Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KGV

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

KGV

Voice your opinion (1/8/1); ended 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

KGV (talk · contribs) - has joined wikipedia in late december, 2006. As a secondary school student, he does not have useful infomation to add to wikipedia (other than reading a lot of fiction), so he dedicate himself instead to maintaining wikipedia. Or being an Metapedian in other words.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I do. KGV 08:49, 10 March 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: I anticipate helping in the bocklogs of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion to ensure that articles that needs to be deleted will be deleted at once and WP:AIV.

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

A: I am quite please of my work in setting up the rating system in WikiProject Children's literature, my work in sending welcome templates to new users. Also my anti-vandal contributions.

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:Yes, but it have never cause me stress. Most of the conflict that happened to me happen when I first joined. In a confict, I will do what I think its right, but when someone show me that I am wrong and their reason is good, I'll change

General comments

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

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Support This RFA is obviously going to fail, at least this user would want to help out with the admin backlogs. ~ Arjun 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - malformed nomination. If you want a new RFA, you should make a new page, not recycle the old one. --BigDT 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose It is only one month since you submitted this exact same RfA. Recycling the page, as you have done, is not correct procedure. Furthermore, even had your application been in correct form, you have only just over 1000 edits, with minimal involvement in WP:NAME, and this is wholly insufficient. I strongly suggest that you withdraw this application, unless an admin closes it early, and consider re-applying, with a fresh application, when you have another 6 months experience and another 3000 edits, distributed across all parts of the project.--Anthony.bradbury 09:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, malformed RFA. Use another page if you are creating another RFA. Not enough edits and lacks of experience. Spend more time editing on Wikipedia. 09:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Ong (talk • contribs)
4. Oppose lack of broad experience across WP. The Rambling Man 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Poorly-formed RfA; no substantial answers to questions - diffs as evidence; no real requirement for adminship for this user at this time. I suggest more experience in the article space and policy spaces before reapplying in six months or so. (aeropagitica) 11:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose poor nomination. Another WP:SNOW case. - Anas ^Talk? 11:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose A total of approximately 300 mainspace edits and 63% edit summary use for major edits and 83% for minor edits, one third of these edits being to King George V School, it would be good if your edits were a little more varied and spread out, it also seems you do not need the tools, I'd suggest getting your edits up to at least 2,000 or possibly higher before re-nominating yourself, the standard questions in which you answered are very weak, remember WP:SNOW and try to remember what adminship is not. Regards - Aquasplash 12:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above comments. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, although I should oppose but I will avoid a pile-on here. Needs more experience, and not satisfied with the answers to the questions. Insanephantom 12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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.