Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrooveDog

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.

GrooveDog[edit]

Final (10/32/19); Ended 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

GrooveDog (talk · contribs) – My fellow copyeditors, article creators, debaters, vandal fighters, editors:
I present myself as GrooveDog for your consideration as Administrator. Like everyone, I've been editing and reading Wikipedia for a quite a few years now, under an anonymous IP address for a while and under the name GrooveDog for the past two years. I've made over 3500 edits across a variety of namespaces. In my two years here I've fought vandals, participted in Deletion and other process discussions, founded the Articles for Creation Backlog Drive (A team of editors and I reviewed over 4700 articles in a backlog at WP:AFC, creating more then 200 new articles in a month), done workat WP:AFC, determined and moved articles per consensus at requested moves, was a clerk at checkuser requests, and have participated in many other wiki activities. I am truly a metapedianist; I am very interested in the "Project" side of Wikipedia. I've seen disputes, reverted extensive amounts of vandalism using Twinkle, reported usernames at WP:UAA, created WikiProject Manitoba and much much more.

I believe I could use the administrator tools very effectively in clearing backlogs which require administrator help, but don't get much attention. I would also use the flag around Sockpuppet investigations, where I have re-applied as a clerk and could use blocks to help eliminate sockpuppets. I look forward to support and constructive criticism from the community. :-) GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (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: I would most likely help out in clearing backlogs, such as Speedy Deletion and clearing duplicate images. WP:SPI is in need of clerks with a sysop flag to assist in blocking or investigating confirmed socks, so I would also use the extra tools there. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've made many, many contributions to the project space and less to the article space. I created the AFC backlog drive which took quite a lot of organizational effort and time. I revert a lot of vandalism, so I believe that I could consider some of my best work to simply "defending" the wiki. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 haven't had any conflicts over editing that have caused me real stress, I am usually able to remain |cool as a cucumber. Wikipedia has an excellent dispute resolution process, if I was ever in an editing conflict I would absolutely use one of those methods. I appreciate the work of the mediation cabal, I imagine they would be the first people whom I would contact with a request to resolve a dispute. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Ched Davis
4. I noticed that your "Wikipedia" edits in your contributions contain a fair number of edits to "Requests_for_checkuser". Could you give us some background on those edits? — Ched :  ?  23:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Certainly! I was a "Clerk" at Requests for checkuser, which is now Sockpuppet Investigations. It was a volunteer position in which I performed generally administrative duties (cleaning up cases, informing affected users of the RFCU cases) as assistance to the Checkusers, all the while learning about identifying sockpuppets. This is one of the tasks I would be working on if I became an admin: blocking and helping identify sockpuppets at SPI. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from rʨanaɢ talk/contribs
5a. You say in your statement that you have edited under IP addresses. Can you disclose those addresses so people can get a better idea of your contribution history (since right now there is not much to go on)?
A As much as I dislike declining a question, I would prefer to not disclose my earlier IP addresses. Sorry! :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5b. Were you editing from an IP during your account's two years of inactivity? And if not, why the long gap?
A. While I was making the odd edit here and there I was not editing much. The long gap...really unexplainable in a sort. Wikipedia was getting a little bit of an...overly major part of my life, in that I was missing real life commitments and problems because I was editing Wikipedia instead. That said, I'd like to continue to be editing Wikipedia no less then I was previously, but I feel as though I've learned quite a bit of decent time management that will allow me to contribute effectively according to my personal schedule. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5c. (piggyback question from →ROUX ₪). Would you be willing to disclose the IP addresses to a Checkuser who can then let us know about the general activity level and any concerns with the edits?
A.As much as I hate to appear as though I'm "sidestepping" the answer, my main computer's ISP has changed before I registered this account, that address had a few edits from it. I would be willing to disclose my previous ISP to a checkuser, perhaps they can use this to find an IP range I may have edited from, I'm not really sure to be honest (not so great with IP address stuff), :-( GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from ϢereSpielChequers
5d No problem with your keeping your IP address private, but can you tell us if you have ever been blocked or warned as an IP?
A.I can personally guarantee you that I have never been blocked or warned as an IP address. Although this is probably not verifiable as I appear to be "untrusted" based on the Opposes, I can give you a...."GrooveDog guarantee" that I have not vandalised Wikipedia. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Keepscases
6. Please explain an interpretive dance routine that you would enjoy performing.
A:To be perfectly honest, and I may get quite a few "opposes" for this answer, I do enjoy interpretive dances which focus on the seasons. I imagine that with a bit of practice and a good partner however, I would learn to enjoy other types of dances as well. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
7. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A:I define "wikipedians" as anyone who's contributed, either positively or negatively, to this encyclopedia. Whether they be IP or a registered account, I believe that everyone does have few, but some rights. Wikipedians deserve to be treated fairly: Absolutely no one deserves to be discriminated against, or treated differently because of their race, age, sex, or any other human characteristic. Upholding this is not clearly defined in any policy, except for no personal attacks, however I would issue a block to anyone who is acting in a discriminatory way. Some would call this "a punishment block", however they would be disrupting the project by creating "harmonious" editing difficult, making a block justified in my mind. Another right that all Wikipedians deserve is anonymity. While IP users do not accept this right, as anyone is able to do a WHOIS search to trace them easily, registered users deserve the ability to be anonymous. Yes, there are exceptions to this, which the Privacy Policy covers: CheckUsers and certain WMF personnel for security reasons, but I strongly believe that many editors register an account for one sole reason: anonymity. Protecting this right myself as an admin would be difficult, CheckUsers are under very strict instructions to not release any IP addresses that they check. If I found an issue with a CheckUser (which I doubt, as a clerk at requests for checkuser I had only the most confidence in them), I would immediately report it to the Ombudsmen Commission via their mailing list.


I believe Wikipedians have only one other real right, the right to vanish. All Wikimedians (that is, anyone across any language and project) deserve to be able to disappear from the project, having information removed forever. This can be done via oversighting/revision hiding and should be available to all registered users. For some people, Wikipedia is "more then a hobby" if that makes sense. When the stress that unfortunately comes along occasionally "gets to them", they deserve to be able to leave, hiding all memories of them on this website and other WMF projects. While many users decide to simply leave and put {{retired}} on their userpage, others would rather have more "privacy" as it were, by having any memory of them erased from records. This is important to me and to other users, I believe it should be upheld, and if challenged would defend it to the best of my ability. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Ktr101
8a. I know that you have had prior experience before you came back to editing. The Wikipedia that you were editing under in 2007 is vastly different in many ways from the one that exists today. You have also only had 6 days to edit under this "modern" Wikipedia. What makes you think that you will be able to counter some of the threats that exist on this site today? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:I'll be perfectly honest, (and this is my opinion, of course you can disagree/agree about whatever you want. :-P) most threats that continue to exist today are pretty similar to what we had in 07. Of course as the general technological ability of the people increases, so do the threats, but after fighting what I would consider an "adequate" amount of vandalism to judge this over the past few days, and reading over WP:SPI, where I formerly clerked, I believe I would be efficient and able to identify threats and/or sockpuppets.
8b.You also have only 16% of your edits on the mainspace. Do you think that this number is enough considering most administrators have over 50% of their edits here?
A.It's like I mentioned in my nom statement: I am very truly a metapedianist. I understand that we're all trying to build an encyclopedia here, however to be honest I am much more interested in the project side: policies, vandal fighting, page patrolling. You could call it "defending the wiki", although I'm just one out of many.
Question from Plastikspork
9. Are you aware of recent changes in Wikipedia's licensing? Is material licensed under GDFL 1.2 compatible with this licensing? Plastikspork (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.I'm aware that the GFDL has been updated to version 1.3 (from 1.2). The main change in this version is essentially the permission to migrate content to CC-BY-SA 3.0. Your question intrigues me, I'll be honest when I say I' not really sure what to answer. What first comes to mind is that material under 1.2 is indeed "compatible" with the license, however the writer of the content during 1.2 (when the clicked the 'submit' button) officially licensed it under just that, 1.2, which does not explicitly allow migration to Creative Commons. As inconvenient as this sounds, it sounds as though articles with 1.2 contributions would need to be re-written under 1.3 to allow migration to CC. Might not be an answer you're looking for, to be perfectly honest, my knowledge of licensing on Wikipedia has never been my forté. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Editing stats on talk page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement by candidate: I appreciate of course, all statements any users may bring. In the most civil way of saying this, I believe that I am able to be trusted with the tools. I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines: when I am unfamiliar with something the first thing I do is check the policy/guide. All users are of course entitled to their opinion, and I mean this in no form of bad faith. In addition to this, I would like to request that this request is not closed before the 7 days are up, I realise that these are occasionally closed per WP:SNOW, but I do appreciate all the constructive criticism from editors and would rather receive it all. Thanks, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :-)[reply]
  • Another statement by candidate: Hi everyone.
A few editors have expressed concern to me that I should probably close this now, based on the rather large pile of opposes. If any editor does feel that this is getting out of hand, I invite them to close it; this is a wiki after all. Know that I don't need it to be closed, to be honest with you I understand that none of these comments are "personal" in that they aren't a specific attack on me, myself. I haven't really been "morally damaged" in any way by this and probably won't be at all emotionally affected by this RfA. That said, anyone is of course welcome to close it at any time if they feel as though I'm trying to make a point (I'm not intending that, btw). Once again, I thank all editors for remaining civil and their criticism on this matter. :-D GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:BN#GrooveDog's RfA
Support[edit]
  1. (Moral) support, if for no other reason than to ensure you don't feel as unwanted as me :(, since it's unlikely you'll succeed, unfortunately. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support I believe based on their edits that this editor has indeed edited between the two year gap as they claim. They seem perfectly proficient at fighting vandalism. Triplestop x3 22:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Ouch, I misread that. Either way, this user still seems to be a proficient user and I am sure he will succeed next time.[reply]
    Where did they claim this? And if so, was it as an IP or an alternate account? → ROUX ₪ 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support there's something about this editor that I like. I never usually participate in these RFA's but I stumbled across this one today. I looked over his edits, and I believe he would make a fine administrator. The gap does not concern me because I believe wikipedia operated better in 2007. I can't really put my finger on why, but I feel it was easier to edit back then, and it would be nice if just a hint of that was brought back. I think that having this editor as an administrator would be a breath of fresh air for the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So somebody who worked fine as a regular editor back in "easy" Wikipedia should be allowed to do a "harder" job in "hard" Wikipedia after 2 years of no practice? I'm not seeing the logic. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't twist my words. I feel the project was better in 2007. I would like to see an administrator with a mindset from that time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm.. From popups it says you've only edited since May 2008, so how do you know what wiki was like in 07? It may be wrong though. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First edit with this account was May 20, 2008. Perhaps he had another account previously. → ROUX ₪ 10:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hopefully that is the case, all the best, Aaroncrick (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral support - You've done good work in the past, seem to have a good knowledge of how things work around here and have been civil in the face of many, many opposes. I have no reason to believe you'd misuse the tools, so I think you should come back in a few months with a bit more experience so I can support you again, without it being in vain! Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looks alright to me. The only question is the quick rfa after the long gap (will you be around 6 months from now sort of thing) but not a biggie. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Orderinchaos 06:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Pzrmd (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support While the concerns raised in the oppose section appear to be valid, they are not enough for me to oppose and the candidate seems to be a reasonable and trustworthy one. — Aitias // discussion 01:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support ConnorJack (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Prior to five days ago, you had not edited since 21 September 2007. → ROUX ₪ 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the same reason as Roux. Wikipedia's changed a lot in 2 years. I'm afraid that you don't know all the differences, and can make mistakes. However, keep editing, and you'll get my support next time. (X! · talk)  · @968  ·  22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, 22 month hiatus is pretty long. Please come back in a few months when you've had more time around the 2009 Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reluctant oppose due to the 2-year gap. Be active for a few more months, and I'll support you then. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also reluctantly. I really hate opposing anybody, but a lot has changed over the past two years (hell, things have changed over the past few hours!). You seem like a decent Wikipedian who generally knows what he's doing, but the fact that you've only been editing for a few days since your two-year break is too significant to overlook. On the other hand, as I said, you're definitely a promising candidate; I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in two or three months. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Right now, I can't support your request, as I don't have enough recent contributions to look over to determine whether or not you'll use the tools correctly. However, you seem like a good editor, and if you continue actively contributing to the encyclopedia for a few (at least 3) more months, it looks like everyone who commented in this column would gladly support another RFA. Timmeh 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above. Please continue to actively contribute and come back in a few months if you are still interested. Thank you for your contributions. Plastikspork (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, too big a time gap for my tastes. Wizardman 23:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. You are certainly a seasoned editor but the two year wikibreak and very few edits since that date are a cause for concern. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Long time away, hard to know if you will stay now with or without adminship, and how you would use the tools. Give it two months and show the same effort as before and I would change to support.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Oppose - I rarely oppose anybody but I unfortunately will have to this time. You've only contributed 517 edits (15.97%) to articles. Manitoba your most edited article, has only 32 edits by you, which in my books isn't enough, even though I regard quality above quantity. You have also barely contributed since September 2007. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose: Per above. Recent inactivity. Come back in a few months and it will most likely be a support.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I waited until seeing an answer to my questions before opposing.... but I see no strong reason for inactivity, and no good response to the point Roux raised (that WP has changed in the past 2 years). Furthermore, the mainspace contributions (517 edits--not a lot at all, even if you consider them to be "good"/"major" edits, and since the user says he spends a lot of time vandal-fighting I bet many of the edits were not major) are not much. I think all admins need to have a strong understanding of content areas and the article-building and article-maintaining process, because ultimately that is what we're here for. All policy questions ultimately boil down to the question of "will X help us write good articles?" rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose: Unfortunately I have to oppose for your inactivity, draggy, idle and ossified lack of edits. South Bay (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't believe that the Wikipedia of 2007 - that you are likely used to - is the same kettle of fish as in 2009, and thus, with only a toe in the pond of today's Wikipedia I can't trust you to make accurate judgements where you'll have to. weburiedourdramainthegarden 10:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Moral Support Per Roux. Thats a long period of inactivity. America69 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm do you mean oppose? Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took that as a moral support. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did mean moral support but oppose. I should have made that clear. Sorry.America69 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose for reasons stated by Roux and similarly by other editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Mooving to neutral[reply]
  18. Oppose Like Roux said. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Just so it doesn't look like this is all about the wikibreak, I would like to say that even if this RfA were taking place in late 2007 I would have to be really skeptical. You only have 500 mainspace edits, spread out over only 4 months. That is really much too little for me to be able to make any kind of judgment based on what I think you'd be like as an administrator. So basically, I agree with Rjanag. Also, I know you want this to stay open for 7 days, but I doubt that much else is going to happen from here on. If you are interested in getting more constructive criticism I would recommend coming back to full time editing for a few months so that people will have an idea of where your strengths and weaknesses lie. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per Roux. JPG-GR (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per lack of not enough WP:DGAF. I looked at almost every diff between August 2007 and today. Candidate started admin coaching back in August 2007 (support page deleted recently so I can't read further) but was inactive within a couple weeks. Candidate returns and almost right away self-nom RFA. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose on the ground of trying to become an WP:SPI clerk to win votes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any diffs for that? I'm not seeing that in anything that I reviewed, and it seems unfair to say that he tried to become a clerk just to pass RfA without supplying any diffs to support it. Thanks. Acalamari 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really a fan of arguing with !votes, the user's opinion is the user's opinion. I'd like to make a civil statement, I applied to SPI as a clerk because clerking at WP:RFCU was interesting to me. I was able to assist with an important process while learning about fighting sockpuppets. I would encourage all editors to completely ignore my statement about applying for clerkship if they think I'm using it to win !votes. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per the two year gap and the low amount of mainspace edits, and per Soap. Sorry, LittleMountain5 18:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Hi, GrooveDog. At WP:BN, I mentioned that one benefit of leaving known failing RfX's open is to get as much constructive criticism/advice as possible, so it would be downright rude of me not to practice what I preach, so here goes . One of the things that are most important to me when I consider whether or not I would trust a candidates judgment is how they interact with other editors. In a project the size of English wikiepdia, with the diversity of its editors and their backgrounds and cultures, I consider it very important for a sysop to have demonstrated a clear track record of courtesy and respect. Looking at your editing history, I see many WP:Wikignome type edits such as grouping, categorizing, tagging, etc. These are important, and without them the project would function much less smoothly. However, as part of being an administrator is policy enforcement, the "flamethrower" part of the mop-and-flamethrower™ as it were, I look for someone who, over time and not while "on display", has demonstrated the courtesy and respect that one person must have for another, and realizes that the text on the screen was not generated by a bot, but by a living, thinking person with feelings and emotions. Your prior editing (2007 etc.) does not demonstrate enough of that to me, and thus the note of opposition. I understand your statement about being a "metapedia," and as someone who engages in wikignoming, I appreciate your work, but we don't split the mop from the flamethrower. My advice to you, for what it is worth, would be to engage fellow wikipedians in discourse beyond Twinkle/Huggle. Edit an article or two, get involved with other editors. You may find yourself becoming frustrated easily; if so, perhaps being an admin is not the best thing for you. An admin who gets frustrated and applies an improper user block, for example, is dealt with more harshly than a regular editor (I forget which ArbCom rulings say that, but there is more than one). If you are able to handle it with aplomb, it wil serve you well on your next RfA, whenever it is. Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. You have a clean block log and I like the way you answered my question and others. Also I'm not overly concerned about the long gap; partly because the way we currently run things someone who passed RFA three years ago and then went on wikibreak could come back now with out even a refresher course, whilst you have at least promised to proceed with caution. Also in part because while the users change I don't see things like blocking changing that much. However I'm not sure that you were quite ready for adminship before your Wiki break, your comments re Meatball:DefendEachOther on your admin coaching page in my view indicate a lack of experience of conflict. Whilst the now deleted August 2007 User:GrooveDog/CQCQ about conquering other people's user pages is a tad myspacey and is less than 2 months ago in your wikitime. I do think you are on the right path, and if you come back in three months with a bit more experience I hope to be able to support you then. ϢereSpielChequers 08:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per Roux. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I was going to say per Roux, but I like Soap's rationale better. [flaminglawyer] 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Significant period of inactivity. Could use some more recent experience. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Great prior work with mediation cabal, NPP, welcoming / warning, etc... However this is too soon after a 2 year hiatus.    7   talk | Δ |   04:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - I dont mean to "Go with the flow" here but I must oppose due to the large time gap specified in the above opposes. Come Back another time after some more experiance and edits and maybe then you can be considered for "sysop" status, Happy Editing! Harlem675 09:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per the two year gap. Seriously, WP changes a lot in 6 months and 2 years seem to be a hell lot of time. Pmlineditor 10:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - [[1]] this diff show twinkle being used to report a name to UAA before any attempt to discuss with user. That's not very welcoming, eh? Even if the name is a clear vio new users need to be welcomed with real people talking to them rather than semi-auto reports to admin notice boards. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It appears that we have a fine potential admin here. Given the long stretch of inactivity however, I rather see you spend a couple months getting back into the swing of things before I support. Perhaps even bump up some of the mainspace edits. I won't pile-on oppose, but I think a bit of time reviewing the changes would be best at this time. You may want to have a look at WP:UPDATE for a quick "get up to speed" bit of reading. — Ched :  ?  23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I don't want to do a pile-on oppose, but I can't support you either. Your edits are good, but the 2-year gap just kills it, because Wikipedia has changed considerably since then. Until It Sleeps Wake me 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral To avoid to pile on but that gap just isn't good. Come back in 6-12 months and I'll think about supporting. In the time between now and then keep contributing and I know you'll succeed.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Observation I too was an active contributor who left in mid-2007 and have only recently considered returning. Even if your memory is better than mine - and even though the new bickering looks a lot like the old bickering - there's an awful lot to catch up on. I wouldn't take any non-trivial admin actions now, and would need a month or two to get back into things. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The bickering never changes, but the interpretation of it does ;) Oh wait, that's depressing. Crap. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I disappeared for a long time, too, so I know what that's like. When I came back, Wikipedia was an entirely different place. Its taken me a while to learn the ropes again, and i'm just now starting to assert myself with regards to important things. I know i'm not ready for adminship, nor will I be for a while. I didn't see any abuse in your edit history, so I have no reason to oppose, but I can't bring myself to support just yet. If you try again in, say, 6 months and demonstrate familiarity with our policies and culture as it is now, I would give an enthusiastic support. Firestorm Talk 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral The only thing you need is more experience and more time. Give it some more time and edits. -download ׀ sign! 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral with moral support to continue productive Wikipedian activities, gain a bit more experience in article space, and perhaps a successful nom next year. — Athaenara ✉ 09:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I will support a second RfA in a few months if you continue to edit and become more familiar with Wikipedia. Good luck, and enjoy yourself in the meantime. hmwithτ 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral As said by Steve Crossin:

    I think it's most likely that you will get quite a few opposes, due the fact you have only been active for about one week, since you edited in late 2007. That said, I'm not going to oppose you over it, due to the fact I think you're a fine candidate, apart from the gap in editing.

    Maybe in a couple months. See you around! Airplaneman (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral per lack of information about user. I understand that not disclosing your IP protects your privacy and using multiple IPs makes it difficult to compile. But the valid concern is that between October 2007 and this month your account has no edits. And since then your account has only 200+ edits. There are too many questions I have and no true way to know how you will use your tools properly without further indication on the types of edits you have made in the gap of time. My only suggestion is to edit under your account over the next few months and build a record under your username. Alot has changed since 2007. Then I will have no problems with considering you, happy editing.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2009
  12. Neutral. Hmm, tough one this one. I do like the candidate, with his variety of edits, over a lot of the wiki, but I disappeared for a couple of months, and I'm still catching up after the week Ive been here! Come back in a couple of months, and I will gladly support. Andy (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Overall, you are a great editor, and you had superb answers to some of the questions. I would like to see you try a bit more editing in the mainspace. In 6 months to a year, you will be a better editor, barring any gaps in editing. I would suggest when the time comes, and only you can tell, that you get an administrator like Balloonman and Xeno to help you. They have provided me with many useful tips on how to succeed in this, and I think that you will greatly benefit from them. You have wonderful intentions, and frankly, you remind me of me last year when I last did an RFA. I am afraid that you might possibly be temporarily discouraged should your nomination fail, and I know that you will probably run again in the future. I think that if you could find an IP address or two by looking over the pages that you edited and searching for IP addresses around the time that you last edited, you might be able to find a few of them, and help to win over those who believe that you are not good material because you are "hiding" them. I too thought that you were until I read another answer, and I agree that it is nearly impossible to track down all the edits that you have made with IP addresses. Looking at all the opposes, it seems like you have the chance to get the administratorship in a few months, as they are correct in saying that the site has changed. Sadly, people have gotten ruder over the years and this has shown on some of the editors. In the end, it comes down to your break and mainspace edits. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I wish you the best of luck, and you have my unconditional support for your next RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral A tough one. I'd like to support based on the quality of your edits but the Oppose arguments have me too undecided. -- Ϫ 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral aka Moral Support: Please come back after 6 months of "serious activity" at wikipedia. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral, sorry. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral, as you really seem like a suitable candidate but I am a bit discouraged by the complete absence of recent editing issue. Perhaps when that is resolved... in a few months maybe? --candle•wicke 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral. No recent data. Please try again another time. Dekimasuよ! 07:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral. Fine contributions and answers, and I liked the AFC backlog drive back in the day. Don't be discouraged, and please try again in a bit. +sj+ 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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/GrooveDog&oldid=1144518750"