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

Cprice1000[edit]

Final (0/11/4); ended 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC) - closed early per WP:NOTNOW/withdrawal.--Chaser (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Cprice1000 (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Cprice1000talk2me 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: WP:AIV --Cprice1000talk2me 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my contributions to music, such as my articles for Sky Ferreira and my currently incubated Britney Spears articles are my greatest works.
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: Yeah, both of them. I get really upset when someone does something I disagree with and I will typically leave a note on their talk page or on the article page about why I disagree with what they are saying.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. OpposeUhm, sorry, but you only have 1000 edits in about 4 months. Sorry. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose, similar to the editor above Cprice only has 1082 edits. The range of edits is not sufficient enough to demonstrate that the editor has enough experience or understanding of wikipedia rules. Although I will concur that he/she has made some good edits I don't think you are quite ready. Apologies. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Sorry, but I have to oppose at this time. As the above two editors mentioned, a thousand edits and just four months of experience is hardly enough to have a broad scope of experience and trust in the community to become an admin. Also, your short answers to the three questions hardly meet RfA "standards". Also, you say you want to work in AIV but you barely have any anti-vandalism edits. Overall, I think you'd be a great admin in time, but you need much more experience. -download ׀ sign! 20:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Very short, terse and (IMO) uninformative answers to the most basic questions every RfA is asked to answer, editing experience is insufficent both in quantity and variety. Nothing indicates an understanding of the Admin's job or demonstrates the judgment required to perform that job. Put in another six to nine months working on countervandalism, new page patrolling and at least some gnomish article editing, then file another RfA. I don't think an Admin needs a half dozen featured articles, or even good ones, that they've authored themselves, but I do think they need to have some foundation in positive contribution to content. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose. That Cprice1000 apparently believes there is even the slightest of chances that this RfA will succeed speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Snowball in hell - Sorry, but your answers to the questions do not even convey to me that you are just eager to help, but requesting adminship too soon. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. WP:SNOW. Candidate doesn't even care to write a statement. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is inexperience any reason to be rude? Last time I checked it was the opposite. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you believe that the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" is bite-y, then perhaps you'd like to make the WP:SNOW article a little kinder, no? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Lord Roem's original statement was not WP:SNOW, it was "Just kill it already. Candidate doesn't even care to write a statement. Seriously?". I think claiming that to be a bit bitey is fairly justified. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, it was. I was too harsh. :( -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Unfortunately no. The candidate is keen and enthusiastic, and it's a pity to be discouraging, but alas it has to be so. Cprice1000 expresses an intention to work at AIV, but I can find scarcely any evidence of anti-vandal work at all, and the one and only contribution the candidate has ever made to AIV was an inappropriate one, involving an IP with very few edits and only one within the last month. We do not need admins starting to take actions at AIV without experience of how it works. Nor do I see much evidence of other work relating to admin issues. The candidate's work on Wikipedia is largely limited to one very narrowly limited topic, and does not suggest an all-round knowledge of how Wikipedia works. The candidate has a history of posting messages asking for participation in discussions, in a way that looks very much like canvassing. This has even happened in connection with this RfA, as can be seen in the following edits:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Perhaps it wasn't canvassing, but it looks that way. Anyone who has so little awareness of Wikipedia standards that they don't realise that even the appearance of canvassing is likely to count against them cannot be suitable to be an administrator. (If it actually was canvassing, then there is absolutely no question of adminship, but I am willing to assume it wasn't.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose per Lil-unique1. I think that this was good advice, and something to keep in mind for the future. If the primary (only?) admin task you intend to perform is anti-vandalism, then you'll probably need a vandal-fighting record much stronger than 4,000 edits if/when you decide to apply again. 28bytes (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Also, you have not clearly outlined how you will use the tools, and you do not have very much experience, even in countervandalism. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Oppose The candidate's extensive and blatant canvassing of this RFA (e.g. [6],[7],[8]) make this an unequivocal strong oppose regardless of any other merits. Someone who blatantly seeks to try to disrupt any decision-making process in this way is a nuisance to the project, and unfit to be even considered as an admin regardless of whether the canvassing was done out of ignorance or disruptive intent.
    I have other serious concerns with this candidate, but I don't want to be even harsher than I have been already been, so I'll leave those aside unless this nom looks like it's going anywhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral to avoid pile-on. Broaden your experience here, and come back in a year or so, and I'll be happy to support. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How do you know that you'll be happy to support in a year or so? Doesn't that somewhat depend on what the candidate does in the interim? Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was saying that if he waits a certain amount of time and broadens his experience on Wikipedia during that time, and if no major problems arise, I will support him. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral to avoid pileon. Basically, you're not ready yet- but this doesn't mean not ever. Keep contributing positively, without too many bad screwups, and you'll stand a good chance later. Reyk YO! 22:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Just a hint for any possible re-run in the future. Re: "I get really upset when someone does something I disagree with". That would really not be a good attribute in an admin, so you really need to get over that first, and not try again until you reach a point where you're happy with the fact that disagreements are a key part of community-based content creation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Neutral to avoid pile on. Best advice I can give in addition to the others, is to take a good look at the failed and successful RfA throughout 2010 and see what you are up against. It might might take much more than 4,000 edits to get it right. Kudpung (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Category