you have taken this personally? Gee whiz, I have at times had dissagreements with other users before, but at least they were willing to resolve and finish the dispute without any furthur issues. You called me extremely unproductive at simple:WP:AN, and you never stop watching me on whatever I do. I believe that just because you're an admin before I was, you use it as an advantage over me. Tsk, tsk. The reason why I left SEWP was because of all the unnecessary drama there. I was hoping to take a restart in a new place and fix my pervious errors. Yet you continue to fuel the flames. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More baseless, uncivil claims. Please stop burying yourself deeper into the hole. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- ...And here we go with this again. You attitude only continues the arguement; "Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible." Taken from en:WP:CIVL. I realize your goal is to destroy me on the wikis. Is it worth it? I could have gone out with my friends and not have missed out in my life, but I stayed on the wiki projects, to improve a growing wiki as Jimbo Wales would have wanted it. You seem to disrupt that goal in the process. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 03:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goal is not to "destroy you". Please stop making up nonsense. I think at this point it's best to let it go. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion seems to have degenerated. I'd just like to say, in response to Snake's first comment in this section, that what happens at other wikis is not completely irrelevant to this wiki. One's behaviour doesn't change with the wiki, as Julian points out above, and if a user has been controversial/problematic on other wikis in the recent past, it's safe to say this may carry over here as well. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- As a note to everyone concerned about my high edit count: more than 90% of my edits are to mainspace edits. Approxiametly 1900 out of the 2000+ edits are focused on articles. I don't expect this RfA to pass, however I will not close it early. It seems that adminship is after all a big deal. I am dissapointed that SEWQ may end up like SEWP if this continues. Snake311 (alternative) (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Adminship is after all a big deal"? Nope, it isn't. I got admin here after ~600 edits in 14 days. This is a trust and maturity issue, not editcount issue. PmlineditorTalk 16:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is finished. Please do not change it. You can add comments in another part.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Snake311&oldid=31007"