Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7 2

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

7

Final (92/2/4); Closed at 06:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC) by ···

Nomination

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you The High Fin Sperm Whale for the vote of confidence  7  07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: Primarily

db-copyvio

}} would also rank high on the to-do list.

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

A: Numerically speaking, the vast majority of my life-to-date contributions relate to vandal fighting, attack, and copyvio cleanup/removal. I personally feel that this maintenance work is my own personal "best contribution" to the project. I also enjoy participating in other discussions such as RfCs,

3O requests, and policy change discussions. While I don't have any GA/FA/DYK credits, I have created 12 articles (the best of which might be Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo

) and multiple templates which I think have been positive additions.

4. When looking at your edit count, I couldn't help but notice that the lion's share of your contributions are to User talk pages, including 535 contributions to User talk:0, which has a very brief edit history. Please explain this phenomenon, ideally using 25 words or less. (Note: I've already supported this RfA -- my question is "for the record.") --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note by MC10: I think that's a bug of X!'s tool; he has never edited User talk:0. (Check the history.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a bug in the edit counter. I could see that he was not listed in the history for User talk:0. It didn't occur to me to check to see if he had 535 edits on User talk:7, which in fact he does. (See this counter.) --Orlady (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dig any deeper into this unless further explanation is expected.  7  00:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Explicit

5. You uploaded the following images under the public domain, while citing the extremely vague cutter.net (one source points to a less vague cutter.net/tokyo), the first of which you claim copyright: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. These sources do not explicitly state the files were licensed under the public domain. Could you explain why they were uploaded as such?

A: All of the files listed as PD were pictures I took and had uploaded here - the CC-by-SA pic was up at http://cutter.net/tokyo but it's not there any more as that page is focused on the emperor's park grounds now. It's safe to say that if I had been familiar with CC-by-SA during late 2008 / early 2009 I would have used that license for the former ones instead of PD.

Just two questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

6. Under what circumstances, if any, should protection be applied to a page where there has been little or no disruption?

A: I would not apply pre-emptive page protection to any page with little or no disruption, except in the case of high visibility templates which, if vandalized, could affect hundreds (or millions) of Wikipedia pages. e.g. {{done}}.

7. Do you see yourself ever standing for positions "higher" than that of administrator?

A: No, not at the present time. Separately, I personally feel that oversight is an incredibly important part of what happens behind the scenes on Wikipedia. I have notified the oversight mailing on multiple occasions for gross defamatory statements that have the potential to do harm, and most were quickly deleted. I think that the updated

REVDEL

level of access that has recently been granted to Administrators has been helpful to getting blatant items removed from public view as quickly as possible.

Additional optional question from Kraftlos

8. I notice you have a block on your record, could you explain in more detail what happened? (the name "Fascist Chicken" has peaked my curiosity)

A: After changing usernames through

CHUU it appears that many accounts, including my old account name, were vulnerable to hacking. This account (User:7) was never hacked, but was blocked for a few minutes while everyone was trying to figure things out. Please refer here

for more history from the blocking admin.

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

9. When is it ok to invoke IAR?

A: I won't attempt to come up with a hypothetical situation where I personally would invoke IAR because, in just about every situation I can come up with, I can think of the dissenting opinion as well. However, I will say (as I did in this RFA comment) that IAR shouldn't be an easy or frequent solution for anyone to do whatever they please. There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision.

9.1(follow up) Please give some examples of "prudent majority" situations you've seen in the past (not hypothetical, obviously).

A:

• As an editor the most straight forward example I can think of would be a situation with a new article which appeared to be borderline between
  MADEUP and {{db-g3}}. Many G3s (or G10s for that matter) are in fact also made-up and might qualify for either tag. In that type of borderline situation you usually can't go wrong if your own gut feel matches what you believe that others would do in the same situation. I'll be honest and say that in the past I have leaned both ways: sometimes marking for speedy deletion instead of waiting a week for PROD (which is usually something I only would do if the article has the potential to do harm (-BLP or organizational attacks), and often I would go the extra distance in AGF a and either tag or prod. An example of the latter would be Solar networking
  which was a well written and convincingly referenced hoax. I found the page while patrolling, and I can't see the details now that it's deleted, but I believe it had at least two references, both of which were on topic but neither of which confirmed the theories put forward, but rather used the same words as in the title but in different context. I tagged as a hoax immediately and approached the author to ask them if they could clarify the situation, while planning to come back and either AFD or CSD after a day or two if no reply. Before any of that could happen the article was taken to AFD and was promptly CSD'd. Some may view that this extra-AGF on my part (in not CSDing immediately) as a weakness, but I think it was the right thing to do in this situation to avoid biting a new editor who might otherwise be a positive contributor.
• Other IAR-type situations which I have experienced in the past might be a direct-to-level 2 or 3 warning for a repetitive vandal. While guidelines may say each editor gets 4 warnings in order before any action is taken, there have been times where I have found an editor with 5+ quick succession vandalism edits in a row, none of which have been caught yet when I happen to find the newest edit and revert. If I revert the first and issue a level1 and then revert the other 4 the rules might say not to issue another warning since the users had not edited since their last. The issue with that approach can be that other editors and patrollers may not be aware of the magnitude of the past vandalism. This concept of a pseudo- level2IM or level3IM warning seems to be used by other editors and admin as well.
• I think admin are faced with similar IAR situations, with the added responsibility that their decision to IAR in certain circumstances obviously have more profound outcomes and therefore need to be made with care. There have been many times where I have been preparing to either improve or prod/afd/csd an article when the article was deleted by a admin for either an incorrect reason (like no context when context was clear, but the article was badly written) or for a reason not even listed in the CSD criteria (e.g. "not an article"). Many times these types of admin IAR decisions are a shortcut to the correct ultimate outcome, in that the articles would likely have been deleted anyway, but I stand by my original comment that IAR shouldn't become a frequent/easy excuse. Instead, it is a failsafe built into the process to say that if you truly know that following the rule to the letter will not be the right approach that you should not follow it.

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare

10. Could any of the scripts in User:NuclearWarfare/monobook.js be helpful to you? Do you have any that you would recommend to me?

A: In a word: Yes. In many, many more words:

• There is a lot of useful stuff in there, a few of which would help all editors. I have just added "six tabs", the toolbox extensions for refs and stats, and the watchlist notifier, and after playing around with them for a few minutes I think I'll definitely keep them. Plus, I like the straight forward coding of the toolbox examples which I may use myself in the future to promote a few items (like my own custom welcome notes) to the toolbox. I had actually toyed around with doing that using the twinkle/friendly source, but the tabbed hierarchy is much more complex than the toolbox. I also like the blocked user marker which I see you have added to the
  main user script
  listing.
• For admin there appear to be some very useful ones in there, including Ale jrb's CSD helpers and Steel359's and Rami R's
  RPP
  helper - both of which are areas that I would like to help out in. The xFD scripts from Mr.Z-man, King of Hearts, and Doug also appear to really help to automate the process and I would defnitely play around with those if this RfA is successful.
• In terms of suggestions for you, it doesn't look like there is anything major that you are missing. It may already be included in one of your other nested scripts, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/delsort.js can be useful while working around the xFD lists (but it definitely takes a while to master).
• I was going to suggest that you add the "green save button when logged in" that I learned from Barek - but it looks like you already have it! (see mine if you want to add rounded corners to match the preview and changes buttons)
• To avoid leaving you hanging with no suggestions, I will throw out one idea for a script that I would personally like to see: The premise would be an tag-filter filter which would only show tag filters in the recent changes list if the edit that genereated the EF tag was still the most recent change (in other words it hadn't been rolled back already). It sounds confusing when I say it that way, but put simply - when patrolling for Repeating Character vandalism I often use this page, but I then have to only focus on the lines with "[rollback]" still visible, because the majorty have alerady been caught by other patrollers. This may exist already, but if not I think it could easily be created based on some of the logic in other scripts for suppressing data like User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js, and given a free weekend I might try to code it myself.

That idea sounds very useful. Please let me know if you code it. NW (Talk) 13:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty easy (despite how long it took me to figure it out) - up and running here. Could probably use some error processing and would be nice to pass parms (like default show/hide) but right now it does exactly what I was hoping for.  7  02:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

• Links for 7: 7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 7 can be found here.

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to the talk page. JamieS93^❤ 17:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Strong support Absolutely thrilled to see this up and running. – B.hotep •talk• 08:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support - Excellent editor, adminship is long overdue. Shadowjams (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support This has been on my watchlist for a few months now. About lack of content: some people just "admin" far more than they "edit". Whilst the tools are beneficial to content-builders, I feel that people like 7 who are more familiar with the areas they want to work in are more use to the project as admins. From what I can see, he's likely to be a process admin, really working with those backlogs, not a drama admin, so it's a net positive, right? The opposes from the previous RfA are slightly disconcerting, but heck, in Aug 2009 I had <150 edits, and a lot of learning can happen in that amount of time. Good luck, 7, and keep up the diligent work. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 10:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support 7 has been helpful to people, rather than causing drama. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. I offered to nominate 7, and I'm sorry that it didn't work out. However, I am pleased to support this candidacy. Not only is 7 sensible and clueful, but he has the experience and the confidence in the areas he's worked in to become a wonderful administrator. ceranthor 11:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, as I wished I could've last time. :-) Since his first RfA, 7 has only improved as an editor, and all I've ever seen has been helpful, fine work. 7 is a generally sensible and calm person – he won't do anything crazy. Making him a janitor was long due. JamieS93^❤ 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Offers a 7 and 7 to 7 as she is the 7th support vote. 7 seems quite easy to work with from encounters on ACC. Cheers delirious & lost ☯ ^{~talk to her~} 13:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support fine editor who I have had nothing but good interactions with. Will make a good admin. This RfA put a smile on my face this morning (after looking outside and seeing snow on the ground). -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Support - Very glad you took the nom
   pull my chain 'Tribs 14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Strong support Impressive and clueful. Aiken ♫ 14:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Supported before, see no evidence to change my view.--SPhilbrickT 15:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I've had a positive impression of 7 based on the places where we've intersected. Review today of his recent contributions and deleted contributions (mostly pages tagged for CSD) gives me confidence that he will use admin tools responsibly -- and likely will shoulder a sizeable workload. --Orlady (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I thought that he was an admin already.
    12p 15:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Support - Seems very knowledgeable in the fields I've seen him in. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Looks good. G'luck. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Because it looks good and I'd like more sysops to assist vandal fighters —Tommy2010 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support I've seen 7 doing good work around the place, and with more work having been done on the deletion front since the last RfA, I'd be happy to hand over a mop -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. After eventually working out this was the second RfA for a user called 7, not some promising newcomer called 7 2, I'm delighted to support. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support – Very experienced in the areas he wishes to work in. No problems with me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong support Per me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak support. When I noticed this RFA, I (honestly) wanted to support this second RFA without hesitation because I like 7 as an editor. But his speedy tagging (an area he wants to work in), as critizised in the first RFA, still shows multiple reasons for concerns: A7 for self-promotion by a significant person (could have been G11 but based on >60 Google News hits it should have been rephrased instead); This was meeting G3 but should have been redirected instead like the reviewing admin did; and I cannot understand this recent tagging at all, which seems simply wrong - even if parts of the text were copied from that page (which I couldn't really find), G12 requires that all text is copyright violating. This though shows an desirable reaction and generally 7 seems to have improved, maybe because of the criticism in the first RFA, in this area and I hope that they will continue to do so. As such, I will AGF that further improvement will not cease if they are made an admin and thus it will be a net positive to grant them access to the tools. I want to ask you though that you should be careful with your new delete button if this request proves successful and that you try to fix articles whenever possible instead of deleting them. And of course I'd be happy to assist with any questions concerning speedy deletion, regardless of the fate of this RFA :-) Regards SoWhy 18:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. I'm pretty sure I'm going to wind up on this side; if I go hotter or colder after looking at the deletion work, I'll say so. - Dank (push to talk) 19:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. I'm conscious of speedy deletion issues but it is obvious that there has been significant improvement since the last RFA, which I probably would have opposed. In my view, the examples mentioned by SoWhy constitute the occasional error (if that - eg redirecting instead of tagging is nice but not everyone can be expected to foresee the redirect possibility and sometimes it is better to delete then redirect to prevent a reversion to the offending article which here was vandalism). Not the perfect candidate but there's definitely more upside than down. --
    Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support I thought that this was an RFA for User: 7 2! My mistake :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I haven't seen anything that wouldn't make his addition as a sysop a net positive. —fetch·comms 21:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Airplaneman ✈ 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Suuport i remember this user, from what i've seen he/she would be a good administrator. Dwayne was here! ^♫ 22:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Yes! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Well qualified candidate - civil, clueful, knowledgeable. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Been seen around, I'm sure they will do well with the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. No problems with giving the tools to this user.  --
    (LiberalFascist) 03:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. Support Y, obv.  Chzz  ►  04:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Thought I already supported. =/ He'll be great.
    Talk) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. talk) 05:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
37. Strong SupportCandidates Active areas would be improved with the mop Acather96 (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Aye. I supported last time and while I understand Jclemens position, I can't honestly say it's enough to change my stance. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support BejinhanTalk 11:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I supported last time, I'll support again.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 12:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Quite honestly, I thought you were one already.
    talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Support Did well on the last RfA, (the only concern as far as I know was not enough experience) but now this is the perfect time to support. Minimac (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - Good involvement in
    WP:RPP. Vipinhari || talk 16:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support but what are we going to do if we have a User:7 2 who runs for adminship? On a more serious note, I appreciate the answers to my questions which seem well thought out. I'd add that move protection is often used for highly visible pages, such as Today's Featured Article, but I see nothing concerning here and the desire to work in areas that can always benefit from more admins is definitely a plus. Best of luck to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support - no issues seen. Light on content creation, but so are a lot of other editors, and as I've stated elsewhere, to each their own. --Alan (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - I appreciate his well-thought-out answers in this RfA. Especially #9, "There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision." This completely captures my ideas about IAR. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - no issues here. Valley2city^‽ 01:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - I've seen this user's good work around the encyclopedia. Good demeanor as well. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - I have seen them around and have no concerns, firmly believe they will be a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - Seems like a strong candidate who would make good use of admin tools. Richwales (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. I had the pleasure of getting to know 7's way of thinking before his name change, and I believed that he was mature and competent then. Time has only increased his maturity. bibliomaniac15 05:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - No problems here. GJGardner (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. I've seen 7 around ACC and UAA and it's nothing but good work. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. I see no problems watsoever with 7's contribution, here on Wikipedia. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. "Thought he already was" is a cliche, right? A sensible, knowledgeable and helpful editor. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Respect the nominator's opinion. But the nominees experience is why Im supporting Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Strong Support Nothing that worries me at all. Immunize (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Very thin on edits to article space (of 75 article creations, 63 are redirects); however, what tipped the scales in favor of the candidate for me was a very strong vandal-fighting portfolio--Hokeman (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support I am strongly opposed to the notion that "someone who's never had a GA or the equivalent has no business with the mop," as we badly need admins to perform a myriad of maintenance functions. I've seen nothing -- here or in the candidate's past work -- to suggest that 7 would not be a great addition.
    talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
63. I've been waiting quite a while for this. Hi878 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support Initially worried with my question, but my worries are now gone. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. "Thought he was already" cliché. Plenty of clue. Fences&Windows 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Sure, good choice for the mop, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Haven't seen any major issues, and the humble acceptance of this RfA shows at least some degree of levelheadedness. Juliancolton (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. While I'd generally like to see some type of audited content- even the cursory audit of a few DYK's, 7's other work outweighs that. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. support Everything looks good here. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support yep I think you will do great; your contribs are very nice. Parker1297 ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.) 23:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Sure. ThemFromSpace 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support - Looks good. AlexiusHoratius 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support I've seen 7 around and also feel that the first RFA issues have been addressed considerably well... My support! ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 14:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Editing activity indicates this editor will be a productive administrator.--PinkBull 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Due to vacation last year, I could not vote. I fully support 7 for sysop. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Should be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Got nothing to oppose on. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Okay. --High Contrast (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support—appears well-intentioned, competent and generally sound, and the only so-called argument to oppose is so weak that it makes me want to take cyanide. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - you now have a strong and uncontroversial track record in responsible and accurate use of speedy deletion tags over the last year or so. Even if all you do as an admin is carry that forward when you evaluate articles tagged for speedy deletion by others, your admin status will be to the overall benefit of the project. Of course I'm sure you'll contribute a lot more than that :) Thparkth (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Will make a great administrator -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support I don't see any problems with the editor to oppose for. Good enough for me. Alio The Fool 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Reserved Support - My primary concern in any RfA is "how will Adminship change the editor?" )like it or not, it always happens) Here, I see strong potential in Vandal fighting, but worry that your function may become more Bureaucratic in nature. Ronk01 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Excellent work. ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, confident this candidate will make a fine administrator. –Grondemar 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support - Good vandal fighter, and unlikely to misuse the mop. Best wishes for your adminship! Jusdafax 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support - Regards,
    talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
92. We need non-content people as admins, not the other way around. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose I opposed last time for lack of content creation, and I don't see that you've made any progress at substantially improving your content creation--no FA is fine, but no GA or DYK in several months since this was raised as a concern in your last RfA indicates that you're more interested in tools than content creation. I wouldn't normally outright oppose for lack of content creation given your article creation to date, but I consider what you're touting as your best contributions as insufficient forward progress to building an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Because it's early in this RfA, let me pose this one question. Is this opposition based fundamentally on a lack of article creation, or is it based on a concern that you just don't have enough knowledge of the contributor, or trust, or both, because they haven't gotten into it with article contributions? I can understand those reasons, and maybe disagree, but I'd like to dissect exactly the reason why this is a problem. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   If I have to pick between the two rationales as you pose, it's the former. But really, the reason is a lack of forward progress--I opposed on this same basis last time, he's done nothing significant since by his own admission, so why should my position change from opposition? Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   There are many jobs to do in addition to article space. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   And every single one of them should be done by someone who came here to write, not for any other reason. You'll notice that I haven't done much work myself lately, but that doesn't mean I've forgotten how difficult it was to get my

   triple crown. I am of the (apparently small) camp that believes that someone who's never had a GA or the equivalent has no business with the mop. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Are you suggesting anyone who does not have a GA or the equivalent is not "here to write"? There is more to writing than gaining trophies at GA and FA, contrary to what you appear to be implying. You also appear to be implying that adminship should be a reward for those who have a GA or the equivalent – an extremely disturbing opinion. Aiken ♫ 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed. Jclemens may wish to review

   WP:NOTENOUGH. A candidate for receiving the mop, having expressed in Q1 their intent to focus on AIV, UAA and RPP, is by extension demonstrating their focus on maintenance tasks instead of content creation. Both are necessary to the continued functions of Wikipedia, and UAA and RPP are arguably two of the most thankless routine chores an admin performs. With something less than 1% of all Wikipedians being admins, that leaves the vast majority of editors to perform said content creation, which frees up people like 7 to do those thankless chores. Each according to their ability. --Alan (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I also agree. Adding a thousand edits to a thousand articles can be equally as valuable as adding a thousand to one of them and making it a GA or FA. Everyone has a different approach. Jclemens is entitled to their opinion, but I cannot agree with the content creation criterion as a prerequisite for adminship. Does it help in giving the user an understanding of how the encyclopedia works? Sure, but it's not a prerequisite. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Jclemens reasons and answer is quite fair. Of course I disagree for a few reasons. Perhaps the most relevant, I don't think the GA/FA committees get a preemptive veto over RfA candidates, nor do I think those projects are the only way to demonstrate quality judgment and editing. My question is really directed to that curiosity: is it about getting along (and having evidence of that) or is it about churning out qualifications that suggest those skills. I think the former is critical, the latter is unnecessary, and finally that 7 meets the criteria that I care about. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   All in all, the adminship–content dispute is one that will likely never be resolved, but there's really no need to rehash the same arguments at nearly every RfA. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer, it's simply a matter of personal opinion. I've written or otherwise contributed to 25 FAs and something like 60 or 70 GAs, but I completely disagree that being a good writer should be a perquisite to passing RfA. That said, this particular oppose is not unreasonable. Juliancolton (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Shadowjams, I think GA is a pretty low standard, as the FAC regulars and many of the critics of GA will point out. It's a simple enough process that... well,

   WP:BEANS

   applies. It does serve multiple purposes, demonstrating:

   • an intent to create (or improve, both are good) content.
   • willingness and ability to follow the style, citation, NPOV, etc. guidelines.
   • the ability to respond appropriately to feedback (few GAs are passed outright, especially from a brand new author) from an arbitrary other editor, and use that feedback to improve the article.

   If a legitimate GA were required for adminship, and every admin who didn't have one current GA had the mop taken away, Wikipedia would be a better place. The argument is not mine, but seems eminently sensible to me: on an encyclopedia-writing project, there is absolutely no reason to give a non-writer the ability to block a writer. I find the lack of focus on basic writing skill and effort among admin candidates concerning. I'm not here to vote in a popularity contest, but to select the people who have the ability to block the people who are busy actually writing the encyclopedia, but I fear I am too small a minority to matter. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, I agree article writing is important, but you're suggesting anyone without a GA isn't a writer - both an unfair and inaccurate assumption. A GA does demonstrate all those things, but a lack of a GA does not necessarily mean those things are also lacking. You're giving too much importance to GAs. They are not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia, and writing can be demonstrated without gaining rewards. Your suggestion that Wikipedia would be a better place if every admin without a GA was desysopped is very disturbing indeed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but not everyone who collaborates on an encyclopedia writes it. Surely you can see that? And surely you can see that there is more to Wikipedia than just getting GAs/FAs? I hope so, I really do. Aiken ♫ 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Arguing over Jclemens' criteria for adminship is pointless. You won't convince him, especially not on an RfA page. Jclemens has valid points about requiring an admin to understand the process of writing articles, and others have valid points about the non-writing roles that are needed to keep a project this large moving. Let's just let it drop, or take to another place to discuss it. Thanks  --

   (LiberalFascist) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. Oppose Seems to lack experience of content creation. His confusing account name and signature indicate an unacceptable level of ego and incompetence. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You are of course entitled to your opinion, but the manner in which you have phrased it is inappropriate and offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't want to be harsh, but opposing partly over a username seems a bit of a poor way to judge a candidate. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Please see our

   username policy: "Confusing usernames can often be a red flag for other problems.". For another example of this which I have noticed recently, please see Treasury Tag's MOTD style sig. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   If you want to suggest that the candidate consider adopting another signature, you certainly may. If you wish to oppose on the ground that you think the username ill-chosen, you may even do that, although it doesn't seem to have given anyone else any pause. But to assert that the username reflects an "unacceptable level of ego and incompetence" is itself unacceptable (though I would not say egotistical or incompetent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Newyorkbrad on his post above. --Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   While it might be helpful if 7 were to adopt an account name with less potential for confusion (I note that "Seven" is still available), I don't think this is sufficient reason to oppose this RfA, and I definitely do not believe this issue justifies the opinions expressed by this particular opposing !voter. Richwales (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. I am confused Keepscases (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm with you. I was looking for user:7 2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral - I wish you the best, but I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time, based on editing habits and other concerns. Not strong enough for an oppose, but still. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral I'm sure you'll be a fine admin, but I like seeing more Article edits than User talk ones, so I'm not comfortable voting support. I definitely don't see grounds to oppose, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Netural per SarekOfVulcan. I know you'll be great but mix in some article contributions too.
   TheWindows, sir! 03:05, 5 June 2010 (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.