English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Requests for adminship/Smashville

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

Smashville

FINAL (71/14/5); closed 19:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC) by EVula

Smashville (talk · contribs) - Hello all. I began editing on July 16, 2007. I've explored many parts of Wikipedia in that time and have made over 4,500 edits. In December last year I was introduced to Twinkle and have been using it since then. I feel that I have been a constructive editor and that Twinkle allowed me to be more constructive in a more efficient manner. I have spent the last year learning policies and participating in AfDs and DRVs, participating on the Thoroughbred Racing wikiproject, lightly participating on the Hockey wikiproject (as far as my knowledge will allow), and copyediting articles on my watchlist. I feel that the admin tools will make me a more effective editor and allow me to contribute more to Wikipedia.

Thanks for your time! SmashvilleBONK! 16:32, 27 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: Almost by habit do I type WP:DRV or WP:AFD in when I log on. Therefore, I plan on spending a large portion of time helping with the deletion backlogs. I also intend to patrol WP:AIV and WP:UAA as I notice that they sometimes get severely backlogged. I have also made contributions to discussions at WP:ANI and would take a more active part in that. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions have been in the Thoroughbred Wikiproject largely due to my knowledge of the sport and the fact that I know where to look to find sources. The two articles that I am proudest of are English Channel and A P Valentine. An example of my ability to find sources, A P Valentine was nominated for AfD, but I completely rewrote it while adding 18 references. English Channel was admittedly one of my favorite racehorses - I wrote the article last fall...and he won the Breeders' Cup Turf shortly thereafter. I liked the fact that if someone was watching on TV, they could look him up and find out about him. While I recognize that it has nothing to do with my ability with an editor and everything to do with lucky timing, I did find it kind of cool. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:31, 27 August 2008 (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: It's been a while since I've been in a real stressful situation on Wikipedia. I do look back at some of my edits from around when I started and I cringe because I sometimes pulled the newbie act of acting like I knew everything when I didn't. Probably the most stressful editing conflict I have been involved in has been at Curlin. At the end of last November, someone tried to whitewash referenced information about a lawsuit from the page. He even posted "links" to his argument that directly refuted his argument. It was frustrating because the person would not back down from their stance despite the fact that their stance was not factual. It took a month of consistently reverting from the peacocky, untruthful edits and two page protections to finally get him to give up. Honestly, if it happened again, I don't really know that I could approach it differently. Even if I am granted admin tools, I wouldn't be able to use them as an involved editor. I guess I would just continue to fight the fight and not let the vandals get to me. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: I believe verifiability pretty much always trumps consensus, especially when it comes to BLP articles. I recognize that some users believe consensus trumps everything, but consensus is not free reign to misrepresent verified facts in an article. On the other hand, if an edit is verifiable, but consensus has been made to leave out the topic of the edit altogether, then this would be a situation where consensus is king. No facts are being misrepresented, the editors merely feel that in the scheme of the article, the edit that is being presented is unnecessary or - in some cases - seems to violate a NPOV. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
5. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: While I definitely wouldn't deem it a success at this point since it hasn't reached a conclusion, I stumbled across a user last week at WQA who had made a complaint about an administrator making a "personal attack" against her (The admin had merely opposed her AfD). After I responded to her WQA...I went back and looked a couple of days later and noticed that she had only been editing here for about a month. Today I sent her a note saying that I would be happy to mentor her. I haven't heard from her yet, but it was a genuine offer. I've noticed that a lot of the "new users" that I run across tend to be SPAs and vandals who don't really care about policies and such, but I always try to remain civil and keep a cool head...if I get frustrated, I just move off of the page and go do something else. A new user is probably going to be most receptive to a person who offers them help from the get-go. While I have spent most of my time so far focusing on my own growth, I would most assuredly help a user who came to me. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: I don't really have a set routine when I get on WP other than going to AfD and DRV, so I would definitely continue with those while adding the admin side to it. As I mentioned earlier, while I haven't been too incredibly with vandalism patrolling, I would take up checking the UAA and AIV backlogs - as my experience with them has been that it sometimes takes quite a while for them to clear and they seem to need assistance. I would continue to work on the Thoroughbred Racing Wikiproject and hopefully become more active in the hockey one. Actually, the last two I intend to do regardless of the outcome of the AfD, I would just be more efficient with the admin tools (especially in the TB wikiproject where many of the participants tend to do cut and paste page moves/redirects). I would also be open to taking on duties that are undermanned/backlogged. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Questions from Apoc2400

7. Looking through your edits at random, I see mostly reverts and discussion. While this shows that you need the tools, many (including me) are reluctant to approve admins who may be too far disconnected from the ordinary editor. What experience do you have in writing and improving articles?
A: Most recently I ran across a group of racetracks that had redlinks attached to them, so I created stubs for them. I have written entire articles (English Channel which I always use as my prime example because I think it's my best), I have completely rewritten articles from scratch (A P Valentine) and I have started several stubs. I've also tried to repair tone issues to a lot of the thoroughbred articles. I also have a degree in journalism, so writing is actually my strong suit. I'm a very strong believer in NPOV (probably the journalist in me) so I try to fix sentences with tone issues when I come across them. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Many of your discussion edits seem a bit confrontational, though you also seem to be right often. Can you handle new users who disagree with you without biting?
A: I definitely agree that I seem to have a troll/sockpuppet magnet. And I will openly admit that I have been guilty of biting the newbies from time to time. Starting on Wikipedia is kind of a raw deal. Virtually no one knows our policies when they register. In fact, often times knowledge of policies is used as evidence of a new user being a sockpuppet. But if a new user violates a policy, they get templated...and not always with a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template either. I - and everyone else - should take that in mind when I deal with a new user. They are new. So yes, I can definitely help those that disagree without being bitey. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

9. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. 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. Honestly, I would be quite tempted to unblock but keep a very close eye on the editor. One of our foundations is to assume good faith. The editor is telling the admins he will behave and wishes to contribute to the encyclopedia. I have read numerous times that blocks are not supposed to be punitive. If a user wishes to contribute and we are to uphold the assumption of good faith that we stand by, in my opinion, the user should be unblocked...albeit on a very short leash. Of course, it would probably be in everyone's best interests to get some outside opinions from other admins before performing the unblock, but I would definitely lean towards an unblock. Many users have a very, very rough beginning before they realize that you can't really put "anything" on Wikipedia. Some vandals just go away...some recognize the quality of the encyclopedia and want to contribute. I say if he tells us he wants to be a positive contributor, we should give him a chance...but again on a short leash. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
10. This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it :D! Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?
A. I would always be open to recall. It's the whole "with great power comes great responsibility". Regardless of what Kurt's impending vote is going to say, I do not want to be an admin to wield my mighty admin sword around and make others tremble beneath me. I want to improve the project and I believe that I should be accountable for my actions. If approved, I will add myself to to the administrators open to recall due to that belief. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
11. What is your opinion of WP:IAR?
A. It didn't work when I tried to use it in court :) But seriously...it's a good policy when used correctly. Sometimes common sense trumps guidelines. There were some college football coaches nominated to AfD a while back. They were African-American head coaches who coached college football in Texas in the 1930's. The only reliable sources that could be found merely confirmed that they were the coaches. The logical response to this is to ignore all rules. The United States was highly segregated in the 1930s, especially the Southern United States. Trying to find an article on the Internet about an African-American football coach in the South in the 1930's coaching an HBC is counterintuitive. In this case, the right response was to ignore our requirement for nontrivial mentions in reliable sources because the climate of the time this person was alive prevented that. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from George The Dragon (talk)

12. Your first edits suggest you had a very good grasp of Wikipedia. Did you contribute before creating your account?
A. I did occasionally. I know I made some edits to a few hockey pages under an IP address. I'd be hard pressed to actually remember what they were. Actually, I'm one of those people that will lurk on a message board for a while before posting or - in this case - watch and read before beginning to contribute because I don't want to do things the wrong way. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
13. What are your views on "external criticism sites"?
A. They are sort of like Wikipedia's fourth estate. While their primary purpose is to dig up dirt and post wrongdoings and so forth, it sort of keeps us in check because we know we are being watched. I don't agree with many of the actions that some of these sites have taken, but I do believe that their existence is actually beneficial because they keep us in check. Do something stupid and you know there will be a 35 page thread on Wikipedia Review about it. --SmashvilleBONK! 05:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from RyanLupin (talk)

14. In what situation would you administer a cool-down block. This question is entirely optional.
A. I don't foresee myself actually administering any cool down blocks, primarily sinceWP:CDB says blocks shouldn't be done solely to cool off a user...because in most cases, it would only make the angry/heated person angrier/more heated. Blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but obviously if a person is already heated, they are most likely going to view it that way. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

    The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

    It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

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

Discussion

Damned if you do damned if you don't... that is indicate you are open to recall. Talk about a poisoned pill of a question. Anybody who bases their !vote on this question alone is doing a disservice to the community. Don't let your biases for a failed experiment deter you from evaluating the individual merits/weaknesses of a candidate.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Weak support for now since I haven't had chance to review your AfD's all that substantially, but otherwise I don't see many problems here. Strong support per this statement: "Regardless of what Kurt's impending vote is going to say, I do not want to be an admin to wield my mighty admin sword around and make others tremble beneath me. I want to improve the project and I believe that I should be accountable for my actions." —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Same here, count me in as long as nothing out-of-the-ordinary comes up. user:Everyme 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    This RfA is off to a great start with those first seven opposes. I'm thus supporting unless and until someone brings up a true concern, not just more unrelated bickering. user:Everyme 06:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support, excellent participation in AfD from all the ones I've seen - I was particularly impressed with your numerous intelligent contributions to that AfD-from-hell, Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) - From that one and several other discussions, it's clear that you don't have a problem with picking up on others' weak arguments, and you always seem to do it in a civil manner. I also saw good contributions to WP:AIV and WP:DRV. Overall you look like a smart user who could make good use of admin tools and knows what to do with them. ~ mazca t | c 18:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - I don't notice anything alarming. Defaulting to Support per Cyclo. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. naerii 19:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Default to support - Pending answers to my questions. You have my backing. :)  Asenine  19:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. I don't see why not. Malinaccier (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support - defaulted really. Nothing of utmost importance jumping out. Good article work, XfD experience, conflict experience. All good. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support: good understanding of policies and guidelines, experience in both content-building and admin venues, seems ready to take up the admin tools. — Athaenara ✉ 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Looks fine by me. I've got no idea what Ironholds is on about, it looks like Smashville was handling matters correctly. GlassCobra 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Support. My support somewhat waivers because you're not all that communicative (your last 500 User Talk edits go back to 2007, as does your talk page, for example). Also, you haven't been all that active in recent months, usually clocking in at about 100 edits per month. However, you have been around a long time, have gained experience, and seem to have a good handle on policies. Good enough for my support. P.S. - Your username reminds me of EarthBound (series). Interestingly enough, this is not the first RFA to remind me of a video game, see my optional question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zedla. Useight (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. I look, I like, I support. RMHED (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Weak support, I like the mainspace building, but I'd like to see more use of edit summaries. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  14. Hello, I'm here for the Dolly Parton look-alike contest -- "Workin' 9 to 5, what a way to..." oh, wrong queue. But while I am here with a Nashville-based candidate who does great work on Wikipedia: Support! (Anyone want to hear me sing "Coat of Many Colors?"). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Looking through the last couple of months of your edits I see,
    The things you nominated for deletion are now redlinks, which I take as good calls
    What you splat as vandalism looks like vandalism to me.
    Good use of different templates
    And whilst I know nothing about horseracing I'm glad to see you are building this Encyclopaedia not just defending it. WereSpielChequers(talk) 23:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - Per questions and review of contributions. No problems found, and edits (and, *cough*, non-edits) on this page already show admin-like qualities.  Frank  |  talk  23:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - trustworthy editor. In the removal of links disagreement noted by the opposers, he handled the situation courteously, and I think his actions were in the best interests of the encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - I've never, to my knowledge, met Smashville, nor have I extensively gone through his contribs (but what I did see looked great; keep up the good work, no matter how this RfA turns out), but the biggest reason I'm support is his answer to Q2: "I liked the fact that if someone was watching on TV, they could look him up and find out about him. While I recognize that it has nothing to do with my ability with an editor and everything to do with lucky timing, I did find it kind of cool." This, to me, epitomizes why we're all here: to help provide free, decent, information to anyone who needs it. I think too many people forget that, and Smashville obviously hasn't. Good luck! Leonard(Bloom) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  19. To counter the baseless opposition. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  20. Last RfA !vote for a very long time support - This will be my last !vote in a RfA for at least a couple of months. I'm delighted it can be for you Smashville! You will certainly make a fine sysop, of that, I have no doubts :-) John Sloan (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support to counteract the lame opposes for thing such as edit summary usage. More experience on AIV is encouraged, though. Sceptre (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support Nothing makes me believe that this candidate will abuse the tools. I was somewhat troubled by the material in the 2nd oppose at first (the findingDulcinea exlink issue), but on a second look, context proved mitigating. I hope we won't let a good-faith editor, an editor with a desire to use the tools to improve the project, get rejected at RfA over unrelated political issues like AOR. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of a need for the tools. --Coffee // talk // ark // 02:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - understands IAR --T-rex 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support. Reliable and well-established editor. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Have no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Also, really like the question answers. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support, per Editorofthewiki. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support, per answer to Q10. nancy (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support per sound logic George The Dragon (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Per good answers to the questions (especially Q9 and 10), good track record of contributions and overall no uncivility in sight. Reasons in the opposes are not very convincing, I rather have a good admin with 100 edits a month than a bad one with 1000 and I never understood Realist2's reasoning that in order to be an admin you should be an article writer...honestly, I thought to honor article writers, we have barnstars not adminship... Winger84 has a small point but 92/98% edit summary usage is rather good compared to some of the current admins. And I think the candidate will not do so as admin, if you look at his edit count you will realize that the lack of summaries stems from his first months at the project. SoWhy 11:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Good answers to the questions-- they convince me that the candidate is not likely to abuse the tools and will work well with others, seeking discourse and understanding to handle disagreements. (This is sufficient to offset oppose issues raised below.) Further, I view self nomination to indicate the boldness and self confidence needed to be an admin when the candidate's self appraisal of readiness is accurate, as it appears in this instance. On reviewing the discussion up to the present moment, the support arguments seem more convincing to me, while the oppose arguments are not sufficiently compelling. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support I'm happy to support —— RyanLupin • (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  33. Weak Support While I am a little concerned about the mainspace edits, it isn't severe enough for me to oppose.--LAAFan 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support Seems to have a good grasp of the WP world. I would recommend you turn on the Edit summary checker in your preferences. Cheers GtstrickyTalk or C 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Actually just did it this morning. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  35. Aye. Seen this user about, always been impressed, don't see any red flags. Opposes don't convince me. Black Kite 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support, any editor who would improve Wikipedia as an admin should be one, and I can find no indication that Smashville would not do so. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  37. –xeno (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  38. Seems alright. — CharlotteWebb 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  39. Of course. Acalamari 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support – while I'd like to see a bit more activity, I think that your activity is enough (albeit possibly just barely enough) to answer the question as to whether you are a trustworthy user who will, with an adequate knowledge of policy, will strive to better Wikipedia. For me the answer to that question is yes. I applaud your work in WP:AIV and WP:AFD; being an administrator will mean that many newer editors will look up to you for guidance, and I hope you can use your experience garnered from those projects to set a great example. Good luck.--danielfolsom 04:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  41. John Sidney McCain III (born August 29, 1936) is the senior United States Senator from Arizona and presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2008 presidential election. --harej 08:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    Consider this me badgering your support vote! ~ mazca t | c 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    You, sir, are too inexperienced to badger my vote. In the meantime, I feel this RFA has a high likelihood of succeeding, as the support is strong. Perceptions of the RFA failing are all in your head. It will succeed, even if it takes 100 years! --harej 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support. Candidate has been sensible from what I've seen. The opposition mentions that mainspace work is on the low side, but while more efforts in the mainspace certainly cannot hurt, the work with A P Valentine is enough to convince me that the candidate knows what encyclopedia writing is about, and will have the sufficient empathy with the article writers to be an effective administrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  43. To nullify Skinwalker. Hiding T 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support per all the answers to the questions. Good luck. Best, --Cameron* 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - per nom. ThrilMANILAla 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support No reason for alarm. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support per Cyclonenim and article work. To those of you who are believe his edit count should be higher, please consider that A) he has created decent articles, and a single article creation may deserve more weight than a single ordinary edit; and B) if he weren't intending to increase his edit count, he wouldn't be on RfA! Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support I think Smashville is trustworthy and should be given the tools. The opposes based on recall are WP:POINTy and have nothing to do with the candidate. As for edit summaries, it's hardly the be all and end all. Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support - you look like a genuine editor who knows the ropes, you seem civil enough and I trust you to perform admin actions well. I will be very interested to see your answer JC37's first four questions, so take your time and answer them well, I'm sure you will. From an editorial point, however, I'd really like to see you use edit summaries all the time, and, when adding references and citations to articles, such as Mike Hamilton, use {{cite web}} etc. templates. Otherwise you get messy, raw refs and a bot comes along and adds a title, which still isn't enough really. But from an admin point of view, I trust you. - Toon05 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support per Cyclonenim. I'm not big on fretting over mainspace, I don't do much there myself, so I don't see any outstanding problems.--KojiDude (C) 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support Could have a bit more experience in the mainspace, but but at this time, I see nothing that would lead me to believe that Smashville will not be a valued administrator. Okiefromokla questions? 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support, I see no reason to believe that Smashville would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC).
  53. Support. Why not? —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 05:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. Not a lot of mainspace work. However Smashville generally provides sensible contributions and he has good answers. Axl (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  55. Despite the lack of strong content contributions, Smashville seems quite cognizant of our norms and able to hit the ground running in unfamiliar situations. east718 // talk // email // 12:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support "The Edit Count is as a road, you must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you" [1] comes to mind here. So regardless of arbitrary statistics like their main-space edit count, I feel this user has the integrity and trust required to be an administrator. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support no deal-breakers arising in oppose comments. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support: Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - You seem to have the right experience and attitude for an admin to me, and your edits suggest a lot of productive main space and Wikipedia space work. I personally think your answer to question 10 was good, but RfA should not be referendum over recall in any case. Your edit count/activity levels do not concern me either, even if you don't use the admin tools lots every day, there is still a clear benefit in giving you the mop. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support I think the ED AfD did it for me. It's a good sign when someone can wade through the emotion over the subject matter, and actually look at sources, guidelines, etc. I also liked their answer to Q.13. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  61. Strong support - per the statement given in #10. Macy 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support all self-noms, because anybody who wants adminship should automatically have it. Adminship is "no big deal", right? KleenupKrew (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support : Altough I feel you are 'relatively' inexperienced per my expectations, I see there is no alarming concerns from you. WTHN ?? . Adminship is just a natural progression for hardworking and trustworthy Wikipedians. I see you have taken care of edit summaries, kindly concentrate more on your contributions to Mainspace. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support Positive contributor. Being open to recall is evidence of trustworthiness. Deli nk (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support, meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  66. Seems solid. Good luck. —LordSunday Scribe 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support: A great contributor, would make an excellent janitor. seicer | talk | contribs 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  68. Weak Support there are areas where you are lacking, but not enough to warrant an oppose. The opposes below are so weak that I'm actually voting (in part) for one of the lamest reasons of all, to counter the garbage below! I don't think I've ever voted that way... but I see enough good and fail to see the rationale below that I have to support (albeit weakly.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support – had to think a bit about this as limited experience, but good answers and appears well able to present careful reasons for actions. Should be able to make good use of the tools in areas with backlogs. . . dave souza, talk 08:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support the opposes do not concern me. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support. This is a good candidate, and I too am impressed with both the questions and the candidate's statements here. You had me at hello, so to speak. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm sure your a nice person, just not what I'm looking for criteria wise. Try to get some strong article building under you belt. Best. — Realist2 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose this makes me sit up and take notice. Very low number of edits relative to time here; 96 this month makes it difficult for me to judge your (recent) temprament/quality of edits/so on. You say you want to patrol AIV, but 22 submissions in 1 year doesn't make me confident you have enough experience to patrol it effectively. Ironholds 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    If you read the discussion, you will see that the user chided me for removing spam links which were inserted into articles as references by an employee of the company the links were for and that other users backed up my actions. I still believe I was correct in doing so, but I had also nominated a company executive and the company itself for AfD and recognized that this may have seemed like I had an agenda, so I didn't push the issue. If you look, other users went back and reverted where my edits had been reverted and the two spam articles were deleted. As for AIV, I believe that patrolling it for vandals reported by other editors and finding vandals myself who have pushed past a final warning are two entirely different things. Finally, for my edits this month and last: Quite simply, I moved. My wireless router from my old apartment won't work in my new one, so I haven't been doing much with the computer since I'm not big on sitting on the floor with a computer in my lap in the one place the ethernet cable will reach for long periods of time. I fixed that problem yesterday with a new router. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Smashville here. Reviewing the discussion and the arguments put forward by DreamGuy (talk · contribs) seem to indicate that the applicant was in the right to remove these links. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Although I'm opposing the candidate, I don't see the issue with the link thing. — Realist2 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    My deepest apologies, I seem to have misread it. Edits and AIV activity still lead me to vote oppose, however. Ironholds 06:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As Ironholds pointed out above. America69 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Please see the applicant's and my response to Ironholds above. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Although I'm opposing the candidate, I don't see the issue with the link thing. — Realist2 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Candidate does not use edit summaries enough for me to be able to support (reasoning derived from mathbot's function, showing a 92% major / 98% minor usage over the candidate's last 150 major and minor edits). --Winger84 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Winger84, is that the most substantial problem with this candidate that you could locate? Can you describe to the rest of us why 92/98% edit summary usage is so low as to make this editor unqualified or untrustworthy to be an administrator? It seems like he does not have the option set to require edit summaries, but uses them almost universally - that is, to my mind, a plus at least in this minor category of conduct. What inspires your opposition? What makes edit summary usage so crucial? Avruch T 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hello, Avruch. Long time no see. I think the problem stems from the importance of communication. However, the matter will be easily remedied if the candidate would be so kind as to set "Preferences" to require completing the edit summary. 90+% edit summary usage is better than I could do with that reminder. So in a way, it's somewhat encouraging. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a communication issue. To me, the use of edit summaries is one of the key things that each editior must do when editing because it makes it much easier for those who edit after you to be able to easily see what you have done. As far as the argument of "90+% edit summary is better than (insert any editor wishing to make that comment here) could do without that reminder... it's somewhat encouraging" is concerned, I don't think that argument holds a lot of weight, with all due respect. As I've noted, the use of edit summaries is one of the key things we should be doing, without even having to think about it. I'll grant that this may be a weak reason to oppose, but it is a valid reason nonetheless as established by my criteria. Best of luck to the candidate, however, as I have not found anything else that creates concern, at this point, and would not be upset if this request succeeded. I would simply urge the candidate to improve their edit summary usage. --Winger84 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Changing to neutral. The edit summary concern is still there, but I noticed elsewhere on this page that the candidate has taken a step toward correcting that. There are a couple other minor issues that prevent me from supporting this candidate, but as long as the edit summary usage continues to rise, I do not see any negatives in this candidate having the mop. --Winger84 (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose At this time, I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
    Is that really a reason to oppose? If you think recall works that is a reason to support, If you think that recall does not work (which I assume you do) then it means nothing. In no circumstance does it really come off as a reason to oppose. --T-rex 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    It's an issue of general honesty. I don't mean to imply that this candidate is dishonest - I've seen no reason to think so in his contributions - but recent events have shown that recall processes are made ad captandum vulgaris and are completely unenforceable. Until there is an ironclad, voluntary but irrevocable, and enforceable recall mechanism I must oppose any candidate who commits to such a broken process. In a sentence, I view recall pledges as an empty campaign promise, and unbecoming of a potential admin. Skinwalker (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    As a discussion point only, and not asking you to change your opinion, I offer this: when I went through my RfA just two months ago, I was not asked this question, but would have indicated a willingness to be open to recall if I had been asked. It would not have been an empty promise. Today, I'm not so sure I would do so - not because I think it's a bad idea, but because as you point out, I don't think there is a viable process for it. Again, not asking you to change your opinion, but it does seem to me that this regards how much cynicism the candidate has much more than his ability to be an administrator.  Frank  |  talk  13:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I am asking you to change your opinion. What ever happened to assuming good faith? There is no indications that Smashville is being dishonest, nor is there any basis to the belief that he would abuse the recall system. I agree with you that the current recall system has problems and needs to be replaced by one that is "ironclad, irrevocable, and enforceable", but would not suggest that this users willingness to be open to recall creates a problem. --T-rex 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not going to try to change anyone's vote because it's their opinion, but I've been trying to figure out how my being open to recall equates with supporting the current process... --SmashvilleBONK! 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Opppose I do not trust this user at this time. On the side, I also have problems with admins being open to recall, as one spoiled admin ruined it for everyone. SashaNein (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not enough mainspace edits.--Dacium (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Sorry, but you simply don't edit much. 4,500 edits compared to the time you have been here is hardly any at all. Otherwise good though - just get on wiki a bit more and get nominated by someone other than yourself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose While I think he is a good contributer. I just don't see enough mainspace edits. I would be more then willing to support in the future with more experience. While I don't automatically vote against those who self nominate, I do think it would be a good idea to also have someone else nominate you next time. -Djsasso (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Smashville doesn't have enough mainspace edits. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose I like to see administrators with a majority of their edits in the mainspace. Article building is what we're supposedly here to do. AniMate 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Ironholds, and not enough activities to become an admin yet.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose not per mainspace edits, but per 150 talk edits out of 4000 does not demonstrate the ability to communicate that an admin must have. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    What about his 1000+ User talk edits? ;-) --KojiDude (C) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Obvious social networking ! — CharlotteWebb 14:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    He discusses (rather confrontationally, I must say) with users, but does not discuss improvements to articles. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Confrontationally? Got diffs? — CharlotteWebb 17:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    It's not possible to discuss articles on user talk? naerii 09:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Not enough article work, yet. I'll support later on, if that improves. rootology (C)(T) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I've reviewed Smash, and the arguments made thus far, and find myself conflicted. He seems like a strong enough candidate, yet I still would like to see some more edits and interaction before I could be confident enough to support. Happy editing. MBisanz talk 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per my comments in the oppose section above. --Winger84 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral A strong candidate, but has a lack of mainspace edits. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Vote pending more A's to Q&A. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - well-intentioned user, just could spend some more time in the mainspace.   jj137 (talk) 19:57, 31 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/Smashville&oldid=6566948"