Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JohnSmith5000100

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

Final (0/11/0); ended 12:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

JohnSmith5000100 (talk · contribs) – I am attempting to be an administrator on Wikipedia that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because he's bored, and has absolutely, positutely nothing else to do, whatsoever. (discuss) 05:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: As much as I can!

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

A: Hmm... I think that this is a question to be answered by the !voters.

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 do regret that early on I had some edit wars before I was warned, but I do not think that I have done anything extreme lately. I tend not to pay attention to people who try to...

• Links for JohnSmith5000100: JohnSmith5000100 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for JohnSmith5000100 can be found here.

---

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

1. Not yet. Also note that our signature policy requires that your signature be under 256 characters.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed it--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   @JohnSmith5000100: To be clearer, I highly suggest that you withdraw this request for adminship, because the community has generally preferred a bare minimum of five thousand (preferably in the tens of thousands) edits. And that's not all - you do not appear to have enough experience with policies such as our deletion policy and blocking policy, which are essential for being an administrator.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand-When the discussion closes, I will explain in greater detail.--that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Although, how have you come to know of my experience? I am curious, in case I comment on someone elses nomination.06:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnSmith5000100 (talk • contribs)

   Special:Contributions/JohnSmith5000100 shows little work in areas related to those, and you haven't been that active.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Thankyou --that annoying guy who shows up sometimes because... you know, bored (discuss) 06:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW Mkdw^talk 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. You have fewer than 300 edits to Wikipedia. As Jasper Deng states above, successful admin candidates will usually have thousands of edits, which gives the community insight into a user's trustworthiness for the admin toolset. — sparklism ^hey! 07:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose a classic WP:NOTNOW situation. Also, the questions haven't been answered properly. Q2 is blatantly wrong. Minima© (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose WP:NOTNOW, you don't yet have nearly enough experience to be an admin. My advice is that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and contribute at least five thousand more edits before reapplying for adminship. You could become an admin one day in the future, but just remember that becoming one will require much dedication to Wikipedia. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong oppose Obviously per WP:NOTNOW. I won't say anything embarassing here, but you are not yet an experienced editor here as these four other editors say. Japanese Rail Fan 11:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose Not yet. Faizan 11:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sorry but not yet. GiantSnowman 11:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. As there's only 277 edits since November 2013, I'm not sure you're ready for the tools. Almost all admins have thousands of edits and at least a year of experience. Epicgenius (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
10. Unnecessary pile-on oppose. Obviously WP:NOTNOW, and recommend withdrawal/early closure. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose (edit conflict) per Wikipedia:Not now. Editors with little or "moderate experience are extremely unlikely to pass RfA and become admins." At this point, the candidate has only 277 edits and, while edit counts are only a quick and crude way to measure a Wikipedian's experience in the community, it's clear that this is not enough to be an admin. - tucoxn\^talk 12:13, 12 May 2014 (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.