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

The Republican

Final (3/16/1) ended 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed early as unlikely to reach consensus. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 09:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The Republican ( talk · contribs) – The Republican has been here since September of 2005, has about 1000 edits, is a great contributer, and I bet my life that The Republican will absolutely not abuse administrative powers. Funnybunny 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. The Republican 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support, I only had one doubt, and you have proved it is unfounded. i think you'll make a good Admin Vulcanstar6 03:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support per my nom. Funnybunny 04:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support Will be a good admin. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 07:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose I prefer admins who aren't ideologues, and who can spell. Septentrionalis 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Strong Oppose, low edit counts, short answers to questions, no portal edits, hardly any use of edit summaries, and basically overall inexperience. Perhaps next time.-- TBC ^{??? ??? ???} 05:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Uhm... STRONG no. Poor answers to questions below do not make me certain you wouldn't misuse admin tools. NSL E _{( T+ C)} at 05:04 UTC ( 2006-04-05)
4. Strongest possible Oppose - 1000 edits, 300 are to his userpage, only 250 mainspace. " I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion." Admin powers are to do work, they are not for wheel-warring and undeleting userboxes unilaterally against will of the community. Question answers are weak. The nom text is very vague and the candidate hasn't added any more information. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose - more than a quarter of his edits are of his own or someone else's user page, and most of the substantive edits are frivolous. Major problems with the English language too: [1], [2], [3] - Richardcavell 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose per TBC. Nomination was hasty; it seems to me like the user doesn't understand what adminship entails, so wait a while and get some experience and maybe in the future my vote will change (though I'd like to see an improvement in writing skills as well). GT 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose per all above. Only 935 edits since September 21 doesn't satisfy me. (edit conflict) Roy boy crash fan 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose I'm sorry, but that comment about "fighting the war against mass userbox deletion" is extremely worrying. Combined with very low edit count means I cannot support. Gwernol 05:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Not enough edits, poor answers to questions. — Doug Bell ^{talk• contrib} 05:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose per Doug Bel A dmrb♉ltz ( T | C | k) 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose per above. -- Masssiveego 06:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose 935 edits isn't enough. Also, the edit summary usage isn't good at all Computerjoe 's talk 07:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. Please use the edit summary box. Covington 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose because of two things. 1) Not enough edit summaries. There's no reason why you can't use edit summaries at least 90% of the time. 4% is absolutely not acceptable and 2) your answer to question 1, I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion. Jud e ( talk, contribs, email) 08:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose, poor usage of edit summaries, lack of edits and the answers to the questions. -- Ter e nc e Ong 08:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral I believe you'll edit in good faith, and 935 edits meets my criteria, but having said that I think you could do with a bit more experience. Get involved in some Wikiprojects or portals, maybe. And use edit summaries (the only part of my criteria you do not meet - I like 90%+ usage). Keep the good edits up and I'll support in a few months. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 07:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 4% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 6 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• See The Republican's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• Content of edit was Ya know why the Ancient Greeks didn't last?

  These guys didn't last cause they made up this stupid religion. God gave them a chance, prosperous times, and then they blew it. Same with the Sumerians and Romans. When you disrespect God, he gets pissed. Remeber, God created you, but you cannot create a God.-- The Republican 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

  Septentrionalis 05:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A:I'd use is to stop vandals, more easily revert vandalism they make, and make my stament on talk pages more outstanding. I will also usei it to fight in the war against mass userbox deltion.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A:I have created, cleaned up, or expanded several pages on movies and tv shows, especally Austin Powers:International man of mystery and Breaking Out is hard to do (Family Guy Episode that was once nominated for deletion). I also feel I make powerful comments in deltion and other kinds of debates, especially the Userbox redirect.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A:Well, there was the time Marksweep made unessacary alterations to my userpage, and BrokenSeuge was pestering me about an image I created. I simply just let the admins (who I suspect are Jimbo's sock puppets, but that's another story)delted the image (called President Peter by the way). As for Mark, I left a quote from Funnybunny on his page, but never responded, as he does on much of his page.

Comment: im worried that you may be slightly bias, this comes from your name being "The republican" (and on your talk page you "think ted kennedy should be in jail, not the US senate") while your entitled to your opinion, for now i make no desicion. im sure your fair, i just have my doubts (i look forward to seeing your answers to the questions) Thank you Vulcanstar6 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concerns about me being to P.O.V for a potential admin. I will try to keep it civil from now on and will use my admin powers for good only. I have never and won't ever go around vandalizing articles about major democrats, and am probably going to remove that userbox. I, as a matter of fact, don't really contibute to contraversial topics like abortion (I'm accually pro-choice), mostly because everything you ever need to know about it is in there. I appreciate you bringing this up, so I can clear up any doubts in peoples minds when they read my afd. The Republican 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above 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.