Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The sunder king: Difference between revisions

Voice your opinion (talk page) (1/8/1); Scheduled to end 19:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The result was nomination withdrawn.

The sunder king (talk · contribs) - Hello my name is The sunder king and I've been editing wikipedia for just under 4 months. I have made in this time 2099 edits and I have participated in article building, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, WP:ANI, WP:UFA, WP:RFPP and WP:AIV, aswell as reverting vandalism and generally fixing minor errors that nobody has noticed on wikipedia articles. Generally I have engaged in the referencing, cleanup, and MOS in mainspace pages. The sunder king 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:As an admin I would tend to take part in clearing the WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:UFA, and WP:RFPP backlogs. Aswell as reverting vandalism and generally keeping an eye on how things are running. WP:ANI would be a place I would mostly help out in

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

A:My best contributions to wikipedia include the cleanup and referencing of several articles and mostly formatting and minor additions to articles, which most of my mainspace edits are put towards. I also help out reverting vandalism and reporting users.

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:Bad things happen and generally they just need to put up with in a sensible manner. I have been here long enough to know that dicussing with a user is better than edit warring and personal attacks. Even though I've been on dicussions, my interactions with editors has not been a major factor. I just tend to get along and stay out of trouble

4 Optional Question from User:SJP What is the meaning of WP:NPOV? Thanks for your time.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

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

• Links for The sunder king: The sunder king (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/The sunder king before commenting.

1. . Thanks, SqueakBox 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose based on my previous interactions with the candidate, which primarily revolves around my attempts to fix sunder king's edits to Gurch's RfA.[1][2][3][4] Now, I could forgive making several mistakes like that (though it still shows that the editor didn't know what they were doing, and I'd oppose for it anyway), but when told to stop making the edits,[5], sunder king proceeded to tell me what I meant by my comment[6], and reverted my edits. sunder king also doesn't seem to understand the block policy, as he thought my threat of a block for disruption was out of line and instructed me to re-read the policy.[7] EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes I do understand the policy. I just didn't understand my mistake at the time. That mistake was your fault anyway for messing with the RFA system by putting in "joke opposes." which confused me. The sunder king 19:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There was a comment in my !vote saying that it was a joke, not to mention that my rationale was ridiculous; admins are expected to be able to read and comprehend what they are reading. That also doesn't explain why you were de-indenting discussions and counting them as opposes; quite frankly, you just didn't know what you were doing, and this all happened just week ago. I think it would be downright dangerous for you to get the sysop bit without a lot more experience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   No it wouldn't, at the time I was having a very bad day! normally I am very good at reading and I even noticed something urgent that no other admins had noticed for a week the other day. The sunder king 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose. Incivil edit summaries within the past month. [8], [9] (which was a blanking of an AfD), [10]. Doesn't seem to understand fair use policy: [11] (thread is still visible on AN/I). Edit summary usage is barely passable, especially in the Wikipedia namespace. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per RyanGerbil10, completely inappropriate behaviour, also you have only recently been adopted by an experienced editor, hence forth — this means you are far from a level which would be required for adminship. Qst 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Found too many recent civility concerns in your talk page archives to support you becoming an admin at this time. Get more experience and work on trying to remain civil at all times and hope to support you in the future. Davewild 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong Oppose Aristotle talked about how knowledge is important, but knowledge with experience is even more valuable. This user has neither knowledge of policy/guidelines, as made evident by his edits to Gurch's Rfa. This is enough of a reason to oppose. Secondly, some of your edit summaries are very uncivil. Incivility is a big no-no. You absolutely cannot have an admin who is very uncivil as you have shown yourself to be. It would not be a big deal if these comments were 5 months ago and have not made the comments since then, but that is not the case. Your incivility is what makes my opposition strong. Also, your answers are very weak, which just proves to me more so you do not have much knowledge of policy. I suggest you pull out of this, improve, and try again in 6 months. Sorry for having to oppose you, and good luck in the future.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Being uncivil in your RfA [12] regarding an oppose is not a good idea. Take some time to settle in and ingrain yourself in Wikipedia culture and etiquette. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose It is very poor technique for an editor of limited experience to try and tell editors of vastly greater experience how to behave, and gives cause for concern if this editor is given admin responsibilities. (EVula 22,000+ edits, Gurch 45,000+) --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. For this edit summary, which was made only yesterday. Acalamari 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose and suggest withdraw. The Gurch joke oppose thing was confusing, if hilarious, so that error did not convince me. Applying attack as a delete rationale to the subject of an article in an AfD, and all the incivility concerns did. Blanking an AfD page is pretty scary in an admin nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, good work, but only having been here since July means I can't really support you until you get a bit more experience. Tim Vickers 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]