Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chenzw 2

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful permissions request. Please do not modify it.

Chenzw (2nd nomination)

Ended on 12 April 2008 - 14/1 - 93% support

I would like to nominate myself for admin again. See this archive. My last RFA happened about one and a half months ago and failed due to lack of experience. Following the advice of Razorflame, in that one month or so I have gained more experience. I have also noticed that many sysops are asleep when I am awake. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 03:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: Self-nomination

Support

Support - Activity and edits have greatly improved since last nomination (one of the main reasons for it failing). Chenzw has a high count of deleted QD tags showing a need for the tools. There are no obvious signs that the user is an insidious sockpuppet of a banned user or an agent of some secret government agency bent on the destruction of all things wiki.. I don't see that there is any reason not to support the nom (unless he happens to be a secret agent or is just going to run off after getting the mop, we can only hope there... they are scary secret at times..) -- Creol(talk) 03:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent vandal fighter, has shown need for the tools. Good luck!-- Lights talk 12:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support = Excellent editor and I think adminship is appropriate. SwirlBoy 39 00:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yegoyan (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Yegoyan. --Gwib^-(talk)- 13:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Even though I have checked the wiki less in the past few weeks, I find him in need of the tools, and I think he's capable of using them correctly - Huji ^reply 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Capable editor, well worthy of the tools. --Eptalon (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support From what I've seen, he has a need and will use them well.--Werdan7^{T @} 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely improved since the last time I voted for you. I definitely think that you will use the tools to the fullest :) My interactions with you have been very positive in the past and currently, and I also believe that this user has demonstrated a very good need for the tools as per Creol. Razor flame 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majorly (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really, I'm sometimes the only person on during a vandal attack, and so is this user. Ideally, we should have 1 SysOp in each timezone here (but thats besides the point). This user is a great contributer to the wiki, the tools would be useful for them, so I support. -- Da Punk '95 talk 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Archer7 - talk 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. IuseRosary? ^(talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is worthy enough for sysop tools, --§ Snake311 _{(I'm Not Okay!)} 04:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Sorry Creol but being myself a secret agent I must Oppose this self-nomination. ONaNcle (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I offered to nominate you a week ago, but you declined. Why the change of mind? Majorly (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly due to a severe vandal attack that happened a few days ago. See WP:VIP. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 01:20, 6 April 2008 (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.