Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/sudar 4edi

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

sudar 4edi

FINAL (0/10/0); withdrawn per WP:SNOW by EVula at 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

sudar 4edi (talk · contribs) - YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ShEsH (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

accept

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: Protection of the Important Articles

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

A: Thammannakulama

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: calmly

General comments

Malformed RfA transcluded by someone other than candidate or nominator. Needs untranscluding or something. Dlohcierekim 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)'

• See sudar 4edi's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for USERNAME: Sudar 4edi (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/sudar 4edi before commenting.

Discussion

Oppose

1. Oppose With fewer than 200 edits, I do not believe you have demonstrated enough understanding of the project for the community to be able to trust your judgment. Perhaps after more time. -- Avi (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose - 165 edits, 137 of them to your user page and only 12 to the main space, you are obvious not ready yet. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 12:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose Has not shown a deep understand of wikipedia's policies. Jon513 (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Sorry Nshesh but generally almost nobody supports users with a count lower than 1000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. As unwritten rule on wikipedia it would be wise to wait another three months until your next Request for adminship. Nominees, in particular self-nominaters, need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia. Admin tools enable them to block and unblock other users, protect and unprotect pages and delete and undelete pages. You would therefore do well to gain experience in the following areas WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK

   My suggestion to you would to withdraw and try again in another 3 months. It is also recommendable to take part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA (we have many friendly , enthusiastic admins that will be happy to coach you!). This information is actually adapted from my own failed Rfa. I you find it as immensely helpful as I did! Good luck next time! --Camaeron (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose, insufficient answers to the Qs. Mrprada911 (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Not enough experience. Suggest close under WP:SNOW. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose per above. Wizardman 13:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - snowball clause anyone? Experience. Apologies for being laconic. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
9. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with < 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with < 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read

   • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
   • WP:Admin
   • the admin reading list.
   • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
   • Article building is viewed by many as essential to adminship. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to fulfill this. Alternatively, one should have added a total of 30,000 bytes of content, not necessarily all in one article. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be acceptable.
   • My suggestion to any nominees with < 1000 edits would be to withdraw and try again in another 3 months and 3000 edits. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Good luck and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Someday you'll have the experience necessary to be an admin, but it hasn't happened yet.  – jaksmata 14:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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.