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

Youndbuckerz[edit]

(1/13/2); Scheduled to end 00:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate [1]

Nomination[edit]

Youndbuckerz (talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Youndbuckerz (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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:whatever im required to do.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:rugby league, because i know alot about,rugby league research everyday.
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:just get on with it.

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]
  1. To counteract Sluggo's personal attack, below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what i can do and none of you dont and btw i have been on wikipedia for over 4 years on different accounts anyway i dont care if i dont become an admin nerds haha and thanks for all those who supported at least somebody on here appreciates my work. I will take aboard some of your comments and maybe try again later.

Youndbuckerz (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong oppose - No reason given why they want the admin tools. Try again in 6 months when you have more experience. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong oppose. Nice job transcluding vandalism, Fastily. Şłџğģő 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I tried :/ -FASTILY (TALK) 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose per answer to Q3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - It's pretty clear you're not serious about this. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Speedy Oppose <-- Is that legal? SnottyWong talk 01:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: unsatisfactory answers to questions. Elockid (Talk) 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I do not see the evidence that you have the experience necessary. With only 17 edits to the Wikipedia namespace there just isn't enough to evaluate your understanding of policies and guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Seems more like a prank than a serious Rfa. Please close asap per: WP:SNOW. Jusdafax 01:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Poor Fastily... What else can I say? The answers (or lack of) says everything. Snowball close, please. —monopending changes begin june 15 01:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose — WP:NOTYET. You need to interact with other editors far, far more than you have done so far (you currently have almost no edits at all on article talk pages). You should also develop the habit of always using meaningful edit summaries. And just in general, think about what adminship means and be ready to offer more detailed and thoughtful answers to the questions. I'd strongly suggest taking some time to read past RfA's and try to get an idea of what issues are important and what being an admin is about. Once you've expanded and refined your editing habits and have a better idea of what would be expected of you, please consider trying again in 6+ months. Richwales (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I would suggest closure per WP:NOTNOW & WP:SNOW. This RfA may be an expression of humour in GA, but IMHO it's a time waster.--Kudpung (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - ahh No Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Apparently he considers this RfA some sort of joke. No indication of a reason to request admin rights. Needs at least 6+ months of experience at related areas. Jarkeld (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Moral support I see Youndbuckerz around doing good work on rugby league articles. But to be confident handing over the wide range of administrative tools, when the candidate stipulates "anything" as areas of likely admin involvement, I would need to see substantially more experience in admin-like areas, such as WP:AFD, WP:AIV.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This candidate, from the extremely short answers given, may very well have good intentions. However, extremely short answers and leaving YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER in the nomination section are problematic. The latter may be an honest mistake (of the sort I make all the time), but without more substantial answers from the candidate little things like that tend to garner opposes. This week would probably be better spent reviewing the various instructions and examples of how successful candidates proceed.--~TPW 01:14, 14 June 2010 (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