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

Crassic

[edit]

FINAL (1/9/1); withdrawn by EVula per WP:SNOW 16:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crassic (talk · contribs) - I always do my best to fight vandalism or any incorrect information on Wikipedia. As you can see on my contributions page, I have always made positive edits and have only had two (2) contributions reverted (which, in my opinion, were wrongly done) and would definately continue to improve any and all inaccuracies on Wikipedia. I would be pleased if you accepted my self-nomination. Crassic 13:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to become more active on Wikipedia, such as helping end any disputes, banning disruptive users/IPs (although, I would not be quick to "jump the gun" per se, I would give any user the proper time to redeem themselves.), and all-around just helping improve any wrongful errors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I tend to make minor edits, usually - rarely making large edits to any page. But I would say that my best contribution would be to the article Yahoo! Fantasy Sports - I included a screen shot and overall, created the infobox itself.
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: I have been lucky enough to not deal with any editing wars, as I would imagine that they can typically be resolved if both users would really look into what is best for any certain article. If not, the dispute can always be resolved if an admin or any higher-person would intervene.

General comments

[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Crassic before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]

Support

  1. Moral Support You need more experiene, and your answers to the questions (particularly Q1 and "banning" IP's) show this. However kudos on the self nomination which shows a desire to help out, and respect for your work so far. This RFA will not pass per WP:SNOW but do not be discouraged. Your contributions to date all look positive - keep it up! My talk page is always open for help or advice, as is the talk page (I am sure) of many of the other respected contributors to your first RFA. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  15:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - first mainspace edit less than two months ago; less than 250 mainspace edits. Only two projectspace edits other than this RfA were to the sandbox. Very concerned about answer to Q1. At the rate you're going, come back in a year and I'll probably vote for you. ←BenB4 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Heart is in the right space, just not enough experience around the project yet. Also, would you mind letting us know what your other user name was which you mention on your user page? Hiberniantears 13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Usually you should have at least 1500 mainspace edits for self nomination and try to get involved more in talk. Go vote on AFD and RFA and be more active. -ScotchMB 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No - a bit early on, but I encourage you to keep working with what you are doing. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - I'm sorry, far too inexperienced, 235 total edits, virtually none in project space. Answers to questions indicate a lack of knowledge about Wikipedia (e.g. confusing banning with blocking). Retry in a few months' time :-) Melsaran 15:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, sorry, and suggest self-withdrawal before imminent WP:SNOW closure. A lot more experience is needed in all areas. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship.--Húsönd 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious, is WP:SNOW official wikipedia policy? Or is it an essay? Shabda 16:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Give it a few months, and keep up the good work, but I cannot support at this time. J-stan TalkContribs 15:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Due to above. The user needs to have more experience, and is considerably new to the project. Also, might want to be considered to be adopted by an experienced user and join a Wikipedia:Wikiproject. Miranda 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, suggest withdrawal as this is unlikely to pass. You've been active for under 2 months, and have no Wikipedia space edits apart from to this RfA and two to the sandbox. More participation in places such as WP:XFD and (especially if you wish to do vandal work) WP:AIV would be valuable. You should also understand the difference between bans and blocks. Keep up the good work though. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[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