Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/12george1

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy closed as unsuccessful –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12george1 (talk · contribs)

End date: December 13
I nominate myself for Simple English Administrator and I have been on Simple English for a little more than a year. The main reason I nominate myself is because I have created about 75 articles on Simple English Wikipedia, articles that would likely taken a lot longer to make it from English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia. I have also greatly expanded some articles, that would have just stayed as a list, like this article. One more thing, I have made over 1,300 edits since I joined in on Wikipedia. --12george1 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. STRONG Support even if the self-nominee did a little mistake not to try following this process : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Editor_Review. Why the people opposing him could not vote for a one-month-trial period ? ? ? Michel Alençon akaONaNcle (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Trial adminship isn't something we do here. Kate (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I know this from the beginning but it could change since you've been experimented trial roll-backers. ONaNcle (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, but I don't think he have trial rollback accounts either...--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Certainly not. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Far too many problems here. Majorly talk 12:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. No. Administrators need to have experience in multiple areas of Wikipedia maintenance. Look at your contributions to Wikipedia: namespace! You have never: reported vandalism at WP:VIP, taken part in a WP:RFD, tagged an article for WP:QD, discussed anything at WP:ST. How are we to think that you know anything about being an administrator? I think a 'crat can speedy close this. EhJJ^TALK 13:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   On a side note: your contributions are very welcome and we appreciate them. Your are definitely a good editor, but it takes more than editing skills to be an administrator, you need to know about all of our rules and how to use them correctly. EhJJ^TALK 13:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose Per Pmlinediter's link. I would suggest a closure per WP:SNOW.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Personally I find it wrong to deny adminship per a block log unless it's very recent, within the last three or four months, this was back in May and earlier. But I must oppose per EhJJ.--  † CR₉₀  15:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Yes you have written and expanded many articles, and well done for that, but to become an admin you must show some need for the tools. Through looking at your edits, I am pretty certain that you do not have need for them at this time. FSM ^Noodly? 20:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per EhJJ. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - You have good experience at adding and improving articles but not much at anti-vandalism or any work in RfD or other areas. You should work on fighting vandalism first. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 21:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. —§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Methinks it is now getting to the point where the oppose section is going to turn into "oppose per X" and not help the candidate to improve themselves by offering constructive criticism. As such, it might be prudent to close this RfA. Kate (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.