Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mentaka

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

[edit] mentaka

Final (0/10/0); ended 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

mentaka (talk • contribs) - what Mentaka 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I indubitably accept this glorious nomination.

Withdrawn due to lack of experience on the part of this editor. Detailed comments will be left on their Talk page. (aeropagitica) 19:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Making sure that all content on Wikipedia is at a professional level.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am very satisfied with all of my contributions to Wikipedia.

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: There are many vandals out there who want to destroy the good name of Wikipedia. I am dedicated to stopping these villians, and upholding the quality of Wikipedia

General comments

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose: Not using an edit summary when listing your own RfA is, for me, inexcusable. I'm very sorry but I have no option but to Oppose at this time. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Obvious Oppose. Not remotely qualified. Talk page is full of warnings and a fairly recent block notice for disruption. Suggest immediate withdrawal. SuperMachine 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Obvious Oppose. Would moral support, but too much vandalism recently. Strongly suggest withdrawal. –Llama man 18:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose In addition to the above comments you have only 124 edits, which is a tiny fraction of the amount that you need, and your answers to the questions are very poor. I urge early withdrawal.--Anthony.bradbury 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. G.He 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose and suggest immediate withdrawal Per above and edit count should be taken into consideration. You'd make a good admin in future months/years to come with some improvemets and work in wp:afd, wp:tfd, wp:ifd and other policy related areas. Also I noticed you have been warned several times and blocked once for vandalism. Tellyaddict 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose sorry needs more time, recent vandalism, need more use of edit summerys. Reapply in 5 months. Arjun 18:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per lack of substantial replies to questions above, as well as the severe lack of experience on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Um... youre averaging 20-odd edits a month and you have under 200? no thanks.--Wizardman 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose per above. S.D. ¿п? § 18:59, 21 January 2007 (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.