Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Manadude2


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

Manadude2
(Final 0/8/1); Closed by Pedro per WP:NOTNOW, 12:58 20 June 2008 (UTC)

- Hard working, good editor and tries to get sources Manadude2 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2008 (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. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Cleaning up unacceptable text/images and looking for offending users. I am very good at spotting problems with text.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best contribution to Wikipedia is the page Bamford Church because I created it and have successfully found sources for the page.


 * 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: I have been blocked from editing once before but the cause of that was my little brother going on my computer and typing in random things..

Questions from User:Seddon

 * 4 What defines unacceptable text/images?
 * A:

General comments

 * See Manadude2's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Manadude2:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Manadude2 before commenting.''

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Per experience issues. See WP:NOTNOW and Guide to RfA. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 09:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I'm sorry, Manadude2, but adminship is typically only given to experienced editors. The links Wisdom89 gives are useful, and are worth reading.  Thank you for being willing to help; please don't let this put you off.  Keep up the excellent work and come back in (say) six months, after you have gained more experience. Neıl  龱  09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Q1, as you don't need to be an admin to clean up unacceptable text and images. Also, I like candidates to have a bit more experience in the project space.  On the plus side, Bamford Church is not a bad article, and I'd encourage you to read Wisdom89's links above and try again at some point in the future.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC).
 * 4) Oppose I admire your enthusiasm in wanting to assist, but you need some more experience. Plus, you got off to a bit of a rocky start (it happens to the best of us, trust me) and more time is needed to get your record into shape. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose For a number of reason, inluding theat you were blocked less than 4 months ago, your edit summary usage is not up to standards, and you have basically no projectspace edits. Wait  5-6 months and contribute to places like XFD and AIV.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per above. Wizardman  11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I just have to many concerns with you. You haven't demonstrated a need for the tools, you haven't demonstrated a knowledge of policy, you are inexperience, you were recently blocked, etc. If you try again later, and improve, I'll probably support you, but I just can't support you now. Sorry:-(--SJP (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Read some more about what RfA and adminship in general entails, get some more experience, and I'm sure you'll do much better in six months or so. ~ mazca talk 12:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral with moral support. Learn to walk before you run and we'll see you in six months' time. Keep up the good work. We need more editors (like you) who contribute to the content. Frank  |  talk  12:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.