Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adolphus79

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Adolphus79[edit]

FINAL (55/29/8); closed by EVula at 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphus79 (talk · contribs) – I would like to submit Adolphus79 for consideration for adminship. I found him to be a well-reasoned and mature editor through the course of his admin coaching. Adolphus always seeks to make himself useful, whether it be cleaning up articles that he comes across, reverting vandalism, or contributing to a deletion discussion. I have little doubt that he will be able to wield the tools in a way that will elevate the community. bibliomaniac15 00:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I graciously accept... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: At first I will probably work on the areas I know best already; RC/NP patrolling, CSD, AfD, AIV, UAA, etc., I know a number of these are often backlogged, and I would like to help alleviate these backlogs... Being a bit of a sloth, I am sure that I will find myself bored and wandering around helping in other areas as well.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: That's a bit like like asking a parent which of their kids is their favorite... I honestly don't know what my best contributions are, and what I think is the best may not be what someone else thinks is my best... I suppose the areas that I feel I have made some better contributions would be Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons (when I first joined 2 years ago), and more recently NP patrolling, AfD, Micronation and Piracy related articles, and creating a few articles...
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: Quite a few minor conflicts, as goes with RC/NP patrolling and vandalism fighting, but nothing so major to cause me much stress... If I find myself getting too worked up over a situation, I generally either try to get a fresh set of eyes on the subject (bring it to one of the noticeboards and/or talk page of an admin), or just walk away from the 'puter for a little bit. In the future, I will probably deal with it just the same as I do now.

Additional question from Nsk92

4. As a follow-up to Q2, could you please comment in more detail on your mainspace contributions?
A: I'm not completely sure what you are asking here, to comment in more detail on my mainspace contributions... Off the top of my head, and being bold in assuming what you want, I would say that most of my mainspace edits are either minor copyediting or vandalism reverts. Throw in the random major copyedit or article creation (and/or fixing my own typos), and that would pretty much cover it. Hopefully this answers your question; if not, let me know...
Thanks. I actually wanted to hear about some examples of articles your created, because at first I did not notice the book icon at the top of your userpage that contains a link to the list of articles you created. Sorry, that was my bad. Nsk92 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from DGG

5. I notice that almost all the articles you created have no third party references. [1] , or the many album articles that are your main contributions. How important is it that articles have such references when judged the criteria for keeping an article at AFD? How important when judging a possible deletion at Speedy? DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: To be quite honest, I don't know... I think part of the reason for that is the fact that a lot of the articles I have created were created simply because I found a redlink... I don't only edit Wikipedia, but also like to use it to read up on subject I don't know much about... the album articles are created whenever I am listening to a song or album and can't find said album on the Wiki already... they are admittedly quick jobs just to get a stub in place, hoping that someone more knowledgeable in the subject (a Wikiproject:Albums participant) will come along to fill in the gaps. With this now brought to my attention, I will try my best to go back and find some better sources for my creations... I know just how important such sources are at AfD, as I have used the arguement that an article fails WP:V several times myself. As far as CSD goes, so long as a possibility of notability is shown (RS's or not), then said article should not be speedied.
6. I notice no particpation in the last 3 months in any discussion on Wikipedia Talk space, and no discussion of any sort in Wikipedia Talk space about a question of policy. a/ How can we see that you do know about current policy questions? b/Could you please select two currently disputed issue relevant to the work of an administrator and briefly explain your view. DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I really don't talk much to begin with... I stalk User talk:Xenocidic and User talk:Keeper76, and also try to keep up on AIV's talk, AfD's talk and AN/I's talk, mostly to try to learn from more experienced editors. As far as Wikipedia Talk space, up until now I've sort of been more of the young pup learning from others and following the policies. I haven't really found the need to discuss said policies/guidelines, as I agree with them most of the time. To be frank, I don't consider myself a policy-maker, but more of a janitor (no pun intended) cleaning up the public face of Wikipedia, and leaving the behind the scenes stuff (policies/coding/etc.) to the more experienced. To answer question A, I think Biblio and I discussed a few different policies during my coaching. I'll have to look into question B and get back to you...
7. About 95% of your !votes at AfD have been to delete the article. I agree with almost all of them--and even the few I don't , there are none so wrong that I would really question them. But why have you almost never found a disputed AfD on an article in your subject where you though a !keep was in order? DGG (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, I didn't even realize that. I promise I am not a deletionist myself. This could possibly be due to the fact that I simply agree with some AfD noms, and therefore cast my !vote. I don't have a simple answer for you since this was not done consciously... I don't scan through AfD specifically looking for noms that I disagree with, it's more along the lines of when I nominate something, I happen to scan through and pick a couple others at random to look into.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Adolphus79 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Clarification: Due to some of the comments in the Oppose category below, I would like to clarify my response to question Q5 above. I do completely understand and believe how important third party, reliable sources are, as well as properly referencing an article. I have used WP:V and WP:RS in several (if not most) of my arguements at AfD. The first part of my original answer was in regard to the articles I have created myself. That some of them were quickly created, just to get something up, and then were never worked on any further (a simple oversight of my own doing). Anyone interested in checking my recent contribs will see that after DGG's !vote, I was motivated to start a personal article drive. I have already done some major work to 3 of my articles, and plan to work on others, as well. Hopefully this work will show that I do have at least a decent understanding of how to write, and copyedit, articles (and ref work as well).

I also do not claim to be an expert on all of Wikipedia's policies, or policy making. But, I do believe that I know the policies that I use on a regular basis very well. I have made it a point to learn the proper usage of CSD tags, and as Balloonman states, have made a point to correct any that are mis-tagged. And I know that not all new page deletions fall under CSD. I have probably tagged just as many articles with prod or AfD, as CSD, and many more were helped to grow instead of being deleted. I much prefer to do this (as I call it, "frontline cleanup work"), than to sit and argue with people about why or why not a certain ploicy or guideline may or may not work. I figure there are users that probably do this as their primary work (and enjoy it), and the way I see it, my focusing on RC/NP/CVU (what I enjoy) leaves them to focus on that. I have no intentions of changing how I use Wikipedia with or without adminship. But I do truly believe my having adminship would better the project as a whole.

I hope that this may clear up some of the confusion regarding my experience, understanding of policy, as well as my intentions... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all of the opposes, and I still can't figure out exactly what the actual issue is. I just see a lot of vague generalities. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough substantial work in article space and not enough demonstration of policy knowledge as demonstrated by Wikipedia Talk edits. It seems somewhat silly to me to demand those things of an admin candidate but that doesn't mean they aren't good things to have. If this RfA should fail and Adolphus79 takes the opportunity to broaden his work on Wikipedia, he will be a better editor and stronger candidate the next time he is nominated. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of admin task Adolphus79 wants to do seem to be simple, routine housekeeping chores (AIV/helping yourself). I agree somewhat with DGG, who brings valuable evidence, but our conclusions differ, as I don't think Adolphus will try to go into places he isn't so certain, as for the housekeeping chores, he hasn't done anything that bad that would lead me to fear the abuse of tools.--Maxim(talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Beat-the-nom Support - I had already looked over this editor a few weeks earlier (He was another of my Admin Coach's students) and I feel that Biblo has taught him fine :) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per experiences with the user. bibliomaniac15 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support John254 02:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Funny, just earlier today I thought about nominating you. I'll throw my Support in. RockManQ (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Another good candidate. When will the streak end? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Candidate seems to be knowledgeable in the areas he wishes to take part in, especially AfD. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 03:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak support due to the concerns by DGG. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I would say that with an admin coaching background and good knowledge of backlogs, there is no reason why I shouldn't cast this vote. Leujohn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Support as soon as I saw this on my watchlist. I've seen him around the wiki, and he both has clue and is willing to use it. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support There is something that makes me uncomfortable with this candidate, but I couldn't put my finger on it. I was pleasantly impressed with his CSD tagging... he actually corrected another editors mistagging of G1! Perhaps it is my general mistrust of CSD'ers? Whatever my hesitation, it's not enough to deny a support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)PS I did add a comment on the coaching page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - User appears competent enough. Good AFD and AIV. I would have liked to see more UAA experience since they state this in their answer to question one, but I didn't find anything alarming. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Good user, good contribs, won't mess up. AdjustShift (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The candidate's answer to Q3 has me a bit concerned as to whether or not they will be able to effectively manage the stress of being an admin, because editors are going to bring disputes to administrators expecting them to resolve matters. However, I figure it's better to take a break and relax than it is to go off exploding randomly everywhere. It's also good that he is willing to ask for help when needed. He seems to have an overall solid grasp of policy, and has a degree of common sense I would hope for and expect from an administrator. Why the hell not? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q5, while it may not be spot-on, is not enough to convince me to change my stance, as I don't forsee abuse or misuse - which is what this request is all about. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support - When will this string of excellent candidates end? No problems here, or at least that I can see, no reason not to trust this user. — neuro(talk) 07:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Made weak, the oppose section raises some valid points, esp. DGG. — neuro(talk) 05:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Another great candidate? What's going on with RfA these days? Support as a great user, with excellent contribs. Xclamation point 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking it over, I'm going to stand with my support. While Adolphus may not be entirely experienced, I still believe they will be a net positive as an admin. Xclamation point 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Certainly is a bit of a green week at RFA! Great candidate, nice diverse editing, civil and calm looking at user talk. Also appears to share my twin interests in smoking and drinking - two habits that adminship will no doubt only strengthen .... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - It's a cliche, but I thought he was one already. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support RfA is going green, indeed. You show a major net positive, which is great. iMatthew 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also stand by my support like X!. I got shot in the foot over Q5 as well, and if you're anything like me, you understand it was not correct - but now know your mistake. Forgiven, forgotten. iMatthew 20:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Tangobot's report is green like cash monies. IMO, this user will do a fine job as an admin. Sam Blab 12:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support per above Message from XENUu, t 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Wanted to be a co-nom support - Would make a great admin. Often does my work for me by answering questions on my talk page. –xeno (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Hello, I'm Mrs. Balloonman, and I need to hire a detective to follow my husband -- he keeps sneaking out of the house at night to go to someplace called "RfA" and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an excellent editor who would be a fine admin! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions between us. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 14:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support because candidate is clearly responsible enough to handle the admin tools in a way to help wikipedia and I see no reason for him to abuse such tools either purposefully or accidently in such a way that would skew the values of wikipedia. Lympathy Talk 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I have seen him around, and I like what I saw! America69 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Perhaps I could sneak by in the surge of good candidates... Oh the irony! ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 18:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I respect DGG's concerns (as I always do) but I don't feel that they're really a deal-breaker. He's done quite a bit of gnomish work and admins with that sort of background usually turn out to be quiet and averse to drama. Willingness to follow policy is more important than knowledge of policy. I think he knows enough to get around and will do just fine. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Nice person, per above. JS (chat) 23:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Weak support. Your experience levels are a little lower than what I would normally support, and your answers to the above questions are not the greatest, but because you have gone through admin coaching and seem to have good intentions with regards to the encyclopedia I will support you. Please be extra careful in your admin actions if you are given the bit, and good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I think he has been around long enough to not burn down teh wiki. MBisanz talk 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Over 8,000 edits and a clean block log, and as DGG discovered your AFD calls are sensible. I prefer verified edits to verifiable ones, but current policy is wp:verifiable not wp:verified. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. Don't honestly believe that he would misuse the extra buttons. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Sure. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I don't see being involved in policy discussions as a pre-req for admin, so I respectfully disagree with DGG. --GGG65 (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak Support per willingness to admit mistakes. I realise that your article work is limited, hence the weak. Garden. 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  35. Weak Support. The answers to the questions seem to me a little lacking and leave me feeling confused, but really I can't find a reason to oppose. DGG brings up valid concerns below, but I don't see that as a reason to think you'll abuse the tools. I do suggest taking stronger stances on the importance of WP:V and WP:RS. Tan | 39 04:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Trustworthy, basicly. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 19:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I am happy that he will not abuse the tools. I have nothing but respect for DGG, whose opinion is aways reasonable and considered. But I feel that his reasons are not sufficient to refuse adminship to this editor. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I see no reason not to trust the candidate. The concerns raised by the opposers regarding the lack of experience in policy discussions are valid, but I don't think you need to have debated the policy in order to understand and follow it, and no one is arguing that Adolphus has edited against policy. As a personal example, I have barely contributed to discussions on WP:CSD, yet I am pretty familiar with the various criteria. As for lack of article-writing experience, well, I'm right down there with Adolphus, so it would be hypocritical of me to oppose for that reason.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I find the opposes unconvincing. Admins are not more responsible than other users for article or policy writing so limited experience in those areas should not be a deal breaker. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Stunningly weak support — I'm almost inclined to neutral here but I feel that I can trust you enough to be very careful until you get the hang of the tools. Don't go jumping into anything really confusing or difficult just yet and I have every confidence in you. Good luck. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. I trust the candidate. —BradV 22:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Great contributor; trustworthy. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Do I trust this user with the tools? Yes. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Pshah - respectable folks and all on the oppose side, but I've never found myself keenly interested in policy, nor do I think that not editing policies is the same as not knowing policy. Contribs show a pretty good grasp of how things work and you seem to have good intentions here. Like others have said, be a bit careful on the uptake and don't be afraid to stalk good admins or ask as many questions as you need. Shell babelfish 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Per voices in my head saying so. Neuro√Logic 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak Support per Aervanath above...though the lack of article-building worries me a bit, it is not enough to oppose. Good luck! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I understand the concerns that people are having, but the candidate has not messed up in the time that he's been here, and I'm confident that he won't suddenly start messing up once he gets the mop. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Tentative support- I see the rationale behind some of the opposes (notably NOT the one about the smoking) and they make me a bit cautious about lending unqualified support. I'd look favourably on more article building but, as I've said in previous RfAs, I don't see it as a prerequisite for being granted the tools. In the end I incline to support because this user doesn't have a history of big mistakes or questionable behaviour, and adminship isn't supposed to be that big a deal. Reyk YO! 01:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Yes, as DGG pointed out, your contributions have a tendency to come in bunches. My question is what is wrong with that. If any us could get past real life problems - situations - loves -dislikes - and so on - and so on - we would all have 1,000 edit’s a day, every day, all done manually without the help of Twinkle and /or huggle, or other like programs. In reviewing your contribution history, I saw an editor with over 8,000 edits, over an extended time period, coming up on three years. Likewise, with 40% of their total edits over the last eight months, showing a growing concern and a want to contribute to the program called Wikipedia with no major conflicts - ghastly errors, as even noted by the opposes, - no incivility and a majority of the time, coming to the right decision, my first knee-jerk reaction is “…hell yes, make that guy/girl an Administrator” and wish that some of our current Administrators could claim the same track record. Likewise, after looking at Policy versus Guidelines, and in particular Administratorship as no big deal, which is Policy. I have to give my support to Adolphus79. An editor who has contributed positively to the endeavor. Either way this goes, good luck to you, and note even the most venomous of your opposes can find no specific wrong in your edits, other than needs more experience., and in my opinion, experience is gained by doing. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak Support was neutral: I think he can be trusted not to abuse the tools. While he may occasionally use bad judgment on balance the project will be better served with him having the tools than not. The issues raised in opposition and neutral-comments should be taken seriously by the candidate should he pass or in a few months when he seeks renomination. Having said that I strongly encourage him to seek additional help if he passes, even if it's just a long-time respected administrator he can go to for tough questions. I also strongly encourage him to stay out of areas where he is not very confident of relevant policies. If he fails, I strongly encourage him to either self-study or continue at least minor coaching and spend the next few months editing as if he were already an administrator. "Editing as if we are an administrators" is something every editor should be doing anyway, as all editors should be editing "for the good of the project" not any other reason. Had I come to this decision 2-3 days ago I would have recommended withdrawing his nomination and resubmitting it in a few months. With less than a day left, he should see it through. The closing bureaucrat will have a tough call on this one, if I were in his shoes I would probably fail it with regrets and hope and confidence that after a few months the next try would be nearly unanimous. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I opposed five days ago (diff). As I've been checking the discussion daily since then, and I've looked at more of the candidate's responses to user questions on individual admins' talk pages, my view of his potential administrative adequacy, if you will, has evolved past neutral into the support zone. — Athaenara ✉ 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Not exactly the perfect candidate, but looks to me like the user has a fair understanding of policy and is a sensible editor. He can be trusted, and I'm sure he won't delete the main page ;) Chamal talk 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support He's been around long enough to know not to delete the Main Page and to ask for advice if he's not sure about something. Definite net positive for the project. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Most of the people in the oppose section raise some valid points. However, if, after the candidate's length of time here and number of edits, the general reason to oppose seems to be 'I would like to see a bit more experience in X area', then I'll support. There is a difference between not socializing and being unable to communicate, and the latest comments that I've read from the candidate indicate that he doesn't have a problem with discussing something when it needs to be discussed. Also, the fact that the candidate has thus far not been obsessed with the political side of Wikipedia makes me confident he will not go berserk with the tools. AlexiusHoratius 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose (pending answers to my questions). I see a great many people like you, and, if I were working in your areas, I'm sure I would also. But I consider you not yet qualified for administrative functions. You have never participated in a policy discussion. You have never given an extended comment at an AfD. There is thus no way of really telling if you understand policy. You have essentially no article writing experience--almost everything you list on your user page is a trivial stub,and almost all contributions to other articles are also very minor. You have only 3,000 edits in 2008, and 400 in 2007. (and another 5,000 two years ago, in the first half of 2006). I'd suggest about 6 months experience in those things before you re-apply. DGG (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per DGG. Experience very shallow. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per more time writing.....Modernist (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Adolphus79 has fans but doesn't seem to be ready to use the tools (my own analysis of his contribs is very similar to DGG's observations). It's not that he'd be a bad admin necessarily, just that he's not in the readiness zone. His prospects might improve if he got involved in wider admin-area discussions outside of the usertalk pages of individual admins. — Athaenara ✉ 22:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm sorry, you seem to be a fine editor with your priorities in the right place (slothfullness, piracy and Neuromancer!) but I don't think it's in the best interest of the encyclopaedia for you to be an administrator right now. From reading your answers to DGG's questions and examining your contributions, I am not at all convinced that you have the understanding or experience needed to judge decisions or to handle borderline situations relating to deletion or content disputes, despite the fact that you mention NPP and CSD as areas of interest. You may very well make a great administrator in time, and I hope you will get seriously engaged in content creation and deletion. Regards, the skomorokh 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Sorry, I don't want to oppose, but DGG's oppose can't let me support. macy 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretful oppose — I'm afraid the answer to question 5 killed it for me. You've stated in question one you want to work at AfD. Stating that you don't know how important sources are at AfD worries me sincerely. Someone correct me if I'm misunderstanding this.
    Oh my word. I'm logging off now, I completely misread your answer. I'll rethink about you tomorrow. Sorry. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose DGG's oppose makes me distinctly uncomfortable. AfD and policy discussions are very important to this job. GlassCobra 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, following the logic in DGG's oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Also in agreement with DGG. Experience is a bit too shallow, you stated yourself you don't really talk with other users too much, and your article creation isn't enough yet. Otherwise you are good, please work on these things and the other opposes for a few months and you'll be ready. --Banime (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose; your experience in project space is still too thin for me to feel comfortable that you are familiar enough with policy yet that I'd task you with the mop. I think you still need to "find" yourself, and that a few months' time of active experience around the project is all you need. — Coren (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Q5. I'm dismayed how many people support this application. I really thought my !vote would not be necessary... Pcap ping 15:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dismayed" - Thats a bit strong isnt it!? I think you have failed to realise that adminship is actually not a big deal! JS (chat) 15:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we're both good at rhetoric. Pcap ping 15:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No solid article experience, per Q5.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Scott, I'm not sure what your criteria are, however the Isabella Dam article is a start class article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are making scott's point... start class isn't that much.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Per DGG. Also, the candidate begins the answer to question six with "I really don't talk much to begin with…". I think discussion is a key element to be an admin. DiverseMentality 20:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per DGG & DiverseMentality. Broader experience is needed before this editor is ready for the admin tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. weak oppose-- needs more experience I was really surprised that the candidate did not recognize the importance of sourcing articles. Sourcing is paramount for an encyclopedia, and an admin candidate should know this. I would like to see more article building experience-- especially taking the effort to source any articles candidate works on. The candidate must know where the information comes from, and should put the references in the articles. I think taking the time to review our basic policies would be in order. The CSD work almost persuaded me. There needs to be more of that and the rest of the admin tool areas. I believe the candidate will be ready for the mop in about 6 months/5000 edits if the advice given in this RFA is heeded. Also, it's important to search for verifiability and reliable sources before deleting articles. Sometimes we delete articles about notable subjects that should be kept and would be with adequate sourcing and a well written lead. Dlohcierekim 02:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. The answers to questions 5 and 7 turned me off. I'm not sure about the experience, but it's something to consider. Deleting articles: sometimes, they simply need more time to be expanded; they actually belong here. Sources: it's important to user third party sources. From the way the question was answered, it seems that not enough importance is placed on them. --Vltava 68 (contribs)) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose I'd like to see the candidate get more experience and then reapply. Adolphus, I think you're doing a good job and learning a lot, but I'd like to see you work on a few more areas before RfA. While no admin has to be an expert at everything, some of your answers to questions (especially with AfD rationale and citations) suggest that waiting a little longer and considering the policies and process of Wikipedia (as well as your response to them) could be very useful. Also, participating in more discussions I think will make you a more confident admin. So please don't take this vote personally - I see you as an absolutely awesome candidate in a few months. FlyingToaster 10:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose I really want to support this candidate, but per DGG I simply can't see the policy experience yet. I have no doubt that his intentions with the tools are good, but I need to see a bit more to feel comfortable that those good intentions will be informed by policy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per DGG. Needs more experience. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose also per DGG. I agree the users experience seems very shallow. kilbad (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. I don't think editors without real article writing experience can qualify for adminship.--Berig (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose, sadly. Candidate is willing to help out, but I fear that—even after the nominator's sysop coaching—Adolphus has insufficient experience. The qualm I have with that is that A. may therefore take actions that, whilst certainly not maliciously so, are misplaced or mistaken. (I'd rather not promote a sysop that makes a bad situation worse.) Here's my advised strategy: ontinue with the admin. coaching, work on getting some serious article contributing (collaborate with another editor or your coach and get a GA or, better yet, an FA under your belt?), and drop in to the Wikipedia: namespace (suggestion: WP:ANI is a good eye-opener) every so often. That strategy should combat the concerns raised and, so long as you follow it, should make you a more solid candidate in six months to a year's time. Thanks for volunteering, though, and I look forward to seeing you back at RfA better prepared and more experienced than now. AGK 17:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose: Candidate needs more breadth and depth of editing in article space and some policy work to round out experience. Sunray (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per above concerns and especially answer to Q5. Reliable independent sources are a requirement, not a nicety. I would expect someone who would like to be an administrator to be aware of that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose — as they say, needs more time in the trenches. Also, focus more on making more specific rationales in AFD discussions, as it really does separate and distinguish from those who simply "go along with the mob mentality" in AFDs. Although not a reason to oppose adminship, it doesn't hurt to !vote keep a little more often, either, on those articles that should be kept. MuZemike (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Oppose - I hate to vote this way, but from the answers to the questions above, I can't vote support. Your answer to questions five and six worry me simply overall; it's enough to put me over the edge on this side of the fence. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Limited mainspace content creation, and the lack of sourcing compounds this. AFDs often hinge on reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Someone who is apparently proud of cigarette smoking should not be in a position of power. Keepscases (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the other opposes have at least made sense, and had their merit, but this one makes my head hurt. First, if I smoke, what does that have anything to do with being an admin? I am sure quite a few other admins smoke, does that mean they are bad admins? And what would give you the idea that I am 'proud of cigarette smoking'? I've never edited any tobacco articles that I know of (unless I happened across one randomly during vandalism cleanup), and I've never mentioned smoking in any talk page posts I have made (again, that I know of). Please explain this !vote in futher detail? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Adophus79 and I love his edit summary. I trust the closing 'crat will use his good judgment in filtering out relevant objections from irrelevant ones. Opposes like these say more about the editor who makes them than the RfA candidate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate's choice of photograph for his user page says it all. Children use Wikipedia and look up to administrators; I don't want an administrator who chooses to glamorize smoking. Keepscases (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored for children! This has to be the most ridiculous oppose I have ever seen at an RfA. JS (chat) 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree extremely strongly that someone's personal habits and lifestyle are relevant to someone's ability to be an admin. As many have said, WP is not censored for children or anyone else. Furthermore, I think a diversity of people and opinions here is absolutely necessary. Promoting people based on the healthiness of their lifestyle is a great way to promote ethnocentrism and discourage the openness of the community. FlyingToaster 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Wikipedia is not censored, and shouldn't be. But it is amazing how many people advocate freedom of speech, and yet somehow believe that people shouldn't be judged on what they post. Keepscases (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflicted) The encyclopaedia is not censored for children. No-one is suggesting it should be; I interpret this as Keepcases seeing either a failure of judgement or a failure of character on the part of the candidate. Even if you think cigarettes are no big deal in this case, the judgement and character of an editor is certainly relevant to their suitability to be an administrator. Skomorokh 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Skomorokh, to the extent that a person's judgment or character affects will affect their administrative behavior here, you are correct. To the extent that it does not, then I would say it is irrelevant. However, people are people and some people do treat administrators as a "higher class" of Wikipedian and expect them to live up to standards that are not directly related to their job. It boils down to this: Do you treat administrators like volunteer firefighters in a hypothetical town where all prospective firefighters go through a public hearing before the chief hands them their boots, or like unpaid city council members? If the former, then you will view job-related decision-making as important but ignore decision-making that is irrelevant. If the latter, you will see them as elected officials and hold them to a higher standard. I'm more in the firefighter camp. I'm guessing Keepscases is more in the city council camp. I'd wager both points of view are common among Wikipedians. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    De jure, administrators are volunteer firefighters; de facto they are hierarchs. If you follow the conversations between new users and admins (over speedy deletions, for example), it's very clear that new users consider administrators to be running the show. It would be nice if adminship was not a big deal, but that will not happen until adminship becomes easy-come, easy-go. Thus, I sympathise with Keepcases' perspective (although personally I think mohawked smokers are the sort of role models we ought to be encouraging). Skomorokh 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (un-dent) I am still a little confused. Am I being judged based solely on a single, 4 year old, photograph? A photograph in which I have a mohawk? On a user page that mentions alcohol twice? And the cigarette hanging out of my mouth is the only reason you think I wouldn't make a good admin? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your choice of how to portray yourself that is in question, not your personal habits or virtues as aphotographer, afaik. Skomorokh 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Adolphus79 - sometimes people say things and the best thing to do is not reply: Most people, including I trust most or all bureaucrats, will see that Keepcases's comment says more about him than it says about you. Oh, and to answer your question "Am I being judged ..." it would appear so. However, not by me, and not the others who are participating in this RfA besides Keepcases. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I hope that all of the people here have judged me... I just hope that the others have done more than look at a single photograph or !vote a certain way because someone else !voted that way. I am assuming that this specific !vote will not be given as much weight as some of the others, and I was just looking for a little more detail regarding if this was supposed to be a joke or not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Barack Obama is supposedly a cigarette smoker. Do you think his campaign featured any pictures of him smoking? Keepscases (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one was not swayed by his user page which reveals a slothful, drunken, pirate proudly brandishing one of the precursors of lung cancer—sounds like many admins I know :-) Sunray (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, if Adolphus looked like this cigarette smoker [2], no one would be Opposed! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, opposing on the basis of photographs. How relevant... Say Keepcases, what do you think of the autoportrait of one of our finest admins? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose The number of actual article edits is very low in comparison with your edits to talk pages and user pages. Although you probably wouldn't abuse the tools, your own claim at this RfA that you "do not claim to be an expert on all of Wikipedia's policies" is troubling, as regular editors and the outside community do rely on admins to clarify and execute Wikipedia policy. Themfromspace (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Agree with most other opposesSumoeagle179 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
#Neutral pending answers to questions and in-depth analysis. I hope I can turn this into a support, but the research DGG put in before asking his optional questions means I will have to take time and do my homework on this one. Even if the candidate doesn't address DGG's questions in the way DGG probably wants, I may still offer support, see User:Davidwr/RFAs#General philosophy for more details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Weak support, see above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral between my own unease with candidate during my review and DGG's observations, I can't remain in the support column support. Will review later to see if I need to move to Oppose or can reinstate my support. I haven't closed the door on support, I just need to look you over closer.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I do not have a reason to be significantly concerned that you will abuse the tools, some of the question answers however were of concern, despite the clarification. I do believe you should give greater weight to the importance of WP:V and WP:RS, and while I am pro-WP:POTENTIAL, really admins should be creating articles that follow these from the start. Also some of DGG's observations are worthy of note. I may later move to support or oppose with further review. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I think the potential is there too but I would like to see you involved in more wikispace discussions before supporting you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral hard call for me. — JoJo • Talk • 04:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral one part of me says opose while the other says support.Hawkey131 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral There is definatly potential in you becoming a Sysop. But for Now i will Remain Neutral Sorry. [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - possibilities are there, but I'd like some administrative experience. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral: I am not convinced yet -- Tinu Cherian - 10:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: posting in an epic thread 23:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleanto (talk • contribs)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Adolphus79&oldid=1208499638"