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

Final (0/5/0); ended 04:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW - Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian2 (talk · contribs) – I have participated in the significant usage of Lupin's anti-vandal tool, and Twinkle. After a long break, I also received Rollback privileges - using Huggle. I have also participated in the Mediation Cabal. Since being a user from 2008, I have shown positive action towards the Wikipedian society. What is great about Wikipedia is that it allows for so many people to come together, from so many backgrounds, to participate in a great collection of knowledge and understanding. This has driven me to continually find further streamlined approaches to the anti-vandalism action as an individual, and also as a member of a team - the Wikipedia team of editors, of everybody. That is why I have become incredibly passionate in becoming deeply involved with the users, listening to their views, coming to terms with guidelines and practices, and then pro-actively involving myself in the guarantee of pin-point accuracy in the end. The accuracy of a variety of diverse, dedicated individuals. I wish for the privilege of administrator tools not because I believe I am some amazing hero, but because I understand that I can work with the editors to support them. To let them know we are here together to do our roles, no matter how hard it gets, and ensure Wikipedia will always remain a large community who stand on the four pillars of Wikipedia. I will always work tremendously to ensure that people who want to wreck Wikipedia are kept out once and for all. My methodology: Listening to concerns. Discussing those concerns. And using a transparent system to address those concerns following the community policies with the upmost respect. Wikipedian2 (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: I will follow the line of anti-vandalism and anti-abuse, ensuring that our users will always feel comfortable to approach myself and other administrators for assistance. On top of continual 'recent edits' scanning to immediately deal with inaccurate pages, and destructive users.

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

A: The truth is, there is no single best contribution. And the reason for that is the best contributions are the not the flash ones which can be singled out, but they are the small tasks that keep everything well oiled. So my best contribution is exactly that - supporting editors by working for ensure the small jobs are out of the way.

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: I have never had any conflicts with editors, I like to think I help others to resolve their conflicts. The way I deal with conflicts is by ensuring that no person is ever pushed aside, adhering to the full policies of free-speech that founds Wikipedia so well. I make sure that each side is listening to, that they are listening to each other, and I make sure each party is fully educated of their situation, and the routes of resolution they need to take (As defined under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution).

• Links for Wikipedian2: Wikipedian2 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wikipedian2 can be found here.
• Previous RFA @ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipedian2.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

This is an unambiguous WP:SNOW per not now and the first admin who is able should close the RfA. My76Strat (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NOTNOW, not active enough, weigh too inadequate edits. Edit more per day, and engage in deletion discussions. Make submissions to AIV and RPP.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per not now. Although you've done some good work today, a flurry of recent edits really isn't enough to evaluate your work on - you will need to work consistently over an extended period of several months to gain the experience necessary for the bit. And amongst those edits today were some serious mistakes - perhaps it would be wise to seek out a mentor for a bit to learn the ropes? I'm sure you will bring a lot to the project, but you'll need more time to learn how things work first. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Not now, but maybe in the future. You recently returned from an editing hiatus three days ago, March 31. Your last edits before then were in September 2009. I like the enthusiasm, but I think some more time on the job would help. Also, try dabbling in areas besides counter-vandalism, such as audited content (WP:GA; WP:FA), deletion discussions, WP:CSD, WP:RFPP, etc. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 04:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per not now. I do respect your ambition and motivation. I did comment at your talk page as well, to the fuller regards. My76Strat (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose - WP:NOTNOW. Not nearly enough experience to see how you'd do with the mop, sorry. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:51, 3 April 2011 (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.