Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kc kennylau

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

Closed as unsuccessful per WP:SNOW Kennedy (talk • changes). 13:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kc kennylau

Kc kennylau (talk • changes • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

RfA of Kc kennylau

global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 23:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can do more things to help building this big project.

Candidate's acceptance:self-nomination

Support

Moral Support– Please keep changing Wikipedia and read the feedback in the opposes. Maybe you probably don't need adminship now, but in the near future! --B music ian 02:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Adminship is certainly not needed to help build the project. The user has been here a bit over a month with some 200 edits (indicates a likely lack of experience). Only one warning has been made by the user to a talk page (shows lack of need for the tools). Most of the users edits have been en:copy/pastes. This is not a big issue for a need to QD most of them as they are lists and templates mainly although no attribution has been given on them (shows lack of understanding of the rules). The articles created also tend to be in need of major simplification. (lack of understanding the concept of the wiki). There is still much needed to be learned before the user is ready for admin and I do not see a reason listed that the user would even have a need to be admin anyway. Self nominations are usually deadly unless you have a ton of reasons to validated the need and qualifications. --Creol(talk) 00:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Creol and WP:NOTNOW. Maybe later, sorry. -Orashmatash (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not now - Lack of experience. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for adminship at this point. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose per above. CRRays Head90 | ^{We Believe!} 19:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lack of experience Gaurang Prasad (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per above, not now. Grunny (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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.