Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/RockerballAustralia

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

Unfortunately it is fairly clear that this will not pass. Votes were 5 oppose/1 neutral, and that would require more than 15 supports votes. While I don't think anyone wants to spite Rockerball's attempts, he has been Editor'd and de-editor'd twice, the last of which was January 22. Try not to be discouraged though, it is obvious the community still has hope for you yet. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This requeswt is basically the same reaseons as my previous request (and my past editor requests). House keeping and similar --RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Questions

Comment You don't even have editor status now after being de-editored by the community about a month ago. All but one of our admins have Editor status; perhaps it would be wiser to try and regain that tool first, before proceeding to this? Tempodivalse [talk] 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I amend this request to include Editor privs?--RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, although that would be rather unconventional... Might be easier and better just to do them separately though, to avoid confusion. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose, concerns about the user being de-editored by the community recently. This does not seem like the right time to be going for adminship consideration. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --SVTCobra 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have nothing against Rockerball, but still am a bit uncomfortable about this request. I'd rather that he tried requesting Editor status first, and try to regain some trust of the community, and not jump directly to an admin. If this were an editor nom, I'd gladly support, but admins need to have full support of the community to avoid conflicts, IMO, and I'm not sure I see that here. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but I must agree with Tempo here. --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with TDV. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but i think it'd be best if you worked back up the ladder step by step. I'll support you if you start a request for editor. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.