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

Final (0/13/0) ended 15:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Jayanthv86 ( talk · contribs) – YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER Jayanthv86 05:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose Under 300 edits, virtually no edit summaries, been here for under two months. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose This is too soon, needs more time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose Not so great on the edit summaries, not nearly enough edits. Pschemp | Talk 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Definite STRONG oppose. Edits, edit summaries, time spent, and even a malformed RFA (I mean, come on, if you're going to selfnom at least do it right!). Not enough info in self-description, or rather, none provided. Nothing personal, but you're definitely too inexperienced for this. Your answers to Q3 below are also worrysome. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose Agree with the stuff about the malformed RfA and the self-description (or lack thereof). CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose for now A look at his talkpage suggests civility issues apart from lack of understanding of WP policies. may support in another 6 months' time. -- Gurubrahma 07:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose Experience, lack of description on the RFA. Answer to question 1 seems to suggest user doesn't actually know what sysop privileges actually are. Lack of edit summaries.... -- pgk^{( talk)} 10:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose All of the above. Werdna648 ^T/ _C\ ^@ 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. Edit summaries are a must. User also doesn't seem to know what he's doing with this RFA.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ ( t- c- e) 11:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Needs more experience. — TheKMan ^talk 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose, too new. - Liberatore( T) 12:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose-- Urthogie 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose, too few edit summaries, little interaction with other uses, less than two months experience. Also judging from the answer to question #1 I don't see how admin privileges would be of any real use for his job. JIP | Talk 13:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 0% for major edits and 0% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 28 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 06:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• See information about Jayanthv86's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.

I withdraw. Hello everybody,thanks for opening my eyes.I am such a loser,I dont even know what a admin does and i have nominated myself.from now on,i will leave edit summaries.I am barely two months old in wiki and i was audacious enough to ask for adminship.Sorry for wasting your time.My lack of knowledge is evident,but please stop voting,I will take back my resignation,just as soon as all those who have voted read this message-- Jayanthv86 15:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.