Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oliver3669

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

oliver3669

FINAL (1/7/1); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 04:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oliver3669 (talk · contribs) - Great member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

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:

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

A:

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:

General comments

See oliver3669's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for oliver3669: Oliver3669 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/oliver3669 before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Good Faith Support Your enthusiasm is inspiring. However, your apparent lack of editing experience is an issue. I suggest that you withdraw from this RFA, as it will not pass. Cheers, Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not enough experience yet. This user has been editing since May 2006, which is great, but has not yet done enough work to demonstrate his knowledge of policies and procedures. Plus no answers to the questions above. It takes quite a bit of time to gain the trust of the community, it's really rare that an editor gain the admin tools with fewer than 2000 edits. You'll want to withdraw this RFA, and perhaps try an editor review. I'd also recommend working on WP:XFD to gain experience in the Wikipedia namespace. You'll probably also want to read over this list of policies to make sure you have a good handle on how everything works. One other thing, most editors highly value the use of edit summaries, myself included, so I'd recommend always using those so other editors can easily see what you're doing. If you ever have any questions about anything, I'm always available on my talk page. Useight (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose with only 75 edits, this user needs to get more experience. I will support you once you are a very active editor with lots of experience. Also there is no answers to questions at all. NHRHS2010 talk 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lack of experience here is a major concern. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. See if you can get adopted first, that will help you get the experience you need. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like your warnmachine. However, I suggest that you edit more. I am sure you have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and rules from all your months here, but still, inactivity is a problem. To become more trusted with the community. Dive in. Marlith ^T/C 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't support as you didn't answer the questions whatsoever, and give no real reason why you need the tools. Jack?! 03:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I don't think a user with under 100 edits can have enough experience to be an administrator. Also, no answers to questions and vague nomination, which shows a lack of interest in this RfA. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Inasmuch as there are no answers and no acceptance of the nomination, it may be that the user dropped it here in an experiment. Perhaps he will come back by and ask that it be removed. - JodyB_talk 03:29, 7 December 2007 (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.