Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fastily

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

Fastily

Final (55/14/5); Ended Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:08:48 (UTC)

Nomination

Fastily (talk · contribs) – I am nominating myself, User:Fastily, to wield the mop and bucket. I have been a registered user since January of 2008 and have been editing actively really since September of 2008. I have considered running for adminship for quite some time now but each time I really begin to seriously consider it, I always feel doubt in that I know I can always garner more experience and better my contributions. But I believe I am at last finally ready for this next endeavor, having gained much experience over the course of my time here. I would like to become a sysop to expand my role here on Wikipedia and help the project to the best of my ability. Thank you and I look forward to a week of discussion.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted

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: Although I have contributed content-wise to the encyclopedia (mainly through images) and minor edits, I have spent a good amount time reverting vandalism/WP:CVU/WP:AIV, working in image CSD, WP:FFD, and areas pertaining those tasks. However, I would like to focus mainly on dealing with vandalism from an administrative standpoint as well as image CSD from an administrative standpoint. I often find the backlogs at WP:AIV or Media CSD to be needlessly long and I would like to offer my assistance in emptying those backlogs.

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

A: I tended and still tend to make gnome edits frequently - correcting grammar, spelling, and formatting in the mainspace. However, as time has gone on, I have made attempts to become bolder with my edits all the while expanding my edits to more namespaces (e.g. Wikipedia & File). I have spread my edits over various fields, ranging from designing userboxes to noting image copyright issues to Wikiproject Articles for Creation. However, I am most proud of my photos and image work I have done for the project. I have uploaded numerous images both free (my work as a novice photographer) and non-free. While I do mainly participate in the more chore-like tasks on Wikipedia, I like to think of uploading images as my contribution to the content-building side of the project.

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: Frankly, I haven't had too many conflicts. I try to be as affable as possible at all times, even when engaged in heated discussions. I make an effort not to bite any newcomers (let alone trod on toes), patiently addressing any concerns or questions they may have. However, some people are simply inconsolable and the group which I have probably incensed the most would be that of vandals. In these cases, I usually start off with a level 1 warning and go from there. As can be seen by the history of my userpage, my userspace has been vandalized a multitude of times by vandals whose edits I reverted. I never take death threats or threats of damnation from vandals seriously. As an sysop, I will continue to remain as amicable as possible when dealing with not just conflicts, but all situations. This project needs more content - not drama.

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

4. Should editors who advocate including controversial information in the mainspace that casts on topics like child sexuality, holocaust denial, and conspiracy theories in a positive light be blocked or banned for potentially bringing Wikipedia into disrepute? Why/why not?

A: Not unless the editor is asserting his/her beliefs in a disruptive manner (edit warring/threatening others in order to insert biased information). As long as Wikipedia articles whose subject matter could be considered controversial are written from a neutral point of view, then those topics should be kept on Wikipedia. For instance, an article whose subject matter can be considered controversial, Holocaust denial, is displayed and maintained on Wikipedia as, it is written from a neutral point of view. I believe that editors have a right to let their voice be heard (through article talk pages in this case) and unless their actions are strongly disrupting the peace or integrity of the project, only then should they be banned or blocked.

Optional questions from — Σxplicit

5. Under what circumstance would you speedy delete an article despite an {{hangon}} tag?

A: CSD of articles is neither administrative area that I plan to partake in nor a task I regularly participate in, but I will do my best to answer. In my experience, most {{hangon}} tags are accompanied by a weak rationale on an article which clearly satisfies a CSD requirement. I would speedy delete an article despite a hangon tag if the article clearly satisfies a CSD requirement and/or is accompanied by a weak rationale for retaining the article. I would not however, delete the article if the problem noted in the CSD tag had been addressed or if a rationale such as "Still editing" accompanied the tag. In that case, I would check back in a few days and re-evaluate the article to determine whether to delete or keep the article.

6. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist?

A: Yes, but only under special circumstances. Only if is there is no free equivalent in existence then a non-free image may be used. But even then, any non-free images of the subject in existence may not be viable options as many may not have a compatible license for use on Wikipedia, let alone comply with the criteria presented in WP:NFC/WP:NFCC.

7. Is there an instance in when you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?

A: No, I would always be sure to warn, at the bare minimum once, before blocking - including anonymous IP editors. Unless a registered user account has clearly been compromised, for instance, another administrator account, I might block without warning only if there is no other remedy to the situation. However, as often as possible, I will warn any user at a bare minimum once for whatever offense before blocking.

(Correction) I would block a registered user indefinitely without warning if the user had a username in clear violation of the username policy or if the user was a confirmed sock. I would also block without warning, especially if the user is obviously aware of policies, if the account was a single purpose account used for vandalism, making personal attacks, ect.

Questions from Sandstein

8. Under what circumstances would you undo a block without the consent of the blocking administrator?

A: The only time I might possibly undo a block without the consent of a blocking administrator would be if the block was completely uncalled for (i.e. user in good standing, no evidence of vandalism, edit warring, ect.). Even then, that's it's still unlikely I would undo the block without asking the blocking sysop first, as, if presented with such as situation, I would be more likely to ask for the reason behind the block and request that the sysop undo their own block. So unless there is an extremely good reason to, I would probably not undo an inappropriate block without at least asking the blocking sysop for their rationale behind the block.

9. Have you reached the age of majority in the jurisdiction in which you live?

A: Forgive me, but whether I am above the age of majority or not, I prefer not to disclose.

Comment: I'm a little uneasy about some of the engagement you might be exposed to if you're way below legal adult age. It's not a deal-breaker, but at least a fuzzy idea about the age-range would be good. Tony (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is that the demonstated skill and knowledge are relevant, while chronological age is not. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say not disclosing age is the sensible thing to do. The internet can be a scary place.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Black Kite

10a. Could you explain how this image, which you updated the rationale for, passes WP:NFCC#8 for the article it was used in at the time?

A: Well, frankly, no it's omission would not be detrimental to a reader's understanding. It was my mistake not to check the page links and then the article that the image linked to. I had carelessly believed this to be some sort of important logo/opening screen for Tinsel Town but clearly that is not the case. Thank you for pointing this out - I will be sure to take more care in analyzing how such non-free images are being used.

10b. You removed the tag from this image despite the fact that it is clearly a multiple derivative work from well-known images that aren't the property of the owner - why did you not immediately nominate it for FfD? Black Kite 13:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A: Another honest mistake I'm afraid. I do not claim to be with Bigfoot or Bigfoot images but that is on no grounds an adequate reason for excuse. I can recall doing a Google image search for "Simang compared to Bigfoot" to check for copyvio before removing the tag but it did not occur to me that the image was actually a derivative work - not something the author could freely release into the Public Domain. I figure I should have searched for "bigfoot" instead. That would have made it obvious this was a derivative work. Once again, thank you for pointing this out - constructive criticism is indispensable.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

11. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed, or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable, that is worthy of inclusion without having proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales once said, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." If this quote can be applied to the Notability Guidelines, then in my opinion, as many topics as possible should be included on Wikipedia as possible. However, I do respect the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability, and for the most part, I am in agreement with these guidelines. I believe that any topic that does not explicitly consist of/have the sole support of original research and has multiple reliable sources should be allowed on Wikipedia. I cannot think of (or cannot remember) any topics that I would deem to be automatically be made notable. Frankly, I believe that for any subject to be noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, it must not completely consist of or have a sole backing of original research and must have at a minimum, several reliable, distinguished sources.

12. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.

A:

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

13. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Absolutely - Wikipedians have rights. These definitely include, but are certainly not limited to the right to express one's views, the right to edit and remain free from harassment, and the right to vanish (users in good standing). I will do my best, as one editor (and hopefully with others as well), to help protect and maintain Wikipedians' rights in all situations if possible.

Questions from Tony1

14. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy? (Critical appraisal, possible pitfalls, please.)

A: AdminReview, even while in draft form, in my opinion, has a great potential to become a substantial part of Wikipedia. This process, once refined, could easily help to resolve various user-sysop disputes in a definite and succinct manner. I believe this notion would be most beneficial in resolving disputes non-momentous enough for resolution through the Arbitration Committee. However, there are several possible shortcomings to AdminReview - the majority revolving around the fact that decisions made could be more or less biased. As with any processes that deals with complaints/grievances, the neutrality of uninvolved judges may be contested. Despite that, overall, I believe this process could feasibly be integrated into Wikipedia.

15. Image compliance: what, in your view, are the most important two or three WP:NFC points for probing editors WRT their justification of NFC in an article? How would you go about approaching an editor who initially resists, when you know an image is not compliant?

A: In my opinion, I believe the several most important Non-free content criteria to be WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8, and WP:NFCC#10. These criteria, in order: non-free content may be used only if there is no free equivalent in existence, non-free criteria may only be used if it's inclusion would be pivotal to a reader's understanding, non-free content must be accompanied with fair-use rationale, a source, and a license/copyright tag denoting the copyright status of the media file. In my experience, I have found these criteria to be the most frequently transgressed upon. In an encounter with a user who initially resists these standards, my first action would be to offer to the user an explanation of the situation and the issue with the file (naturally in a civil manner). At this point, the majority of users, once offered an explanation, will proceed to make the appropriate changes or request the file be deleted. However, if the user continues to resist, I would make another attempt to reason with the user again. If that proves to be unsuccessful, I will resort to reverting and warning, but only as a last resort.

Thanks. I see experts such as Black Kite using #3 (minimal usage) as a powerful tool for insisting on compliance. Tony (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, all Non-free content criteria are exceedingly critical in keeping the project as free of copyvios and unnecessary usage of non-free content as possible. The few I mentioned in my answer to this question were the few criteria in my opinion to be the most important. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

16. In dealing with an experienced editor with a reasonably good behavioural track record who has been rude to another editor (perhaps very rude) in a heated environment, do you take the view that a viable alternative option to blocking may be a firm request to strike through the offending text and apologise to the target? What criteria would be relevant to judging whether to use this strategy?

A: Depending on the context of the situation, I might opt to cross out the offending text and offer an apology. However, whether to take this action or not strongly depends on how abhorrent the comments may be. In my opinion, sometimes, striking out the profanities of a very angry user may simply make the user angrier and only continue to worsen the situation. I feel that this action is only to be taken based on a per-situation analysis as to avoid escalating the conflict. Sometimes, a friendly reminder or notice is all it may take for the offending user (and experienced in this case) to take back their words and apologize.

Thanks. The question assumes that you would make "a firm request" of the offending editor to strike through and apologise, not that you'd do it yourself! Tony (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Will you agree to write more substantive reasons for your "Support" votes in RfAs than "Why not", from now on?

A: I frequently assume good faith towards rfa candidates unless after a review, there really is a good reason to oppose. "Why not?" is simply my way of expressing the belief that I think a user will not misuse or abuse the tools. I will, on the other hand, give more explicit reasons for supporting or opposing as necessary.

Rejoinder: Not a bad answer, Fastily. I respectfully encourage you to use your insights to provide even a few words of reasoning; the RfA process benefits significantly from such comments, and from the probing of candidates' skills and attitudes. Tony (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

18a. What policy areas have you contributed to?

A.

18b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?

A.

18c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates and should they?

A.

18d. Should a WikiProject be permitted to adopt policies that conflict with community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a university level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport biographies be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written?

A.

18e. If a user started pushing the stop buttons on our most active bots without explanation, would you block them? when? after what warnings (if any)? under what portion of WP:BLOCK?

A. I'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that the user pushing the stop buttons on bots was using an account with admin rights. If ever presented with such a situation, I would begin by leaving a friendly message on the talk page of the offending user. Unless the user had a legitimate reason (e.g. by accident, blocking bots due to malfunction) to be blocking multiple bots, then, depending on the situation, I might assume the account to be compromised or the user having simply gone rouge. In such an instance, an emergency desysop by a steward or Jimmy Wales would be warranted. In terms of what I could do personally while waiting for the situation to be amended by higher powers - I could of course block the user (for disruption under WP:BLOCK), but the user, being a sysop account could just as easily undo the block and continue the rampage. On the other hand, undoing the blocks on the bots might be a more effective approach, unless the rouge user were to redo the block. In that case, I would note which bots were blocked by the user (to avoid any possible wheel warring) and once the situation fixed, return to unblock the bots.

18f. Certain articles attract editors with fringe viewpoints, if consensus is reached on the talk page of such an article that certain controversial (but not BLP-violative) material belongs in the article, would you uphold or overrule that consensus if asked to intervene?

A. Uphold consensus - especially if a substantial number of users were involved with the decision. A discussion over whether the information should be included was held. If a consensus to include the material (the entire reason why there was a discussion) was reached, I would uphold it as long as no policies (e.g. WP:BLP) were violated by the inclusion of the material.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - We need more admins who are willing to work with images. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Per \ / and I like your user talk page edits, lots of discussion.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support see no problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Yep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Cue OMGZ I THOUGHT HE WUZ UN ADMIN LUL. Excellent editor, should do fine. Ironholds (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
6. AGF --Caspian blue 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Contribs and interactions look good. Timmeh 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Most definitely! Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
9. 'Support the lack of mainspace edits, especially with featured content is a slight concern, but I really don't see much that would be a negative to you as a potential administrator. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk  04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I have no problem at all with supporting this RfA; I completely trust the user to use the bit responsibly, and well. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Hell yes. While I can't recall having any interactions with you personally, I have seen you around and think that Wikipedia would definitely be better with you wielding the mop and bucket of justice. Best of luck! -t'shael^chat 06:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Definitely. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong support Been waiting for this one. Aditya ^α _ß 13:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Looks fine to me. LittleMountain5 ^{4th of July!}_{233 Years!} 15:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Support As per Track and see no concerns and user used roolback well Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I do not see a reason for opposing. — Aitias // discussion 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Photo contributions and copy-editing are also important to content. Seems like a solid editor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I have seen this user around, and have seen no issues. Good luck. America69 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I don't see any problems with this guy. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
22. To help counteract some of the silly opposes. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    You're free to support for whatever reason, but I fail to see how limited experience in writing the encyclopedia is not a valid reason for not trusting someone to administer it. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

    A college professor probably needs a PhD, but the guy who cleans the floor doesn't. Content creation and administration are different skill sets. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

23. Moved from oppose. Your photo contributions make up for the limited experience in article writing. No reason to suspect you'd misuse the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
24. Image work seems good, which makes up for lack of content contributions (though I'd say that images are content and contributions in themselves, as they add to articles), and things like GAs/FAs are not necessary for adminship anyway. As for question seven, while there are times to block users without warning, it's not a bad thing for admins to issue at least one warning, and it's not a reason to oppose because not using the tools is not a form of abuse. Acalamari 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, I am impressed by this person although this probably means nothing. I will support though because that is what has to be done and I do not see any major reason to oppose. --candle•wicke 01:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    It means a lot to me. Thank you for taking the time to !vote :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

    You're welcome. Good luck! :D --candle•wicke 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

26. Support- Great answers to the questions. I really think that you should participate more though in some speedy deletions before you go around deleting pages though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Very good work; good dealings as well.  :) -download ׀ sign! 05:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I've had some good interactions with this candidate, and I like the pictures. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
29. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
30. Support purely to counteract, in some measure, David Fuch's oppose. Adminship should not be an award for prolific audited content creators.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Oh, please. Fastily's one of the many admins who we need to help clean this wikipedia; I admit he's not Ottava or JC in terms of article writing, but I'd honestly prefer a user who does purely gnome work over a purely-article editor. C'mon, there are way more clean-up tools than there are writing-related (if any). Cheers, I'^mperator 18:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
32. Why should you have to have a bronze star or two on your userpage to delete pages or block users? Besides, this is more than enough content to allow me to support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, we are evaluating the users potential to contribute as an admin, not an FA writer. --Taelus (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
34. Support. We need more image admins. Even if the user did no article work i'd still support. Wizardman 15:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per strong work in images (an area which definitely needs help). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, everything I've seen shows a sensible and mature user who responds well to criticism and stays cool under pressure. Sounds like good admin material to me. ~ mazca ^talk 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Gnomish contributions probably prepare an editor for being a sysop more than huge dragon-esque edits. Fastily's eye would be a welcome addition in my oh-so-humble opinion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. I've seen your edits here and there. Concerns about content contribution do not bother me. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. Just for the funny comments from vandals. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. Great experience with images. We have many great admins who do mainly procedural work and not so much editing articles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
41. Support. At first, I wasn't too pleased with the answer to question number seven, but I'm satisfied with the addendum. — Σxplicit 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Am not all that worried about limited article work, as the mop requires an ability and willingness to clean up all over the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I dont see a good enough reason to oppose your RFA, Question 10a & 10b were of slight concern but at the end of the day we all make mistakes! I think given the mop, you will be of good use to this project. Harlem675 17:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Zero concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
45. Support will get the job done. Manderiko (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
46. Per /\. Pmlineditor 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - we always need more gnome-admins. Not concerned by anything in the Oppose section. Robofish (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Not persuaded by the opposes. See nothing that makes me think you will misuse the tools. Also very much like the answer to question 9. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
49. Support I would have likely to see a bit more thorough answer to a few questions, but overall Fastily has shown the ability to reason with his answers and a dedication to the project through his consistent editing over the last ~9months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per nom and WP:GEEZER. Durova²⁷⁵ 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Solid. Lack of audited content is not an issue for me. Ray^Talk 03:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: Good luck with the mop.. South Bay (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
54. support Has a good understanding of policy. My ideal candidate would have more article work but that's a minor issue. Other oppose reasons run the gamut from unpersuasive to extremely unpersuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
55. Support No need to oppose, and per Q 9. -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose - Per flimsy and scant article work [1]. Being a gnome is one thing, but I'd expect a little bit more content work for a potential admin. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose - very poor on article work (as far as I can see) which is or should be the main business of this project. Sorry. Peter Damian (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Can you please explain how a candidate's work on creating articles is relevant to this discussion of whether he would use the admin tools properly? Stifle (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   For the same reason I pointed out to you on the other page, relating to your attempted deletion of an article of mine last year. If you have no grasp whatsoever of what constitutes encyclopedic content and subject matter, you had better stay away from this project. Too many people here have been elected on the basis of being 'nice people' or whatever, rather than on the grounds of what really counts. Peter Damian (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   Please dial it down a bit, we can disagree without being disagreeable. This is a valid question that comes up often; I'd be quite surprised if a few essays addressing how we need editors/admins of all types and specialities as well as an entrenched theory that content is king and civility is reserved for those that serve it. Can we agree that stronger content contributions would be more desired? Probably. But is there any consensus whatsoever on the minimum content contributions an admin must meet? I doubt it - only suggestions so far as i can tell. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Weak oppose lack of audited (PR/FA/GA) contributions ^{(more info)} --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, per answer to Q7. Nakon 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I am truly sorry, but I feel that not working on articles is detrimental to the project. If you find some experience here, I'd be more willing to support in future. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Your article contributions are almost completely creating redirects and making automated edits. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it leaves me uncertain of your knowledge of policy. Also, you state your image contributions as your best work at Wikipedia, specifically mentioning your work as a novice photographer. Looking at the 35 images you've uploaded, I can find no free use photo you've uploaded that was taken by you. Please do correct me if I've missed something. Your answer to Q7 is wrong – usernames that violate the username policy and confirmed sockpuppets, for example, should be blocked without warning. I like your answer to Q4 and Q9, though. Sorry. Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   A list of my photo contributions may be found here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   Very nice. Moving to support. Jafeluv (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I don't see any substantive contributions to articlespace to date. I think it is important to generate mainspace content before taking on administrative tasks here -- Samir 07:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose—I think the candidate needs more experience in the admin duties s/he is interested in performing (NFC et al.). Concern over the response to Q7; concern about whether there's sufficient knowledge of policies. Tony (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose for the reasons expressed by Wisdom89. Chidel (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Your article work needs improvement...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. The non-answer to question nine causes me to proceed under the assumption that the candidate is a minor. Because adminship can occasionally cause high-stress situations that adults tend to be better suited to handling, and because the actions of administrators can have very substantial real-world impact, I do not believe that minors should be admins absent indications of exceptional maturity.  Sandstein  14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    Simply because I do not wish to state my age (for security reasons) you assume me to be an incompetent minor? This sounds like an accusation as opposed to any of the more or less constructive criticism above. I realize commenting in this section is looked down upon but I strongly feel I should respond here - Frankly, I'm taking offense :( -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    No offence is intended, and I apologize for any I may have caused. I did not ask to know your age, just whether or not you are of legal age. I find it hard to imagine that answering that question would entail a security risk. You are of course free not to answer the question, but then again I am free to oppose your candidacy because of the possibility that you are indeed a minor.  Sandstein  20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    The possibility exists regardless. It appears your standard would reward a fourteen-year-old who lies, while penalizing a forty-year-old who reasonably considers the question none of your business and refuses to answer. Durova²⁷⁵ 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

    True, though I assume that people tend not to lie on their RfAs, per WP:AGF and because of the consequences such lies could have if discovered.  Sandstein  05:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    If one assumes good faith, then why not take him at his word in all he does say? Namely, that he has security reasons for refusing to answer the question. Even if you find it hard to imagine why such concerns would exist, your own reasoning is a strong argument that they must exist--in which case of course he would not compound the risk by giving other details. It is a sign of maturity to rate real world issues above the opinion of one person who is very distant from actual events, and to register a dignified objection to conclusions being inferred from the refusal. A consistent application of good faith ought to satisfy the sole expressed objection. Durova²⁷⁵ 14:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    Fastily is absolutely free to answer the question whether or not he is of legal age for whatever reason he likes. I just won't support him for the position of administrator (which is not an entitlement) until he does answer the question. If Fastily has reason to believe that his security is at risk solely on account of revealing not his age, but only whether or not he is of legal age, then perhaps his personal circumstances are such that it would not be a good idea for him to become an administrator in any event.  Sandstein  22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    @Sandstein - Bullshit, the mere notion that being under the age of majority means you can't handle stress is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Not only because I am 17, but the fact that the military allows people that are under the age of majority to join one of the most stress inducing jobs in the world (believe me I know). Now admittedly not every teen under 18 could handle that level of stress, it is still not acceptable to stereotype a minor into a group of incompetent immature idiots. On top of that your !vote is on the basis of this person actually being a minor, just because they decided not to answer the question, it is not upon your shoulders to decide whether or not this person should give out any personal information whatsoever, whether or not you think it would help to identify them, which in some ways it can. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    True, it's not up to me to decide what he should reveal. But it's up to me to decide whether or not to support based on the information he does reveal, and I will not normally support people who may be minors as administrators.  Sandstein  22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

11. His most edited article is List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. He does little to improve real encyclopedic content on here, I prefer admins to at least build some content on here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
12. "I do not wish to state my age (for security reasons)" (see candidate's response to Sandstein's oppose, #10 at the time of this writing). Seriously? What "security concerns" could there possibly be here? "Congratulations, by knowing the age of this pseudonym, we can narrow it down to one of roughly 400,000,000 people on the planet! Soon the world will be ours!". To put it bluntly: this, er, "position" shows definite kookiness. Whether this is kookiness due to being kooky like most kids, or the more entrenched nuttiness of age doesn't matter: It is incompatible with a position of responsibility. That is, of course, Assuming Good Faith® and taking the candidate's statement at face value. Were I to read into the statement, I might conclude that the candidate is using trumped-up "security concerns" as a cover for the fact that, for some reason - perhaps due to youth - he is actually ashamed of his age. I would then still oppose, partially due to maturity concerns, partially to the unmigitated audacity displayed by the candidate honestly expecting anybody here to swallow such a far-fetched yarn. But, again, I strive to Assume Good Faith wherever possible - hence, I will assume kookiness, rather than juvenile embarrassment. Badger Drink (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    This rationale is so good I had to blog it.[2] Durova²⁷⁵ 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    Read my reply to Sandstein above. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose Q.9 --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

    A bit harsh for me there, I think its fair enough if he doesn't want to disclose his age. Anyway, you shouldn't really be going on age anyway to be fair. Regards. Andy (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

14. I'm afraid not. I generally like to see either substantial content work (on the level of a GA or two) or a lot of anti-vandalism work; neither of these is quite met. Furthermore, I find several of the question answers either wrong or unconvincing. I certainly don't see any red flags though, and my advice for the future to the candidate is: If this passes, remember we're here to build an encyclopedia and best of luck; if this fails then I'd look forward to seeing you again in October (maybe with a GA under your belt :)). Cool3 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I have had a nagging concern in the back of my mind for several hours, and the link to your article contributions seal the deal for me. I'll reevaluate in a few days, but right now, I'm leaning oppose. NW (Talk) 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Pending the answer to Q10. Whilst the editor does good work with images where the issues are missing sources, rationales, etc, I'm a little concerned about xes knowledge of our non-free policies. Black Kite 13:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Lack of article contributions doesn't really bother me. However, although I've seen Fastily doing work in many areas, something tells me that I got a negative impression about him once. Apologies about my memory, and I could be mixing you up with another user. ;-) But I think I read some comments of yours once that didn't give me a good impression. Otherwise decent editor. Jamie^☆S93 16:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
4. I haven't done a review - I stopped after looking at some of your barnstars. They seem to mostly be about fun. Sure, fun is acceptable. However, it just gives the appearances that you seem to care more about that aspect than the encyclopedic aspect. Think of RfA like a job interview - is it better to come in with a suit and tie or in a concert t-shirt and jeans with holes in them? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

   At the risk of provoking any fight or disruption I would cautiously say that a user can't help what barnstars they have or have not since they are usually chosen by others and some very good and decent people may have none at all. And if it is the giving of barnstars, well whatever shape or form they may be they will presumably serve to make another user feel valued and recognise their efforts so I'm not sure how this is bad in any way or how this affects an RfA. --candle•wicke 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair, one can choose which barnstars to display on one's userpage - I for example have taken off the AWC ones from my userpage. However I fail to see how being funny constitutes being a bad admin. I mean, James was the most hilarious person I know and got to the semi final. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Weak content contribution. Otherwise generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:16, 10 July 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.