Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/@pple

5. Super-optional question by -

protection policy

.

A: Hi Alison. Nice question, but you accurately point out my

WP:AIV

is preferable in this case. In another situation when request is out of date compared to what has been progressed so far, meaning that edit war has already died out as the request reaches administrator’s hand, certain request will be rejected as a matter of fact.

Excellent answer, thank you. Two very minor points; you might want to also have a read over

WP:MPFAP, which is controversial in itself, and note also that an admin should never protect an article they are actively involved in editing - Alison ☺ 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, Alison. I doubt I would deserve such nice words. @pple 16:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Another extremely optional question from

(talk)

What informed your decision to redirect your user page to your talk? Was this simply for lack of interest in developing one, or was it a more serious issue?

A: Hi VanTucky. I’d like your question, since PeaceNT used to ask me exactly the same. Well, I used to possess a nice user page (I {{db-author}} it), but from the time I became a RC patroller and felt that my user page naturally became the target of vandalism as well (in fact it did), I had no desire for having it. But I’d glad to have it recreated if demanded.

7. Question from L Do you think that your edits ever show a Point of View on things, based on how you see them, intentionally or not? And what do you do to try to resolve that? --Lucid 06:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Hi L. Although I have NPOV held well in my hand, sometimes I still make mistake. The very recent example is in article Georgia Brown (child prodigy). My earlier version was “superior intelligence”, and the word “superior” appeared to violate neutrality. However, you can rest assured that it was just an unwanted mistake on my side without any personal intention put forward. The resolution, in my opinion, is to learn from experience and improve a better awareness of neutrally writing.

Optional question from SilkTork

8 Can you think of any situation(s) where an admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article?

A: Hi SilkTork. It’s just brief answer, hope satisfy your requisition.

An admin shouldn't be allowed to delete an article if:

1. The page was a recent recreation of another admin. The deletion may initiate wheel-war, which must be strictly avoided.
2. An admin him/herself involved in certain page debate and held opinion of deleting it. If that’s the case, another uninvolved admin will be entrusted with the closure procedure to ensure that best judgment is out-trusted.
3. Concerning
   speedy delete
   : not all pages are tagged with appropriate tags. An admin have to use his/her wisdom to assess the precision of rationale, checking if the speedy delete criteria truly fit tagged pages, and considering the chance of page improvement. Once the tag demonstrates to be inaccurate, the prudent action is taking it through AfD process to survey community’s ideas. An admin is not allowed to delete random pages in CSD without giving appropriate reasons.
4. Concerning
   proposed deletion
   : even when the prod process has been expired, in other words, the prodded articles are uncontested, an administrator is still not encouraged to delete those pages without further consideration.

9. Question from Pedro Your early edits show a remarkable level of knowledge of Wikipedia editing and markup - were you editing as an IP prior to your account creation? (added for clarification) Without revealing your IP address, if this is the case could you give a rough indication of the number of edits or period of time you were editing?

A: Hi Pedro. You guess right. I've used Wiki as reference for long time and occasionally edited under IP address. That's why Wiki markup was not something strange to me. I would have continued editing with IP if I hadn't found out that IP was no longer able to create articles.

10. 2-part auestion from Carlossuarez46

You have indicated that you'd like to help out in closing Xfd's but you have only participated occasionally in them, how would you determine whether consensus has been achived? And under what circumstances, if any, should !votes be discounted or ignored?

A:

11. Question from WKPDX

How would you handle an article where a few editors (usernames) dominated an article and reverted most others' edits, frustrating other editors? As you know, some RFC receive little response (or if they get a response, these responding editors may only comment once and not return to the article). Mediation is voluntary. ArbCom doesn't resolve editing disputes.

12. Optional question from

A

General comments

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

• Links for @pple: @pple (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/@pple before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Mature and well expressed answers. Good contributor. I see no problems. —Moondyne 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support positive contributor ~ Infrangible 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Pepsidrinka 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes - wouldn't have minded a bit more experience, but your answers seem to look past what your editing experience presents. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support excellent nominator nominating an excellent candidate. Acalamari 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - This user will be definatly a great admin. --Hirohisat ^Talk 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. + More experience would be nice as noted by Anonymous Dissident, but the Requests for accounts was a nice touch. Familiar with policy and process. Keegan^talk 04:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Solid candidate. Daniel→♦ 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support fine Wikipedian. —Anas ^talk? 08:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - good answers and sufficient experience.
    Addhoc 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Support - I'm going to support. I believe this user has enough experience and expertise to make an alright administrator. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Trustworthy, impressed by answers to questions. Recurring dreams 13:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. PeaceNT 14:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --
    Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Support His grace under fire was very impressive, and demonstrated that he has a level head. That, combined with his experience, will make him an excellent admin. JCO312 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I initially posted in the wrong RfA. My apologies for the mistake. I have reviewed @pple's contributions, and will happily maintain my support. JCO312 16:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support 10/10 username and anyone who will help out with old AfDs is great. GDonato (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, usuarium bonum est. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. No problems with this candidate. I wish I could come up with a witty Latin phrase... Walton^One 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Support Why not? Politics rule 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support fine editor, no reason to oppose :-)
    saran 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
23. Support seems to have simalar edits to me -
    Pheonix 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Support Sure...I like what I see. Jmlk17 21:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Great editor, and nice username ;). -Lemonflash_(chat) 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support, no reason not to, plain and simple. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. A fantastic editor with enough experience, and will be a fantastic admin! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. I see no reason not to trust you, please don't give me a reason. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. I will support. User edited for six months so I assume he has enough experiance. VoltronForce 03:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support User appears unbiased and has good track.Harlowraman 03:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Great answers, good history, no reason to oppose. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 03:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong support - excellent responses to the questions. Super editor. I've absolutely no issues here whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my own question in such depth - Alison ☺ 05:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Excellent answers to the questions, genuine civility shown here and through contributions, no reason not to trust this candidate - they will only be a benefit to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Good editor who is very experienced with Wikipedia. No concerns here. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 07:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, has improved the encyclopedia.
    Talk 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support, good contributor, I hope you become a good admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Aww, my nominee nominated. :) Appears to be sufficiently sane. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Yes. Majorly (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support, but originally neutral, based on the oppose vote by a now-banned sockpuppet. You must be doing something right! Bearian 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, Why not? I see no flaws. — Preceding
    talk • contribs
    )
41. Support — A good guy. I'm confident he'll do a good job.
    Matthew 15:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Support - excellent editor. A real credit. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Weak support - although I would like to see more mainspace contributions.
    Miranda 22:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Support Seems like a good editor. I see no reason to oppose, so I support. ♠TomasBat 23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Though I half expect someone to go neutral on the fact his name has the @ sign in it.
    (Ni!) 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support—another good RfA candidate. — Deckiller 02:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Giggy ^Talk 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support — umdrums 07:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Excellent answers given to the above questions, impressive▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 08:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support No major reasons to Oppose. Good luck.--
    †Sir James Paul† 09:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
51. Support—good answers, fine contributions with nothing of concern. --Paul Erik 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Looks a sound candidate. --Dweller 18:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - Not as many cotnributions as various other candidates, but what there is is excellent and the answers above indicate a good understanding of the role and the policies. Euryalus 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support meets my standards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, good answers to the many questions. Davewild 09:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support- I have seen some excellent edits by this user, there is no real discussion on whether adminship is deserved. Also, <3 the name ^.~ Deliciously Saucy 11:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support – I'll figure I'll take some time and draft up a JS-based support:

    if(user.hasGoodContribs && user.hasGoodJudgement && user.knowsPolicy) {

    document.write("\'\'\'Support\'\'\' – Solid user \+ good contribs \= Good admin");

    }

    Sorry for any and all syntax errors that I may have inadvertently employed. –Animum 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

58. Support Looks good to me. Dureo 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Animum broke the internets...[reply]
59. Support Everything is good to me (well except
    WP:RFPP participation, which you don't have to worry about).--PrestonH 05:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
60. Support. Good answers to questions and solid contributions to encyclopedia building outweigh the slightly low edit count in this case. Espresso Addict 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Good awnsers, good user. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Plenty of reasons to support this candidate: just one is the amazingly detailed answer to Alison's question. _TheIslander 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Res ipsa loquitur. Anything but a self-nomination is an actus reus displayed by the boisterous sociability essential to obtain one. Neil Larson

Worudis longinsa Arus You are obviously wrong, as your entire argument is based on turnas guroos. Please consider this highly when you ponderius ella deficus at Taipei 101 --Userius:Lius 07:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nihil ad rem. Pedro |  Chat  07:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with the point. Neil Larson

Note User blocked by Majorly for trolling of RFA. Oppose comment indented. Pedro |  Chat  09:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose comment un-indented. 'Crat discretion will deal with it. Giggy ^Talk 02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-indented. Disregarding of votes should only be done by community consensus, not "'crat discretion", as per the discussion at

WT:RFA on this point. Walton^One 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow, this is getting patently ridiculous. One user is opposing every self nom and now another is opposing every non-self nomination. Could we please get a consensus on which oppose rationales are not permitted? –Animum 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the difficulty; there can never really be a community consensus on that, as different users have different standards for adminship. The one above is disregarded by consensus because it was clearly made in bad faith; this is not the same as Kmweber's opposes, which are made in good faith but lie outside community norms. But there has to be room for differences of opinion on RfAs, IMO. Walton^One 19:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. In reading @pple's answers, I saw so many grammar errors that I worry he/she won't be able to judge edit wars. An understanding of the structure of language is so central to the ability to think and judge clearly that I wouldn't be confident in @apple's abilities in other areas besides proofreading. Preston McConkie 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. neutral leaning towards support. I've personally seen some solid contribs from @pple elsewhere, but I am not quite fully satisfied with his answer for the conflicts section, and I want to hear his answers to Alison and Miranda.
   (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Neutral - Just a comment really. I would encourage the applicant to more talk page activitiy. An admin's first and most visible job is early dispute resolution on article talk pages. currently the User has about a 0.14 article talk to article ratio. More talk encouraged! Best of luck. --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - not enough article writing, for me, although from what else I see he has no real issues. Still, no reason he won't perform his desired tasks competently given the mop. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:08, 23 August 2007 (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.