Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ILovePlankton

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

ILovePlankton

Final (43/43/14) ended 03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ILovePlankton (talk · contribs) – ILovePlankton has been here since Valentine's Day 3 and a half months ago, and he already racked up 4200 edits. Article wise he is interested in science fiction, and is a member of Wikiproject star wars, star wars collaboration of the week, and has helped with the science collaboration of the week. He's done about 2500 edits maintaining the articles of wikipedia. What's stuck out the most to me though is how friendly ILP is. He is always a friendly face in IRC and a kind person in general. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very humbly accept. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I am withdrawing from this RFA. Can someone please close it? ILovePlankton 02:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. First support... <_< Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Lies. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Redwolf24, you're a...... you're a....... you're a..... oh ok. I'll say it. You're a cheater! I still beat you! nobody take this as a personal attack, or incivility, because it's not. It is harmless fun. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. zOMG first second person to support (sorry ;-) -Red) Support. Seriously, ILP is an excellent editor, excellent interpersonal skills, I'm honoured to support him. —
   talk) 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Damn dirty such-and-such *mutters under his breath* ;) —

   talk) 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

3. Support Friendly user, balanced edits; I see no problems. However, I am bothered by the candidate's crunchiness when he is consumed as sustenance; makes for some unpleasent stomach pains... Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support before nom support! --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. support as per above. Whopper 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support Where ^(talk) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong Support per above. G.He 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strong Support per GeorgeMoney. FellowWikipedian 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong Support per everyone! --digital_me^(t/c) 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support I've seen this user around alot, very active, will be a great admin. -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support Meets my critera, plus, excellent and friendly user. ~Linuxerist
    P/S/T/Z 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Weak Support Tempted-to Oppose Though I really think he's a good user and could be an amdin. ForestH2 03:03, May 31 2006 (UTC)

    If I may ask, could you please elaborate, so that I know for myself if I'm making any mistakes that I could correct? ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support, super-friendly user! --
    Talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Merovingian {T C @} 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support will be a great asset. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, you show great enthusiasm. Royboycrashfan 03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Support I love ILovePlankton. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Great editor. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Strong Support Would make a fantastic admin, kind, helpful, good editor, I can't say enough! Sergeant Snopake 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Is friendly editor, no doubt about it. Will make great admin. - Tangotango 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Super Strong Support A very kind user, know his way round wikipedia, would make a good admin. The Halo (talk)
23. Strong Support, friendly, helpful, kind and a great user. My interactions on IRC have been always great, I'm very sure he will make a great admin. --
    e Ong 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Moderate Support From my interactions with ILP, I have determined that he will not abuse his tools and therefore there is no reason for him not to have them. However, he hasn't been here very long, so I hope his knowledge of policy is indeed good enough. --
    l ^T 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
25. Strong Support!!! Give em' the mop already!! --Mahogany 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. No doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong Support Best. User. Evah. OK, well maybe not the best, but you get my point! ;-) --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Moderate support per Xyrael, whose explanation is much clearer and more succinct than mine would have been, and so whom you can thank for my terseness. Joe 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strong Support - has remained civil and kept a cool head despite rather incivil comments from Cyde (see below). We need more admins who are capable of staying calm in such situations. Cynical 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Strong Support - I don't actually know him, but I've seen him around, has a ton of good edits, and deserves it. Oreos^TalkContribs 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Strong Support for colorful signatures! but seriously ILovePlankton is a very friendly and dedicated user and highly deserving of the mop Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Conditional Support. I know you are dedicated to Wikipedia, and you are extremely friendly and civil. But if you are given a mop, you need to promise me that you will frequent the
    WP:ANI and get more involved with the group of people that manage Wikipedia, not just the people that you fall back on for friendship and support.-- The ikiroid  02:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
35. Support A bit new, but looks like a decent person, and having good
    WP:FAITH that the problems below are not intentional. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
36. Support Strikes me as a passionate user, but that's a good thing. Aguerriero (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong Support. I'm glad this didn't happen during may.
    afist ^{Save Wikipedia} 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support! He wasn't an admin already!?!? Freddie 19:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. — FireFox
    talk
    21:22, 03 June '06
42. Support. Nice person. Give him the mop. --
    wn ^e 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
43. Support - I thought I voted already. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Strong oppose -
   T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-05-31
   )

   I'm just wondering why did you put the link there (You do know that me and tony settled it on his talk, right?)? ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Is how a person's edit count is broken down really a good indication of whether a person would be a good admin? Where ^(talk) 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah. He removed everything that could possibly be seen as breaking policy. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The Committee for Replying to Oppose Votes in the Hope that They will Change has done a great job on this one. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:AGF. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   All of you, chill the hell out. We all have the right to decide the way we want to

   T+C) at 13:12 UTC (2006-05-31

   )

   Thank you for explaining it. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Mid-WikiBreak strong oppose per NSLE. I'm uncomfortable with giving the mop to a user who has had such sentiments in the very recent past. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Excessive loyalty can be a bad thing. I am not prepared to support users willing to be banned for whatever reason, and it has only been 2 weeks since he removed the offending phrase [1]. I will support if he does not say anything to that effect again in 2-3 months. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok thank you for explaining your reasoning, I understand what you mean. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to strong oppose per KAS. The abrasive tone of his reply [2] contrasts strikingly with Xyrael's right above his! (Fortunately usage of all caps doesn't count much in my book, or I'd be tacking on another superlative to my vote.) I love plankton, sure, but I don't love comments like that. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - for now It is my opinion and for the record...from recent posts by ILovePlankton on my (talk) page that ILovePlankton appears to me to be impulsive and responds emotionally rather then objectively and in a constructive way. I’ve seen him write in a mimic style to a Wikipedia editor (me) in “conceding tone” rather then be helpful and handle a situation matter-of-factly. His interaction with me wasn’t helpful but tended to escalate a situation rather then to deescalate it. I would think this is a grave concern that this type of emotional and impulsive personality profile would have ADMIN powers. He may well be a good ADMIN later, but for now I think he needs to work on his style of communication and constructive skills. Example: Such statements, With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP" and "What the hell are you talking about? I also do not think ILovePlankton has a clear understanding of policies. My page was blanked after I made a very favorable edit on my USER page and forgot to sign in. The edit only showed an IP. Judgment would dictate it was a positive and favorable edit and that perhaps the USER forgot to sign in. But his way to handle the situation was to take sides and state: ‘’“With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP"’’ and this in your face tone won’t be that productive on Wikipedia. I think it's not the quantity of the edits he has made but the quality of the edits that are most important, that is "especially" in situations when emotions are escalating. In my view his condescending tone is the worst part of it. I think if he were to work on not being condescending that would a great start. Maybe an ADMIN later, but I think, again, he needs to develop his skills on handling adverse situations and show a more objective view frist. But then again, this is only my opinion, and I am sure the powers that be will look into for themselves and make their own conclusions. KAS 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment Half of the shouting in KAS' post is quoting ILovePlankton. In addition the other half isn't "shouting" at all as KAS explained on his/her talk page. RicDod 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment I concede to this point. —

   talk) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Comment - I understand that Nathan doesn't like the way that KAS expressed her point, but that's something to take up with the user privately, not a reason to treat the opinion which she's expressed in reasoned detail as a bad-faith vote. Besides, if Nathan really feels so strongly that capitalizing words is highly uncivil, then the quotes in KAS's comments also reflect rather badly on ILovePlankton (by Nathan's criteria) - and surely that's a reasonable thing to note in this RFA. (I'd also argue that Nathan's rather over-large signature might be considered somewhat uncivil by his own criteria.) Zaxem 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. I was considering voting Neutral as ILovePlankton has a good user name done a lot good maintenance work. However, the more I think about it the more concerned I am with the point made by NSLE. Such comments, while reflecting well on ILP as a person, are counterproductive for an admin to have in their user area because it adds fuel to the oft-repeated accusations that we are cliquey and have favourites. I also share KAS's concerns that ILP has the tendency to act emotionally rather than objectively. I could well support in the future if these issues are resolved or left in the past. Rje 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose for now Well on the way. Just needs more time. Reverts, warns, and reports vandals. Takes part in AfD discussions. However, edit count is a little low given the power of VandalProof. Answer to question 2 does not show strength as an editor. Willingness to be banned in support of one's friends is not a strength in an admin, even if the statement to that effect has been recently removed. A cabal of friends advocating/arguing against opposers does not help even a little. The "hell" quote indicates incivility and quick temperedness not suitable in an admin. Also, the recent use of a copyrighted image on your userpage may indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not questioning your right to oppose, I just wanted to tell you that the image someone else put on my userpage, I never even looked at it. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Doesn't yet seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. Needs more time, perhaps.[reply]
7. Way too much focus on the "community" aspect and very little focus on the actual encyclopedia. He seems to think
   guidelines are something that should be flouted, not followed. --Cyde↔Weys 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   When did I flout policy? (I would like to know so I can correct it) ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment to Cyde The edit summary of "Nathan really made a mess of things ..." could have been a lot better worded and I feel you're only contributing to an already tense situation. I'm sorry, but I did make some comments that could have been interpreted as incivil - I was told about this and I did make every good faith effort to rectify this. As this is an RfA, comments shouldn't be deleted (that's what I've heard but please do outright delete them if I was misinformed), so I struck them out. I do not appreciate that edit summary and urge you to re-evaluate the way some of your typing comes across to others. Cheers. Additional edit: Please at least consider my comment. Thank you. —

   talk) 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I said you flaunted flouted guidelines, not policy. There's a huge difference. As an admin candidate you really should be aware of the this distinction!!! And the word "guidelines" is wikilinked in my comment for a reason. --Cyde↔Weys 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Either way are you going to answer the question? ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think we've all seen enough. I have no idea why you're being so combative over this, but it does not reflect well at all. When someone says you may be doing something incorrectly the proper response is to examine your actions, and if you believe them to be acceptable, defend yourself. But you shouldn't be brushing it off flippantly or pretending not to even understand the nature of the criticism. I believe your response to this simple criticism about a signature of all things shows why you are not acceptable administrator material. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Why are you getting angry at me for asking a question? I really don't understand what I did to have you dislike me this badly. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Cyde, could you please consider phrasing your words to something that resembles less of an incivil tone? I know how blunt and direct you can be from experience, but this is really not helping matters here. You know as well as I do that

   talk) 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Perhaps you could point out exactly what the problem is with his sig. -MrFizyx 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with both these comments. Cyde can you please be less antagonistic, in many of your recent exchanges you seem to be berating people. As far as your comment about " flouted guidelines" this sounds a little hypocritical. I copied the text below from your own talk page.

   Good thing I'm not using templates or transclusion then! And by the way, that page is guideline, not policy. I'm going to stick with my friend Adrian on this one. Show us it's against the rules and we'll stop. By all means, if you think this is an important issue, propose a policy that bans the use of templates, categories, and images in signatures. I'd even go ahead and support it. I just think rules should be rules, period, not selectively enforced suggestions.

   You wrote that as recently as March 6th. Constructive critcism is always better than reading the riot act. No one is perfect.

   David D. (Talk) 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

8. Oppose until a little more mature: fix that signature; lose that daft "loyalty" thing (as an admin, your loyalty should be to the wiki as a whole, otherwise your neutrality is hopelessly compromised); fix your user page (so that it actually fits into one screen width—at the minute it looks like something an HTML tutor might use as an example of "what not to do"—I have to scroll rightwards five times to see the far side) and above all learn to take criticism (as an admin you would expect to receive it by the bucket-load, not drip-wise as you have been doing). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   The userpage is lick that since it is designed for 1024x768 resolution and looks fine at that resolution. But I can see where you are coming from; a stripped down version that people with lower resolutions could use would be ideal. Where ^(talk) 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, it didn't look any better @ 1024 x 768. Thanks. :) Dlohcierekim 02:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. Friendship is something dearly, but expressing you would get banned to defend them raised some concerns in me about the
   WP:NPOV every admin must have. I don't agree with all KAS does, but I agree that the candidate's behaviour left a lot to be desired. The user seems to be good contact with other users through User talk pages, but his 2% of edits in article talks is just too low. Nice to see ILovePlankton started editing summaries, hopefully he will continue doing so. Maybe in a couple of months, controlling his temperament and participating more in article development. By the way, Nathan, you should strike things out, not delete. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Comment: ReyBrujo, I would have appreciated it if you had mentioned that on my talk, rather than here, because I rarely watch this page (so I don't comment and possibly get tempted to say something I shouldn't). The reason for removing my comments was clearly shown on my edit summary. If you feel like fishing my comments out and putting them back, you are free to go ahead and do that - I had good faith reasons to delete them (those comments would serve no purpose other than to breed negative feelings) and I wasn't sure of proper guidelines regarding this (again, this was mentioned in my edit summary, why am I repeating it?). Regarding ILP's "expressing he would get banned", etc, I respectfully remind you that this line was removed from the page, meaning, that line is no longer there, further meaning that the editor realised the problem with this line and removed it (why are we condemning him for realising his error? Should we not be applauding him for realising that error?). It seem (to me) that you're really reaching for a reason to oppose this editor. This should not even be an issue, yet it is. Let's take some time to really read into some of these oppose votes. Do you know what they say to me? "Let's condemn this candidate for what he believed weeks ago, and completely discount what he believes right now." In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go and it could also be read into as condemning the candidate for who he chooses to call a friend (though that may be reaching too). Cheers. —

   talk) 21:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I should have posted that on your user talk page indeed, sorry about that. As for ILP's friendship comment, the fact that he had added it three and deleted it two weeks ago (and not because he realized it could be misunderstood, but because another editor hinted at that) is enough for me to consider him unreliable for administrator tasks for now, especially if such matters include mediating in his friends' conflicts. Hadn't Tony noticed that, the line may have stayed there. Finally, I pointed three negative aspects (NPOV, his behaviour and an extremely low amount of edits in article talk pages) and a positive (he started using summaries). Had he not written that manifesto, I would have opposed anyways. An administrator must be patient, even if you find people who only bashes you. This may have been a slip, true, that is why I am willing to support him in a couple of months after noticing he had demonstrated it was a slip. I see you are a good friend who think he is suitable for the task, but I believe he can defend himself. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose per NSLE and Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per the above; not confident of this user's maturity and understanding of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose unimpressed by responses to Cyde above, and as per NSLE. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose, I think this user has learned a lot over the last few months, but he still has a lot more to learn, in my opinion he's not ready for adminship yet. --JoanneB 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I realise that this is not the most constructive of votes, so I'll try to elaborate... I know it's not possible to know everything and not to make any mistakes before your RfA, but just from looking at your last 500 edits there's a couple of things that worry me: poor understanding of the fair use rules [3], limited use of edit summaries when they're not automatically provided by VandalProof [4], voting on AfD without any rationale [5] (which to me shows that he regards it as a voting process, other than a discussion). There's more, but this is enough for me not to be comfortable with him becoming an admin. --JoanneB 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose, if only because of his responses to several (IMHO reasonable) criticisms on this page, particularly to Cyde. Also per Christopher Parham, Sidaway, Dlohcierekim, and Cyde. Also, number of Talk edits is remarkably low for admin candidate, however, this wouldn't be a dealbreaker if it weren't for the other stuff. -- Deville (Talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Not at this point. --
    ^ask? 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
16. Oppose. ILovePlankton has a prodigious edit count, but is still fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm troubled by the slightly over-sensitive reactions to several of the oppose votes above by both ILovePlankton and Nathan (whose over-anxious desire to help fight ILovePlankton's battle is troubling given the concerns raised regarding ILovePlankton's past comments on how he'd do anything - even risk getting banned - for friends). I don't think this candidate is ready for adminship yet. Zaxem 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    CommentIndeed.65.35.168.248 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Resigned now that I'm logged on again. :) Dlohcierekim 04:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17. Oppose. Very good guy, just needs a bit more work on understanding policy and keeping cool. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. Considering that people generally try to show their best side during the week the RFA lasts, I find some of the candidate's responses on this page quite worrying, especially the replies to Cyde. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
19. Strong Oppose; I don't believe this user understands the "pedia" part of Wikipedia. Also, behavior on this page and elsewhere is a bit disturbing. Ral315 (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per Bishonen. The reaction to some of the questions here is lacking the grace you might expect from someone whose suitability for administratorhip is being discussed. This, along with some misguided comments in the recent past, leads me to oppose at this time. Rockpocket 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose, per JoanneB above. Also, I would recommend getting some decent article work under your belt. In my experience, it helps with stress no end, and helps you centre on the goal of the project: that of an encyclopedia. --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose per NSLE and Tony Sidaway. Maybe later. --Zoz (t) 13:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose, fails
    Mailer Diablo 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. Oppose per Rockpocket; also I'm not pleased with his attitude towards community guidelines. FreplySpang 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose, for now. If you continue maturing at this rate, though, I'd be glad to support you in your second RfA a few months from now. (Also, both you and Cyde said "flaunt" when you meant "flout"; I've fixed that.) DS 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose just too soon. Matbe in a few months. The Gerg 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose The Esperanza Election fight is still too fresh in my head. That and lack of time. Sorry, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi, and Zaxem. Ardric47 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per above. Sorry, now isn't the right time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose per NSLE, Kimchi.sg, KAS. I was going to support, but this sort of stuff can't be done by an administrator.
    T^c_@^b_C^m_L^t 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
31. Oppose per NSLE. The whole "My loyalties to my friends" thing brings up an uncertainty: What if one of your friends was blocked from editing? Would you still be able to be objective? I realize you didn't state anything like this in your essay, but I still have a few reservations. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. User treats an RfC as a threaded internet debate. Indignation over signature indicates that the user probably isn't prepared to handle admin-level criticism. Jkelly 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Weak oppose. Nice guy, and very friendly, but not sure if he's experienced enough for admin tools. Cheerfullness is a plus. "Loyalties to friends" is a forgivable minus. Submission to oppose votes based on signature is a minor minus - minor because it's good to try and please people; I just think there are some things where you have to stand up for yourself. All in all, ILP needs to consider his actions more carefully. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose per lots of oppose comments. This RfA has gone horribly pear-shaped and loyal friend Nathan hasn't helped it much. But take candidate's statement, "By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him." Will be in a better place for adminship when the reply doesn't need the explanation, i.e. when the reply is, "(I'm sorry) I don't understand you." Tyrenius 04:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted all the comments I posted that were even remotely offensive. If you have a point, please get to it. —

    talk) 07:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I have replied to this on my talk page where it was also posted, before I saw it here.Tyrenius 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose. I am concerned as to how Iloveplankton woul react, at the moment, in a difficult situation. Captainj 11:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. robchurch | talk 20:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose, arguing with oppose votes isn't the way to go. Additionally, low number of edits in Wikipedia namespace suggests poor policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose, to controversial at this time. Also the arguing with Oppose votes doesn't help. JohnnyBGood t c 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose Too few edits in the template space, and fails nine months. Raichu 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose. The things I've read by him in Wikipedia space suggest he has little grasp of policy. Also his signature is really annoying, I don't know many admins with confusing sigs like that. Okay, you changed it, thank you. Your most recent edit that gave me misgivings is here- read comments from others on that page for suggestions. Ashibaka tock 22:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Weak oppose putting aside the editcountis (Interiot's tool is down for a reason!), this user appears to have little experience with policy or the non-article spaces. With a little more experience, I'm sure that he wouldn't heckle oppose votes so much as well. Actually, to be fair some of the people above deserved it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose Friendship is the biggest cause of corruption. I would like Wikipedia Admins to be neutral. Stephen B Streater 18:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose, per HighwayCello and that entire incident. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning support I've had many positive experiences, though the lack of edits in the Talk: space is slightly concerning. Computerjoe's talk 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   which talk space (I would like to know so I can do better)? ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I think he means "article" Talk: (for instance Talk:Democracy talks about the Democracy article.) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Less than 100 article talks is concerning.--Jusjih 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Internet Explorer is still an 80+% share of the internet and your user page is utterly unreadable in IE. It is the wrong message to send to visitors. I brought this up at ILP's talk and he said he couldn't fix it, which in practice means he is unwilling to consider the needs of the readership as a whole in (re)designing his page. I believe this issue should be immenently correctable, and I will consider other aspects of the nom if this one is addressed. Dragons flight 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   When I said I couldn't fix it I meant I didn't have the ability to fix it. (I don't know a thing about HTML, but I have started trying to get someone to fix it). ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. One objection down, will look at the others later. Dragons flight 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral, very strong at building community, excellent vandal fighter, but not enough building of articles in the mainspace. Contrary to those above, I don't think the "my loyalties to my friends" thing is daft; rather, I think the world would be a far better place if more people were as loyal to their friends. Please edit more substantially in the mainspace (pick a couple of articles, go to the library, and just build them up!) and you will gain the experience to have my support. -- Samir धर्म 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   thank you for the very construstive critisism. ILovePlankton 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Neutral - would support, especially given the user's positive community involvement and support in fighting vandalism, as well as the questionable reasoning from a couple of those opposing, but User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends worries me ... a lot. Of specific concern is this - "I will NEVER attack them or be uncivil towards them". On WP, we should not attack or be uncivil to anyone - friend or otherwise. The mention of this implies, or at least seems to imply, that in the user's view, it is possible that loyalty to friends could be at odds with civility towards others. I would humbly suggest examining what message you are desiring to communicate here. BigDT 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral I have mixed feelings. Mr. Turcotte^talk 22:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral, great editor, though I'm concerned about his low amount of article talk pages edits, his responses to Cyde, and his User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends. I also recommend more work on mainspace articles and a bit more project involvement. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral not sure
   ^{wat's sup} 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Neutral Good name, good sense of humor. With a bit more time should be a fine admin. Fix the little problems mentioned in the oppositon votes and I'll support you next time around (remind me--I don't often read RfA). -MrFizyx 07:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral – not enough problems to merit an oppose, but not sure about understanding of policy – Gurch 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral, good balance of edits, but why can't every month be like March... also, something about esperanza if i remember correctly. As for the questions at the bottom of the page, you might want to either answer them, or comment them out, or delete them, or use hiddenStructure or something, I dunno. — Jun. 2, '06 [04:24] <freak|talk>
12. Neutral. I've seen good, level-headed comments on AFD and elsewhere from ILP, but three and a half months is too soon - adminship this early is risking the possibility of both burnout and unfamiliarity with some parts of the community. I'm a little concerned about some of the oppose points, but I think it's nothing that time and more familiarity will fix. A few months from now, a support shouldn't be any problem. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral This is tough. Has enough contributions and experience, but focuses too much on science. —
    T + C) at 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    What's wrong with focusing on science? We have editors who do nothing but spread sick conspiracy theories about the WTC attacks and suchlike, who are not called on their narrow focus; I think someone attempting to improve our coverage of science (considering how woeful it is in some areas) should be encouraged, not criticised. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14. ILP's response to my questions are encouraging, if not quite what I'd hoped to hear (in particular the percentage canard worries me; however, I quite liked what he said about blocking, particularly warnings — not perfect, but getting there). As such, I won't oppose him, and I look forward to supporting in six months or more. However, in the interests of Improvement, here are the reasons I would have opposed:

    • ILP doesn't seem completely acculturated to Wikipedia yet. That's not a reflection on his time here; some users pick things up remarkably quickly, while I know at least one user (no, I won't say his name) who's been here for more than a year and still can't find his arse with both hands. ILP sits on neither extreme: he's not there yet, but give him a few months and who knows? This is a Big Deal; the others aren't so bad.
    • Nathan's behaviour on this RfA. Given that ILP makes a big deal of how he'll stand by his friends no matter what, I think his friends have a responsibility to get behind him here and not piss people off unnecessarily. That's just silly.
    • Civility. We have enough admins who need to work on their civility without adding more; when ILP sees something wrong with "what the hell are you talking about?" vs "I'm sorry, I don't understand you.", we'll be getting somewhere.
    • This leads on to a third point: respect for other Wikipedians. Support for one's 'net friends is all well and good, and doesn't imply a lack of support for other people out here. However, things like incivility, and, yes, that signature, paint a picture of a user who doesn't know why he should make life easier for other Wikipedians. And that's Bad.
    • His views on AfD suggest a tendency towards vote-counting that I'd like to see well and truly stamped out before he runs for adminship again. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 05:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Voice of All, please fix those percentages. Add them up... Redwolf24 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be nothing wrong with them. Note that the sig/minor/supericial article edits are out of all edits, not just articles edits, future stats pages make that more clear. Thanks.
    Talk 15:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

--Viewing contribution data for user ILovePlankton (over the 4328 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 108 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 21hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 15, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 35.43% Minor edits: 94.34%
Average edits per day: 29.34 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 4328 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 137 edits) : Major article edits: 88.24% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0.12% (5)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0.02% (1)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 42.95% (1859)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3116 | Average edits per page: 1.39 | Edits on top: 17.44%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.83% (382 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 46.03% (1992 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.76% (379 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 36.39% (1575 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 52.2% (2259) | Article talk: 1.87% (81)
User: 9.54% (413) | User talk: 25.95% (1123)
Wikipedia: 7.6% (329) | Wikipedia talk: 1.48% (64)
Image: 0.21% (9)
Template: 0.16% (7)
Category: 0.69% (30)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.25% (11)

Username ILovePlankton
Total edits 4292
Distinct pages edited 3152
Average edits/page 1.362
First edit 00:27, February 15, 2006
 
(main) 2260
Talk 81
User 408
User talk 1110
Image 9
Image talk 2
Template 7
Help 1
Category 30
Category talk 9
Wikipedia 310
Wikipedia talk 64
Portal 1