English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

It Is Me Here

(15/22/13); Ended 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC) ; Withdrawn by candidate

It Is Me Here (talk · contribs) - Hello everyone. I have been registered on Wikipedia since October 2006, although I have only really been very active since January of this year, and at time of writing had over 1,250 contributions on w:en: (with over 550 of those being mainspace edits), and over 2,250 contributions globally. Where editing articles is concerned, I will generally fix any grammatical or spelling errors that I find (including italicising names of films and such, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)) but can, on occasion, add or improve existing references or carry out more substantial edits. I also try to replace PNG images with SVG images whenever appropriate, both with diagrams in articles and with images in templates, and flag images up, both on w:en: and on commons:, with {{SVG}} templates wherever appropriate. Although I would be mainly interested, at least to start with, in editing fully protected and MediaWiki namespace templates if I were to become an administrator, I understand that there are certain requirements of all administrator candidates in terms of their participating in certain areas of Wikipedia, and I have tried to take part in at least some of those areas. For instance, I have participated in some WP:AFD debates (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandarin Chinese profanity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish reggae), as well as issuing some CSD-related templates. I also have one DYK thus far, with another one currently open for discussion and may well suggest more in future. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I withdraw my nomination. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Currently, the main reason why I would like to be granted administrator tools would be to be able to freely edit protected and MediaWiki templates. This is because there have been many occasions on which I have had to ask for certain uncontroversial changes to be carried out using either the {{editprotected}} or {{mediawikiedit}} templates on a template's talk page (see, for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and granting me administrator status would enable me to carry out such changes myself, which would both speed up the process of any particular change being carried out and free up existing administrators to deal with other things. The sorts of changes I want done are generally uncontroversial, such as adding additional internal links to a template or replacing a PNG with an SVG - although on that second note, I have been made aware that PNGs are preferable on xmbox templates, and so would leave those alone. As for all other administrative duties, I would certainly take things slowly at first, as all new administrators should; indeed, I would rather first observe some more article deletion processes, banning processes and so on before committing myself to such duties. However, I do not mind moving on to participating in WP:AFD, WP:RFA and so on eventually.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In the article mainspace, I am most proud of the work I have done to the Europa Barbarorum article, an article about "a modification of the computer game Rome: Total War" which looked like this before I had started editing it, and after my most recent contribution (at time of writing) looked like this (note the release history section, for instance). However, most of my contributions are more technical in nature and many are to pages not in the article namespace. For instance, after seeing a {{SVG|flag}} template on Image:Arc en ciel.png, I created an SVG version, uploaded it and integrated it into Wikipedia, a task which also required me to replace all instances of the old image being used on its own with the above template. I also created (or at least put together) the {{Usercheck-full}} template, which can be viewed on my userpage and which is currently being reviewed and improved.
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 cannot recall being involved in any direct conflicts over editing per se, although I have been involved in some debates in the past, such as the AFDs mentioned above (1, 2), and, perhaps more pertinently due to their length, have submitted various proposals and suggestions at WP:VP and other places, some of which have failed to attain consensus (for instance, see [6], [7]), others of which have ended in action being taken (such as 1, 2), and still others which are currently ongoing (these include 1, 2). I cannot say that any of the above situations caused me any undue amount of stress (although seeing my suggestions be rejected or receive no attention is naturally disappointing), but whatever the case, I will always try my best to remain civil and refrain from having any discussion in which I am involved descend into name-calling and so forth, however heated the debate might get.

Question from Barneca

4. "Wanting to edit fully protected articles" raises a red flag with a lot of people; being an admin doesn't mean you get to add content you think is appropriate to a fully protected page; there needs to be consensus on the talk page, per WP:PROT. So it would be in your best interest to explain that in fuller detail. In particular, can you list 2-4 examples of edits you've wanted to make to protected pages that you haven't been able to?
The candidate doesn't say that. They say they want to edit protected templates and system messages. They also give several examples in their answer to question 1. It would help if you read the answers already given instead of asking yet more questions. Majorly talk 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Majorly has a point; I misread the answer to Q1. Nevermind. --barneca (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from John Sloan (talk)

4. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, he's given me permission to ask it on this occasion. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: An interesting scenario. Let me begin by establishing some premises and outlining what I concur happened. First of all, I take it that the section which reads: 'For the purposes of this exercise, you can assume low-to-nil collateral damage from the blocking of this IP ("semi-permanent" dynamic assignment from cable Internet provider),' means that blocking this anonymous user will not affect others and that that should not be a consideration here. Next, I gather that the first event noted here is a the unregistered IP user who is at the centre of all this (whom I will refer to as "IP" from now on) vandalising an article about dental practices or similar ("Dental 1" henceforward), although I will come back to this edit ("Edit 1") later. He is warned by α, repeats Edit 1, is warned by β, uses WP:SAND but then repeats Edit 1 again. He is once again given a warning by β and around that point I surmise that γ, who has no direct dealings with IP throughout, suggests that β become a Rollbacker and IP promptly vandalises γ's message on β's talk page. IP is warned once again by β and then goes and vandalises a message on α's talk page which has been around for a long time and which was not put there directly because of IP and also vandalises a second message about the Rollback feature from γ to β and another Rollback-related message, unrelated to γ's, from ε to β. It is at this point that I block IP for the first time (in an action henceforward referred to as Block 1). Several days after the block is automatically lifted, IP vandalises Dental 2 5 times and posts an apparently constructive edit once, getting two separate warnings from δ, who was previously totally uninvolved in the whole IP affair, in the process. I block IP again for a week and IP launches yet another abusive unblock appeal, only this second time he deletes it and replaces it with an unblock appeal which is more or less reasonable.
Now, assuming that my interpretation of User:Xenocidic/RFAQ which I have outlined above is correct (and the page is hard to follow in places, especially with the various messages on α's and β's talk pages), I would do the following. I would essentially do nothing: i.e. I would leave the one week-long block in place and would indeed ban IP permanently if he were to vandalise Wikipedia again after Block 2 lifted. This is for several reasons. Firstly, IP has shown that he understands what is required of him from others by editing WP:SAND but his subsequent vandalism clearly shows that he is deliberately trying to cause harm to Wikipedia and not just testing something, as he has demonstrated that he knows where he should test things out, which makes the vandalism even worse. Secondly, his final appeal is unconvincing because he has removed an offensive one just minutes before and his latest edit is not a constructive one, as he claims, but another piece of vandalism after said constructive edit and the final appeal contains sloppy grammar which suggests a lack of real caring or committment as far as I'm concerned; IP would have bothered with capitalisation and so on if he really cared about being unblocked. Although it could be argued that Edit 1 is IP trying to say that ceramic fillings are better than gold ones rather than just outright vandalism, and he then realises that the original wording is not appropriate and tries to convey the same message again with his constructive edit, showing that he has learnt something, the fact that he then proceeds to vandalise Dental 2 - after his constructive edit - some more destroys this argument in my opinion. Even his one constructive edit needs a {{fact}} template, I would say (although that is no reason to block him, of course). Thus, due to his persistent vandalism and unconvincing appeal, I would not lift Block 2 and, in fact, fully expect that, given his track record, IP will resume vandalism shortly after Block 2 is lifted and that I would have had to permanently ban him. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from Frank

5. Please discuss a block, a ban, and circumstances under which you'd implement each.
A: OK, fair enough, when I saw that I had gone wrong somewhere in my answer to Question 4, it appeared to me that it was time for some more reading. Thus, I've now read / re-read WP:BLOCK, WP:BAN, WP:IP and m:Bans_and_blocks. I think I've spotted the problem in my answer to Question 4, namely that you're not supposed to indefinitely block IPs (per Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths), but rather are supposed to issue long-term blocks.
In a more general sense, however, blocks are to be issued for vandalism, personal attacks, edit warring and so on (per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_be_used) whereas bans are generally issued as a result of a dispute resolution process or a request for arbitration, as well as for reincarnations of banned users, users who coerce others into doing something on Wikipedia by threatening them with something else and indefinite blocks should also be applied to accounts of contributors who have passed away so that their accounts will not be compromised in future. Block timers should also be reset and possibly sometimes even extended if blocked users try to evade their blocks.
At least, such is my understanding and my approach in principle. In practice, I have no intention at present of getting involved in Wikipedia's banning and blocking procedures (just as in real life not everyone who wants to be an engineer also wants to be a policeman). Even if I was forced to participate in a blocking / banning discussion somehow, as it currently stands I would always ask others for clarification on what should be the appropriate path to take with any given contributor. Nevertheless, I do hope that my answers are correct this time round - if not, please do tell me. It Is Me Here (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/It Is Me Here before commenting.

Discussion

  1. User has stated they wish for this to stay open for the meantime to request more feedback. See here. —CyclonenimT@lk? 16:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed - and just as an update, I'm really just waiting for  Frank  to come back and give his verdict on my answer to Question 5 (to see if I've understood the policy or not); once that happens, pull the plug, unless he asks me to reply, in which case withdraw me after I've replied to him. An evaluation of Q5 is really the last piece of advice I need in order to go away and prepare for RfA #2, I think. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Support
Moral Support The candidate is inexperienced, but I don't see any danger of him knowingly misusing the tools. John Sloan (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Support Should be ok considering main interest in the tools. Caveat-- do not close AFD's until you have had much more experience, preferably involving a tutor, mentor or coach. Don't see the basis of the "lack of interaction" based oppose. Seems to be able to exchange ideas in a civil, calm manner. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    You don't understand why I've opposed based on lack of communication via talk pages? Less than 50 user talk messages in 7 months is a huge concern, it doesn't inspire me with huge confidence that this user will take up disputes to user talk with people who disagree with his actions and it doesn't give me any basis to see how "civil" and "calm" he is in his own 'territory'. I wouldn't define acting in a civil and calm manner as saying the words "please" and "thank you". It doesn't demonstrate significant communicational skills with others.. but this is my opinion. —CyclonenimT@lk? 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Sometimes one should look at quality over merely counting edits. In the same way, one should try to get a feel for a candidate before making a cookie cutter oppose based on an alleged character flaw. Dlohcierekim 21:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    I want to thank you too for your support - again, it seems strange that people really think that someone who has edited the English Wikipedia over 1,200 times is only doing it to eventually go on a giant vandalism spree; and even a good number of the people who say I would make a good administrator and offer no objections other than a low edit count will oppose me. As  Frank  said, I am not sure why an additional 2,000 replaced PNGs will provide any more proof of anything than the current 1,000 or so do, but if there is no convincing some people, then I suppose I shall have to wait. It Is Me Here (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    I think you will do fine-- at a later time. I think you have the intelligence and the commitment and the reasonableness to come out of this RFA a better editor. You don't need to be in a hurry. Review aeas of specific concern brought out in the opposes. Read and understand and discuss all the related policies. Gain experience with all aspects of the tools. Focus on what interests you the most. Become the most knowledgeable and articulate candidate you can become. Then return here a few thousand edits and a few months from now. I'll look forward to it. cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. I find the opposes unconvincing. When it comes to RfA I think it is the character of the candidate that is important rather than the amount of edits they have made to AFD (which is something I find irrelevant). naerii 18:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. I see no reason to believe he would misuse the tools. I'm sure he'd do fine. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. I'm going to take a stand here and support. We have an editor with a steady level of contributions in specific areas s/he is interested in, and I might add that image work is one area (admin or otherwise) that can always use more help. Add to that communication ability displayed on editor's talk page, willingness to interact with others as both the initiator and responder, a DYK (we are mainly about content, after all), willingness to change opinion when appropriate, rather than dig in, no blocks, no evidence of canvassing (user hasn't even placed a talk-page RfA notice), no apparent incidents to explain...what more do we want of an admin? Sure, some will say "2000 more edits of same stuff", but do we really have any reason to expect there would be any difference at that point? The only diff offered in the oppose section was politely discussed and reasonably explained. Other than that, I see no diff that shows improper behavior, lack of knowledge, or any reason to actively oppose; the opposes all seem passive to me. I'm not questioning the opposes, just noting that there's none of the usual "oppose-per-this-edit" we see. In other words, this editor hasn't done any harm but opposers aren't sure there's enough to reasonably say that no harm will be done. Well, I see some good — enough to reasonably believe it would continue in the future. I would also note that there are a good many RfA regulars who are staying away from this one. Come on folks — as has been pointed out before, this isn't rocket science, and we should encourage this type of editor. Note to candidate: having said all this, I don't expect my contribution to change the tide; I would strongly encourage you to continue doing exactly what you've been doing rather than try to satisfy criteria. As you've already found out below, you'll not be able to satisfy everyone anyway. And as others have said below - even opposers - thanks for your contributions so far. I think I speak for many when I say I hope you'll continue.  Frank  |  talk  21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Well, thank you very much! I am glad to see that you see this RfA from my point of view and must admit that I do find the opposes based solely on < 3,000 (or similar) edit count somewhat disappointing. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    I meant every word when I hit the submit button. While I was composing it, however, you went and answered Q4; your answer troubles me a bit. I've now added an additional question.  Frank  |  talk  21:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    I'm aware I've responded to a few too many opposes/supports here and it may seem like I'm trying to someone hurt the candidates feelings, I promise it's nothing personal, I just disagree. "willingness to interact with others as both the initiator and responder" — How has this been shown before the RfA. I do not count RfA replies, nor replies/comments on talk pages during an RfA, to count towards such a view. Yes, we are mainly about content. But areas such as AfD are where we discuss the content and delete if necessary, it's an equally integral part of the encyclopaedia. Considering these tools come as a package, it's essential to know the candidate can manage these situations even if they have no intent of doing so. As for the lack of "oppose-per-this-edit" opposes, I'd say that's just to the overall lack of edits by this candidate. There is nothing to spot, either positive or negative.
    By all means, I encourage the user to go away from this RfA positive with the feedback he/she has recieved, and I fully intend to support in the future assuming the concerns of those in oppose are met. But the lack of edits and lack of communication, in my eyes, is not acceptable for adminship. —CyclonenimT@lk? 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Frank  |  talk  22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hehe, thanks. I've now answered Question 5. To be honest, I mostly used my own judgement when answering Question 4 - I thought that was the point of the exercise - but after you raised Question 5, I gave some Wikipedia policy pages a read-through and so it will be interesting to see whether I have fared any better this time round. However, if you're going to provide feedback on my answer to Question 5, please make it quick, as I'm going to have to withdraw this RfA pretty soon - the Oppose counter is now dangerously close to 25. It Is Me Here (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    While I'm not expressing any opinion on keeping this RfA open, you are neither required to continue nor required to close early. It's your choice. I don't see this discussion as being uncivil, and while there are some editors who might oppose at a later date on the basis of keeping this open, I don't think it's a problem to obtain feedback. I can't speak for how many might oppose on that basis, but again - you can't please everybody. Regarding your answer, Q5 is better than Q4 by a country mile. The combination of the two shows that you are focused on doing what you like to do, which is good, that you can find answers to things you haven't done (and don't plan to at present), which is also good, and that you would seek input where appropriate, which is plusgood. The standard recommendation is to read the administrators' reading list. That is, if you ever intend to go through this wringer again. ;-)  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    OK, thanks. That's a good read, by the way (and no, I don't mean WP:ARL!). Anyway, I'm glad I've made some progress with my answer to Question 5: maybe RfAs do have some logic to them, after all. Still, it is pleasing to see that my RfA summary table is a slightly lighter shade of red than it was before, and although my support is steadily climbing higher now and it would have been nice to have reached the dizzying heights of an RfA table cell with yellow fill, I think I should call it a day for now. I think I've got all the feedback and advice I need and hope to see you all again in a couple of months, with more edits under my belt and a greater exposure to administrative tasks, ready to run the gauntlet once more! For now, though, I withdraw my RfA. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Moral support due to no personally negative interactions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support because of his work and also because of the civilized, calm way in which he discussed Kurt's usual oppose vote with him. This, in my opinion, shows true 'admin material'.    SIS  22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. Perfectly fine admin candidates dismissed due to relative details... one of the most annoying things I see on Wikipedia. You know, I'm sure if you spent a few hours poring over my past record of admin actions, the verdict would be to, oh, have me excommunicated or something, judging by some of the fiery oppose comments on this RfA... it's so silly. ugen64 (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Meets my standards, appears experienced and trustworthy. Interesting how much RfA has changed since 2003, when this kind of request was commonplace, and easily passed as successful... Valtoras (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support. Plus: good manners, good communication ability, a DYK and administrative interest in specific areas. Minus: less then the currently expected standard of experience. jmcw (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support, I see no evidence that this user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC).
  11. Support. The candidate has clearly shown the areas where he intends to use administrator privileges. He acknowledges that his admin activity should remain away from unfamiliar areas. I have no problem with this. Axl (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Weak, but real (not moral) support. Most of what I see, I like, there's just... not that much of it. Certainly been around long enough that you aren't some sleeper cell agent waiting to vandalize the main page; that's a silly concern anyway, and reasonable people aren't worried about it (this kind of bad admin is easy to get rid of). Policy knowledge is a little lacking, but as you showed by your answer to Q5, you can read policy pages, and learn what you need. Indications are that (Kurt's fears aside) you aren't going to be a drama seeker. Civil and thoughtful, yes, I just wish there were more examples. Think of it this way: if you had only 1 month and 300 edits worth of good work, you would understand it if everyone opposed you. Everyone has their own cutoff for how much information they need to them to make a decision (sometimes crudely measured by edit count, but not everyone who's opposing is just looking at that). You've basically found my limit; I doubt I would support anyone with less experience. Others have different limits. That's why it really isn't crazy to say "keep doing what you've been doing"; many people just need a little more to go on here. --barneca (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Automatic support. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - I can find no good reason to oppose. This is a courteous and cordial editor who is interested in the project and who I believe would refrain from making dodgy administrative decisions. Shereth 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support I've been thinking on this for a bit, but I've decided that I support your nomination. You are polite and engaged in a particular area of the project. Further, I've noticed in your responses that not only are you intelligent, but you pursue sound and civil discussion with other editors--in a non-confrontational manner. This character demonstrates to me that you would be an admin who actively pursues consensus. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Regretfully, I'm going to oppose. You have less AfD contributions than I thought and I'm now struggling to find much administrative related activity altogether. One of the few AfD's you have proposed was also kept, when you nominated for delete, which can be found here ([8])As I said in the neutral vote, your lack of human interaction via talk pages worries me a little. Combining all these factors makes me a little weary to know whether you'll use the tools correctly, and whether you genuinely have the need. Happy editing! —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but let me reiterate both to you and to all those who are considering opposing my RfA on similar grounds that I am mainly interested in being able to edit protected and MediaWiki templates on my own (and basically, to stop bothering current administrators!) and that I would take it very slow when it comes to everything else. If I were to be made an administrator, you should certainly not expect to see me deleting articles and blocking users the following day. The access to protected templates is what I am after right now and is, I believe, a pragmatic solution to my constantly having to pester administrators to carry out edits (which I currently have to do on a regular basis); as for exercising my power to delete articles and so forth, I would certainly start off by observing more examples with established administrators, and then start participating in discussions, before making any big decisions (e.g. deleting an article listed at WP:AFD myself). As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish reggae, as I said on the discussion page itself, the article did look like a candidate at least or WP:AFD, if not WP:CSD, at the time that I nominated it, and I did change my mind after more content and references had been added to it. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Administrating Wikipedia is very much a team activity, though. You can say you wish to edit on your own but at some point you will end up having to socialise with other users who are unhappy with your decisions, or administrators who perhaps ask your advice on a situation. I need to know you have the sufficient ability to do so and with your lack of all-round experience, this is not possible. I'd encourage you to participate in more admin-related areas such as AfD, CSD, AIV etc. and then come back in a few months. —CyclonenimT@lk? 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak Oppose I don't have enough to judge how the candidate would deal with admin related tasks. 1226 edits is not usually enough to judge a candidate, and in this case it is especially true. Most of the edits relate to non-controversial changes from png to svg; which is great - but it doesn't tell me anything about the candidate I want to know. Jon513 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. oppose here is another case where an argument could be made to give out the ability to edit protected spaces piecemeal, but as we can't do that, I have to oppose based upon lack of experience.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Per lack of experience. Needs to get more activity going, but you are certainly are a promising candidate. --Meldshal42? 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose with moral/come-back-later support. It's good to be able to say I've reviewed all of your CSD taggings that resulted in deletion, but that's largely because there's only twelve of them, including this (admins only), which is not G1. Notwithstanding that deletion isn't your immediate field of administrative interest and regardless of how tentatively you would approach it, I really cannot support making the delete button available to a candidate that has only eleven edits to the Articles for Deletion space. No prejudice against supporting you when you've got more experience. WilliamH (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Jon513. I'm sorry, but you just don't have enough experience. Users generally wait until they have three or four thousand edits to run for adminship. Wait several months and keep doing what you're doing, and I would probably support you. I suggest withdrawing. Thanks, LittleMountain5 review! 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per lack of experience.--LAAFan 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Lack of experience, not much work in admin areas, fails my standards. Come back later. That's all.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    I've moved the discussion to the talk page. —CyclonenimT@lk? 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Lack of experience in admin areas and edit count is very low. Come back in a few months with more experience and i'll support. Sorry. America69 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, little bit too soon. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, as per reasons already expressed above. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per NOTNOW. --Winger84 (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per above statements --Antonio Lopez (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. Very few edits to admin-related areas, even in templates, where the user wishes to use admin tools, contributions are very minor, and only one edit-request to a MediaWiki talk page. There's really not enough to go on here. Mr.Z-man 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - For me, this user isn't experienced enough yet, but solid progress is being made. Keep at it, and try again in a few months. Take not of what other's have said in their opposes, and use it to improve. Lradrama 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per question 4, in particular, "I would not lift Block 2 and, in fact, fully expect that, given his track record, IP will resume vandalism shortly after Block 2 is lifted and that I would have had to permanently ban him". IPs are rarely ever banned except in certain instances of constant abuse (static IPs of highly problematic vandals or sockpuppeteers, for example). Furthermore a ban is only de facto when no admin will unblock, or when it is discussed at a consensus-driven venue such as WP:AE or WP:AN. This (as well as general concerns about experience) does not give me confidence that the candidate understands admin-related policies. The candidate has done some excellent work, and I will no doubt support in the future, but not right now. Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - Per the lack of experience in admin-related areas. Wait a little more and you'll be more experienced. Greetings, macy (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Because the answer to Q4 shows he doesn't have enough experience to know what he's doing, and per leaving this open.--KojiDude (C) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strong Oppose Per unforgiving answer to Q4, lack of knowledge of the difference between a block and a ban, violating policy in suggesting and indef block of an IP, strong lack of experience in admin areas ie 14 WT edits and <250 WP edits, as well as extremely un-adminly response to Kurt's oppose. I am extremely wary of anyone who wants the tools for the specific purpose of editing fully protected pages/templates. It reeks of self-service rather than the community service that the tools are supposed to be about. Also has a paucity of user talk edits (50) that do not demonstrate the ability to communicate with other editors that is vital to an admin. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose based on the above. Wizardman 02:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. Sorry, you don't meet my criteria. — Realist2 04:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    Which are? naerii 10:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    User:Realist2/RfA Criteria. Majorly talk 12:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    I almost wish I hadn't asked. naerii 13:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    I'd suggest taking discussion about Realist's RfA criteria to the list's talk page. I'm only saying that because that's what I just did. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    Lol, I don't think they are THAT stringent, still I don't oppose self nom's. You gotta give me something. ;-) — Realist2 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
I'm not sure yet. You seem to have provided a genuine reason for needing some tools, such as the ability to edit freely protected templates. That said, the tools do come as a package and I've seen little activity in places such as WP:RFPP or WP:AIV. You have made some contributions to WP:AfD but I haven't had time to review them yet. I'm also worried about your lack of human interaction on talk pages. I've seen less than 50 contributions in total to the user talk namespace and that's worrying for me. Essentially, I'm going to review your answers to questions, review your AfD and some other contributions and then I'll make up my mind. Switched to Oppose —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral with Moral Support Not yet, come back in a few months. While I don't doubt your intentions, you simply don't have enough contributions to this wiki for me to confidently support you. PerfectProposal 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support The candidate is inexperienced, but I don't see any danger of him knowingly misusing the tools. Moving here from support. John Sloan (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Not going to pile on. It would be great if the tools could be unbundled, and I trust what the candidate says in question 1, but, unfortunately, as an administrator, you will actually be turned to for potentially controversial actions, and you will end up doing other administrative tasks. That's just how it is. As of right now, there is nothing in the edits that can help me judge your abilities. So per Balloonman. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral For now, as you need some more experience before I can support. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. To begin, thanks for trying to gain the tools to help the website, rather than for the sake of it - but you're not experienced enough, in my view, to operate them at the present time. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Right-o. Thanks for the feedback, guys. Apart from just increasing my edit count (which will doubtless come from replacing more PNGs with SVGs to a large extent), where specifically do I need to work and for how long (or how many edits do I have to make there)? So far, I've got:
    What else do I need to do (so I can get all necessary hoop-jumping done before RfA #2)? It Is Me Here (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Don't be concerned with your edit count too much. That will just be a nominal and superficial first glance by other users. It all depends on which area you want to work - what interests you the most. You don't have to shotgun everything. Just pick an area where you feel you can contribute and ultimately be an asset were you to be given the tools. The ones you've mentioned are good areas to start with, particularly WP:AFD. Careful with CSD though, as it's tricky sometimes. You need to be accurate there, I recommend going slow if you wish to participate. Also, hang around RFA abit and see what the community comes to expect of certain candidates. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Don't change your editing habits in order to pass RfA. Jumping through arbitrary hoops isn't worth it. Just do whatever you find enjoyable, at an activity level you find reasonable, and don't get hung up on getting the approval of RfA regulars. naerii 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed. I agree with the above. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so do whatever you like to do. If you don't like AFD, don't run around trying to do a bunch of them. Don't tag CSDs if you don't like that, either. Find the part of Wikipedia you like and work there. If you're continually working on stuff you find boring or tedious, you'll eventually burn out. Since we're all volunteers, find what you like and do that. Useight (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral Attitude is fine, but too little experience as yet. --Rodhullandemu 19:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Your interest in helping the project deserves commendation, but the timing on the request is a bit premature. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. An excellent contributor, so I don't want to pile on, but slightly inexperienced as of yet. Useight (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral wishing to support. From what I can see, you are a very intelligent user with the correct attitude desired in admins. The only problem with me supporting this RfA is that you do not have the correct amount of experience in what are referred to as "adminly areas." My suggestion would be to read WP:ARL and get a little experience here and there in the areas listed on that page (but don't spend too much time on tasks you do not find enjoyable). Please consider re-applying for adminship once you have more experience. Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral towards Oppose... it is obvious by the badgering of Kurt that this user is not around RfAs, AN, AN/I, or RfCs much. Those things are pretty important re: the everyday workings of Wiki. I always cringe when I see someone who has never encountered a Kurt vote get indignant. Qb | your 2 cents 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Neutral, Moral Support Once you're around 4,000 to 5,000 edits, I'll gladly support. You have great potential. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Neutral. - Per Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Neutral w/ Moral Support User shows understanding of policy with a willingness to learn what he doesn't know. I can't get over the fact that he doesn't have enough experience yet, so I'm going to nuetral. I would support in another 2500 edits or so. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 14:35, 19 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Requests_for_adminship/It_Is_Me_Here&oldid=5132442"