This was withdrawn by AGK, two days ago. I suggest an urgent withdrawal. Rudget (?) 18:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You ran, what - two days ago? Loads of grammatical and spelling errors, excessive sig, not knowing how to format an RfA. Please, instead of planning your next RfA - why not write an article? Its much more fun. Qst (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whilst you have just reached my required wikipedia edit limit you really do have a shockingly low mainspace edit count (48!). I really do suggest you take Rudget's excellent advice and come back another time. Generally it is a good idea to wait a couple of months before running for adminship again! You may want to read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list too before coming back. Here User:Camaeron/Rfa are my personal requirements but it should be noted that they are relatively low compared to the majority of editors! Good luck next time! --Camaeron (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per above While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid an editor with barely 1000 edits does not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience to become an admin. Nominees with barely 1000 edits may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read
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 about 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 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry, not enough experience yet and Kurt Weber-like concerns. EJF (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not enough experience yet, I think this RfA says it all. Better luck next time, Tiptoetytalk 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (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.