I know I've only been contributing heavily for the last nineteen days, and I saw people on WP:ST saying their minimums are three months and 1000 edits so I know my chances of this succeeding are pretty slim at this point, but this wiki doesn't have many active administrators and I'm active a lot so I'd be able to help out quite a bit. I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, so I know about how everything works. I'm pretty good with English Wikipedia's policies, and I've read a bit of the stuff here too. Because of how active I am, I'd be able to deal with quick deletions and vandals quickly.
I'm not actually expecting this to pass, and if it doesn't, I'll understand; it seems unlikely that the community would be able to trust a user enough in less than a month to give them the administrator tools. But I'm giving it a shot, so here goes. J Di 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Notes:
- Support He is active unlike most sysop's. --Sir James Paul 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, but only because you haven't been here long enough, in my opinion. Three months, and I'll gladly vote support for you. PullToOpen Talk 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, I'm slightly concerned about perseverance and quality standards, but I will certainly support next time.
I also recommend putting up a user page, people tend to prefer to see no red link in sysop log actions... This user's email is already enabled and he is prompt and collaborative. --M7 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- support --vector ^_^ (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per PullToOpen.The life of brian 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not about the quality of your edits alone. Stay a litlte longer, do a few more edits, and succeed. The community needs to know people to be able to trust them. -- Eptalon 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose You haven't been in simplewiki long enough to be an admin as PullToOpen says. I'd also recommend for you to stay here a few months more, get more edits, and be trustworthy for other users to make you a sysop. And also recent aciviy has only beagn during early December. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, still needs one or two more months of experience.--TBCΦtalk? 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because your an admin on the en doesn't mean you necessarily pass as an admin here. You need to be here longer. --AbbyItalia 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: But it still shows his capability, somehow. :)-- Tdxiang 07:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Same issues with other editors. zephyr2k 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, sadly. J Di is good, but not now. Perhaps next time.-- Tdxiang 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not particularly pleased with a few edits he has made. He probably intentionally uses the admin tools for fun and not for good purposes, like in this instance on English wiki - the merge discussion was already closed at the time, so just deliberately reverting edits using the admin tools isn't good, I think. Also in Simple wiki, I don't know what he was trying to do with this revert here. I don't think it's right to just use the popup tools for fun. I do not trust him, as I doubt a few edits have not been in good faith, and it doesn't matter if he has been in Simple wiki long enough or not. RaNdOm26 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being told that my edits were probably made in bad faith. If anybody has a problem with an edit I make or something I do, I'd rather they ask me about it as soon as they notice it rather than wait for a forum where they can accuse me of bad faith actions, some of which I don't even remember doing. Administrator rollback isn't easy to stop once the button is clicked, and I have clicked it by accident a few times; it's an easy thing to do. I've even reverted a few anti-vandalism bots by accident and been warned by them. I remember the revert on en:Damien Leith, and I reverted it as quickly as I could. It was an accident, and for what it's worth, I was a bit panicky after I realised I had clicked it. As for the edit to cell wall, I don't remember making it, but it was most likely a mistake; why would I revert your edit to the next last good revision when your edit had already removed the vandalism? I'm pretty sure I was acting in good faith anyway, as I apparently warned the vandal after I made that edit. That you don't trust me is fine; I wasn't expecting many people to after nineteen days, but I wasn't expecting this at all and I'm saddened by the fact that you think I don't take my responsibilities on English Wikipedia seriously. J Di 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you reverted by accident, you could have said sorry when you reverted it back. That is why I do not think you use your tools well. It looked like you were just using the tools for your own pleasure. Why not next time you could use a bit of politeness, because I wasn't very happy after you used the admin tools like that. (Oh, by the way, an RfA is NOT a forum. Not sure why you said it was a forum) RaNdOm26 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the user needs more time so that their editing can be analysed more accurately. I am not currently happy with some edits made on this wikipedia. My view could change if I had more edits and time to consider.Ksbrown 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Make more edits and try again in a month or 2. --Sir James Paul 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So, Sir Paul, are you retracting your vote for support above? ZimZalaBim 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still support him. I meant he should wait so he could get support from others. I still support him. I think that he will do a good job as a sysop.--Sir James Paul 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)