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

Arumpostasest[edit]

Final (0/12/2); ended 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

Arumpostasest (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Arumpostasest-------- (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help improve articles and offer my personal knowledge in this regard. I also would like to be more involved in action against vandalism.
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:

I have never been involved in conflicts. If I have found errors or material I am in a position to correct I will do so politely and respectfully. If the other party is confrontational I will remain courteous but if the situation becomes severe I will report the situation.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Perhaps come back in a year or so with a solid editing history and the community will reassess. I also have some concerns about whether the editor has a clear understanding of the duties and functions sysops and how WP:Original research applies to Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose agree with Mkdw. Your intended work does not need to require the administrative tools, you could always help in combating vandalism. Also judge articles on content value remember we are here to improve articles and collaborate, not to judge an article base on it's quality or value. ///EuroCarGT 23:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. this is not a speedy delete. Also, low edit count (~200), including [1], and [2], both of which are not cited and might be original research. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose and suggest snow close before it turns into a pile-on. Plus, having this in your record (and it isn't even 24 hours old) simply isn't promising. Try again in a year or so. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not now. Thanks for your interest, but admins should have more editing experience. WP:SNOW. Glrx (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Probably too soon at the moment; I suggest making more edits and gaining more experience before going back to RFA. WP:NOTNOW. Zappa24Mati 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose This much-too-early request shows a profound lack of understanding of what an administrator needs to know. Get some experience and give it a go next year. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Not now, to early. Try back in another year, but I do suggest editing much more. The fact that you are creating content is a good thing. Don't stop. But to be honest, with the time you have been here so far you don't seem to have a lot of actual edits.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as too inexperienced, Good luck with RFA's in the future. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Too inexperienced. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Too inexperienced. Your article contribs are good but I feel that you aren't ready yet. Good luck in the future though! Once you gain experience, I'd suggest re-submitting an RFA when you're ready, probably in about a year or so. StevenD99 03:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per all of the above. I hope that User:Arumpostasest will understand that more experience in various areas and a longer period of time with the project is needed and will not be discouraged. I also hope this is enough to bring a close to this RfA per WP:SNOW. Donner60 (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I could also oppose, but do not want to pile on. You are a new editor, and need far more experience here before asking for the administrative tools. Ask questions, learn our policies and guidelines, and edit productively for a year or more. Then reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are enough opposes that it's quite obvious that this RfA won't pass. Admins are expected to have a fairly good knowledge of policies and guidelines, so apropos guidelines and advice pages, did you bother to read WP:RFAADVICE ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2014 (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.
Category