Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laleena

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

Laleena

Ended (2/10/0); Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (banana) 00:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laleena (talk · contribs) - I'm a hard working editor who really likes wikifying & merging. I want to be an admin because I love to help out around here. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: User conduct/Wikiquette alerts & blocks, along with helping editors.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A:My founding of the Denmark Wikiproject surged work on Denmark articles

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 haven't been in any editing conflicts. In the future, I will deal with them by showing my proof & perhaps by meditation.

General comments

See Laleena's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
Links for Laleena: Laleena (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Laleena before commenting.

Discussion

I respectfully suggest that this candidate withdraw this request, continue to contribute to the encyclopedia (and use the edit summaries) and apply again when they have a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of adminship. I shall not be casting a vote. LessHeard vanU 21:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second that motion. You have made about 300 edits, a third of these are in User space and less than 50 are in the mainspace. So it's impossible for the community to evaluate whether you can be trusted to use the admin tools effectively. You also have no experience with dispute resolution or with the deletion process. So please consider re-applying sometime in the future and, in the meantime, continue to contribute as you have. Pascal.Tesson 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Moral Support. I would recommend re-running in several months. Most people need at least 2K edits before passing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support Your a good editor, get a few more edits, and a bit more experience and try running again in a few months. Dfrg.msc 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm going to have to oppose. I generally don't judge by edit counts due to the fact that one can create numerous articles and make very substantial edits and maintain a low edit count, however it doesn't appear to be the case with this user. I would recommend this user wait a few more months and then renominate themselves. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 103 edits made in the last 6 1/2 months, which includes a long lay-off. Answers don't demonstrate why they would need the tools at this point. Caknuck 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your edit count is only at 100, and that is far too low to be an admin. I do not think I can trust you with the tools. Politics rule 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose Set your preferences to force edit summaries for a start. Continue to contribute to the project in the main space and try some admin-related tasks too, like new page/recent change patrols; vandal warnings; rolling back/reverting vandalism; reporting vandals to WP:AIV or other appropriate place for administrative oversight; contributing to XfD discussions by demonstrating your knowledge of policies and guidelines in order to justify your points. Do this to gain experience and try another RfA around December, if you really want to be an admin. (aeropagitica) 22:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just not enough experience. Jmlk 1 7 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wnough experience. I've seen people that have been told that 14,000 edits were not enough. -Flubeca^Talk 23:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You are too inexperienced at this point. I suggest that all admin-hopefuls at least install something like twinkle, to gain some experience with admin functions and duties. J-stan ^Talk 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough experience, only 30 edits in mainspace, and over a third in user space. -Lemonflash ^talk 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough experience, only 297 edits of which only 31 are to the mainspace. I recommend this RfA be withdrawn before it reaches WP:SNOW status, if it hasn't already. Useight 00:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You are a good editor, but not yet experienced enough to become an admin. Most successful admin candidates have made at least 2,000 - 3,000 edits, and have a solid track record of several months as a consistent, positive contrubutor. You have currently made less than 300 edits, and prior to June had made only 3 edits this year. Right now, keep editing because you don't need to be an admin to be a postive contributor. Good luck if you decide to apply for adminship again in the future when you've gained more experience. Zaxem 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

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.