Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CastAStone

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

Final (0/2/4); ended 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by candidate

CastAStone (talk · contribs) - This user deserves administrator status because he is dedicated to ridding Wikipedia of vandalism and whole-heartedly promotes the maintenance of high content standards. DavidJ710 (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Withdrawn

Thank you David for nominating me. I'm honored to be nominated based on the work I've done in the past.--CastAStone|^(talk) 03:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate has indicated a desire to have his nomination withdrawn.

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: AfD and Recent Changes Patrol are basically my two favorite things to do on the site. I'd love to take a bigger role and to spend more time in both. Honestly, the biggest attraction to being an Admin to me was the undo button on individual edits, so now that everyone has that, being able to close obviously overworked AfD's is what I think I would be using the tool kit for the most.

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

A: Well, I think my greatest work was in helping to move forward the Kelly Martin explosion of January, 2006[1] [2] [3]. Also, When I've been able to contribute, I've done good work on AfD.

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: A long time ago I had a few Scientology talk page edits that ended up with that Miss Selena Kyle individual and another individual, obviously a practicing Scientologist, in a flame war of sorts, and I can't help but worry that I contributed to it. My solution in the end was to get out of it, because being right is one thing, but being insulting is another.

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

• Links for CastAStone: CastAStone (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/CastAStone before commenting.

• I suspect that this is a bad faith nomination. The user who is nominating CastAStone is a new user with less than 75 total edits---most of which are to his own main page to make it look like an experienced editor. The user then posted CastAStone's nomination at 2:31. That nomination was erased as CastAStone had not accepted. At 2:48 David asked CastAStone if he would be interested in being nominated. David made it sound legit, but noting David's history, I have to suspect that David was trying to embarrass CastAStone for some reason.Balloonman (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe because of [4]? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a legitimate nomination. CastAStone and I are good friends in the real world, and I know that he is passionate about Wikipedia, and has been for a long time. In the recent past, he has been adjusting to post-college life, and settling into a career. My nomination is based upon CastAStone's enthusiasm and diligence to Wikipedia in the past. Look past the past 6 months and see how hard he has worked. Look at his userpage and see that even he thinks he would be a good admin, but is just to modest to nominate himself, and that he is coming back from a break from wikipedia. Maybe my nomination was premature, but I think CastAStone would do a great job as an admin. DavidJ710 (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose I'm sorry, but looking at your edits, you only contribute sparsely. You make a few edits a month, then leave for a while. And I would also like more experience in admin-related areas. Sorry, but take this as advice. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Sorry, but I agree with JetLover. You contribute good info to articles but you don't have many edits as of recent and it's pretty sparse between your edits. If you bump up your edit count in the coming months, I would happy to support you in your attempt to become an admin. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 04:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Advice Another candidate who should pull his nomination. You have less than 50 edits over the past 6 months. Over the past year, you have less than 350 edits. You simply do not have enough experience to warrant the tools. Especially recent edits. Please pull your nom---this could result in a pile on if you don't. I would also like to point out that the person who asked CastAStone to become an admin has less than 100 edits himself. I checked his edits to see if he was being disruptive in asking multiple people to become admins, but CastAStone was the only one.Balloonman (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral leaning toward oppose per Ballonman. Thanks for your enthusiasm. Continue with a mix of RCPatrol (assuming you are reporting to WP:AIV), WP:AFD, and article building. Recommend getting an editor review 3,000 edits/3months from now. Heed that advice before considering another RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 04:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Checking contribs, user hasn't made an XFD edit for three months and made an AIV report for two years. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 04:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral leaning toward oppose per Ballonman. Majoreditor (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral. Your edit history and level of activity don't suggest that you've put enough work in to be a qualified candidate, but there are many here who will help a sincere individual improve in the areas that need work. If you really have thought about being an admin, there are coaching opportunities available. Come back and we'll see how you're doing. Until then, best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]