Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Checker Fred

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

Checker Fred

Final (0/8/0); ended 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Checker Fred (talk · contribs)I am Checker Fred and I have been editing Wikipedia for awhile. I have been reverting vandalism and reporting users that are not following the rules. Also I have been using twinkle for awhile and the roll back feature. I have been cautious when making my edits. I am very helpful when it comes two the tv shows I edit. Also I am part of 4 projects and created some pages. I edit on a daily basis. I have updated pages as well Like the ZOOm articles. I have also caught a few socks. With my skill I believe I would make a good administrator. Checker Fred (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

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: I would like to be part in blocking portecting pages and other tasks that need to be done.

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

A: My best contributions are my edits to the iCarly and FETCH pages. Since I know a lot about the pages there. I have also too the time to make sure every thing is correct. I also do edit other pages as well.

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: Yes I have. I have talked to the person to work the problem out. Also some times if there just being rude of something I would intend to ignore it.

Additional optional question from Seahorseruler

4. Could you please expand your answer to question number one a little bit please? Give examples of different times you would use your rights.

A:

Additional optional question from Begoon

5. Can you briefly explain what happened here? It seems rather confusing. : Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2

A:

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose After looking on your talk page it seems that you have been engaged in edit wars quite recently and have even broken the 3RR as per here. You have just recently gotten Rollback yesterday. I would advise you to wait about a year without anymore edit wars and good edits before coming back. Derild4921☼ 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose Candidate's talk page archives display a number of recent problems, as pointed out above. I don't think the candidate is ready to be trusted with the tools yet. Sorry. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose per Derild and per NOTNOW. You are not close to ready; at least six additional months before I would even consider a support. —fetch·comms 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Having recently come off from an unsuccessful RfA, I've started to understand what qualities an administrator must have. Unfortunately, your edit count doesn't impress me. You only have made a little more than 1,000 edits. This doesn't necessarily mean this RfA is going to be unsuccessful, but it strongly suggests it. We need to know that you are going to make a good admin, and things don't usually look good with a small edit count. You may want to try applying for adminship again in six to eight months, or when your edit count is a couple thousand edits stronger. The Utahraptor ^Talk 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose - a very quick look at your contributions and talk page shows too many recent problems for this to have my confidence - sorry  -  Begoon (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose per WP:SNOW. As almost all editors before me have already pointed out, too many recent issues to warrant a support. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Your answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3 seem to not have enough content as to why you would qualify as an admin. ^GB86 22:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose Removing the 30% automated edits, gives less than 1000 manual edits, definitely a WP:NOTNOW. Come back when you have a better breadth of editing. (Don't just up edit counts with Huggle & Twinkle - too many automated edits can be a millstone around your neck)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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.