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

Final (0/13/1); ended 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Wackslas[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Wackslas (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've had a truly woeful past on this site. But make me the admin and I will prove to every single one of you that I will be the greatest administrator that ever graced this website. I am dead serious, and I hope you all understand and vote.

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: Everything from approving pages, banning users who do not wish to abide by the rules, locking pages, all of it. Despite my long, dark past on this site I believe that I can change and become the greatest admin there ever was.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribution would be User:Wackslas/mostpopulousuk because, despite the fact that it was redirected, I still feel I put a lot of work into it and the outcome (not including the lack of referencing) was actually relatively good. But still, I'll have to work on it in order to get it approved next time. I'm also proud of Adam Buckley (comedian) because it got noticed by him himself. And also, my original one was taken down but I only cried for 562 minutes. Then, I made a new one and it got approved.
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 was in an edit war on the London page. I'd made a montage picture but someone else had reverted it. This carried on for a while before someone had to put a stop to it. I was quite annoyed because I felt I'd made a half decent picture, and that it was worthy enough to sit on one of the most visited pages on this site. But of course, they had other ideas. Once they'd explained that a page of such quality and acclaim had to have edits that were approved by quite a number of people, that was when I dropped the whole case. But, I'll tell you that it took a ton of audacity to even bring that up.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]


Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose, not enough experience. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Six years here, 547 edits. No way. BMK (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I request that when they close this, the bureaucrats consult with a CU to determine if there is any connection between this editor and User:Panewithholder, whose RfA was just closed. I have posted evidence on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard that Panewithholder is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. This self-nom coming hard on the heels of that one seems very suspicious to me. BMK (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What a joke! You think I'm that guy? Wow, do your investigation and you will have disappointing results. This is the only account I have ever registered on here. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose laughable. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - 500 edits in a six year period? Not only do you lack the experience needed for adminship, but you've also been on hiatus for much of that time. Also no anti-vandalism experience, which is what the admin tools are largely for. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The jocular attitude does the opposite of convincing me you'll be the "greatest administrator that ever graced this website". WP:NOTNOW. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Not listening to others' advice is a nono for me. Your RFA was deleted before, but you insist to run. Jianhui67 T★C 15:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Umm sure, I guess it's still April. —Soap— 15:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Last year (January 2014) this user was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account; the block was overturned on appeal four months later. As recently as January 2015 they created the article Generic Cunt which was speedy-deleted as a blatant hoax. Their answers to the questions above are not serious. I suspect we are being trolled with this nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppoose completely oppose answers to question 1, admins do not "ban" users or "approve" pages at all. — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose disruptive repeat of sensibly closed previous RfA, ignoring good advice. Candidate states: "Despite my long, dark past on this site I believe that I can change and become the greatest admin there ever was". Well, cool! First demonstrate that change and gain a track record of good contributions, then apply. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (edit conflict) Oppose. Why did we even allow this to be re-transcluded? The candidate has had an account for six years, but that makes no difference when you see that he doesn't even have 600 edits and a four-month block for vandalism. This is really a hopeless RfA (just admit it, Wackslas), so it should quickly be closed per WP:SNOW. --Biblioworm 15:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Apologies. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose for obvious reasons. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Comment - Somebody needs to snow this shut. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (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