Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Markhurd

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.

Markhurd[edit]

FINAL (35/28/12); closed by EVula at 18:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Markhurd (talk · contribs) – I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough, I ought to do my part in solving the bigger (and smaller) issues. Mark Hurd (talk) 16:08, 15 April 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 intend to continue my various activities and consider using the admin tools when possible. Specifically, I'm more likely to use admin rights fighting vandalism than deleting things due to successful XfDs, but I expect I will continue to browse and help where/when I can.
I have a real job that means my Wiki time is intermittant, though I am almost always at the computer so I can often follow issues and replies quickly, if I'm involved at all.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Maintenance, copyedits and vandal fighting; it helps first impressions of Wikipedia and increases the likelihood of further good edits and the obviousness of future vandalism.
I fixed most of the (easily determinable) ambiguous uses of Aurora and delta -- these are examples that are used in Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).
I am a computer programmer with a maths science degree and a member of Mensa (Australia). Nevertheless, I haven't found much to add to articles that hasn't already been added or needs references I don't have at hand.
I am also a CTO and Director of a publically-listed Australian company that is probably notable, but I'm not adding the article...
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: No. If I got into that situation I would wait a day (or at least overnight) before continuing to respond. If I needed advice or couldn't solve the other user's problem I would contact another admins.
(added to response after opposition due to the alleged "connotation that it must always be the other person with a problem")
If I was at fault I doubt I would get into a stressful situation -- I'd normally back down (possibly too easily) or as I said, sleep on it. If I can't admit I was at fault, that's where I'd need to get a third party opinion.
Additional questions from Carnildo
4. What's your view of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules?
A: (Even before rereading WP:IAR?) I see IAR as a natural implication/requirement if you allow good faith bold edits. Everything on Wikipedia can be undone, most of it easily so. However, I wouldn't invoke IAR as my only reason for doing something.
Just emphasising my view on the policy IAR itself: It must exist if WP:BOLD and WP:AGF do.
(responding to opposes due to my unwillingness to rely on IAR alone)
IMHO relying on any of the See Alsos in IAR is not relying on IAR alone, such as use common sense.
(further update) And now re-reading WP:use common sense I see it is not a guideline, so yes I would invoke IAR as my only guideline for doing something, but I would be relying on common sense.
Question from Stifle
5. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?
A. Only when its use is USA universal fair use, which normally only means on the person's own bio page, and is not replaceable by a free-use image, which normally makes it unlikely. Finally the image needs its fair-use rational included on its page.
(I seemed to get a somewhat poor response from Q4 because I did wikilink the relevant policy, guidlines and essay, so I didn't here. Corrected the fair use comment.)

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

Just a general comment: With less than 15 hours to go with my RfA and at least half of that during my business day, I won't spend much time on these answers, and haven't referred to policies and guidelines, especially for Q13. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A- Have the most recent changes subtly highlighted to the reader for a some period of time -- probably a compromise to the flaged revisions debate, but also just an idea its self.
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- A vandalism-only account with a few uw- warnings over a month or more. Not an IP.
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- I would consider relisting for more consensus if I was fairly certain in my suspicion. If not I would close as keep and watch the users and articles involved. Other than closing as no consensus, and thus keep, no difference in the second scenario, except I'd probably be more likely to relist.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A- I'd say a couple including the nominator, assuming consensus, otherwise after half a dozen or so contentious responses, I'd probably consider closing as no consensus, depending on the strength of both sides arguments. Assuming RfDs and CfDs have even fewer people watching them, especially RfDs, I'd prefer more !votes, but would probably have to accept about the same levels.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A- Yes, although, as already pointed out, I have not really had to prove my metal yet.
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A Mostly to continue and expand the WikiGnome like tasks I'm doing now.
12.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A- I'd prefer to try to make it a stub if it meets notability. If I don't have time I'd probably just mark it for CSD and let someone else decide. Just because you are an admin, doesn't mean you have to be and admin. Of course if it contains libel or nonsense it would be better to delete the article first.
13. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A- (Answered without refering to policies and guidelines) Gather all the evidence needed to prove it and then apply templates to his user page, talk page, Village pump and relevant administrative pages. I would also consider blocking the socks indefinitely. Of course during the gathering of evidence phase I assume many of the relavent editors (especially administrators) would already hear about it.
In fact, I should point out I'd also read the then current policies and guidelines at the time of the offense, so I had an up-to-date idea of what the community currently felt should be done.
14. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- Yes, I would respect the other admin's decisions and as I'm not yet involved, I probably wouldn't submit to the RFAR. After the rejection I would consult the other admin (probably first to get them unblocked) and continue with the attempt to resolve the dispute.
Statement regarding canvassing
I have not asked for support on-wiki such as at WP:ARS, or WP:AUS, or off-wiki such as at Wikimedia Australia where I am a foundation member, and I have not wikilinked these in case someone watches What links here! Nor have I asked anyone else to do so on my behalf. I have only placed {{RfX-notice|a}} on my user page.
If I may — why did you feel the need add this? — neuro(talk)(review) 00:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because this appeared during my RfA, and seeing as it explains some feel appealing to WikiProjects is OK, I felt it was worth pointing out I have not done this. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support. Nearly six years on the project, which is pretty amazing. Personally, I think 2200 edits is plenty, and I've seen RfAs pass with less than that. 35 AIV reports, showing a good effort in the anti-vandal category and a knowledge of the blocking policy, etc. Not the most active editor I've ever seen on an average edits per day basis, but I see nothing that concerns me or suggests possible misuse of the tools. Recently joined the Article Rescue Squadron which is nice to see, and he managed to save an article, showing policy knowledge. In short, there are no red flags here and I believe it will be a net positive for the project. Cool3 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Throwback Jersey Suppport I see where Markhurd is coming from on this one. He's been here forever, but works at a pretty low key level. Essentially, an old school editor who meets the old school standards of who can be an admin. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support purely to counteract the trivial "oppose" over a perfectly inoffensive userbox.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I like yours well enough. Keepscases (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the mixing of messages of the atomic icon. Yes I support the scientific method, but I don't believe in any god. You can't tell in the logo, but it's a lower case g :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. One of the old boys, will do well, if he was editing in 2003, he will most certainly be here to contribute to the project, not run around with Huggle or VandalProof and run up a huge edit count/ego* (*Delete as applicable). No editor that has been around for six years should be told to withdraw their RfA by some arrogant little twit either. Nick (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another arrogant little twit here (assuming that term now applies to all editors that haven't been here long enough to be excluded from your elitism), asking you to retract your personal attack. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arrogant twits represent! FlyingToaster 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Clean block log and enough edits to have sailed through easily in the days when RFA was working properly. Looking at your contributions I like the mix of gnomish improvements and vandalfighting, though I would have preferred to see a bit more use of the templates at wp:WARN to warn vandals. Yes there is a temptation for like myself who've been here far less time but racked up rather more edits to oppose out of editcountitis; but lets ask ourselves is this chap committed, civil, clueful, trustworthy and experienced? Obviously yes and therefore has my support. ϢereSpielChequers 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How have you determined I haven't used user warning templates enough? I have not bothered warning some IP vandals, and there aren't that many logged in vanadals; mostly vandal-only accounts and they definitely get uw- templates on their user page and nominations at AIV. Mark Hurd (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was IP vandals that I noticed. I don't warn IP's when I come across ancient vandalism from months or years ago, but if you warn an IP vandal it does mean their subsequent edits are brought to the attention of the hugglers. ϢereSpielChequers 07:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, definitely. Markhurd has been around for six years now, and clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. He/she has accumulated over 2,000 edits manually, and is here to build an encyclopedia. What's not to like? Even if they're not the most active editor, providing this user with the tools will be a net benefit to Wikipedia. Do I trust Markhurd to handle the tools responsibly? Yes. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clearly has the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, and very unlikely to go mental at this point. I'd have no problem giving this user access to admin tools, the distinct lack of drama is nice and the contributions speak of someone who's mature and competent. ~ mazca t|c 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absolutely, per Cool3 and Nick. An editor with six years' experience is being told that he doesn't have enough experience and should withdraw? That boggles my mind. An editor that's been around for that long obviously knows what the project's about, clearly isn't going to break anything, and has more than enough tenure to be trusted with some extra buttons. GlassCobra 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support 6 years is plenty of experience, regardless of the edit count. I don't see any indication that this user will misuse or abuse the tools. Kevin (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Seems to know his way around the place, doesn't seem like the sort to delete the main page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's technically impossible to delete the main page now, but meh. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Hell yes. Tan | 39 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Impressive duration of service. WikiGnome that does tasks that keep the encyclopedia running smoothly.  Marlith (Talk)  02:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - we don't require a minimum level of activity from administrators, and nor should we. Markhurd may not have as many edits as might be expected for someone who's been here as long as he has, but his length of service itself is evidence of his good intentions and dedication to the project. I for one wouldn't care if he only uses the tools once a year - that's still once more than we would get if he wasn't promoted to admin. Robofish (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems fine. Good luck to you. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support mainly along the same lines as Robofish. There is absolutely no valid or non-trivial reason to oppose this nomination (other than editcountitis). The editor appears to know the project and is unlikely to abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Yes, Markhurd may not be the most active editor, but after over 5 years surely enough experience has been gained. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 06:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Having met Mark in person I can say that he is thoroughly competent, friendly, possesses good judgement, and is fully engaged with all aspects of the project despite his low edit count (a frankly ridiculous requirement). I doubt he'll make a super-admin, but he'll be more than fine with the extra tools. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And this support was not solicited in any way, just in case people are wondering :) I just saw a name I actually recognised at RfA. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Hiberniantears sums it up beautifully: "an old school editor who meets the old school standards of who can be an admin". I couldn't agree more.  Channel R   10:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Robofish hits the nail on the head. Nick mallory (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per Riana Avruch T 14:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Robofish. He clearly has the interest of the project in mind, I see no reasons not to trust him with admin tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Can be trusted with the tools, His edit count is more than enough! - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email | Editor Review 04:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good contribs, plus the opposition in this case is absolutely absurd. I feel like adding a new userbox now. Nja247 06:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral. Nja247 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, only one oppose (#1) mentioned userboxen. FlyingToaster 07:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I have no worries, clearly a person who can be trusted. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I see 2272 edits in 6 years as a good thing. It shows me that Markhurd cares about Wikipedia enough to stick around for the long haul, but that his priorities are such that he is unlikely to turn into a power-hungry politician. It seems to me perhaps we'd be better off with a few more calm, mature, committed, capable admins who don't eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia. Any concerns I might have about "trust", or lack of policy knowledge, are satisfied by Riana's vouching for him in real life. I see no red flags reviewing his contributions, so why not? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Has shown long-term attachment to the project, and his edits suggest he's someone we can trust. GreenGourd (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong support Wizardman 18:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I really don't see any indication that Markhurd would abuse the tools.--Res2216firestar 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support This user's moniker is familiar to me, but I can't figure out where I have encountered him. In any event, his long record is one of careful work, giving confidence that he would use the tools responsibly. The only possible reservation is that it is not clear that he would do very much with the tools, given his customary low level of activity. --Orlady (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Seems ok to me. Even if the tools are rarely used, can't see them being misused by this editor. Six trouble-free wikipedia years, even with intermittent use, don't weigh lightly on an editor. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. In September, 2003, Wikipedia's first request of Mark was to stick around, and he has [1]. His user and talk pages are the product of a mature, reliable editor, who continues to help out where he can. My opinion was formed not by counting his edits, but by reviewing the edits he does have to try to determine his ability to handle the additional responsibilities. I concur with the below comments concerning his detailed knowledge of some specialized areas of administration. In my opinion this is outweighed by his consistent responsible behavior. I think that all can agree that 1) Mark's impact to date has resulted in little to no disruption, drama, or conflict. 2) His contributions have increased project quality and collaboration. 3) He promotes a friendly positive environment for all. My belief is that he will properly handle the additional responsibilities of blocking, protecting and deleting. I am certain that Marks presence, as an admin, on a busy, vandal filled night[2]...would be a net positive for the community --Preceding unsigned comment 01:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. No reason not to; I'm satisfied with answers to the questions asked. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant to add this comment to TheDJ's RfA. I'll be back shortly to assess this RfA on its own merits. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I've looked over this RFA and gone through several pages of Mark's contributions several times, because several of the opposes were quite compelling. However, I've come to the conclusion that I really should support this candidate. He's been here for nearly 6 years, never been blocked, and nobody has been able to find any instance of him harming Wikipedia or causing drama. On the contrary, I see six years of him helping out in varying ways to articles as he comes across them, doing a lot of gnome work, as well as patrolling for vandalism. And contrary to the oppose regarding lack of policy knowledge, that shouldn't be a concern with this candidate in my opinion. He hasn't done anything here so far (that I can find) that indicates a reckless individual, so I trust that he'll also be careful and thoughtful in not jumping right into administrative areas he's previously been unfamiliar with, instead sticking with what he knows for now and learning the areas he doesn't. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Userbox showing "GOD" crossed out is not indicative of a friendly and tolerant user. Keepscases (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are opposing him for being an atheist? Hiberniantears (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am opposing him for advertising it in a disrespectful manner. Keepscases (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What if he had "Satan" with an X through it? Or Abortion with an X? Or gay marriage? I am a staunch Catholic, however I don't think that one's views on creationism (or anything that is irrelevant to the project) is relevant to an RfA.--It's me...Sallicio! 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a pastor, I can say that I take no offense in the userbox in question. I would respectfully ask that we focus on Markhurd's editorial contributions and his interpretation of Wikipedia policy in judging him. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please leave this alone, Keepscases is well known for opposes of this sort. You may not agree with it, but he's entitled to his opinion. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is arguing that his opinion should be devalued, and I believe that Hiberniantears, Sallicio and I have a right to state our observations, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No doubt I will be accused of "editcountitis", but I really don't think that 2,272 total edits to 1,413 articles, with no article being edited more than 10 times, is sufficient experience of what this project is supposed to be about. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I commend you for your consistent contributions to articles over a very long period of time. However, I oppose this request for several reasons. First, your article work has not been assessed by other users, as far as I can tell. Your contributions have been spread out over so many articles that I cannot determine if you are familiar with any of our content guidelines. I recommend focusing on one article and submitting it at WP:GAN and/or WP:FAC. Second, you have participated in very few discussions, which makes it difficult to tell if you will be able to keep a level head in the conflicts you will eventually get into through the use of admin tools. Third, you have said you want to close XfDs, but I don't see much experience with complex cases in this area. I think you should work on the areas I described above, and file another request in a few months. Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the answer to question 1, sorry. Wronkiew (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Self nom statement comes off as arrogant.--Giants27 T/C 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm not planning to vote in this RfA, and because this rationale has attracted at least one person agreeing with it, can I ask in what way it came across as "arrogant"? It seemed short, yes, but to me, not really arrogant. Can you please clarify? Thanks. Acalamari 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because saying that, "I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough", sounds like he believes he should have just because he's been here for a while which is arrogant.--Giants27 T/C 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think arrogance was implied. I think he was trying to say that he's been around long enough that he should be doing more for the project (actually being humble, "...I've been around long enough, I ought to do my part...")--It's me...Sallicio! 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Per Giant27. Suggest closure, as this RFA is not likely to pass. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to comment on my oppostion v!ote. This may not make sense, but to me, saying " I nominate myself for the admin bit, mostly because I've been around long enough." This to me means that because he has been here a while, (over 5 years), he is entitled.America69 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what Mark said, you're leaving out the last part of the sentence!
    FWIW, it didn't come over as arrogant to me at all, I read it as "I've been here long enough to know my way around so that I can help and be trusted with the admin issues". --Amalthea 19:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let me add to my oppose. Markhurd has been here for almost 6 years. His editcount is roughly in the 2000's. In a 6 year period and 2000 edits, that to me is too low. America69 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Insufficient article writing experience, insufficient experience in admin areas and insufficient communication with other editors for me to support (i.e. you're a gnome). May support in a few months time when you have more experience (I mean experience through editing, not time).--Pattont/c 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tentative oppose - I concur that the self-nom comes across as being arrogant -- but my main worry is the answer to Q3. I dislike the connotation that it must always be the other person with a problem, and the vagueness of the response. The former issue is a problem that hits home to me personally, and the latter for me may be some sort of subconscious inference, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Either way, I am mostly opposing lack of provided evidence of relevant experience. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, the answers to the questions are poor — and some are downright wrong. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Needs much more experience and knowledge of policies. -download | sign! 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Other than WP:AIV, the most edits he has to any project page or project talk page is 4 ... less than one per year. Maybe he's a big reader and doesn't write much, but I need more evidence of connection to Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose He doesn't seem to have much experience in article building or the Wikipedia namespace; it's not enough to convince me he'd use the tools correctly. Timmeh! 22:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise, I think it would be only reasonable to AGF. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm...I'd still like to see that he knows his stuff in the admin-related areas before supporting. I'd support another attempt in a few months after he's showed he can be trusted. Timmeh! 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julian - Assuming good faith is irrelevant here — faith does not come into it, trust of judgment does. — neuro(talk)(review) 01:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is indeed relevant. All admins might go rouge, but we can't oppose all RfAs because of that. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but none of the opposes is founded substantially on any assumption that the candidate might one day act badly volitionally, or even that there does not exist a sufficient record from which to draw any questions about whether he might so do; no one, at least AFAICT, assumes bad intentions, but some fear or assume bad outcomes, as, e.g., might follow from the candidate's acting in areas of the policy and practice that control which he is unaware, in the reaching of which conclusion AGF is not implicated. Joe 20:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If admin status was easier to remove then such concerns could indeed be shrugged off. As it is though ... --Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Per neuro mostly. The answer to Q3 is worrying... waiting a day isn't really sufficient to solve all problems. In fact, waiting rather than taking leadership to resolve an issue quickly can do more harm than good. I'm also a bit concerned at how far the edits have been spread out. 2,272 edits I think is plenty to apply for adminship, but that's over six years and spread very thin. This plus not a lot of experience in admin areas gives me some pause for concern, I'm afraid. If your involvement goes up a bit, I don't see why you wouldn't pass in the future. FlyingToaster 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, mainly per Dank55 (talk · contribs), Timmeh (talk · contribs), Patton123 (talk · contribs), and Wronkiew (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose due to lack of experience, as outlined above. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to users: Please do not reply to this vote. Any discussion about DougsTech will be moved to the talk page. Robofish (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absurd. If you don't censor Dougstech, you cannot censor his critics. If he has a right to voice his opinion, users have their rights to discuss it. Not in general, but they can question its relevance to this specific RfA. Your comment after his draws much more attention than does a curious reply. hmwithτ 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Your activity level is very low. Your rate of being around seems very arbitrary. I do not see any long term devotion to any page, nor any activity that puts you out there long enough to have involved yourself in any discussions/disputes for the positive or negative. To be blunt, you've been here since 03 but you have the stats of someone who has been here for 5 months. It is a sad irony, but not now is the most appropriate thing. A month or two devoted to some major work, some topic areas, anything. You've had 35 edits to Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and your second most edits to a Wiki area was an RfA per this. Work on a few articles, involve yourself in some areas more instead of just one or two posts, and actually involve yourself in complicated matters. Admin need experience, not just time. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose FlyingToaster and neuro pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I share the same concerns about how you would approach a situation of conflict. Administrators are often consulted for third opinions about conflicts or often have to resolve conflicts of their own and your "hands off" approach isn't a good way to solve any issues. While I do commend you for being part of wikipedia for over six years, your sporadic editing may not work out for adminship. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I can't trust the candidate with the tools given the low amount of edits. I don't have enough data to see where they'll best use it.--Lenticel (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - per Malleus Fatuorum and Ottava Rima. More article work is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - after reviewing contributions and reading the nomination I felt there was little to make a judgement on. Very minor article edits, and little consensus building. I don't feel I am seeing a community member here - I see a stranger who makes a few minor edits to the encyclopedia. I need something more to go on. A more convincing nomination statement or fuller answers to the questions would help. SilkTork *YES! 21:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Not ready. Hasn't cited anything specific with regard to his work on Wikipedia, and his answers to the questions are vague and unsatisfactory. Don't worry though. My first RFA failed, and the only thing you can do is learn from the comments here (except those people who say that self noms are arrogant. They have no idea what they're talking about). Orane (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per answer to #4. There are perfectly acceptable things that aren't codified in policy or guidelines. Moreover, some policies and guidelines may be overridden by common sense and appropriate policy. — BQZip01 — talk 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose not enough experience writing articles and averaging 30 edits per month over the 6 years of experience would likely be the lowest among all active admins (and, yes, there are many things you can only learn by doing, erring, and trying things). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose due to poor understanding of non-free content policy. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - Not enough evidence over the past six years as to how he would handle himself as an admin. There is nothing wrong with an editor only having some 2500(aprox) edits in six years. However, I like to have more than that to go by before supporting someone for an admin.WackoJackO 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose 2,272 total edits is an extremely low edit count for somebody who has been here a year let alone 6 years. There is something wrong with this. A reader rather than a major contributor? Thats fine but not admin material. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly Oppose I agree with Keepscases --Disco Steven Lua (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indenting !vote from indef blocked user (who was blocked for abusing the RfA process and vandalism). --CapitalR (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose The user doesn't seem to have a grasp on everything needed to be an administrator. Even though he's been here for quite a while, I just cannot see evidence of knowledge of admin areas. hmwithτ 13:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. I don't want to sound like I'm advocating Mark getting into conflicts/disputes, but I'd rather see an admin who has at least some experience handling disputes (ref. Q3). KuyaBriBriTalk 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per nomination statement and extremely low edits-to-time here ratio. JPG-GR (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral I'm not so sure about this. Fatuorum's comments above are rather convincing: Markhurd doesn't have a lot of edits. Normally, this is not a good reason for saying no, but look at it this way: this user has been here since 2003. Divide 2272 edits by 6 years and we get about 380 edits per year. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem like Markhurd has been that involved with the project. He has preformed almost no page moves (see), and after 6 years, still has a very small talk page. The fact that he's an atheist doesn't matter to me, honestly. I don't see any real indication that he needs the tools— his tasks don't seem to require them; they deal with different types of editing— but I can trust him. So, I'm undecided. The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense, it does not really seem like he needs the admin tools based on his edit history.WackoJackO 22:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I personally think that the current RfA standards are far too high, so I can't oppose your nomination; however, I am a bit hesitant to support, per the above neutral and opposes. Sorry, tempodivalse [☎] 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I believe Markhurd has good intentions and done some great work for the project. However, I find the dearth of experience a bit unsettling. Perhaps in a few months and more experience, I would be happy to support. Sorry, Fastily (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Leaning toward support: I agree, too, that the RfA standards have risen to astronomical levels per this RfA from March of 2004. His edit count is minimally concerning to me. However, the lackluster answers are keeping me from a full support. But I am quite certain that the server won't fail and he won't abuse the tools if he were to make it. On the fence but knees pointing toward support.--It's me...Sallicio! 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Per earwig. The lack of activity on the talk page, among other things, keeps me from a support. We need administrators that have experience interacting in the community. PerfectProposal 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral An abnormally low edit count for an editor with six years of experience is the only thing that prevents me from offering support. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I'd like to support someone who's been here as long as Mark. I admire his self-confidence in his programming abilities, and appreciate that he's done a little vandal fighting. But I just can't find enough material to judge his knowledge of policy and guidelines in his edits. If there were even an article or two that he contributed to in a major way, but the only double-digit editing other than his own user-space is a list. I certainly won't oppose, but I just can't find enough of anything to support either. — Ched :  ?  05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Leaning Towards Oppose The most edits to a single article was 11 to List of Australian television series? I'm not so sure...--Unionhawk Talk 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Moved from support after I considered the generally poor answers to questions. Nja247 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Markhurd is definitely a fine editor, but his answers to questions point out that he's "out of the loop" and devoting time to do 2,000 edits in six years is fairly low for someone who intends to enforce policies of Wikipedia. —Admiral Norton (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I would like to support you, but I am unsure you have been as active recently as I would like. Policies are continuously changing, and if you are away from Wikipedia for too long (or are not active enough), problems will arise through lack of current knowledge. If you could remain active for about six further months I would definitely support you, but I do not think you are ready as of now. Malinaccier (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. While I applaud the user's longevity, that is not sufficient basis to grant adminship. 2300 edits is marginal in terms of experience, and over 6 years policy and interpretation of policy can change. I would like to see more than 35 edits to AIV and 12 edits to AFD, and more CSD taggings. Answer 2 confirms the impression of Wikignoming. I value wikignoming, but I would like to see greater activity levels all across the board. Oh, and yes, let's do please leave his God userbox out of the equation. If there is evidence of his relationship with God, or lack thereof encumbering his judgment or biasing his decision-making, that would be a valid concern. For now, I need a stronger indication either way. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:23, 22 April 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/Markhurd&oldid=1142505253"