Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheIslander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] TheIslander

Final (31/20/12); Originally scheduled to end 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (apples) 13:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

TheIslander (talk · contribs) - Hi, I’m TheIslander, and I should like to self-nominate myself to be an administrator. I found Wikipedia a couple of years back, and was amazed at the whole concept of a wiki. It wasn’t until mid 2006 that I decided to create an account, and start editing. Over the past few months I have racked up a few thousand edits; a large proportion of them in the mainspace. Recently I became an RC patroller, and will now regularly spend an hour or so an evening reverting malicious edits and warning/reporting offending users. As part of RC patrolling, I often come across non-notable articles which I nominate for speedy-deletion, and I also occassionally participate in AfDs. I would now like to take this ‘maintenance’ work to a new level, and would particularly like to help with backlogs in areas such as the CSD and AIV. As part of my RC patrolling, it would also be very useful to have admin tools available to deal with blatent vandals on the spot, rather than having to go through AIV, and watch the user continue to vandalise whilst sitting in the queue. There are a number of reasons why I think I’d make a good admin. Firstly, I’m really starting to know the policies of Wikipedia inside-out: whereas a number of months ago I had a vague idea what was and wasn’t acceptable on Wikipedia, I now seem to be able to beeline straight to the relevant policies when needed. I am a good communicator – I am always polite and well mannered, and can get my point across when needed. Although most of my experience has come in the last couple of months, I still feel that I am now suitably familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia to be able to do the maintenance job of an admin to a high standard, and without making mistakes. Thank you in advance for your time and input, TheIslander 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are two main areas that I feel I’d participate in regularly: firstly, the chronic CSD backlog. Whilst RC patrolling, I often come across articles, for example, about a tiny business, without any external links to suggest notability of any kind. I naturally mark these for speedy-delete, but I then go to the CSD category and become somewhat disheartened by the fact that it’s one of usually over one hundred others. I feel that knowing the CSD policy well stands me in good grounds for helping to reduce that backlog. The second area is AIV. Again, as is to be expected, RC patrolling throws a lot of persistent vandals in my direction. To find a vandal that is making four unconstructive edits a minute, has run out of warnings, report them to AIV and then watch them sit in the queue sometimes for a good while is irritating. This user is clearly a vandal, and deserves a block. For that reason I feel having the ability to block would be useful not only for RC patrolling, but also to help reduce queues in AIV. TheIslander 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Best contributions. Hmm. That’s tricky, ‘cause I really try and make all my contributions ‘the best’ (…except perhaps this sentence, ‘cause it sounds horribly cheesy =P). I think my best contributions probably fall into two camps: firstly, there’s my RC patrolling and vandalism reverting. With a resource as amazing as Wikipedia, it really is beyond me why so many people decide to contribute destructively, but they do, in droves. I therefore think that the work any RC patroller does is valuable, as it keeps Wikipedia in as ‘clean’ a state as possible for those that do value it. The other area in which I really feel I do well is mainspace edits to articles that I become ‘attached’ to. I think the biggest example of this is Legoland Windsor. Before I found the article, it wasn’t in best shape – it certainly wasn’t a stub, but it read very much like an advert for the park, used very odd English in places, and seemed to be missing a lot of important information. After a lot of editing, spread over many months, I feel that it is in much better shape, and provides a much better account of the park from an NPOV viewpoint. It’s still work in progress, and there’s certainly work that still needs doing, but it’s an article that I like to go back to regularly and tweak and mould gradually, into a great article. Another such article, though to a much lesser extent, was At-Bristol, which I pretty much re-wrote. TheIslander 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I’ve been involved in a fair few conflicts in my time here, and there are certain users who certainly stress me somewhat. For example, I’ve recently dealt with a very new editor, who had a bit of an obsession with taking screencaps from television shows uploaded on Youtube, uploading them without a copyright plate, fair use rationale or anything, and then adding them to the relevant article. I started off by using the graduated warning system about unsuitable images, but he completely ignored me. I then sought help from WP:ANI, but heard nothing in over 12 hours, during which time more uploading continued (much to the joy of OrphanBot, who was having the time of his life!). At this point I talked to Alison who pointed out that this was probably just an over-enthusiastic newbie, and she was bang-on. I managed to actually get in touch with him through a combination of my talk page and his, and through my politely pointing out policies, he appears to have stopped. From this, I have learnt to be more weary of apparent vandals; they could quite easily just be over-enthusiastic newbies, for which a block probably wouldn’t be suitable. Another, more conflict-driven incident happened recently on my talk page – see here. This arose due to my reverting one of the offenders edits. I will admit, the first comment I made was completely rash, and wasn’t based on any knowledge of the situation on my part. It is for this reason that I quickly retracted it. The incident taught me never to comment or get involved until I know all the facts, and exactly what is going on, and this is definitely the mindset with which I will continue. TheIslander 13:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Question from Pedro Hi The Islander. Just for clarification of an "oddity" I'd like to ask the following; On reviewing your contribs I was a bit confused to see that you reverted a bot clearance at WP:AIV twice [1] and [2] when the IP you reported was already blocked a few minutes before [3] - Why did you think the IP was not blocked? Pedro |  Chat  14:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Ah, yes, that was a bit of a misunderstanding on my part, I’m afraid. At the time, I was not aware that anyone could check the block-logs of a user – I thought that was locked-off to admins and above only. For that reason, I did not know that he had only just been blocked. I saw the last block template on his user page, which had expired, and assumed (stupidly) that this was what the bot was refering to mistakenly, yet I knew that the user had just vandalised. For that reason, I wanted to keep the notice up for an actual admin to see, but should have realised that a) I couldn’t out-edit a bot, and b) the bot was probably right. In a nutshell, this user vandalised, was almost immediatley blocked but without a message on his page, and that was almost immediatley followed by my report. I admit my two mistakes there, nameingly not realising that normal users can access block logs, and being foolish enough to try and out-edit a bot. In my defence, I now know that anyone can access those logs, and now never report without checking them first. TheIslander 14:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Question from Haveaquestion

5. If someone were accused of being a sock, even if the 2 usernames never edited in the same articles, would you block them indefinitely? If not, would you unblock someone blocked under the same circumstance (orginally block on the accusation of being a sock even if the 2 never edited the same article?). (FYI, there are a number of scenarios where one could be accused of being a sock such as being from the same small country, etc.)Haveaquestion 20:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Well, to take your question at face value (though I’m not 100% sure that it’s what you meant), I wouldn’t block at all until I’d seen the evidence used to accuse the person of sock puppetry. For them to warrant an indefinite block, a) they’d need to have actually used the sock in a way other than the legitimate use of sock pupets, detailed here, and b) I’d need sufficient evidence to suggest that they are indeed a sock puppet. Such evidence could be: a brand new editor who’s contributions suggest a single-use account (like you); a newbie editor who has instantly grasped concepts such as edit summaries (like you); a newbie editor who immediatley participates in proceedures like AfD or RfA (like you). If all else fails, checkuser reports would provide very useful evidence. If it all fits, then yes, they’d receive a permanent block. To answer the second part of your question, no, I wouldn’t unblock them immediatley. I wouldn’t make a decision against that that another admin has already made – it would undermine the whole administrator system. What I would do, however, assuming I had sufficient evidence to suggest that they weren’t a sock, would be to talk to the blocking admin, and point this evidence out. Between us we’d reach an agreement, and assuming my evidence isn’t false, I’d guess that yes, the user's block would be lifted. TheIslander 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional Questions from --Rocksanddirt 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

6 - How much time do you expect to spend on adminstrative tasks vs. article tasks?
A: Well, at the moment, my time is pretty much evenly spread between article tasks and RC Patrolling. If I were to be given the mop, I should think that my time on articles would decrease very slightly, but my RC Patrolling moreso – the extra time freed up would go towards admin tasks. To give completely rough, arbitory figures, prehaps somewhere in the vacinity of 25% RC, 35% Article, 40% Admin. Thereabouts. TheIslander 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
7 - How much dispute resolution do you work with now and do you expect an increase?
A: Right now I don’t do a huge amount of dispute resolution on Wikipedia (though, for what it’s worth, I try to resolve quite a bit of dispute in real life). What I do come across is mostly disputes about my reverting vandalism, whereby the vandal tries to insist that they’re in the right, or disputes about content, whereby I fall to one side. If I were given the mop, I would certainly expect that to increase, and though I’m sure content disputes where I play an active part would continue, I’d expect a large rise of content disputes where I’m neutral, and attempt to diffuse such situations and encourage a compromise. TheIslander 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TheIslander before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Why not. Good answers, and edit count is solid. Politics rule 13:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I have reviewed many of the more recent user talk page interactions and found that this editor is generally calm and professional in his comments. I consider that to be terribly important. I see not reason not to offer my support. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 14:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Why not?--†Sir James Paul† 14:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Okay your edits are mainly over one and a bit months but I hope you can keep up the thoughput! Your answers to the questions are great, in partiular you answer to my query with a lucid and honest explanation. I see great civility here, and lots of activity within the project side, and your reason for wanting the buttons per Q1 are proved through your contribution history. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  14:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support While I don't agree with some of your edits (such as this) I don't see any problems & you've got good reasons for wanting buttons — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I see no problems that would warrant opposing. Captain panda 15:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Good answers to the questions, and I can agree with being on the sidelines with wikipedia. I'm often on wikipedia but not editing, just reading up on various policies, boards, ect. I'll support ~ Wikihermit 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - I see that opposers have some point there, but I think that doesn't mean that you'll abuse the mop. --Hirohisat Talk 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    I was wondering if you were planning on changing that =P. Didn't want to do so myself and be accused of vote-rigging or anything :) TheIslander 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Seems like an excellent editor. Smokizzy (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support looks okay. Acalamari 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Weak support - could have more experience, however should be ok. Addhoc 17:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I support this RfA. This user has been doing alot of work for Wikiproject BBC and in 1 day assessed between 200 and 300 articles. If this is appltyed to the Speedy Delete backlog, it should not take too long to get rid of it. My point is that this user has proved he can do very very boring tasks without giving up. (The only reason he stopped, is that he had finished going through all the backlog ;) ) This user has been very civil and helpful when I have asked for his assistance. It is obvious from his edits that the tools would be useful espacly for the vandals. Keep up the edit count! :)  Tiddly Tom  17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support I don't see any reason why he shouldn't get the mop from the discussion, and I feel that he answered the questions quite well. T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support No major concerns here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support — I'm confident he wouldn't be an abusive sysop, having interacted with TheIslander off-wiki and seen several of his edits appear in my watchlist. Matthew 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support - Time in grade is an overly beaurocratic oppose reasoning. TheIslander seems to understand that the role of an admin is to help diffuse conflict and fix problems. User has approximately a 0.40 article talk to article page edit ratio. Substantially higher than most recent Rfa candidates. More talk to difuse conflict prior to the DR process. --Rocksanddirt 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support - Timecountitis is even worse than editcountitis. No valid concerns. WaltonOne 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support is a Vandal fighter and is neutral.Harlowraman 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. support No concerns, looks good. Has good experience. Majorly (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Weak Support Don't think you will abuse the tools but more experience would be good. Davewild 08:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support This user has done some excellent work recently for Wikiproject BBC, clearing a huge backlog of unassessed articles. I think The Islander would do a good job with the tools. Boy1jhn 07:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support looks fine, no reason to oppose, sufficient experience. Melsaran (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support, no reason to oppose. ugen64 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, contributions look good and the answers seem good as well. The sudden edit spurt is slightly concerning but not enough to make me want to oppose. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, I agree with T (talk · contribs). Shinealight2007 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  26. Drop my normal WP:CNN support for tallied support. The opposes are ridiculous. TheIslander clearly is cogent and wants to help out as an admin. I see no reason why giving him the sysop bit would be bad for the project. A question to the opposers: How many months, how many edits, how many vandal reverts is enough? Because right now it certainly seems like your counting edits. --Iamunknown 16:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support, no reason not to, other than perhaps the edit explosion, but its not like he hasn't been around for a while. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - at the end of the day, WP will gain more than lose by you being an admin. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - citing a lack of experience but failing to provide any evidence of this lack of experience having caused any problems is not a reasonable justification for opposing the candidate. No reason to oppos, probably not mental, good enough for me. Neil ム 10:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Unlikely to abuse the buttons! --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 12:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support A dedicated vandal-fighter; of which Wikipedia can never have enough.--Hokeman 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose account blocked: troll account reminds me of himler and should not be put forward for adminship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serco dlr (talk • contribs) 20:35, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose I'm sorry, but having an explosion of edits in a single month makes me think you could still use some experience. Edits are important, but so is time, so that you can look back and really see your mistakes. In addition, although your intentions to clear out the backlogs are good, If you go back to only making a couple edits a day (which, given the uncharacteristic amount of edits in the past month or so, makes me think you are going to Wikibonk) you won't be very helpful in clearing out the backlogs. I highly suggest you wait a couple months and work on some other backlog, like WP:MISSING or any of the number of backlogs that don't need a mop to help with, and show that you can and will keep up the amount of activity you've shown. As it stands, it kinda feels like you went on an editing spree so you could get the mop, or Wikipedia just happened to strike your fancy this month, not that you're a reliable editor with a good history who's given us a chance to judge their character very well. There are even more nefarious thoughts that come to mind as to why your edits sprung out of the ground like that, but I will keep them to myself to avoid putting a bias in other people's heads. --lucid 15:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    OK, you're certainly right that most my edits have been within the last month and half or so. However, I have been active for a long time previous - just sort of more watching from the sidelines, rather than jumping in and editing. I don't know if that's a satisfactory answer, but it's the truth. While you can't really learn quite as much watching as you can editing, I still feel that you can learn a lot, and my personal feeling is that the couple of months in which I have been very active have been sufficient to cement my knowledge of the various policies, processes etc. of Wikipedia. Still, thanks for your time and input. TheIslander 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm more concerned about why your edits popped up so suddenly, and that you haven't really had a lot of time to look back on your mistakes and see what you did wrong. I would probably be comfortable with you running again in two or three months --lucid 16:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose You only started editing here consistently since July. You also need more experience outside of vandalfighting. T Rex | talk 16:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Can I ask what experience? TheIslander 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Basically waht Hersfold said, but you should know your policies, and be able to demonstrate that you know them. Things like when should a page be protected?, when semi protected?, for how long? how long should a troll be blocked?, things like that. T Rex | talk 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If I could answer that question, I'd say in other areas that require admin assistance - deletion procedures, backlog clearing, maybe a bit of mediation or assistance with newcomers, etc. I echo the concerns about the edit count explosion, and the fact that just two days ago the candidate didn't know of the existence of the block log. Perhaps in a few months, but not enough experience or knowledge for right now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, as stated above, I did know of the existance of block logs, just didn't know that a normal user could access them. Though I can see that it seems odd, and perhaps shows a lack of experience when it comes to blocking, I can assure you that I'd be too terrified to block anyone before I'd read the procedures and policies through a few times, and knew them inside out. Thanks for your input, though. TheIslander 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, sorry for the misstatement, then. I will still oppose for now, as I believe candidates should be familiar with procedures before applying. If you don't make it this time but apply again, I may support you then. Good luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, thanks for the kind words ;) TheIslander 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose with moral support. I think you need more time on-project - get that, and raise your understanding of the project a touch, and I'll be happy to support at some point in the future. - Philippe | Talk 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, though I'd support in the future. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Need more experience, per above. --- RockMFR 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose now neutral Seems to be an admin who will be heavy handed and use his power to ban any user that he doesn't like. Even by merely asking a question, he accuses me of being a sock 3 times and you can be sure that if he were an admin, he would ban me. Yet he fails to note that I have lost my password (as one can see in my 2nd edit to the help desk). Such trigger happiness shows that he could damage WP by detering editors based on insufficient investigation and based on whim. This is dangerous because we know that many admins stop productive editing and just do administrative work so the productive editing is done by the dedicated, the pre-adminis candidates, and a few admins. His answer also states that he will engage in collusion with a blocking admin and not let the blocked editor participate in the discussion. (In contrast, another RFA doesn't have the same problems as this RFA) Haveaquestion 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    I have responded in part to this on my talk page, and would urge anyone analysing this user's point of view to see my comments there. I will say here that this user seems to have deduced a huge ammount from one point. TheIslander 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Haveaquestion appears to be a single purpose account (12 edits, none to mainspace, most to RfAs). Majorly (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    This is my point entirely - I have laid out the evidence quite clearly on my talk page. TheIslander 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    See [4]. Looks like it might be a legit sock to me. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose, largely because the three examples of evidence of blatant sockpuppetry given in question 5 are not blatant enough to warrant an indefblock - further investigation and discussion with the user, maybe, but not enough to jump straight out and block someone. Also, if the user cannot hold an RfA together without biting one of the question answerers with assumptions of bad faith, I have concerns about the user's temperament. The "like you" statements in the response to Q5 were quite unnecessary. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    "...three examples of evidence of blatant sockpuppetry given in question 5 are not blatant enough to warrant an indefblock". I know - this is why I went on to mention checkuser. I did not assume bad faith - I based my feelings on quite a bit of evidence, which you can see on my talk page. You're quite right, I shouldn't have been quite so snappy, though I personally wouldn't call it biting. Regardless, it has now been resolved. TheIslander 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    From your response to the user and to my comment, I'm now not as concerned that you might misuse the block button. My other concern still stands, however, so I shall abstain. Regards, - Zeibura (Talk) 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. General inexperience concerns, comes through in the answers to the questions (proving they are good for something). Daniel 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per experience concerns & the answers to question 5. Too soon - looks to be a good candidate for future adminship. ELIMINATORJR 00:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    What is wrong with the answer to Q5? —AldeBaer 13:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Vandal fighting is great. But Admin work isn't limited to it. Marlith T/C 02:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose due to lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. I'm not confident. –sebi 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Moral support but as previously stated, you're not experienced enough to be trusted with the tools. I'd welcome you withdrawing from this RfA and running again in a few months. If your editing behaviour continues in its current vein, I'd probably nominate you, never mind support you. --Dweller 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for your kind words ;) TheIslander 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. User's contributions are largely positive, but almost 90% of edits are in the past 2 months, there is little substantive article building and rather limited experience in Wikipedia space, all of which suggest that the editor is insufficiently experienced for adminship at this time. Suggest reapplying in 2–3 months. Espresso Addict 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose but would likely support in the future. This user simply seems to lack the necessary experience. I would like to see more article building and interactions with other users. I am alarmed that there are some things (such as the fact that block logs are visible to all) he has learned only four days ago. --Ginkgo100talk 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Can I ask why it alarms you so much? Using First Aid as an example, as it's one I know well, it's beneficial to have learnt something very recently, as it means you'll know and understand it better. Time helps you forget. More than that, over time you formulate your own way of doing things, and don't bother to check up that they're right. I respect your opinion, but would just like clarification here. TheIslander 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Hesitant" probably would have been a better word choice on my part than "alarmed". The reason I hesitate is because, combined with the fact you have only been active for a month or two, it suggests there could be other important things you have not learned yet. However, I do offer moral support and see no obstacles to your being a great admin other than lack of experience. --Ginkgo100talk 21:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    Fair enough, fair enough. Thank you for your time and input ;) TheIslander 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. All your activity is this month, and you don't seem to have enough experience in admin related areas. Please try again in a few months. Giggy\Talk 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose Sorry, not at the moment. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    To be fair, I will ellaborate. I do not feel you currently have the experience for adminship, but you are certainly doing well, and in a few months, when experience is more evident over a more extended period of time, I would most likely re-consider my opposition. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Reconsidered. I have decided to abstain. I really am torn here. Seems good, but the sudden splurge of edits kind of worries me experience-wise. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Nowhere near the degree of familiarity and long-haul experience that the mop requires. I would also like to see some more experience in maintaining good communication between editors. Try again in a few months --Ben 12:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose the candidate lacks sufficient experience for me to be confident about their reliability in performing adminship duties. VanTucky (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per espresso addict. Wikipediarules2221 01:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose yesterday the candidate deleted part of the article on the UK's First Great Western railway company referring to customer and public criticism of the company saying that it was "horrendously POV". There is in fact extensive criticism of the company, which is one of the most controversial in the UK railway system (as a simple example, on 24 January in the UK Parliament Peter Luff, a Conservative MP, said "I have severe reservations about the management ability of First Great Western...repeatedly, its service...has descended into chaos...the problems include very long delays, the wrong rolling stock and a timetable that does not enable my constituents, for example, to commute...I do not think that the company is up to the job." Mrs Sian James, a Labour MP, said "Unlike its fellow Welsh operators, which are doing exceptionally well, First Great Western is at the bottom of the pile." Mr. Edward Vaizey, a Conservative MP, said "commuters...have received an abominable service...there are many important issues in my constituency; however, this issue has far exceeded any that I have come across...it would be hard for me to exaggerate the enormous chaos"). The candidate has here confused honest reporting of contentiousness with biased content, and should not be given powers to make such mistakes more widely. Deipnosophista 10:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, if we're going to make such accusations, let's do it properly and quote the removed text ;). "The service suffers from a poor reputation amongst many travellers, with issues such as overcrowding and poorp punctuality regularly appearing in the national press. It has been nicknemd by some disgruntled commuters as 'Worst Late Western'." Completely unsourced. OK, maybe not quite as POV as I made out in the comment, but the last comment is completely uncited. I use FGW a lot, and have never heard this term before, ever. The edit, made by an anon. IP, seems to me to have been added by one of these 'disgruntled' commuters. Fair enough, insert pleanty of critisisms etc. in the article, but make sure they have proper citations. As it was, it did seemto have a very point-of-view stance, and it was completely unreferenced. TheIslander 11:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    It is quite correct to say that there was a problem of lack of citation. But lack of citation is not the same as POV error, and does not call for the same action: the correct response would surely be to mark as requiring citation, not to delete. Incidentally, the expression "Worst Late Western" appears, I note, on the photograph, reproduced in the article, of one of the fake tickets used by protestors early this year: that cannot be described as "completely uncited". Deipnosophista 20:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. I'd like to see a longer spell of serious editing to judge long term commitment. SilkTork *** SilkyTalk 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I do not normally believe that 2 months of activity is enough to learn all the ins and outs of the site (particularly administrative areas, which can be delicate and complex). You do your current job quite well, however, and should this request pass I would advise you to take it very slowly at the start. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. neutral The guy said sorry on his talk page. I accept. Saying sorry is a good sign! Haveaquestion 00:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Riana. I'll change my vote next time. Bearian 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral a top prospect at triple-A right now, but not quite ready for the call up to the majors. (oh, and don't trade this guy :)). CitiCat ♫ 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Just give it a couple more months, and I recommend that you get involved in maybe some other admin-like tasks, perhaps voting in some deletion debates? You're a great user though, I appreciate what you do. Cheers- CattleGirl talk 07:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral per Riana. You should get over the line next time if you keep up your great work. Recurring dreams 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral You simply need a bit more experience. The only reason I'm not comfortable supporting this right now is time. Give it another couple of months and you'll breeze through. Neranei (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, User:CattleGirl is pretty spot on here. Spend a bit more time doing some other "admin" duties (AFD, reviewing PRODs or speedy delete candidates for incorrectly nominated articles). You are definitely on the right track.--Isotope23 talk 18:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral as above. Good user, just not quite enough time in yet. --Fire Star 火星 00:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Neutral I'm definitely not opposed to you getting the tools but I'm not willing to support because I'm not sure you're experienced enough. As I said, I'm not sure either way so I'm sitting on the fence. James086Talk | Email 04:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Neutral - Continuing with a week of thoroughly underwhelming RfAs, this seems to follow the trend. Considering you've spent over a year editing Wikipedia, your edit count (inparticular those edits to Wikipedia space) is disappointingly low. Most of your contributions were made in the past month. Was that to prepare for this? ;-) However, I would trust you with the tools. Lradrama 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Neutral - due to experience concerns, as well as others highlighted above. David Fuchs (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
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.