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

Final: (3/16/0), ended 06:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Edmundkh (talk · contribs) - I've been here since August of last year. It seems that most users, or at least active users, are from English-speaking countries. I'm a Malaysian, and I wish to help up in the part where Malaysians can do. And by the way, I love Wikipedia very much. I wish to help up here. I'm addicted to it! I hope you people support me, and if you do oppose, please kindli explain why, then I will think over about myself. Thank you for your support! Edmundkh 11:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Removing vandalism, blocking users with inappropriate usernames, deleting inappropriate articles...

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I think it's all that I've newly created, such as National anthem of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Yabaniy Es-Sahara... Because it seemed that nobody found the materials before!

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: Erm... I don't think there was much conflict... recently on Min Nan, I've almost caused a revert war! But fortunately, we've reached a happy ending - I'm very happy with my "potential opponent"'s suggestion. I should always go to the talk pages.

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

• Links for Edmundkh: Edmundkh (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Edmundkh before commenting.

• This Request has no chance of passing. I'm sorry. Please refer to WP:SNOW. I think that this should be withdrawn, as a premature request for adminship. I wont do it without the user's consent, but I very strongly suggest this course of action. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Moral Support. Kudos on the self nomination and your evident enjoyment in reading and participating in this work. Please could you perhaps consider using the edit summary a bit more though. I'm afraid this RFA will fail, as you simply have very little user interaction and your answers to the questions are weak and un-defined. Please do not consider this to be a rejection of the valuable assistance you have given so far, and my best wishes in your continued editing. Pedro |  Chat  11:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support with reservations per Pedro above, but I recognise the benefits of a more diverse editorship and agree that it would likely improve the admin side too. Plus, I like the fact that your first edits shown were to articles and not your userpage. I would also suggest that you may wish to consider and flesh out your responses to Q.1 & Q.3 above. LessHeard vanU 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Adminship is no big deal, it's about trust. You show that you are dedicated and you can be trusted, that's my only requirement. If this RfA fails (most people have higher requirements than me), I would recommend trying again in 1-2 months. If yo uhave any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Definite lack of experience. I usually don't judge by edit count, but 819 shows a lack of experience. I strongly suggest a withdrawal of this rfa, and I will support after a few more months of solid editing, and maintenance of civility. Don't view this rfa as discouragement, but as advice and room for improvement. --Dark Falls ^talk 11:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Once again, I am in complete agreement with Darkfalls. But please dont be discouraged, and keep up your fine work. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with DarkFalls, This edit can be an acceptable mistake, but it can also mean a lack of experience. A few more months, and I'm pretty sure you'll get sysop status. — H92 (t · c · no) 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Not quite there yet. More general experience and more familiarity with sysop chores would help. Also, we do try to counter systemic bias, but that doesn't place a quota on having admins from different parts of the world. Shalom ^Hello 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Serious inexperience concerns for now. Keeping on working for three months, return to RfA, and things will go very well. Xoloz 16:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose You do not at present demonstrate nearly enough experience in WP:NAMESPACE to indicate your prospective level of competence in admin-reelated articles.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose based upon lack of participation in the project and user talk spaces. Admins need to be able to communicate easily with editors from all walks of life and all levels of education. They also need to demonstrate a grasp of policies and guidelines and to demonstrate their application. I suggest that you withdraw this RfA and treat it as a learning experience. Over the next few months, try participating in XfD discussions, citing policies where appropriate; also, try patrolling the new pages/ recent changes pages in order to spot and revert vandalism, warn vandals and categorise and othewise improve articles added to the project. This experience on your record will serve to demonstrate your aptitude for the work of an admin and should substantially change the result of a second RfA. (aeropagitica) 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose While being from Malaysian is a plus, I'm not sure that your maturity level reaches that needed to deal with the problems admins face. Also, your user page statement that the Soviet Union was an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has one or more accounts does not appear to be true.Dif. I understand what you are trying to do in your personal Do you know section, but it is not coming across that way. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. I admire your enthusiasm. However, you need more experience. Majoreditor 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per (aeropagitica) and Majoreditor - it's great that you're enthusiastic, but I'm afraid you simply don't have enough experience yet. I'd start thinking about withdrawing. Tim^{speak} 21:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose - But please stick with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiberniantears (talk • contribs)
12. 'Oppose I'm sorry, but I'd like to see more edits (especially wiki edits) before I give you a support. Ganfon 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose- I generally don't oppose due simply to edit counts but you only have just over 800 edits and as far as I can tell have neither created a page and most of your edits to the Mutual intelligibility page have not made it a very good page, with it's total lack of sources etc. I think a few more months before I support would make sense. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose The lack of experience is a major concern here. Try again after three months and you will have my support. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. You've just barely answered the questions, and your answers don't tell us anything about why you should be an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Sorry, I would like for you to have more experience before you become an admin. Please try renominating after you get much more experience in editing and then I will support it. Hydrogen Iodide 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.