The following discussion is preserved as an archive of arequest for adminship thatdid not succeed.Please do not modify it.

Final(0/4/1); Ended 09:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC) by Steve after withdrawal by AdirondacMan.

AdirondackMan (talk ·contribs) – Request to become an administratorAdirondackMan (talk)05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I would like to be able to settle disputes with justice and fairness tempered by my sense of honor.

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

A: I do alot of grammar correction, and update information on subjects I know the most about, especially in academia.

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, I have had conflicts in the past. But I would like to leave such things in the past and focus on my future.

• SeeAdirondackMan's edit summary usage withmathbot's tool. For the edit count, see thetalk page.

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

Please keep discussion constructive andcivil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewSpecial:Contributions/AdirondackMan before commenting.

• I was going to NOTNOW-close this based on the 12/1 RFA, but that RFA had no comments. Inexperienced users needsome feeback before speedy-closing RFAs.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)05:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: the editor has now chosen towithdraw the nomination; can someone process this before it becomes the inevitable pile-on?Steve^{T •C}09:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Sorry, but you lack experience in both admin-related areas and article building. Perhaps you'll be ready later.Majoreditor (talk)05:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose/NOTNOW - less than 200 edits, not nearly enough to see a pattern of responsible editing. Also, inconsistent editing, editor edits in spurts separated by wide gaps. This isn't fatal but it must be overcome by positives. Try again after a couple thousand edits over at least 6 months, including significant participation in administrative areas such as AFD/XFD, and/or dispute-resolution areas such as mediation.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)05:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Applying for a second RFA 10 days after NOTNOWing the first one - very poor judgement.NVO (talk)07:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Q1; you can settle disputes without being an admin. Also, insufficient editcount; you really should have at least 3000 before you even start to think about an RfA.Icewedge (talk)08:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Avoiding the pileon of opposes that is sure to come. Please consider withdrawal perWP:NOTNOW, as it seems to me you have little experience and not nearly enough edits to pass by today's standards. --Izno (talk)05:47, 13 December 2008 (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 eitherthis nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.