Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pookeo9

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

Pookeo9

Final (1/7/0); ended 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) - non-crat closure, SNOWed. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pookeo9 (talk · contribs) - Pookeo9 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Its really good to be running for adminship and i count on your questions and votes!

Questions for the candidate

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: I intend to take part in taking care that nothing has be replaced with all kinds of nonsense and i will try and make sure that no sock puppet accounts are made. Like i planned i would request deletions of really nonsense articles and try and help the pedia by looking for copyright.

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

A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are editing the front page, editing pages that need major reconsideration and block sock puppet accounts, etc. Basically like i said in question 1 i intend to help by doing as much as possible.

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 havent really been in a conflict but if a user causes me stress in the future i would give them 3 warnings and say this is your first warning then second warning then when his or her third warning is here then i would block him or her for 48 hours, well maybe indef block it all depends on how much the user had spammed. Basically if i do get in a conflict i would resolve it by saying: ok your time on wikipedia is going to end soon and will be blocked. i would give him/her 3 warnings basically like i said in this question then if they go over the limit i block him/her indef.

4. Mind explaining this? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

See Pookeo9's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Pookeo9: Pookeo9 (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/USERNAME before commenting.

Discussion

I would recommend withdrawing. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Moral Support - It appears you were extremely light on comments here because your RfA was not transcluded onto the main RfA page. If there were a chance that this RfA would succeed, I would ask for time to be extended. As it stands...sorry, but there's just no way this will happen right now. I'm not a fan of WP:AAAD#Editcountitis, but I can't imagine that your fully prepared for adminship after only 120-ish edits. The fact that this RfA is indexed under "USERNAME" (meaning you forgot to change it) and you didn't transclude it speaks volumes to your current level of inexperience. If you really want to be an admin, I'd suggest continuing to contribute, getting further involved in Wikiprojects, and maybe considering admin coaching. Good luck! Gromlakh (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Not enough experience for the moment in my opinion, + account is only a couple of weeks old. Jackaranga (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Account created January 19. Also I'm curious as to the 3 edits on 3 different IP talk pages on January 21 posting notices that said IPs were blocked indefinitely for being compromised and one for "for Trolling" when in fact, they weren't blocked at all. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just withdraw now I'm afraid. Nowhere near enough experience, as this mangled RFA demonstrates. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough experience, no proof of knowledge of Wikipedia policies/guidelines, edits are a concern. I am especially concerned about the "Editing the Main Page" bit; that's a fully-protected page and can't be edited except by administrators. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there really a need to "STRONG" oppose this when we all know it's not going to succeed? Cut the kid some slack, will ya! Gromlakh (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the "strong", and the capitalization of it was unnecessary. Acalamari 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come back when you have a few more months of edits under your belt. If possible, ask a more experienced editor to nominate you. Also, many of the things you describe above do not need admin permission, which makes me wonder if you realise what you're asking for here. Bovlb (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And asking Bureaucrat to close this early as a possible "test" page, given this Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pookeo9 creation by the same user. SkierRMH (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with Moral support. Per all above comments. Soxred93 | talk count bot 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.