#Oppose Has a track record of being wrong at AFD along with an over-bold attitude and so cannot be trusted to close according to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate's judgement seems too weak for this position. As an example, please see this AFD. The topic was a double-platinum, number 1, hit single produced by Simon Cowell. As popular music is the candidate's specialist area, one would expect him to have no difficulty with this. But, alone of the editors who opined on this matter, he was unable to agree to keep this article. Why was he marching to the beat of a different drummer? I cannot say but it causes me to lack confidence in the candidate's ability to decide such matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
#Oppose He seems to be doing good work at articles such as William Garrow, which is a fine choice of topic, but his approach to new article patrolling seems too casual and intemperate, indicating a lack of the measured and mature approach which we expect of an admin. This recent spree attracted my attention and so I looked at some of the PRODs and did not find them satisfactory. When one of the PRODs was challenged - Golconda Express - his response was to immediately escalate to AFD rather than engaging in discussion at the article per our deletion process. His nomination and comments in this AFD seem over-opinionated rather than addressing the sources and so I fear that he would use admin powers as a means of his expressing his own strong opinions. His recent edit summaries include "Wrong place, matey", "bollocks", "sod it" and "listen to a bit of The Clash". These seem too loutish and so may too easily be taken as uncivil. Behaviour of this sort during RFA does not seem acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
#Support Seems to have the right stuff, as detailed above. I especially like his judicial restraint which indicates that he will be unlikely to abuse admin tools. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose Has only been editing actively for a little over six months and still seems green. As he is especially interested in scripted editing, we should be cautious in extending access to dangerous functions. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
# I checked out one of the 1300 articles which the candidate has created - Malungisa Dlamini. This is a BLP which was recently created without any references. Given the recent furore, this seems too clueless. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose As a spot check, I looked into his interactions with an IP editor. The candidate seemed too quick to assume and assert vandalism in this case. He does not seem to have sufficient offsetting strengths for admin status yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose Insufficient content creation - the candidate's edits seem relentlessly regressive and reactionary. And there seems to be a bitter, ad hominem edge to them too. For example, in this case, what seems to be a good faith edit is reverted on weak grounds with a personal attack. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose Too clueless. For example, in this case, the candidate nominated an article for AFD on the grounds of "no assertion of notability" which both misunderstood the nature of notability and was blatantly false as the article said it was "widely used all around the world". To the candidate's credit, he withdrew when sources were produced, but, per WP:BEFORE, he should have found these himself and not wasted others' time. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems to lack experience of content creation. His confusing account name and signature indicate an unacceptable level of ego and incompetence. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems too negative and unhelpful. For example, in this case, he proposes deletion of an article about a respectable system of taxonomy just 10 minutes after the article was created. The editor who created this article does not seem to have responded well to this brusque welcome and has edited little since. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
# * I do not object to him changing his mind and thought I had said so clearly. The objection is that his judgments are too hasty and shallow. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose In addition to the good points made above, when I sampled I found that he created a poorly sourced BLP of a high-profile person without following through. And his sig seems too elaborate. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose My general experience of foreign editors coming here to make rote edits is not good. They seem to operate in a bureaucratic, high-handed fashion and do not communicate well. I do a little sampling and soon find this. This is marked as a minor edit but appears to be removing a large number of interwiki links for no good reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions during October 2009. Most of the contributions were to WP:AN and WP:ANI. For someone who is not yet an admin, this is not a good sign. Then there was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. This seemed to be a significant failure of WP:BEFORE as the topic has great notability but the candidate did not even seem sure what the topic was about. Perhaps the article was poorly written but we require better due diligence in such cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
#Support When checking the candidate's contributions, I find them improving content, creating a DYK, making sensible comments at the Help desk and helping new contributors. Seems quite admirable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
#Oppose I sample his contributions and immediately find this edit to decapitation. These are quite assertive statements of fact and yet no reference is provided to verify or substantiate them. The candidate does not seem to have relevant qualifications or expertise which would make him an authority on this topic and so is presenting his own opinion of the topic in an improper way. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
#OpposeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre is a current discussion - just a few days old. The candidate's comments in this indicates that he does not understand the policies or guidelines which he cites. He also seems to misrepresent basic facts about the article's content, claiming that sentences are "irrelevant" when they are directly relevant to the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose Following a tetchy AFD, I posted some polite advice in his editor review. He subsequently removed this comment from his editor review, which seems improper. I forgot all about the incident but it all came back when I found myself going through the same process several weeks later at the entertaining topic of Learned pigs & fireproof women. The candidate seems too quick to bite and delete and won't take criticism. In other words, he can dish it out but he can't take it. His tendency to cover his tracks seems telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose At AFD, he seems to rely upon his own opinion or the work of others rather than doing any legwork himself. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuds. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
#Support Seeking reconfirmation in this way is impressively honourable and the candidate's admin actions seem generally to have been quite sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose Q5 was in the candidate's specialist area of SPI but the answer seemed weak. The candidate seems inexperienced in other areas and so lacks the good general experience of the project which is expected of an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose I start checking out the candidate's contributions and discover that he thinks that DGAFism is a "serious editing philosophy". He has edited that essay repeatedly and so seems to support it. This does not seem an acceptable attitude or mode of expression for an admin. Warden (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems too inexperienced. For example, he wants to be closing AFDs but he doesn't seem to have much experience of that forum. Warden (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems too lightweight. The hasty CSD work seems have persisted after the last RfA, e.g. Army Values. Warden (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
#Oppose He does some interesting technical work and seems to have mellowed a bit but his experience of the actual business of content creation still seems too small. And as he still seems to be a dogged deletionist, I don't think he can be trusted in that department. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paraguayans. That seems to be a fairly plain and simple list but his opinion is "This list is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose." As we have lists of people for just about every nationality which are clearly being maintained and finding some usage, this seems too disruptively destructive to be trusted with the delete function. And on the other side, I've observed his actions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation from time to time where his standard response seems to be "Declining submission". If he created some content himself, this negativity might be ok but it just seems to be one-way traffic. Warden (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems to routinely violate WP:AGF and act without any understanding of the topic in question. Apart from other examples found above, see this or that. Warden (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems to have been one of the main players in the yogurt/yoghurt war. He may be too involved to be administering article moves, in which the issue is often a fight over the nominal title for an article. Warden (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Failed to master his brief in this case recently. There's a big gap in his contributions last year which confirms the general impression that the candidate lacks experience. Warden (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Too inexperienced. For example, I go looking for something that isn't purely reactive. There doesn't seem to be much so this small edit catches my eye. This was constructive but what he doesn't do here is link to the relevant article, Porky Chedwick. That's quite basic content editing and so it seems the candidate has much to learn. Warden (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose I'm not liking this incident. The edit seems to have been factually correct; it just lacked a citation such as this. The good faith editor repeated the edit and the candidate then continued to edit war by reverting again. He placed a template on that editor's talk page and they haven't edited Wikipedia since. It would have been better to have placed a {{citation needed}} tag or better still to have shown that editor how to find and cite a source. Other candidates currently at RfA seem to know how to go that extra mile. Warden (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems to focus on sensitive articles about the Middle East such as History of Iraq under Ba'athist rule but seems too inexperienced to be given admin powers over them. Warden (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose I went through his contributions for June. These were mostly speedy deletions which I suppose arose from new page patrol. My impression is that this was one-way traffic as all I saw were nominations for deletion. I didn't notice any attempts to welcome or assist new editors and consider this attitude to be too hostile and unfriendly. In amongst the NPP were a few constructive edits like the work on coal ball but I worry that this work may have been tailored to the requirements of RfA. And finally, I notice the creation of bananaa which seems quite weird. So, altogether, while there's nothing especially bad there, I'm not comfortable supporting this candidate yet. Warden (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose I looked through the candidate's contributions for June. They seemed to be mostly mechanical patrolling and gnoming. That's useful work done well but the only time I notice him breaking out of this rut is for a porn bio. I'd like to see more content creation and participation in discussions. Warden (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose I've looked through Adab al-Tabib and it seems too weak. For example, some works state that the author may have been Jewish - see A History of Medicine - but this is not mentioned. As the religion of the author seems to be controversial and the article currently gives weight to a writer who pushes the Moslem faith of the author, this seems too sloppy or tendentious. As this is supposed to be the candidate's best work, it seems insufficient to grant the candidate power to adjudicate in disputes between other editors. Warden (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
#Support He seems to specialise in food topics which can be surprisingly controversial (yogurt, hummus, pizza cheese, &c.). He seems to handle such work with good grace and little drama. Warden (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose I'm not liking the 4 year layoff from 2008–2012 which means that there's less than a year of recent editing. Also the candidate's English seems quite weak. Warden (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
#Oppose Others indicate that the candidacy is weak. In checking myself, I find this edit. In this, a large block of text is removed on the grounds that it is uncited OR. The text appears to be quoting from the California Penal Code and so these grounds seem misleading. Warden (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
#Support Does a lot of respectable work on articles such as Farmers' Alliance. That he wants to use the toolset in a limited way is a good thing, not bad. See Cincinnatus. Warden (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose Seems to equate the real world of business and commerce with vandalism and Wikipedia with a shooting gallery. For example, he wanted to speedy delete an article about one of the oldest architectural practices in the world. The article still doesn't amount to much and this guy ain't helping. Warden (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose I was interested in this question of content creation so I looked above where the candidate seems to suggest that he's proud of creating Pro-Life (politician). But, on close inspection, that article was started by someone else and the candidate just expanded it. Looking at the contributions for last October, I notice the creation of List of breweries in Idaho. This seems quite weak in that none of the entries are blue-links and the source is quite promotional in tone ("Visit Idaho"). And, as the candidate is quite proficient with redirects, it's surprising that he didn't go on to create redirects for the distinctive brewery names like Laughing Dog Brewery. As the candidate is a librarian, I would have expected them to do a better job by turning up sources like Beer and Brewing in the Inland Northwest, 1850 to 1950 or Great American Craft Beer. My impression is that the candidate still has a lot to learn. Warden (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose Reviewing the candidate's contributions last October, I find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). The history of this is that the candidate tried to speedy delete the topic within 5 minutes of its creation. Over the next day, the topic is greatly expanded with dozens of sources and the speedy is refused but the candidate then takes it to AFD. The result is a snow keep and only then does the candidate conclude that the topic is "obviously notable" when a simple google search would have told him this at the outset. Warden (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose When I checked his contributions, I noticed a particular interest in Ugg boots. This reminded me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheepskin boots, in which the candidate seemed to prefer that we address the topic in a proprietary way, rather than a generic one. This does not seem sufficiently neutral and so I am concerned that he might use admin tools in a partisan way. It may well be that he is very sensible in other respects but as I am most familiar with that particular incident, I'll put the boot in :). Warden (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions for the month of April and they seemed too slight. I looked around some more and was still not convinced. Warden (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose per recent research, "We find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status." The problem seems clear when we compare this RfA with the concurrent one for User:Wikid77. That other user seems quite active, intelligent and productive but has been too vigorous in editing and so has made waves. The candidate here has just made innocuous edits in their brief history but that is a poor guide to what they would do as an admin. Warden (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose I checked the candidates contributions in April. One of them caught my eye as it was to the list of unusual deaths — the subject of interminable discussion and currently at DRV. What's interesting about this edit is that the candidate doesn't seem to have read the source enough to understand that Henry Pert was not the foolhardy gentleman with the hat — that was Thomas Curteys. Henry Pert was another archer who managed to shoot himself in the head and his hat didn't come into it. I expect admins to be more meticulous. Warden (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate's content creation is meagre. Looking at what there is, 2012 English Channel scallop fishing dispute seems to represent a minor fishing dispute as if it were the battle of Trafalgar. It seems to have been a minor news item and the article can't even decide what day it occurred upon. This reminds me of another recent diplomatic incident — the Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy — for which Bonkers the Clown was indeffed. That seemed to be an over-reaction in the other direction but such lightweight stuff doesn't merit admin rights either. Warden (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
#Oppose There seem to be too many negatives. For one thing, he makes drive-by edits to controversial articles in response to edit requests. For example, when browsing his contributions, I notice he edits 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. The edit summary is "Per edit request". This is not much of an explanation, so one then has to find the edit request. This seems to be a request by an IP editor. That refers in turn to a discussion on a noticeboard. But there is no discussion - just the same mysterious IP editor, making a long complaint. Now this IP editor seems quite sophisticated, understanding diffs, templates, noticeboards &c. So why haven't they got an account so they can make the edit themselves? Is this perhaps due to the heavy sanctions which apply to this topic? Why is the candidate doing the bidding of this IP editor in an uncritical way? My impression is that the candidate is too eager-to-please and naive to be given more power over such topics. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
#Support The candidate shows the right spirit at neglected topics such as SMART criteria. And I like his idea for a DiffDeck. Andrew (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions, picking the month of October. There weren't many edits in that month so I looked around and found this substantial edit, cleaning up the article Theater Hopper which was then nominated for DYK and appeared on the front page. The article seems problematic in that it contains a lot of extraneous BLP material about the artist's family and the sourcing seems mostly to be from that artist. I expect an admin to be working at a higher level of quality. Andrew (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
#Support I reviewed his contributions for October where I was reminded of his contributions to Eleanora Knopf - a new article by a new editor that I had trained at an editathon. These displayed a commendably helpful and constructive attitude. He could have been more communicative though and I'm not liking the use of slang in edit summaries. Andrew (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate seems to have a professional interest in neuroscience and it does not seem appropriate for them to be concealing their identity when they have a stake in the topic. The case of neuroepistemology indicates that they would rather delete something than fix it. Andrew (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose Not seeing much added value or breadth of experience as the candidate seems to spend most of his time fiddling with coordinates. Andrew (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose The points made above about the candidate's lack of content creation and their mysterious editing history seem valid. The nomination is being presented as not a big deal as this would not be a super-user. But the candidate already has considerable power as a media-wiki developer and their interest in technical matters means that this is a high-risk position because they will be involved in changes that affect us all. Good governance tends to require checks and balances by means of segregation of duties. It would therefore be imprudent to grant further rights. Andrew (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
#Support I had some doubts but seeing an alternative has put these in proportion. The candidate is experienced, energetic, courteous and constructive. It's being so busy that seems to upset others and we see this a lot with editors that have high edit counts. It should not be a bar to adminship. Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
#Support I've been on the fence because, when I looked at the candidate's user page, an entry caught my eye: "Engineering psychology - Mostly got involved in this one during its AfD. I initially thought it should be deleted, but I ended up cleaning it up and making fixes during the AfD and after it was kept." The candidate majored in psychology but, during the AFD discussion, they flip-flopped twice and ended up !voting to delete this notable topic. This vacillation seemed to be a sign of weak judgement but it was a while ago when the candidate had resumed editing, so perhaps they were still learning the ropes. Browsing some more, I came across a DYK which I quite like: Merz Apothecary. This is a quaint old shop and working upon such a topic demonstrates to me that the candidate's heart is in the right place. But that's not to say that they are perfect. I find that the topic can be readily improved and some might take exception to it being a commercial establishment that is a big retailer of homeopathic products. I'd better stop before I say more ... :) Andrew (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose The List of infantry weapons of World War I AFD indicates that the candidate has a poor understanding of our deletion policies and, to nominate this topic in the centenary year, seems quite rash. The candidate's record of content creation is weak and they don't seem strong in any other area. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
#Support I notice that he started an article which I independently edited recently — Sunday Assembly. It's good to have a candidate that can create an article like that from scratch. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
#Support I've had a quick browse through recent contributions and the spot checks seem fine. For example, she nominated The Islington for deletion. This is my kind of topic and I have saved quite a few but, in this case, I tend to agree with her finding. I am particularly pleased to see her pushing back banner tag clutter — "rm tags no longer needed" — as few editors seem to have the boldness or inclination to do so. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
#Oppose I don't know much about this editor so I took a look at his contributions for March. These seemed to be mostly fiddling with categories using AWB. I noticed some chatter associated with this and it seems that these category updates were not well-received. Splitting writers by gender caused a big fuss, as I recall, so why is this being done on an industrial scale? I next noticed some DYK credits on the talk page such as Two Girls Dressing a Kitten by Candlelight. This looked good but when I checked what the candidate did to deserve this I found that their contributions were negligible - just more fiddling with categories with automated tools. Philafrenzy did the bulk of the work in that case and that guy is the real deal — able to write, source, format and review an article in every way. He's not an admin yet and seems more deserving. Finally, I notice that the candidate's sig is long and elaborate. If you're going to make a million edits, then you should perhaps take more care to be more brief and unassuming. Now, of course, the problem is that it's hard to get a rounded picture of so many edits and so maybe I've just not seen this candidate's best work yet. I remain to be convinced. Andrew D. (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I have concerns about the candidate's neutrality. His signature is literally flag-waving as it is styled to resemble the Indian flag. The GA which he claims — Swami Vivekananda — is literally a hagiography as its lead tells us that the subject is regarded as a "patriotic saint". The title of the article includes the honorific, Swami, and the candidate was among those arguing that this should be retained, contrary to our general practice. Among the sources listed, there's a revisionist work, Swami Vivekananda: A Reassessment. This seems to be a scholarly work, being published by a university press. It contains controversial material which might diminish the subject's reputation. For example, in his photo, the subject seems quite well fed. The book tells us that he was indeed fond of food and, as a child, organised a "Greedy Club" of gluttons (p.53). It goes on to say that the subject was not a vegetarian, as is common in the Brahmin priesthood, but even ate beef! There's plenty more in the book which might raise eyebrows but none of this material seems to appear in the article. The article was evaluated for FA status but failed on the ground that there were copyright concerns. Now, I understand that a lot of editors have had a finger in this pie, and maybe the candidate has just been going with the flow. But I expect high standards from an admin and, as nationalism and religion are common sources of dispute, it seems best to play it safe. Andrew D. (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I like the sound of what's said above — that the candidate is prepared to rescue articles, for example. But when I go to check this for myself, the first case I find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen. The candidate commendably says that they searched for information about the subject but couldn't find anything much. But when I search myself, I have no difficulty finding entries in encyclopaedias of the time such as Britannica: "ALLEN, William Sullivant Vanderbilt, an American painter, and illustrator in black and white. He was born Oct. 8, 1860, in New York City; was a pupil, in France, of Gerome and Claude Monet, and adopted the style of the impressionist school, ..." I suppose that the candidate made an exact search on the article title, not realising that such a long name might be rendered in a variety of ways. This seems to be an elementary mistake and I expect better in an admin. And, given the nature of the topic, which seems quite respectable, why was it even being considered for deletion in the first place? The candidate didn't just nominate it once; they did so twice, starting with a PROD. This was a fresh article creation and so the use of PROD in this case was an abuse of process, as "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected". The effect of these repeated nominations, which placed hostile templates upon the new editor's talk page, seems to have been to drive them off. Such activity is quite contrary to our behavioural guidelines and so is unacceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I started reviewing the candidate's edits for a recent month and then found that I could easily review the entire year since his last RFA, as he has done so little in that time. I don't get the impression that he's very interested in the project of building an encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The quality of the candidate's work seems too low. The article steak is actually quite poor in my opinion. If you look at the candidate's own articles, they seem quite weak - stuff like Samuel J. Dickson and HTC Desire 610. I've been through his AFD contributions and am not impressed. There's nothing outstandingly bad or malicious but the general impression is of someone who's still quite green. Andrew D. (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I came across one of the candidate's articles at DYK recently when I was looking for something to review: Roaring Brook (Hunlock Creek). It seemed to me that this was quite a trivial topic and I couldn't raise any enthusiasm for it. But if the candidate wants to crank out articles of this sort then he's welcome to do so and I am quite content to let him carry on. What bothers me is that, when I review the candidate's patrolling activity, he seems quite aggressive in wanting to delete other people's work. For example, consider Fulani proverb, which the candidate proposed for deletion. This isn't much of an article but the candidate seems to fail to appreciate its potential. There seems to be lots of material out there about the folk wisdom of the Fulani in books such as Africa's unwritten literatures or Proverbs, Textuality, and Nativism in African Literature. This seems a poor set of priorities: a brief trickle of water vs the folk wisdom of an entire people. And what's really out of order is proposing an article for deletion two hours after it was first created. The proposed deletion process is supposed to be only used in cases where no opposition is expected. If you look at the talk page of the new user one sees that they were welcomed and then immediately their new work was, in the same breath, proposed for deletion. Such action seems quite contrary to WP:BITE but it is sadly quite common in new page patrol and so the candidate is just following the example of others, I suppose. But I expect an admin to be more discerning and the candidate has a way to go, it seems. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I looked at the candidate's contributions for a previous month and an incident at UAA caught my attention. UAA is supposed to be for blatant and serious cases but the username in question seems to be of the less-serious kind as we have many admins with account names that might be thought saucy – Slim Virgin, Randykitty, Chase Me Ladies, &c. A peremptory and indefinite block for this without any discussion seems too heavy-handed and contrary to WP:AGF. Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose It's not just that he doesn't create content; he doesn't seem very interested or competent when content creation is required. For example, consider the history of Muara Bungo, which is a place in Indonesia. A page is created which is quite poor. Someone tries to delete it and the candidate gets to wrestling with them. He means well but seems quite incapable of doing much with the content and so the article is still junk, without any English-language sources. And this is after the candidate has been editing Wikipedia for years. I expect an admin to have enough grasp of the basics to be able to produce a better stub about such a place. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose His user page advocates Mad Jack Churchill and Hunter S. Thompson as role-models. Browsing his contributions for April, I see him answering questions about dating and cheap cola at the Reference desk; marking reversions as minor edits even if they are substantial; making reference to DGAF at AFD. I get the impression that he's not sufficiently po-faced and serious to be a good admin. This might be a misleading first impression but I take candidates as I find them. Andrew D. (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I liked the brothel article so much that I joined in too. But when I review the candidate's contributions for April, I immediately find an example of poor judgement at AFD: List of military disasters. The idea that we can't or shouldn't have a list of notorious cases such as the Charge of the Light Brigade seems quite wrong-headed. And the AFD exhibits several technical faults. To start with, it's a repeat nomination and the article had been kept on the previous occasion too. And the nomination leads with "Unencyclopedic" which is a classic argument to avoid. Andrew D. (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate's clerking at arbcom seemed weak. Expending effort on such bureaucracy while not yet being proficient at content creation seems to be the mark of an apparatchik. Also, there seems to be a general assumption above that this is the candidate's first/only account. Looking at their activity on their first day, edits such as this seem remarkably sophisticated, using category syntax which took me years to acquire. This indicates that there's a significant risk that this is a fresh-start user looking to get an admin account to influence controversial topics. Why has there been no question about alternate accounts or did I miss it? Andrew D. (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose Too green and seems to want to use admin tools to facilitate editing his topics of interest, which would be contrary to WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
#Support The candidate seems quite feisty and so we can expect the tools to be wielded with some vigour. For example, see the duck box incident. But the consensus in that case was ok and someone has to do the dirty work of mucking out the stable. Her content work is excellent and indicates that she's here for the right reasons. And the fact that this is her first RfA, after nearly 10 years of work here, shows commendable patience and restraint. Andrew D. (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I share the concerns of other opposers such as Greg. Also, if someone's not comfortable at AFD, they should not be doing speedy deletions because the speedy process has less oversight and is more bitey. The clincher is that the candidate says "I'm proud of my enhancements to the controversial {{Orphan}} template..." My view is that those enhancements subverted the community consensus to stop this template appearing on articles. As the candidate hasn't created articles, he perhaps doesn't appreciate how annoying such templates can be. He needs more skin in the game before he starts deciding what's good for us. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The Wikipediholic thing seems quite insulting and contemptuous. And the explanation for the alternate account doesn't make any sense so there's something missing there. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The first nom states "I don't believe that content creation is an important part of adminship, whereas the AFD process is and should be valued more highly". I don't agree as a good understanding of our content seems essential to secondary processes such as AFD. Anyway, a search of articles created indicates that the closest the candidate has come to creating an article is Thermaltake – a page which has been tagged as an advertisement for over 5 years now. I check his contributions for April. This edit looks promising but what seems to be happening here is that a statement of opinion is being slipped in ahead of two citations and those two citations don't seem to support what's being said. This is unacceptable and is the sort of elementary abuse of sources that will get your submissions rejected rapidly when you go through a basic review process such as GA or DYK. If the candidate has no experience of these, then they shouldn't be an admin. Creating lots of account names is not an adequate substitute. Andrew D. (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate gives George Claghorn as an example of his best work but this doesn't seem adequate, being more about the Constitution, than the subject. The lack of information about the subject is puzzling because the article links to sources such as this, which contain more details about this person. The candidate seems much happier creating redirects, which he does in large number. I'm not convinced of the utility of these. For example, I don't like relief (emotion). This seems disruptive in that it pushes the view that this is a dictionary topic and sends the reader off to the rival project of Wiktionary. It is actually quite easy to find sources such as the Encyclopedia of Emotion which demonstrate the notability of the topic, and so the redirect is something of a red herring. I accept the good faith nature of such work but would like to see it done more productively before endorsing them as an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I check the candidate's contributions for April and find he only made 5 edits. I check May and find he didn't make any edits at all. I check June and find a big splurge of automated/mechanical edits. Judging by the topics – easy, rote stuff like beetle species – I get the impression that he's still hat collecting – just going through the motions to level-up. Andrew D. (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)'
#Support Good content contributions and a reasonable balance of boldness and humility. I wondered about the initial start as WritingEnthusiast14 so have investigated that in detail and am satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose Here's a recent example of the candidate nominating an article for deletion. The nomination is triply-flawed in that it suggests that the article is a personal opinion, when it isn't; that it should be blown up, which is not our policy; and all this when the topic is actuallyquitenotable. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose The candidate does not offer any specific examples of good work in response to Q2. Perhaps they have forgotten or are too embarrassed to show their work but they did create two articles: The Wild Women of Wongo and Benoist (tea). These are promising topics but their standard falls short of our customary expectations. Andrew D. (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
#Oppose I was interested in what was said in Q5 about rescuing the article Kosovo Pomoravlje. The candidate's edits to the article all seemed to be negative though. This part of the world is disputed territory (Serbia vs Albania) and the candidate seems to have been writing from the Serbian perspective without declaring an interest. Giving them admin tools seems to be a significant risk. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
