Today: Tuesday 15 June 2021 , 10:43 pm


Requests for adminship SamuraiClinton

Last updated 1 Day , 8 hour 40 Views

In this page talks about ( Requests for adminship SamuraiClinton ) It was sent to us on 14/06/2021 and was presented on 14/06/2021 and the last update on this page on 14/06/2021

Your Comment

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


Final (0/18/5) ending 23:13, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
SamuraiClinton is a prolific contributor with a strong interest in participating in the Wikipedia community. I think he would make a fine administrator. LevelCheck 23:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • By the comments below, this nomination seems to be 1) doomed to fail, 2) toeing the line for WP:POINT, and 3) in danger of becoming a personal attack magnet. To me, there seems little reason to continue discussing it. Are there any objections to closing it prematurely? Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, SamuraiClinton should get his 7 days, just like everybody else does. He has a right to enjoy a proper RFA, regardless of how much opposition he has recieved. Unless of course, he consents to this RFA being closed prematurely. -Frazzydee✍ 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's unlikely you'd get a straight answer (if you got an answer at all) out of Samurai if you asked him if he wanted to end this prematurely. I concur with Radiant; this is just a personal attack magnet and probably a bad-faith nomination. If it needs to stand, though, I guess policy is policy... android↔talk 04:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Note: Please do not vote until User:SamuraiClinton accepts the nomination or somehow indicates that he is interested in pursuing adminship. His comment to his nominator suggests he is not interested, and it is unfair to expose a user to the scrutinizing criticism of an RFA when he does not wish to seek the position. Any user is free to strike or remove this comment if SamuraiClinton accepts his nomination. — Knowledge Seeker User talk:Knowledge Seekerদ 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From his answers to the questions below, I infer that he does accept the nomination and so withdraw the note above. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. SamuraiClinton almost never puts edit summaries, see There are many other reasons to oppose Samurai's candidacy, but this one is close to my heart (close enough to not even wait for Samurai to even say if s/he desires the adminship). User:Oleg AlexandrovOleg Alexandrov 23:36, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Too suspicious nomination. No edit summaries, no answer to candidacy and seems to be conflictive. --Neigel von Teighen 23:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. (I'll take the answers to the questions below as an implicit acceptance of the nomination.) Many reasons are listed at his RfC. SamuraiClinton either does not understand the concept of consensus or chooses to ignore it when it doesn't suit his needs, as evidenced at the VfD discussion for Autosexuality (in particular, and android↔User talk:Android79talk 00:25, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. :Oppose. An administrator should present a "face" to the community by having a user page. This is part of how one communicates with other editors. Jonathunder 00:35, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)Holding vote. It appears this user is not seeking adminship (see note by Knowledge Seeker). Jonathunder 00:45, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, per all the above; no need for repetition. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I believe that an Admin needs to exhibit a sincere and helpful state of mind. This can not be expressed in words but in deeds. I do think that SamuraiClinton has this potential but is being influenced by others. Too bad. Be yourself and grow. Stupid me if I'm wrong on this. hydnjo talk 02:09, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Nothing personal, mind you. Sam is currently the subject of a rather lively request for comment on behavior that can best be described as idiosyncratic. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Needs to do more edit summaries; idiosyncratic behaviour described in RfC suggests that SamuraiClinton is still getting the hang of Wikipedia operation. Answers to questions below seem to indicate a lack of interest in adminship anyway. --TenOfAllTrades Talk 03:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. SamuraiClinton might be a good admin some time in the future, but right now he simply lacks the maturity and common-sense required (see the Request for Comments on him). I also have very great reservations about the motives of the nominator. Finally, his answers to the candidate questions are not very good. -- FP 05:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. This is an absurd nomination. Firebug 07:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. SamuraiClinton is eager to contribute, and full of good intentions, but he has made a fair number of blunders. He needs to settle down a little. Sjakkalle 08:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, all my reasons have already been said. Rje 13:19, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Seems like basically a good person who tries to add good content to WP, but his articles are often VfDed or speedied, particularly as neologisms, which suggests he needs more time to get used to WP before adminship. Also, a nomination by an anon/new user is worrying, though I'm not sure it should be considered a sock--there'd be no reason for it, as self-noms are allowed. In addition, responses to the questions below indicate that Sam is only interested in editing and creating articles, neither of which need admin privileges. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Specious nomination. The nominator should be censured. RickK 23:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  15. OPPOSE. Sorry for screaming but this vote is not difficult. I've looked into SamuraiClintons contributions and have decided that this person is not one with which to trust with administratorship at this time. It's lt's nothing personal, it's just business. hydnjo talk 00:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Radiant_* 11:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose 1) The user should explicitly support his nomination 2) I'll never vote for a user who has a blank user page. A little info on himself would go a long way in gaining the trust of the community.  = = 19:04, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. While I'm still prepared to assume good faith and regard SamuraiClinton's contributions as not malicious, the points raised in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SamuraiClinton clearly indicate he's not yet mature for adminship. VladMV ٭ talk 18:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Sockpuppetry, unauthorized closure of VfD, and a slew of absurd contributions. Erratic to say the least. I think he's shown a rather selective lack of comprehension and deserves no good faith presumption at this point, but of course even that presumption would not sustain this nomination. Postdlf 08:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, because of reasons stated above. --Lst27 (talk) 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. SamuraiClinton's contributions to date do not yet indicate a good understanding of Wikipedian consensus, or good technical skills with respect to editing or following procedure. He should not be proposed for sysop until he is generally regarded as a reliable contributor, which at this writing he is not. Generally speaking I would not think people should expect to be appointed admins while they have an active RFC criticizing them. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Is SamuraiClinton the same person as GoofyGuy? I should review all of this user's contributions before voting. Any other aka names that I should look at ? hydnjo talk 00:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. :User:SamuraiClinton has variously used "GoofyGuy" and "TheSamurai" in his signatures, but there are no other usernames, except for some anonymous edits before the creation of the SamuraiClinton username. See Uncle G's analysis in the RfC I linked above for more on the anonymous contributions. android↔talk 00:51, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Abstain since user is on RFC. Zzyzx11 Talk 03:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. :Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on RFC and this will only has caused more negative comments about him. Zzyzx11 Talk 06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Bludgeon the nominator with rotten vegetables, since luring SamuraiClinton into being pummeled seems to have been the only point of this exercise. --iMb~Meow 02:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral--Comrade Nick @)---^-- 12:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Come on, guys. If a vote is like 0-10, there's no reason to keep voting with simply more damaging remarks. And anyway, isn't this exactly the reason why half of you guys voted against WP:RFDA? "Oh dear, User:Ugen64 might get harassed by a request for de-adminship - I can't elaborate further because I have to go pummel another troll on RFA." If there were no policy against personal attacks, I would use take the words "hypocrite" and "some of you", combine them, and make a meaningful sentence. The meaning of this hypothetical meaningful sentence shall never be known, because, as you all know, there is a policy against personal attacks. ugen64 22:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Color me naive and/or conservative but a nomination for Admin by a Not-logged-in or No-Page user troubles me. hydnjo talk 00:30, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have a user page now (albeit only a stub). I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, but never found it necessary to create a username, until some individuals decided that it was "vandalism" to make a RFA nomination as an anonymous user. Since anonymous users are considered second-class Wikicitizens, I chose to no longer retain that status. LevelCheck 01:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Color me naive and/or conservative but a person who creates a user account for the primary purpose of nominating someone for Admin also troubles me. Zzyzx11 Talk 01:47, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • As stated above, this was only one of the reasons. As an anonymous user, I was accused of "vandalism" for creating perfectly sensible redirects, due to the stererotypes of anonymous users. I created an account to avoid the stigma attached to anonymity. Being accused of "vandalism" for a RFA nomination was only the last straw. LevelCheck 02:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Ok, I'll agree with that reason. Zzyzx11 Talk 03:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Color me naive and/or conservative but I still feel that this nomination was made in bad faith since the candidate is on RFC and this will only has caused more negative comments about him. Zzyzx11 Talk 06:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • SamuraiClinton currently has 1160 total edits: 954/23 to articles/talk, 93/3 to Wikipedia/talk, 41 to User talk, 26/8 to Category/talk, and 11/1 to Template/talk. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Based on SamuraiClinton's comments, the nominator LevelCheck previously edited under (talk contributions). Zzyzx11 User talk:Zzyzx11Talk 01:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • As a technical note, I wouldn't characterize an anon nominating someone as "vandalism," but the nominator should have noted the policy stated above that: Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. They are allowed to comment.
    • Agree with IMeowbot. This nomination is a bad idea which smacks of deliberating trying to get SamuraiClinton pummelled. JuntungWu 05:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree with Zzyzx11 (above) and JuntungWu: this would appear to be a bad-faith nomination. However, User:SamuraiClinton has not declined the nomination (despite my request to him on his talk page) and has even answered the questions below. I'm not sure what to make of it but that implies acceptance of the nomination to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This whole thing is getting more and more suspicious. Android seems to think an a new user named SuperDude115 is his own sockpuppet who slammed himself on his talk page. Even the name is similar. I think it's just about time we put a stop to this farce once and for all. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I must point out that LevelCheck's anonymous account (User: has only about twenty edits. It seems likely that he has other accounts as well; maybe a sock check is in order? Radiant_* 11:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • this is a blatant eposide of WP:POINT, imho. LevelCheck's action unbecoming of what wikipedia is all about. Kingturtle 02:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Just editing articles and creating new ones that come to mind.

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

A. Well, some probably.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Well, people send me messages concerning bogus contributions, but still; I have superior intentions for Wikipedia.

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.


There are no Comments yet

last seen
Most vists