Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/7

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

This was certainly a close one. A number of the oppositional arguments were not properly supported by evidence. Select others opposed solely because they disagreed with the candidate's views on such matters as inclusion. This can be a weak argument, especially if not explained in any great detail. However, the CSD-related concerns were evidently seen to be problematic by a significant portion of the participants, and they swung the consensus (or lack thereof). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

7

Final (66/37/12); ended 05:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

7 (talk · contribs) – I, 7, hereby request the mop.

I will start by saying that I consider adminship to be two things:

1. an offer (by me) to continue to support this community in an enhanced capacity.
2. a level of trust extended (by you) which, if granted, must be used prudently.

That's it. It's not a badge, it's not a license to bend the rules, it's a responsibility to make the community a better place by: welcoming users, improving articles, warning others when rules are broken, fixing problems, and as needed removing inappropriate articles or blocking problem users. With the exception of the last point I currently can and do participate in these activities as a regular, voluntary user.

Experience? Just about everywhere a non-admin can, I believe…

• Very active in fighting vandalism and new page patrol with huggle and twinkle (the majority of my edit counts)
• Use of edit filters to catch older vandalism
• Article creation - I have created a few articles mostly on topics that I am interested in, as well as a few to fix redlinks that I that I had no prior knowledge about but where I felt an article should exits exist.
• Article improvement - if I have any experience in the field I will try to perform initial coypedit, cleanup or reference addition for weaker new articles, or tag as needed if I don't have at least a basic understanding of the topic.
• Strong record of CSD / Prod / AfD nomination
• Participation in other AfD discussions
• RfA
• Removal of copyright violations
• BLP (tagging, referencing, removing neg/unsourced, CSDing if attack, etc…)
• Moving articles due to MOS or spelling or userfication (with the requisite db-r2 afterward)
• Sockpuppet nominations (including being accused myself once in retaliation)
• Oversight notifications when I find particularly problematic text in page history
• Non-admin closures of AfDs
• Account creation
• Categorizing articles
• Dozens (hundreds?) of UAA / AIV reports
• ANI reporting
• Template creation / fixes

Inclusionist or Exclusionist? I would say I am close to the middle, leaning toward exclusionist purely to improve the usability and relevance of Wikipedia. English Wikipedia has < 3million articles, and I believe there is good reason for that. I'm a firm believer in WP:NOT, and I think we would all be worse off if Wikipedia started to approach the article count of ask.com or answers.com, or worse Google/Facebook.

Blocked? - Since it's bound to be the first question that comes up, please refer here for the history of why my account was blocked for a few minutes during a round of hacking by a blocked user who apparently hijacked multiple defunct accounts, including one of my former account names and sent out threatening emails to a number of admins.

Age - There seems to be recurrent theme in recent RfAs of people asking/wondering/worried about a candidate's age. For the record I'm a few months shy of 40. Also for the record I don't believe that age makes me any more or less qualified than a minor who shows the appropriate maturity in the community.

I will keep my answers to the stock questions below relatively brief to avoid repeating what is already, perhaps, the longest self-nomination in Wikipedia history, but I welcome any additional questions.

Thank you for your consideration.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:25, 14 August 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: In addition to my comments above about the responsibility* that admins have, I would largely focus on any backlogs of critical items (such as ANI, AIV, attack, copyvio page removal) as well as responding to RPP requests and UAA notices. Being a native English speaker living in an Asian timezone I often notice, perhaps more than others in US/UK, a delay between tagging/blanking of those pages and their removal. *Note: I do believe it is a responsibility for admins to actively participate and improve the project, hence my use of voluntary for non-admins. I firmly believe adminship should not be a retirement from active participation (including both administrative and non-administrative tasks) and I would be open to recall if I became inactive.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Vandalism fighting, vandal reporting, and a general effort to cleanup or copyedit articles has probably been my most important contribution to the community so far. I've written some articles from scratch, however by no means would I consider myself a writer (no GA/FA/DYK, though I keep hoping). I also am proud to have helped new editors and proud of the thank-yous that I have received when a new autobio/spam/coi user who didn't quite understand the community's guidelines comes around to realize why their article is not appropriate.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've never been involved in anything here that has caused me any real stress. As hard as it is to believe, Wikipedia is actually my vacation from stress at work. While I wouldn't consider it significant, if there is anything that would qualify as an conflict I guess I would point people to this article. An IP has repeatedly used this page as a soapbox to discuss how great one specific lacrosse coach was and how unfair it was for the school to fire him. That same IP has also edited articles about the coach's brother and about the coach himself. While I would still personally believe that the coach is not notable, the community has spoken with removal of a PROD tag from the coach's and we seem to have reached an equilibrium on the school page with the coach being mentioned but not his awards or his firing.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

4. Please provide evidence of your experience in collaborative areas. I shall be looking particularly for verifiable experience in discussion-based parts of the project, such as AfD, DRV, peer review, article assessment, etc., and verifiable experience in dispute resolution.

A: (sorry in advance for the long answer - if future questions provide me with a limit on length I'll try to stick to it)

Templates:

• This is perhaps the best example of collaboration. I thought it might be useful to create an FX (foreign exchange) template that could be used on any page that had currencies outside of the normally quoted or domestic currencies, so I suggested it at the template help page. Others convinced me that it couldn't work in practice, but I ended up creating it anyway (just to see if I could code it) but never implemented it onto any pages - you can see it here and here.
• Fixed and had RPPd the new addition to the hangon template here.

• In one of the projects that I'm involved with I suggested that our Wikiproject could use some templates, and that I was willing to help create them... And when asked I created the icons and the top templates for both the mainpage and the talk page.

Some recent AfD activity here:

• Here's one that's not terribly collaborative (because I'm the only one replying both times) but I feel it's relevant because 1) the article was borderline in my opinion so no reason to delete, and 2) I suspect ulterior motives from the nominator.
• Content warning on this one - this includes a relatively interesting discussion on censorship and use of profanity.
• This is my most recent nom, including a followup note to address the author's comments.

SPI - Aside from a few (successful) SPI noms, I have opined in the "comments by other users" section, as in this case coming to the defense of Cunard. You'll note that I was added to the list of suspected sockpuppets in that case only after I came to his defense.

Wikiprojects:

• I think this request for help from the project was beneficial. It was an article I had tagged for CSD before but then worked with the editor afterward to fix it up. The help request on the project page seemed to get a fair amount of focus on the article afterward. It's still not the best, but it's better.

• Searching - the bottom suggestion is mine under my prior username for excluding Redirects in the search autocomplete (apparently it was already in the works though, and was implemented a month later).

There are others... but again I've gone on way too long.

• I don't feel you've gone on too long. I think if there's one place where you're entitled to be expansive, it's in your RFA, and I'm grateful for your thorough answer.

  Should I take it from your lack of response to the second part of the question that you don't wish to present any evidence of experience in dispute resolution? (I should probably warn that a total lack of experience in that will lead to an oppose from yours truly.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Apologies for not specifically mentioning the dispute resolution side. I actually thought some of the above addressed it (such as this and the SPI comments), but let me point to a few more instances. This is one case where and admin and I were both trying to educate a user who continued to violate policy. Here is an example of talking with the author to take a break and let others review. COIN (e.g. this), as well as the UAA AIV already mentioned. I frequently suggest to users on their talk page that we take a break, come back after some time, and let others take a look at it so fortunately nothing had to be escalated to formal dispute resolution forums.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Protonk

5. What 'audited content work' have you had a hand in creating (e.g. GA, FA, FL, DYK)?

A: Per Q2: no FA, GA, DYK (or FL either). I have reviewed the nomination processes for FA and DYK in the past, when I thought I had a contender, but have not found the right candidate article. Articles I've created: Waveny Park, Phoebe Dunn (author), Coors Cutter, Michel Fournier (adventurer), Public offering without listing, Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo, and Chip Johannessen.

Optional question from Keepscases

6. What are your thoughts on the idea of having advertising on Wikipedia? (I mean possible legitimate advertising, not articles on non-noteworthy companies that are deleted, etc.)

A: Generally against - Even legitimate advertising should be a last-resort option. The first thought that pops into my mind is that it would not be ideal to have the hardcover Encyclopedia Britannica at your home with yellow-pages ads mixed in. This is not done in practice because the mix of edited, sourced, verified encyclopedic content and paid content with less stringent review requirements can be confusing or misleading to readers, and raises multiple issues, including COI/NPOV. That being said, Wikipedia is not a home encyclopedia which people paid to purchase so the model is different. Servers and bandwidth cost money, as do the small staff that support them and the current fundraising model seems to be a much better choice than advertising. If fundraising wasn't enough then maybe we work on a distributed server concept... Wikipedia still pays their staff but server load, database space, and bandwidth is shared among multiple donors including corporations, and ISPs on a space-available basis. As a very last resort, if Wikipedia was in danger of being switched off and paid advertising was only remaining option to save it then I think Wikipedia is worth saving and that the community would have to work hard to determine the best way to avoid the confusion I mentioned above (such has only having ads appear off page when people voluntarily click that they would want to see more about companies affiliated with the article they were reading).

Additional question from Looie496

7. Over 5000 of your 10000+ edits are to user talk pages, and the great majority within the last four months. On the other hand, only 182 of your edits are to article talk pages. What underlies this very unusual pattern?

A: This is a result of using huggle and twinkle for vandalism fighting. When reverting vandalism with huggle there will be one article edit and one user talk page edit (the notice/warning). When CSDing with twinlke there will be an edit to the users page welcoming/warning plus the CSD tag on the article page however the article page gets deleted which removes it from the live article count.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. What is your opinion about "significant coverage" as it relates to athletes who fail WP:ATHLETE. In other words, what kind of coverage should be considered significant and what kind routine (in your opinion.) Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, how would you evaluate AfDs where the discussion is split between people saying "delete - fails ATH" and "keep - meets GNG" type arguments.

A: If an athlete clearly fails WP:ATH and we revert to the basic criteria for notability for people, the use of the word "significant" is omitted from the guideline. In other words, a person who has been the subject of at least one independent, verifiable, published work may meet the guideline. There is no requirement for multiple published works unless the the coverage is not in-depth. If they fail WP:ATH and the basic criteria for notability for people then we fall back on GNG where "significant" comes back into play. In this case, I would consider significant to be where the person was specifically referred to in their actions or their performance, and I would consider routine coverage to be their name simply appearing in a participants or results list. If they won/lost/participated but received no other comments written specifically about their performance then I would not consider them to be "the subject of" the coverage. In your last question, an AfD split 50/50 as you mentioned should likely be closed as keep, since WP:ATH is a narrow subset of WP:N and failing WP:ATH doesn't preclude the subject from satisfying the broader requirements. Passing GNG means notability has likely been established regardless of what kinds of other specific subsets have failed.

8a. Follow up question... how would you close each of the following AfDs and why? (In all cases, I have linked to the last version before close.):

• David O'Connor
• Matthew Cassidy
• Dani Pacheco

A:

• David O'Connor - No consensus + relist/extend: Both sides are represented very passionately, with deletes outnumbering keeps by two-to-one, but I think the evidence presented that LoI was fully professional toward the very end of the discussion (which therefore affects others who argued that he was not notable simply for not playing at the professional level) is a material change that deserves more follow-up discussion than it received. I'd be in no rush to delete it, and I think with more time for input from the community (especially from members of [1]) we would quickly be able to either confirm or refute the professional status. If confirmed as only being semi-pro then the deletion arguments would have prevailed.
• Matthew Cassidy - Keep: It was a reasonable AfD nom, but sources added post nom allowed the article to satisfy GNG.
• Dani Pacheco- Delete: consensus strongly toward failing WP:ATH and weak keep arguments for GNG. The keep arguments centered around a flawed idea of "Plenty of sources=notable" (this is an actual quote from the AFD). Simple quantity of sources does not indicate notability.

9. Under what circumstance should a person notable for only one thing have their article deleted and under what circumstance should it be kept? That is under what circumstance would an AfD split between "keep - subject passes WP:N" and "delete - subject fails WP:BLP1E" type votes end in keep/delete? How would you go about deciding?

A: That's an interesting one, because contrary to the notability criteria we discussed in Q8 (such as WP:ATH which are meant to be narrowly defined areas where an otherwise non-notable person is considered notable) WP:1E is somewhat the opposite, by telling us not to get distracted by one (often current/recent) when we consider whether a person is notable. This is also important to prevent the importance or significance of an event (an different article) from being exaggerated or skewed away from WP:NPOV. For example: The recent AirFrance disaster. My comments here (please note - there are multiple including catching a sockpuppet), argued for deletion in this case. But back to your question, in a case where "keep per WP:N" votes exactly matched WP:1E votes I would review the comments made by the "keep per WP:N" crowd to determine if their notability arguments centered around that same single event, or if they were independent. If their comments and evidence established notability separate from the single event then the article would naturally be a keep. If their only evidence of notability was related to the single event, then it should be deleted. Separately - I am avoiding a "no consensus" in my answers, largely because it seems like answering "no consensus" in a split decision type of hypothetical scenario is the easy way out, but every case is different and it is entirely possible depending on the circumstances that there would be no consensus.

10. Overall, your speedy deletion record is excellent. However, I have found several unnecessary/inappropriate recent R3 taggings. This concerns me slightly that you might uncheck the "leave redirect behind" button a little too often. Can you please explain in your own words when it is appropriate to move a page without leaving a redirect?

A: Cross namespace and userfication are the easy examples of when you should R3 (or uncheck the box as an admin). My most recent R3 (R3s?) have been userfication. I've also discussed the capitalization issue here for brand new bios (like a few minutes old) where it was simply a mis-capitalization of a proper name where we can address the issue of users not being able to find the articles they recently created with a quick note on their talk page - but now that the search autocomplete / suggest dropdown has been improved (per Q4 above) this is less of an issue. The Chicago cocktail R3 was a mistake, which I have subsequently tried to address through a move request.

Additional optional questions from SebastianHelm

11. You say that one of your main areas of experience is new page patrol. Have you tried your hand at User:Balloonman/CSD Survey? What were your answers? — Sebastian 02:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A: I have not tried it, but did the CSD test below. If you feel this one is critical to the decision making process please let me know (also let me know if you feel all 40 are required and how you would expect to see the results posted).

<: No, thank you. Bringing up the survey seemed like a good idea yesterday because I felt it provides a standardized set of issues, but since then some people wrote comments on some of your real CSDs, which provides more direct information. — Sebastian 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from SebastianHelm

12. Have you tried your hand at User:Balloonman/Speedy Deletion Excercises and User:Balloonman/Admin Coaching AfD excercises? — Sebastian 02:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A:

User:Balloonman/Speedy Deletion Excercises

• Halo 3 trailier - I would decline A1, context is clear (but requires cleanup/refs), or merge into larger Halo article.
• Union Millwright - As it stands it qualifies for A3
• Webs - Definitely not a G1, closer to A7
• Neil Haverton Smith - Google quickly to confirm if there was any validity, and if not A7. And follow it up with a note to the person who tagged it that they should have provided a reason.
• Fall Out Boy - It fails A7 because it's has awards listed. Keep and notify the nominator that it was incorrect, but that for bands they should use db-band not db-person (I think these are older CSD examples).
• Nathaniel Bar-Jonah - Yikes. Suspected G3 (definitely not a g1), but google shows lots of results so speedy is declined and I would add the most recent RS I can find such as [2] and [3].

<: Thank you - that's what I would have done, too. I realize now, similar to Q11, that these exercises are not as helpful in an RfA as I had thought. — Sebastian 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for 7: 7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 7 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/7 before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted in talk page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd really appreciate it if we could avoid turning this into a referendum about deletionism/inclusionism. Passing or failing this candidate will not measurably change our deletion process or the rate at which our articles get made. We should review the candidate on their merits, not as a proxy for views on articles. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, I would have said "Protonk, what are you talking about?!" Today I have to say, I agree 101% with you. What I find hard to fathom is the fact that the admins in the oppose column must admit that there is disagreement in CSD enforcement between other admins, let alone those that are trying to get to be an admin. The admins in the support column must agree to a certain extent to his (and it is his, let's cut the he/she shenanigans) viewpoint when put on the spot here. There are admins in the oppose column which would willingly let a spam article stand without making a single edit to counteract it, and there are admins in the support column who would delete an article which could be saved. I could oppose any of them based on that, if they were to stand for RfA again, but I won't because I know that, at the core, they are sensible people – who can and will make mistakes that are not irreversible. I also know that there are admins that have less so-called content contribution than this candidate. So please, can we cut the sanctimonious rhetoric. – B.hotep •talk• 22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    As one of the opposing admins, let me say that I feel that you're missing the point. I don't oppose the candidate because I want to change our deletion process or rate. My opposition is because I feel the candidate does not care enough about articles; he shows a lack of diligence. Lack of diligence with CSD can result in false positives (articles get deleted that shouldn't) and false negatives (articles get not deleted that should). It just so happens that false positives have more severe effects (for reasons discussed here). Naturally, therefore, false positives are subjected to higher scrutiny. — Sebastian 23:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    As one of the supporting admins, let me say that I feel you're missing the point. There are plenty of articles that you false positive admins have let stay on here that shouldn't have – either because you haven't followed up or because you are trying to be WikiPolitically correct. – B.hotep •talk• 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    But had it occurred to you that I wasn't talking about your oppose? – B.hotep •talk• 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not taking this personally, if that's what you're concerned about. While I can not speak for others, I believe I can reply to your statement, because I identify with your characterization. It may well be that I on occasion "let a spam article stand without making a single edit to counteract it", but my point is that that's not on the same level as "delet[ing] an article which could be saved". I'm not worried about the former because I'm sure someone else will fixed that error eventually. Wrong deletions, however are more worrying because they are less likely to get caught, and because they often bite a newbie unnecessarily. My point is: It's just not as symmetric as you make it out to be. — Sebastian 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC) - reworded 00:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I generally agree w/ Balloonman's opinion about CSD tagging. A bad false positive hurts us much more than a bad false negative. I don't connect the complaints about CSD work with my general comment here, though (Although I disagree with the purported scope and breadth of the errors). Protonk (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

      • As I said on SoWhy's talkpage, I don't think anyone was claiming that 7's CSD tagging was perfectly, only that it wasn't as bad as SoWhy was painting. I'd still maintain that at least two of those were spot-on, and another few were debatable at best. Still, at least 7 will know how to answer the inclusionist/deletionist question next time. Black Kite 11:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support Erik9 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Changed to oppose per inappropriate requests for speedy deletion described by SoWhy below. Erik9 (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Support That was a long read. Law _{type! snype?} 05:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong Support Dang, that nomination statement was loooooong... I hope nobody opposes for that... Anyways, you are a very fine editor. I can't see any reason to oppose you whatsoever. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Mikaey, Devil's advocate 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support, nothing that would make me doubt their judgment, or lead me to believe that they would abuse the tools. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. We've crossed paths before. S/he is a newish editor, but has made enough edits and been involved with enough non-trivial things that I trust them with the mop. More gnomish editors is always good. tedder (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Strong Support. Let's just say that was comprehensive. Good luck :) Aaroncrick (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong support Come across this user frequently at AIV and UAA. No problems whatsoever. – B.hotep •talk• 08:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Support. I see 7 around at UAA and in other places, and s/he is always being helpful. I see no reason to not twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
9. 6 months of real activity is about the minimum I would support, but I like the nomination statement and from their contributions I can't see a reason to oppose.--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Helpful user and has a clue. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Support, although note that there are some typos on the 'article creation' line ('that I that' and 'exits'). -- Mentifisto 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Nom statement was tl;dr, but I trust 7 and that's all that matters. →javért ^chat 09:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Go, 7! Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Weak Support Long nom ... but strong. Good contribs. Only week support per my position that the ideal admin is moderately inclusionist. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Seen him around. Sure. ceranthor 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
16. SupportLooks good. I have seen you at ACC and have never seen anything to make me want to oppose.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Good reports at WP:UAA --Stephen 12:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Agreed that UAA work is great, and so is the G11 CSD work. Happy to support. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Seen him around quite a bit, and I've only encountered positive contribs (especially solid CSD work). Will make a good admin. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 13:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 03:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

19. Support. Looks like they will make good use of the extra buttons in activities they are already doing. PGWG (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support; seen his work, and though I have minor concerns, I trust this editor to use the tools responsibly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support No outstanding problems Alexfusco⁵ 14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I can't see any problems. It looks like 7 will be a fine admin. Timmeh (review me) 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support because my house is full of Sevens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Seems fine. LittleMountain5 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - He's not an admin already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Provisional support--ROT9 (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Provisional support The candidate has more edits to user talk than article space, and less than a thousand edits to policy pages. He (?) doesn't have much audited content work (as David might like to say) and I haven't "seen him around". However, as the last point could be a good thing (since I spend too much time at AN/I), I dug into the candidates CSD tagging. For the past couple hundred or so tags, their tagging has been accurate and they haven't committed any common CSD errors (like reinstering a CSD tag after it has been removed by someone not the author). I'm gonna dig through some more work of the candidate's and hopefully I will be as impressed by that as I was the CSD work. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    Initially, I was going to say the same thing. I came to the conlusion that many of his user talk edits are CSD notices and that the tagged articles were all deleted, hence the great number of user talk edits and deleted edits. I consider that a good thing. And yeah, he must not spend a lot of time at the drama boards, but we need the low profile admins as well. They probably get more work done anyway.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support Seems alright with me. I also like your answers. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

28. Very Strong Support – Answers to the questions are written like you've been an admin for like a year. Chevy Impala 2009 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong Support I was very impressed by your "resume" and humble request for admin powers, and justification for requesting them. -- Atama^chat 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Seems like a fine candidate. (Though he's not quite 40, so I'm a bit concerned about the lack of maturity. But what the heck. Give the kid a chance.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I cant see no problems and the nomination was really excellent. AtheWeatherman 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Support, I don't see any indication that this user would misuse the admin tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC).
33. Time for a real support reason. User:7 appears to be a dedicated person willing to make extensive use of the tools available through RFA. @harej 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Looks good to me. hmwitht 23:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. While I don't agree with everything this user has said, I see a user who can think things through and explain himself. bibliomaniac15 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I will not oppose a user for having views, even if they are controversial. I don't believe that 7 will abuse the tools, so I support.--Res2216firestar 06:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Good contributor. I don't see how his views are going to be a problem with the admin work; he's not likely to go on a mass deleting spree. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support over 200 username reports and 200 AIV reports is good evidence of experience for me that the user will be a competent admin. Triplestop x3 15:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
39. Aye. I don't see anything major here. A couple of dubious CSDs? Meh. Black Kite 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - seems ok. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Good track and every editor has his POV and may have strong opinions both on content and non contents issues and feel each and every has a right to his/her opinion.One needs to be opposed on basis of his/her actions rather than opinions whether they are ,and do not see him going on deleting spree.Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Weak Support due to good work in administrative areas, but lack of content contributions. — Jake Wartenberg 00:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
45. Support he has fought vandalism diligently, and has some content building experience. He has plenty of deleted edits, and I note SoWhy's comment in oppose, however I believe it is a few mistakes, and everyone makes mistakes. I would recommend staying away from deleting CSD requests on articles that you are unsure about. The block was a concern, however a bureaucrat noted that it was probably a ghost account (or is a ghost account). I see no potential of abuse, and after looking through contributions I believe 7 will make a great admin. SparksBoy (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Support I reviewed the opposes in detail, found a few mild reasons for concern (a very few CSDs with arguable reasoning) some opposes that were just misunderstandings (7 does not think 3 million is the upper limit on articles). Would like to see more article work, but the admin work proposed is needed, and I don't see compelling or even concern that the tools will be misused.--SPhilbrickT 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Originally I was opposed. For the curious, the reasons are on 7's talk page. I also wish 7 did more article writing and creation in order to learn how hard it is. 7's response to my concern is hopefully not a politician on their best pre-election behaviour but genuine kindness. Let's give 7 the administrator's sword! Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Possibly minor issues re. CSD deletions, but nothing that won't be fixed through greater experience. Otherwise I see no legitimate suggestion that there is the slightest potential for abuse. Some of the oppose comments seem to me to be bordering on the vexatious. --Xdamr^talk 13:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - Unconvinced by the opposes. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 13:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Support has a clue, is responsible, will do fine. The opposes are not irrational but come on... RfA is getting more and more picky while our admin corps is dwindling fast (100 active admins lost over the last 18 months). I just don't see how adminship can be a net negative in this case. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    If it wasn't such a gargantuan and painful task to desysop a dysfunctional admin, and if the bit wasn't handed out for life (apart from Surpreme Court judges, who else receive lifetime priviliges?) - this procedure could be much more forgiving. Good admins and editors may be lost for other reasons, I suspect the toxic battleground over WP:N. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Point taken but I'd point out a couple of things. We all agree that RfA produces way too many false negatives. But if you look at the list of desysoped admins, you'll find a lot of people who passed their RfA with flying colours and eventually (not necessarily immediately) turned out to be bad admins. So despite the ongoing conservatism and pickiness of RfA regulars, we still routinely promote bad admins (false positives) which in turn pushes people to get pickier still. An efficient desysop mechanism is not going to happen any time soon but I wish people understood that most admins get criticism and adjust. Yes, they do. Really. Really. Level-headed, trustful and we're in business. On a side note, good sysops and good editors leave of course for all sorts of reasons and there's more than one toxic battleground to alienate just about anyone eventually. There's only so much we can do about this but the rate at which we're currently recruiting fresh admins is not sustainable. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

    Most admins do improve--just as most editors do-- but still the best way of judging quality in the future is quality in the past. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

51. Strongest possible uber support - You appear to be the best candidate I've seen on here for a long time, and I wish you well! Jeni ^(talk) 17:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong support - A very trustworthy editor. Would do only good with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Weak support - My interactions with this user have been positive and I therefore had planned to support, but I am concerned by a few things: namely the lack of talk page contribs and some of the deletion examples posted by User:SoWhy below. The talk concern is somewhat alleviated by the largely competent responses given in this RfA, and I trust that if this passes this user will be careful with the delete button until he becomes more familiar with the CSD. Oren0 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
54. Support just enough article work. Opposes unconvincing. Never fails to astound me how nomming for deletion under the wrong reason or having a speedy declined is considered massive red ink in the permanent record.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think anyone will consider such things a "red ink" for a permanent record - actually, I doubt anyone does keep such a record (FlyingToaster for example (who lost adminship for other reasons) failed their first RFA for such reasons and passed the second easily after correcting her behavior). I'd share your sentiment though if someone went back months to find such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

55. Support, opposes not convincing. Wizardman 01:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

    I don't find the supports convincing, but I haven't felt the need to point that out until now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

56. Support. I started out somewhat dubious and fence-sitting — there are both pluses and minuses here — but I see 7 is entitled to my extra self-nom points. That swings it for me. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC).
57. Support per his work at AfD. I don't see any problems that would cause me to oppose and the opposers seem nitpicky on their opposes... Good Luck! Tavix |  Talk  00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
58. Support from me as well. I've looked at the opposes and I can't see much that convinces me. I don't think a few CSD mistakes should punish someone so harshly. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - Too good of a candidate to sit out. Agree fully with Wehwalt's analysis too. CSD is a necessary part of the project. Making it toxic risks shifting the admin pool balance dramatically. Shadowjams (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. The CSD mistakes cited by SoWhy are a mixed bag, but only a few of them are clearly mistakes. I can hardly blame someone putting a speedy tag [4] ("rulers of this place" is confusing precisely due to lack of context) and while "The Pacific shard is a shard on the computer game, Ultima Online" may have context, it certainly is lacking very badly in content, and I don't think we really would lose much by deleting that article, at present it is only a rather implausible redirect. Work and judgement otherwise seems solid and are in areas where admin tools are of benefit, and the minor mistakes cited are not so serious that there will be any significant disruption caused by giving 7 the admin tools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. A reasonable editor, he will be a capable and fair administrator. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
62. Weak Support. Opposition arguments are reasonable, but ultimately not enough in my opinion.--Matheuler 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. A definite net positive. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - my contacts with 7 have been good, and my contributions concerns are gone, looking at my own edit history...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
65. Weak Support I think the opposes make valid arguments, but I get a clue-ful vibe from 7. Despite his relatively low article contributions, he doesn't strike me as a "ladder climber". Gigs (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
66.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, 7. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I can't support an editor who apparently thinks 1) that 3 million articles on Wikipedia is enough; and who 2) makes a logical connection between limiting the creation of new articles in order to improve the "usability and relevance" of the present inventory of Wikipedia articles. There is, of course, a finite number of possible Wikipedia articles, but the ambition and vision in "recording the world's knowledge" certainly go beyond a single digit number, and believing this monumental task could even be achieved within Wikipedia's present short life span reflects simplictic thinking. Wikipedia is the result of volunteer work, volunteers do what they like, and they seldom take orders. The only way to improve the "usability and relevance" of Wikipedia is to recruit and retain expert content providers that can supply large coherent blocks of sourced knowledge. Content is king. MOS work etc. is very important, but it requires that content is there in the first place. The road forward is not restricting content. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Where has the candidate said that "3 million articles in enough"? I think you might have misinterpreted that passage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

   In fact, he said that Wikipedia has over 3 million articles. "English Wikipedia has < 3million articles, and I believe there is good reason for that. I'm a firm believer in WP:NOT, and I think we would all be worse off if Wikipedia started to approach the article count of ask.com or answers.com, or worse Google/Facebook." This is a reasonable point. ceranthor 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure "<" means "less than".--Atlan (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Doh! That's what I meant. ceranthor 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   I agree that the content has to come first. To clarify: I did not say, nor do I believe, that 3mm is enough. I said there is a good reason why there are currently only 3mm - specifically because, to date, the community has done a good job of maintaining the relevance and usability of the project by removing articles that don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Criteria which were written by (and can change over time with) the community's input. I am sure there will be more articles in the future, and I too hope for the day when we have a reference of all the world's knowledge. The questions I ask myself are: If every article that was ever deleted from Wikipedia was restored today how many would there be? 10x the current number? 100x the current number? Would the project be better off? I don't know the gross total of articles ever deleted, but I suspect there are quite a few. I am by no means a deletionist, and if deletion appears necessary I am confident that the deletion process works well, and there is room for review of deletion decisions (both before and after), and with very few exceptions there is no prejudice to prevent an article from being created in the future. I think that a well worded note (instead of a template warning for new editors) will have a very low risk of scaring off the expert content providers. I tried to keep it short, but it didn't work. Thanks for listening.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose(Indented. I think more experience would be beneficial, but I don't oppose any more.) I think it's a bad idea to have an admin who thinks the number of articles has to be kept down for manageability. I also wonder if there is actually evidence that it's more difficult to revert 100 vandals going after 1,000,000 articles than 2,000,000? Isn't the number of attacks the same? And with monitoring at new changes patrol and the use of bots, can't we be effective at addressing vandalism regardless of the number of articles? If not, how many articles should we have? What number can be properly maintained? Isn't maintenance related more to how many good faith editors we have at any given time than how many articles we have? Should we do a better job of attracting editors who will revert vandalism? Is reducing the number of article an effective way to do this? With massive glaring holes in our coverage, this viewpoint on keeping the size of the encyclopedia seems to radical to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   CoM - you are absolutely right that the vandalism count in your example is the same, however when I say "relevance and usability" I am not referring to admin workload or vandalism fighting, I am referring to the quality of the content that the average non-editor is presented with when they search for information here. In other words, it is more relevant and usable when people don't have to navigate through dozens of non-relevant articles or disambiguations to get to what they are looking for. As I said above, I fully hope and believe that article count will continue to grow as missing existing subjects get articles written about them and as new subjects come to exist. I would certainly never suggest a maximum number of articles.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the clarification. It seems a little reckless to me to mention a number of articles in your nomination statement if what you're really suggesting is that there's lots of room for expansion, but that keeping quality and completeness up to snuff for our readers means merging and trimming extraneous content. I am always surprised when people say all the major topics have been covered. I don't find that to be the case at all. Are some plants minor, or major architects, and I find artists, foods, and political subjects that aren't included all the time. And most of our coverage needs a great deal of editing and expansion. I am sympathetic to Protonk's request not to make this a referendum on inclusion v. exclusion (or deletionism), but I think a suggestion that the encyclopedia should be kept "manageable" or to a certain number runs contrary to the 'Pedia's interests and mission. I am fairly satisfied with your clarification and answer to my oppose which seems reasonable, thoughtful and courteous, but looking into your contributions I still have some other concerns, so I'm going to remain at oppose for now and loiter for a while to see what others have to say. I think you will make a good Admin, even now. But you seem to still have quite a bit to learn. :) I guess we all do! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

2. A candidate who thinks that the deletion process as a whole works well demonstrates a lack of comprehension of the present state of Wikipedia. (I am thinking as much of the bad articles we miss deleting as the ones we wrongly discard). And other aspects of the reply show this. It is easily possible to figure out how many articles have been deleted--one just looks at the deletion log--at least recently, it has been about equal to the number of articles kept, with most of the ones removed being removed via speedy deletion. The reason there are so few articles is because we do not yet have sufficient editors to cover most of the world, or sufficient sources of information about them, and not even sufficient editors to cover important topics nearer to us -- almost none of the members of the US National academy for medicine or engineering have articles, very few of the mayors and state legislators other than the present generation--or for some states, even the presently sitting members--see Kansas House of Representatives ! The candidate mentions a dispute over the article on Howard Benedict, and is correct that he is probably not notable. But the article has never been sent to AfD, and a PROD tag removal is not a community decision, unless nobody challenges it. And I do not see his involvement in any discussion of it either there on on the talk p. for the school article. I hsome of his other claims to experience are better supported. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

   I understand your point - I could have done more if I was adamant about deleting the Howard Benedict article. However, I wasn't adamant about it. In fact the "Lacrosse Man of the Year" citation, combined with the fact that multiple geographically diverse IPs were editing the article made me feel that a removed PROD was as far as I needed to take it. What I was adamant about was preserving the neutrality of the New Canaan High School article, and I have attempted to do that with warnings to multiple IPs [5], [6], [7], as well as to a note posted on the talk page of the article here. I've also explained this on notes here. It may be a little hard to track due to my changing username and multiple IPs which I've been communicating with, however it's hard to really communicate when I get no responses to my initial notes to them.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose - Right now, all I see little article work, as well as little extensive communication (though from interactions with you, I do know that you are generally very kind and helpful). However, the little article work, combined with your short experience here (only about 4.5 to 5 months, it looks like, which generally isn't enough to learn the intricacies of policy, IMO), as well as the above statements (I did read your replies, and will continue to monitor this RfA) lean me to opposing. Feel free to reply; I won't regard anything as "badgering". NW (Talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Here are the seven articles I've created (not counting redirects): Waveny Park, Phoebe Dunn (author), Coors Cutter, Michel Fournier (adventurer), Public offering without listing, Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo, and Chip Johannessen. As I said, no GA/FA/DYK - but they've survived so far. Oldest is from April 2008.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per DGG, and for the lack of solid accomplishments in article creation. Vandal fighters and such are necessary, but I stronlgly believe that administrator candidates need to have walked in the shoes of the content creators. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Lack of article-writing work doesn't really bother me as long as the candidate is otherwise very good and has a lot of this stuff. But one of the 7 articles you linked to above looked like this only a couple of hours ago. It may sound nit picky, but I simply cannot support a candidate who doesn't seem to know the basics of a WP:LEAD and general standards of article quality. You created that page a while ago, yes, but surely there was enough time between then and now to improve it some. And actually, if it were a shorter article, Dunn's page could possibly have been speedied. Sorry, but I expect an admin candidate (who plans to work near CSD) to be familiar with A1/A3 and know how to make a proper little stub that has context. Sorry, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 03:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Per SoWhy, as well. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Note: While I still hold by my general sentiment, the (now struckthrough) comment above isn't really true, as shown by the candidate's more recent articles. I'm ill, and it was midnight, so I didn't quite describe my point accurately. But it's still the willingness to link to an article like that, and having never improved it, that leaves me uncomfortable. You're overall a good editor, however, and if you come back in several months, I'd probably be willing to support you. Cheers, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 14:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

   Whereas this candidate's sub-standard and unrevisited articles, also cited as a demonstration of content creation prowess, didn't bother you. Get well soon. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC) You weren't there, I can't read properly. Apologies, Jamie. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose The speedy deletion record is not very good imho. The candidate make very basic mistakes that can easily be avoided. Let me elaborate: A7 for a company founded by a notable person, A1 for an element in a PC game (context is very clear), A7 for a pseudonym used by a notable author, R3 for a plausible redirect, A7 with reliable source covering the subject, A1 with context (just missing wikilinks), A7 on a real estate term. Also, I am uncomfortable with a candidate who takes stuff to AFD (example 1, example 2, example 3) instead of even attempting to rectify the problems (per WP:BEFORE). An admin should show at least willingness to fix stuff instead of deleting it. So I am sorry I cannot say that I trust this user to wield the delete button, at least not at the moment. I'd be willing to support a future RFA (if this fails) iff they show improvement in those areas. On a side note, I find the signature a bit too much eye-catching, you might want to use something without elaborate background coloring (especially since it takes up three lines in the editing window even on a resolution of 1680x1050). Regards SoWhy 10:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Some of those CSD criticisms are very harsh. First one; Being founded by a notable person doesn't make a company notable, and it makes no claim of notability. Redirect to the founder, but the CSD isn't technically wrong. Second one; what's a "shard"? I have no idea. Would a casual reader? If they would'nt, this is a correct CSD. Third one should've just been redirected to the author, certainly isn't worth keeping as a stand-alone. Fourth one I agree with you. Fifth one; a local news item doesn't save this from being an A7 - this is debtable, but not wrong. Sixth one doesn't have any context at all - what place? It's meaningless - an absolutely correct A1. Seventh one I agree with you. Black Kite 16:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   A couple of things. 7 made the move, so the R3 isn't totally unreasonable. Had s/he tagged it as a G6 it would have been deleted without comment. I don't think the Polka Floyd A7 was so wrong. When you say "7 A7'd something w/ a RS", you kind of neglect saying that what was A7'd was an article about a Toledo band and the 'RS' was a bit in a local paper about the band. As for the UO server, you argue that he made a mistake but your very next edit was to redirect the page (Wrong wikipedian)? Must not have been much of a mistake. Also, I would have deleted that, even though I already knew what a shard in UO is. As for the Nutkani, was this really a grievous error? For the famous pseudonym, the page is redirected now. I'm not arguing that these were perfect cases, but 'terrible' errors, they're not. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I know you and I disagree on deletion, Black Kite, but let me say that your defense is exactly the reason to oppose. Same for Protonk's. Black Kite is repeating for example the very old error that A7 is about notability - which it is not. Being founded by a notable person does not make a company notable - but that's not what is needed. It does however indicate some significance and that's what's needed. The second has been actually declined as being "very clear". Third was still wrong as an A7, no matter whether it would be worth keeping. It just does not fit A7, so it's wrong. Fifth, same as first, indication of importance or significance (A7) is provided by a reliable source covering the subject. It does not make the subject notable, but that's not the question. As for sixth, the context can easily be determined using wikilinks to the terms used. A1 should imho not delete articles which just lack appropriate formatting to provide context which the declining admin proved was easily possible.

   I think those examples may not be "terrible" but they are very basic and can easily be avoided. The candidate shows both a willingness to use "notability" within A7 (which it shouldn't per policy) and to delete rather than make easily possible fixes. I am not someone who wants article writing in an admin, I do not expect such things because I do not think it's needed for being an admin. What I do think though is that a potential admin, with the ability to delete content, should show some willingness to fix easy to fix problems instead of calling for deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   "...let me say that your defense is exactly the reason to oppose. Same for Protonk's." what, huh? BK may have conflated A7 w/ notability, but I didn't. My point was (elaborated somewhat on my talk page) that among speedies the candidate has made which have been deleted, his/her work is by and large, sound and among speedies the candidate has made which have not been deleted, their work is not bad. I don't actually think my defense or articulation of those speedies should be enough to sway you, I just wanted to point out what I thought were exaggerations on your part with respect to the quality/efficacy of the speedy tagging before a number of 'oppose per sowhy' votes came along. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize. I have mixed up your comments with BK's in the editing window and thus must misread them. My apologies, although I will say that I do not agree that those things I pointed out are exaggerations. Those were mistakes that could easily have been avoided and even if the candidate's work is good with those things deleted, every such mistake may WP:BITE some new user, which cannot be our goal. I do not expect perfection in those things but the confusion of notability and A7 seems a bit too strong for my liking. For the record, I am completely willing to be swayed to support but I would need to see some indication that the candidate will not repeat such mistakes (willingly). Regards SoWhy 19:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I know you are willing to be swayed. My point in clarifying was, however to make a defensive argument, rather than an offensive argument. Thanks for responding. :) Protonk (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   SoWhy – So why, in your first example, did you not mention the fact that 7 added a hangon tag on behalf of the author? He didn't have to do that? Does that not suggest he is willing to subject to a second pair of eyes before deleting? I know someone here appreciates a second pair of eyes... and so do I. – B.hotep •talk• 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, the arguments about the semantics of A7 are very old, but let's face it, A7 actually says "...does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" - which is effectively a roundabout way of indicating notability. Now to me, the fact that a company has been founded by someone who just happens to have a bluelink doesn't indicate why it's important or signficant (or indeed, notable). As I say, debatable, but hardly wrong. (For the record though, if I'd been presented with that CSD request, I'd have redirected it). Black Kite 22:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose - Per SoWhy. User appears to have a profound misunderstanding of CSD criteria. Only a handful of examples, but it demonstrates perfectly the do's and don'ts of NPP. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Sorry, having declined a speedy nomination of yours yesterday and looked through your other nominations, I am not convinced the time is right. I appreciate the hard work at new page patrolling, and sympathise that one can't afford to spend a great deal of time examining each article given the backlogs, but the speed with which you are willing to give up on articles like Nutkani is concerning. Forgive me for saying so, but this is a prime example of a situation in which a relative paucity of article development in one's contributions compounds overeagerness in patrolling the creations of others to hamper the development of an understanding of the proper application of deletion. Tl;dr: CSD, content. I hope you'll continue to expand your content contributions (I especially enjoyed Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo) and think this would give you a better grasp of judging borderline articles. Namaste,  Skomorokh  16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Mediocre content creation. Poor CSD tagging shown by SoWhy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Thank you for your willingness to do the hard work, but I feel you are not ready yet. For me, it is important how we address newbies, and the Nutkani (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch CSD is a case in point: If you had checked "What links here", you would have easily seen the context and added it yourself, instead of proposing it for speedy deletion. Let me explain why this important for me: We have a systemic bias here; we have articles for many hardly notable people in the Western world, but lack articles about whole peoples elsewhere. Therefore, I feel that we need to spend more time helping particularly those editors, for whom contributing is often harder than for us. (A nice example for what I mean was The Village Market, which was speedily deleted earlier this year, and I only became aware of it when the creator asked about it at WP:HD.) So, I would have liked to see you help the newbie, instead of just templating them. In this context, it is also relevant that, as JamieS93 pointed out, some of the articles you cite as examples for your own creations were hardly above that level. (The article Jamie mentions is no outlier: Look at the state in which you left Coors Cutter and Michel Fournier (adventurer). The first had only incomplete sentences, and the second no meaningful categories or stub templates, and both were/are of questionable notability.) — Sebastian 21:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    Perhaps I'm missing something, but those two articles appear to be the same. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    He probably meant to use this as the link for Coors Cutter. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) Thanks for catching this! I corrected it. — Sebastian 21:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Anyone who believes that minors who "show the appropriate maturity in the community" by doing whatever they've learned to do is necessary to become administrators in the current climate shouldn't even be allowed out without supervision, much less be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    To be fair, I think that was more a concession to the people that think minors should be shown the same rights. He didn't say if he was a minor he should be shown the same consideration, neither did he say because he was older than a minor he should be given more consideration. It was a matter of fact, rather than opinion. :) – B.hotep •talk• 23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

    Another thinly veiled personal attack, Malleus. How droll. Protonk (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Think whatever you like, with whatever limited resources you have to do it with. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, Malleus. I was trying to be constructive. I have a lot of respect for you. – B.hotep •talk• 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm pretty sure he was responding to me. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Though I could be wrong, what with the little resources I might have to bring to bear on a complex problem like that. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yep, I was responding to you, not to Bubba. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yep, I'm absolutely sure you didn't respond to me. That was kind of the point. – B.hotep •talk• 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    My opinion doesn't matter spit anyway, so who cares. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    I do. Do you want a hug? Come over to my talk page. :D – B.hotep •talk• 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

    I've got real work to do. Can't be wasting any more time in this bear pit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

12. I'll say not now, but perhaps later with a little more brushing up on CSD. You state you have a "strong record" there, but if there have been issues just within the last few days, I find this hard to believe, and think you ought to have been more careful since this is a self-nom. See my standards - basically, you meet the oppose point "A pattern of misreporting..." which covers speedy deletion too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who wades through hundreds of diffs in desperation to find a tiny mistake from months/years ago. I just think you could do with a little more time to improve this area, until you really do have a strong record. In the meantime, you can also work on more articles. Majorly talk 00:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose The candidate has an obvious lack of knowledge when it comes to both clear-cut policy (thinking specifically of the CSD example given by several already) and absolutely basic community norms when it comes to article creation and curation. Your heart's in the right place, but I wouldn't trust you as an administrator yet. Steven Walling (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm opposing mainly due to the comments by JamieS93, SoWhy, and Majorly. I'd likely support a future RfA though, as I do see a great future admin candidate, just not yet. iMatthew ^talk at 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Work on your XfC stuff and come back in a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per inappropriate requests for speedy deletion described by SoWhy above. Erik9 (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose. per above. I feel 7 comes off as arrogant - just by reading the nomination statement. This is potentially problematic as it is often sysops who act arrogantly that land themselves an arbitration cases. I am quite sure that 7 works for the better of the project but his/her ego is getting in the way. Apart from that, I have some concerns with 7's knowledge of policy and interactions with other users. I see that a significant number of 7's 12,000 edits are automated making it hard for to judge the user's ability to work with others and judge the user's understanding of policy. It's the faulty CSD taggings noted by SoWhy that seal the deal for me. I can see you do some great work around the project and I urge you to keep it up. If this rfa fails, get a few months more experience and do come try again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose Sorry but I don't believe that User:7 has had enough experince as of yet. 7 has had an account for over 18 months, however 7 remained only semi-active for the first part. I believe after another 6 months or so 7 will be more experinced and thus appropiate for Adminship. By then 7 should be more familiarised with policies etc. I think it is good that 7 has Rollback features. Keep up the good work and good luck for the future. However I'm sorry for this current opposistion. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Exclusionist, Wikipedia already suffer from ?disease. --NERIUM (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak Oppose Mainly per SoWhy. You are almost there and I hope will make it before the year is out, but need to slightly change your approach at deletion. One of SoWhy's examples was Nutkani where I declined two speedy tags from you - though the second was a correct tag but easily salvagable. This isn't really about inclusionism re deletionism, its about helping newbies and giving their articles a chance based on the potential of the subject and not simply judging them on the typo ridden unwikified first draft. If I may make a suggestion, when you tag things take a few seconds to also fix some of the obvious stuff at the same time, and remember when on new page patrol, sometimes there will be ones you see as a close call if so categorise or wikify and let someone else make the call. ϢereSpielChequers 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Concerns about the candidate's ability to apply the criteria for speedy deletion consistent with the consensus of the community (i.e., narrowly, with a presumption against deletion, lest, as Spiel and Protonk note, we should bite or lose salvageable content) leave me unable to conclude with the requisite level of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. I join, though, I should say, in the sentiments of many others opposing with respect to a willingness to reconsider the candidate in the not-too-distant future should he demonstrate a better understanding of CSD; the flaws here are not fatal (the article count comment does disquiet, but I've no problem supporting a candidate whose views about the fundamentals of the project differ from mine where it is clear that he/she appreciates that adminship is ministerial, i.e., that admins act to carry out the will of the community, irrespective of their views about what policy and practice ought to be), and there remains a good bit to (re)commend 7 for adminship. Joe (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose per Jamie and others. Come back again with improved skills, and I will reconsider. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per above comments. Candidate's past record shows that more experience is needed before they can be trusted with the tools. Singopo (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Per Majorly and SoWhy. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. More article work and talk page involvement would be important, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Per Jclemens and Malleus. Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose. I am not really an inclusionist myself, but I don't have confidence that the candidate would close deletion discussions and process speedy deletion candidates in line with established norms. Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose - Per deletion concerns. Tiptoety ^talk 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose on several of the grounds stated above. —Finell (Talk) 21:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose I'm really sorry (I actually came here to support you) but what I'm seeing in the oppose comments by other editors does not look very good. But next time, I'm sure I will support you.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose not enough article work YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Weak oppose - Overall, 7 has demonstrated a good deal of CLUE and a reasonable commitment to Wikipedia. However, we are only talking about ~4.5 months of active editing and the concerns above are enough to make me pause. I think 7 will make a good admin someday, but I would like to see a bit more experience before granting the tools. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose. I'm sorry, but the above concerns raised lead me to oppose this one. One two three... 19:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Per SoWhy. Logan | Talk 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose - for reasons listed above. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Oppose - My contacts in the past with 7 have been very good (and I thought he was an admin already...), but, this has to be a hesitant oppose due to limited Wikipedia namespace experience, as well as edits in the article namespace. Only 7 articles created is fine by me... This is a RfA, not a request for the autoreviewer flag, plus, I think he has created more actual articles than I have...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to support.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose. Unimpressive CSD work. I'd like the candidate to have a better grasp of the criteria if they intend to work in that area. — Σxplicit 00:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose, I have been impressed by a lot of your work, and would've probably supported in a month, but I just think the CSD work is a tad too recent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Leaning oppose. You seem like an OK candidate, but I'd like to look even further into the oppose !votes, as they do strike a red flag for me. iMatthew ^talk at 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral/Almost at an opposeMoved to support - I see a lot that needs to be improved on. From your responses I see a bit of arrogance, and the other opposes raises a concern. I will have to read more into this candidate before I decide. I am also wondering how JCutter was hacked/stolen, and I am concerned that it may happen to this account. Just a though, and if you want to respond to this feel free :) SparksBoy (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: the block - I am wondering too. I don't know how it happened and I really wish I did, and I've never been given a copy of the email. Furthermore, the main article discussion doesn't include any mention of my name (multiple other usernames) so it appears that different admins got different emails. I can only guess that one of the comments at the very bottom of the ANI report from a bureaucrat about "ghost accounts" needing to be disabled had something to do with it. Details here. When I changed to user:7 I tried to re-register JCutter to avoid someone else taking it over but I was unable because it was too similar to J-Cutter. I can only assure you that my current PW is strong ( > 12 characters alpha/num ). Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   07:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral but leaning support. (Reason it's not a full support is that users whose judgment I would tend to trust are opposing this candidate.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
2. neutral - 7 works at UAA, but has a username that is not creatable now, and would either be instantly blocked or have a forced change after discussion. I'm not sure that admins taking use of grandfathered exemptions to community driven guidelines is a useful thing. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see anything in the username policy that would prohibit 7's username. What do you mean? Malinaccier (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   How in the world could 7 have taken advantage of adminship to have his name grandfathered in? Protonk (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   One might note that he was "JCutter" before being renamed by a crat to "7" (after a request at WP:CHUU iirc), which should indicate that the name is fine within policy. Regards SoWhy 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

   Try creating a name that doesn't have any letters in - you cannot. Even if you could there are plenty of users who'd report it, and admins who'd block it. Thus, this user has a name that cannot now be created. This user has a grand-fathered name. How would this user be able to credibly talk to users who's name has been blocked under existing policy? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

   I believe that there are different policies for names that can be created at the signup page and names that one can have a pre-existing account changed to. You can see this happen frequently at WP:ACC where about one in every five requests for a new account will be flagged as something that only someone with the accountcreator permission can handle; more often than not this is due to one name very closely resembling a name of a pre-existing account (for example: Suppose there is an account named Sarahbell and someone wants to create SarahBell; this would not be forbidden by policy if Sarahbell was inactive, but would raise a flag. Thus, it would be theoretically possible for anyone to change their name to "6" or "12" or "0" if there are any numbers left that aren't yet taken.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm stuck on this one. While I usually won't oppose per article building concerns, JamieS93's comments (coupled with your CSD tagging errors) lead me to believe you do not understand the speedy deletion criteria. I'll come and check up on this to see whether I will go to support or oppose (or just stay neutral). Malinaccier (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm worried whether giving the mop to someone who comes across as deletionist while thy have little article experience would be a wise idea.  GARDEN  10:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
5. First of all, I don't see anything that resembles arrogance in the answers, who seem well researched/thought out. However, I couldn't help but notice the R3 -> R2 mistake in the nom, which is repeated in Q10. This, combined with a misunderstanding of notability wrt. A7, that would've been rectified simply by reading the criterion leads me to think that you have spent very little time reading the policy you're enforcing. While I do not take these things lightly, I still ended up here, in recognition of all the good taggings I've seen you do, and generally good answers. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral, I have read through this all over two days now and cannot bring myself to a decision either side. You do good work, but I agree with others concerns over deletion, and thus am unable to provide support. Good luck in this and any future RFAs, I will be happy to support when you have more experience with deletion. --Taelus (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
7. NeutralPer some above, and I think that new admins should experiance what we on Wikipeida call "Drama". Possibly try work on some drama things, more drama than RFA. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
8. I see concerns on the oppose side that I do not entirely agree with, but cannot ignore. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Needs more experience. Might support in future. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral - This is a hard one. I'm leaning towards support but am stuck in neutral because the opposes do hold some truth. - Airplaneman ^talk 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral—would be Support per Matheuler, but SoWhy does raise some good points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh (talk • contribs)
12. Neutral- I have been watching this unfold and have found it difficult to decide. I'm concerned by JamieS93's points and inclined to agree with Garden. I will therefore reside here as I don't think the candidate is deserving of an oppose either. --candle•wicke 02:58, 21 August 2009 (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.