Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheDJ

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

TheDJ

Final (25/22/3); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TheDJ (talk · contribs) - I decided to nominate myself. I have made a considerable amount of edits (12,354 and about 2,628 on commons). I mostly enjoy fixing random stuff, that I feel like fixing that day :D. I work a lot with templates, parserfunctions and Javascript. AzaToth encouraged me to get admin because apparently he is getting tired of being poked on IRC about bugs I find in Twinkle. I also am quite active with moving NASA images to commons and cleaning up their tagging out their. Having admin would help me look at image histories here, which has been something I have been required to ask admins to do for me quite a few times now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

selfnom

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Where I'm needed I will help. I would prefer not to limit and fully focus on one area, I prefer switching regularly, before i get too annoyed or bored with certain things. Also, I enjoy the editing pattern that I have now and would prefer not giving that up for the sole benefit of "being an admin".

Please also note my introduction that speaks of the work I do with Javascripts (protected pages), and moving images to commons as well as fixing images on commons that were moved from here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A: Personally, I enjoyed the early work on WP:TV that I did back in 2006/2007 together with a few other contributors. Especially the work I did on the Episode list template, and the Television and episode infoboxes, as well as my work on ridding wikipedia off the dozens of series specific episode infoboxes. Unfortunately since Q2 2007 I don't contribute there anymore, the entire area is too much of a warzone. The past year I have focused more on space articles such as STS-118 and Extended Duration Orbiter. Like i said before, i'm not the biggest author, but more of a "fixer".

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: Oh sure. me leaving WP:TV was particularly painful for me, though perhaps not really a conflict it did affect my further editing in Wikipedia greatly. And the whole debate on the wheelchair symbol was a fun one (took a week off and simply started to ignore the topic, I couldn't deal with it anymore without getting emotional). Then I probably pissed off a few admins by being strongheaded about a few of my opinions. I would like to point out that I have never editwar-ed about such things, it was mostly talk and discussion. I have also some Free ideas that might not fully comply with the Free Content point of view of Wikipedia, but I would not let these get in the way of my duty as admin. I however would also not avoid giving my opinion on such things in discussions. My opinion != My duty to wikipedia in such cases.

Optional followup questions by Keeper76:

4. What is the "editing pattern you have now", (from Q1), and how will the admin tools play into that?

A: I let this one open for a while, because I needed a bit more time to think about it. I'm editing fairly active atm. I have certainly had quieter periods. As an experienced coder and wikipedia user, I take a natural interest in the technical aspects and focus quite some time there. I also try to help out newbies if I see they are in need. This is a more recent development, based on what I was hearing from people around me ("real life") about their experience with Wikipedia (often short lived) as well as working with ArielGold and seeing what she has been doing on this front. It really made me think about how we treat people on Wikipedia at times and it is starting to get more and more of my attention. As far as the tools go: The technical work often brings me to protected templates and pages, for which I now need to ask administrators for help. The newbie work often would be helped by being able to look at deleted pages so I can guide them better. With commons moving, I am leaving a trail of admin work that I'd rather do myself and not annoy too many others with and again in verifying histories of images on commons I would also be helped with being able to take a look at deleted materials and their history. Overall, I think the tools would primarily make me a more effective editor in these areas, and I would like to use them in those areas as well. As such I do not intent to make it my daily job to do the tons of category cleaning (also very important work). If there is a lot of such work that needs to be caught up, I would definitely assist with such work if I have same spare time somewhere in my week. I do not want to make it my sole purpose however to do those chores. Lastly I think that I can be trusted with the tools, and that "being an admin should not be a big deal". --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

5. I haven't personally crossed paths with you at all (never been much for TV), but what specifically about your "Free ideas" aren't in compliance with the "Free Content point of view"? ps, I liked your edit summary "once more with feeling. Very nice.

A: My ideas of Fair Use are a bit more liberal compared to the current standard. The wheelchair symbol is a prime example. I consider it to have been a stupid debate that dealt with Wikipedia technicalities that no one else in the world would ever consider. Sometimes we kling to much to our own rules I think. I understand why we need to, but as soon as people start saying we cannot make exceptions, then I think we are going to far. The image still exists btw. It is free for use and the exact legal status of the image is too vague due to differing world wide views on the issue (or something like that) for now it remains on commons despite the large debates that were made over this on en.wikipedia.org. I was also a proponent of images in lists of episodes if they were done properly. Unfortunately since then we seem to have concluded that such a use needs to be forbidden within wikipedia, because we cannot trust our users to provide proper Fair use reasoning to include such images in such lists. I disagree on that and think it should be possible. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, TheDJ. I'm being really lazy here, can you link us to the "wheelchair debate?". Keeper | 76 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of it is archived here. There were many pages that this issue was raised though, include the non-free content criteria. I'll try to digg up a couple more, but that will take me some more time, so I think i'll deal with other questions first now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way to view the same thread (i.e. not as a diff) is here; look for the thread "Use of international wheelchair symbol" on that page. (I'm not sure if it's possible to section-link in that type of archive.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

On Fair use and my ideas about them, see also: Support vote #8 by Avruch my comment there. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A block is a technical measure to prevent an account or IP from editing at all for a period of time or indefinite. A ban is a issued by the community (usually Arbcom) and requires a person refrains from editing for a period of time or in a certain area of the encyclopedia. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

Start a discussion with that administrator about the sources that are being provided. (If there are no sources, i see no reason why i would disagree with the other admin) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

8. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

I fully support it and I have every intention of being in that category. I think it is important that at every time the community should be able to "reconsider" their position. I think it can avoid many problems in Wikipedia. I would rather not see cases where the only way to get rid of an admin is to block his account. Of course Arbcom can always do this, but I believe that earlier admin behaviour is often an omen in such cases. If such behaviour results in a recall vote, then maybe arbcom will never have to step in, which is a good thing.

As pointed out below by Avruch, I'm mixing up desysop'ing of an admin with block'ing of an admin, they are of course not the same thing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

9. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

I think that BLP and verifiability are the most crucial to my role as an administrator. However I also feel that in being an administrator WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are important and then especially with newer users. Experienced editors and definitely admins should be able to take the once in a while needed "you're an idiot" :D. Vandals and trolls of course might at some point reach the point where talking is no longer useful and only process will be able to resolve the issue at hand. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Question from WBOSITG

10. You come across the following articles tagged as A7 candidates. How do you handle each one?

• "John Young is a Scottish politician and has been a city councillor in Glasgow since 1995." with a source to the Glasgow city council home page.

• "The Plergy are a band from Perth, Australia and are widely considered Australia's best up-and-coming punk band." with a source to an online music zine.

• "Redbrick High School is a high school in Los Angeles, California with three hundred students." with a source to the school's home page.

• "Miko, Inc. are a massive company selling computers. In the UK they sold 2,000 PCs in their first week." with no sources.

A good question, thank you for asking. In all cases I would at least read the article and look at it's history/contributors of course. Also I favor keeping articles if possible, so I would probably google a lot of them (won't make me efficient as a CSD category cleaner perhaps, but I prefer content over quickly deleting)

1. There is some claim of notability, but I'm sure there are many, many of c.c. with a record of 12 year, so it won't be sufficient. The article really requires more about what makes this person important and of course an independent source.
2. I would remove the csd, check out the source, google, perhaps google the publisher of the source as well. Based on results delete, prod or keep (and stub).
3. If I'm honest, I would delete this article immediately I think. 300 students is so few that notability is almost impossible and you cannot google every CSD nomination.
4. Looks like a delete to me. "massive" conflicts with "2000 PCs in a week in the entire UK" as well as with "their first week" Perhaps a google to assess if they perhaps make a special type of computer. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Addendum based on feedback from below". Apparently I answered the question incorrectly. I based it on my current knowledge and did not take the care to analyze the CSD process before answering because I was in a bit of a hurry (because it was getting so late into the night when I answered). In hindsight I should have left the question open, to answer it the next day. My apologies. I considered withdrawing my nomination, because I worry that this will be the only topic for the remainder of the RfA, but I decided that I'd rather defend my positions, opinions and experience a little while longer. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from Canyouhearmenow

11. As a candidate for becoming an admin, how do you feel about experienced editors who blatantly violate the WP:Civility rules especially when it comes to WP:Newbies? As an admin do you think you would be strong enough to come to the rescue of those new editors and what actions do you think you would take within your power to help them so they would not become discouraged and leave wikipedia?

Now that is an interesting question. As a great proponent of being civil especially to the newbies, I have often wondered this myself actually (if i was an admin what would i do in such a case). I used to think that I might be too weak to tell people where the line is, that I would stay nice too long. However by experience it seems that most people respond quite well if you simply ask them to tone down a bit (even if you are not an admin). I have concluded that if people don't respect you, they will not listen to you at all, my goal is therefore to become a respected administrator. I think that is best way to deal with such issues. If people don't listen, I will warn them officially a couple of times. If this does not help the situation than the user is showing disruptive behaviour and a block will have to be issued. Depending on the type of conflict and the amount of my involvement, I will do this myself, ask another developer to look at it and perhaps post to AN/I afterwards. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Realised that I forgot about something in my answer, the actual "helping of the newbie" part. I think that in many cases this would be my first stop, perhaps even before I speak to the "offending" party in question. I think that a positive comment (even after a negative comment has already been issued), offering help in mediating and explaining the difficult place that is wikipedia can in many cases be enough to thwart "disaster" or "drama". I'll hand the user a {{helpme}} explanation and if needed for the long run, I can point the user at a couple of our "adopt-a-newb"-like programs. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from The Transhumanist :

12. What articles have you written?

None that are big enough or good enough to mention here. I have long ago concluded that writing prose is not my strongest point (or rather it takes me AGES to do it in a manner that satisfies my own standards). On the other hand, I would like to point out that I have spent hours and hours tracking down original sources for NASA images where these were not provided. (this was mostly on commons however). These are the type of things that I like to do and it might be gnome work perhaps, but I think that such types of work are also important, and i like doing those. "Know thyself" :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

13. What articles have you done extensive copy/editing on?

Well perhaps STS-118 and Extended Duration Orbiter however, in general I think the answer is very similar to the one above. I'm more a person who hits the Random button and then fixes broken template usage, layout, quoting or citing issues in articles rather than writing or restructering large pieces of prose. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Optionals from Spebi

14. If I were to say that you have a thorough knowledge of the speedy deletion policy, would you a) acknowledge that I was correct, b) correct me and say "Well, it's not that thorough, but I know the basics", or c) say "Spebi, you are totally incorrect. I do not have a thorough understanding of the speedy deletion policy."?

A: I know it from an occasional usage as an editor's point of view. I have insufficient knowledge about it as a policy. I however have also no real intention to deal with speedy deletions of articles for the foreseeable future, since I have not been inspired by it for the past 2,5 years either. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

15. What criterion or criteria of the criteria for speedy deletion would you say have not received the attention to detail that is an absolute necessity? Would you agree that many regular taggers are too quick to jump the gun, without finding out whether the article does really meet the tag's said criterion or criteria (myself included, my early tagging days)?

A: I do think that taggers are often not verifying the criteria of the speedy deletions before applying them. This should be seen in light of the fact that many editors are not actually checking all the rules that apply when they contribute an edit to wikipedia. Due to the complexity of wikipedia it is only natural, that you will not know all the policies inside out until you have regularly dealt with them. However, in my little experience, current deletion practices at CSD are also not in line with how they are defined. I have only recently realized how much this is skewed. I'm a bit uncertain about what you are trying to ask with the first part of your question. "attention to detail" by who? Would you mind elaborating this point for me? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Many parts of a particular criterion or particular criteria contain minor details that are the defining element. I'm asking which particular criteria or criterion contain a particular detail, albeit, very important, however, often overlooked by CSD taggers? Spebi 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See TheDJ's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for TheDJ: TheDJ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Rudget. 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support per User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA#No_big_deal despite the fairly weak answer to question 1. I think you seem to be saying you will use the tools to help your work with images. I saw no red flags on your talk page. Dlohcierekim 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Everything here in the right tone. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Editor seems to do fine work. Per Dlohcierekim's standards, and my own very lax standards, (so lax in fact, that they aren't even written anywhere) I say Sure.. good answers to questions as well. No evidence that this user will misuse the tools that I can find. Keeper | 76 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

   Still supporting, but for the record, I disagree that a high school (Question 10.3) should be a speedy delete candidate as they don't fit in the rather strict speedy criteria. IMO, existing as a public school (regardless of student population) makes it inherently notable to at least an assertion of notabiility degree. Enough notability per Wikipedia standards? Perhaps not. That's what deletion discussions are for, not CSD. I am absolutely still comfortable with supporting because you've stated clearly that you'd be going slow (if working at all) in the speedy area. (Is that irony or oxymoronic?) So, I still say Sure. Cheers mate, Keeper | 76 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, highschools are usually kept in AfD discussions, so they do ot meet CSD requirements. It would be good to review all of the block and deletion policies and gain experience in those areas before attempting adminship again. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Support You seem eminently reasonable and reasonably eminent. RMHED (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 22:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support No problems here, although I am against administrator recall (too many problems and causes too much drama). Good luck. Timmeh! 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
8. I'll support for now, but I have to quibble with some of the answers. Administrators can unblock themselves - if an administrator does something that is blockworthy, they need to be desysopped and then blocked. Recall is for desysoppping, but it does not (and can't) result in blocking. As far as fair use - the reason that fair use images are excluded from wide use throughout Wikipedia isn't that Wikipedia is trying to be more conservative than the law requires. The fact is that fair use is an American legal concept, and the goal of Wikipedia is to provide free content that can be reused anywhere in any setting - including settings that, even in the US, would be ineligible to invoke fair use. The more we use fair use rationales to include content the more difficult it becomes to accomplish our ultimate goal, and its important that any admin working in image areas understand that. ^Avruchtalk 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

   The first assessment is correct, I worded my answer not 100% correct there, but I understand you were able to deduce my intent there. (should I amend it? ). On the 2nd count, I don't think your reflection of the facts conflicts with my opinion about fair use in Wikipedia. It is a question of need to survive and reaching our goals versus my opinion that we should make optimum use of the boundaries that we operate in, in order to become the best encyclopedia we can be within those boundaries. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Wow, the "Fairuse Debate" encapsulated. Dlohcierekim 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

9. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
10. SupportWould like to see an answer to the CSDa7 questions from WBOSITG, but other than that, no issues here. RedZion^X 00:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. I like the answer to my question and after looking at the contributions and edit history, I think this is a good one! Canyouhearmenow 01:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support Very prolific user; definitely won't abuse tools. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - looks good.   jj137 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. No problems with his answers (I especially like his honesty) and I appreciate his comments/work with the Twinkle bugs. - AWeenieMan (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
16. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger! Heh, an in-joke or two! Support Nothing wrong with this candidate, prolific user, nice username... a great candidate! --Solumeiras (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Not enough reasons to oppose; among others. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support I place my trust upon you. I personally like those editors who know and admit their weaknesses instead of boasting around their strengths. It's attitude like these that won my support. (And supporting to cancel out some opposers whom I think have a pretty bad reason (e.g. opposed for not writing a GA or FA)) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    I don't think what you "personally like" or don't like about a person's approach to talking about themselves is very relevant to whether they are trustworthy or not. Whatsmore, voting to "cancel out some opposers" sounds more like trying to prove a point than declare that you think the candidate is a good one for adminship. VanTucky 05:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    I would prefer it as well if you do note vote for reasons of "canceling out". If you think I could be a good admin, so say, if you think i would not be, then oppose. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    Personally trusting someone is a valid reason to support. Liking that someone has admitting their weaknesses is a valid reason to trust someone. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

20. Weak support per above with a few concerns. NHRHS2010 19:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. After some thought, meets my criteria. Gives reasonable account of need for tools, no prospect of using them for speedy deletion, and as this is the only area of weakness I say go for it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support User obviously deserves the tools. Good luck. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support CSD might be a concern, but I'm confident that TheDJ will consider the concerns raised here. Overall, his judgement seems good, and I would trust him with the tools. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong support, I have full confidence in TheDJ using the tools in the area he intends to use them in, and that he will quickly acclimate to any admin tasks with which he's not as familiar. Gracenotes^T § 16:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support. I've had good experiences with TheDJ in the past. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but you do not understand Speedy Deletion criteria, nor notability. In Q10, item 1 you say "There is some claim of notability, but I'm sure there are many, many of c.c. with a record of 12 year, so it won't be sufficient." But "sufficient" is not the basis for passing AfD, it's any indication or assertion of notability. it has to go to Prod or AfD. For no.3, you'd delete the school article because 300 students is too few to be notable.WP:CSD specified that A7 non-notable can not be used for schools, because they are never unquestioned. and even at AfD, the size is not the main criterion--its the notability as shown by references. a small school can be very important, and have references to prove it. The school might well by many people's view be non-notable, but it wouldn't be because of small size alone. For Q4, you are again judging by whether the notability is sufficient (you are right that it almost certainly is not), but the article asserts it is, so it can not be a speedy for non-notability. You clearly need more experience with policy. DGG (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   In my opinion that shows that I need more experience with the process. That I don't know the CSD policies (and especially the way that admins should handle them) from start to finish by head does not mean I would start deleting CSD nominations without familiarizing myself in that area. I would have thought that this had been clear from my responses to other questions as well. However I recognize the focus that RfA in general puts on deletion work and I understand your vote from that point of view. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sure if we questioned candidates on the details of the NFCC policies most would probably screw up somewhere - but since all admins don't work with NFCC details, questioning them on the nuts and bolts there isn't necessary. In the same vein - if he says he doesn't intend to get into CSDs now or soon, then the question is do you trust him enough to look up the policies before he starts deleting things. ^Avruchtalk 20:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   How can we possibly give the tools to someone who does not yet know how to use them, and answered questions about them here without even checking the policy pages first? If he didn't do even that now, during his candidacy at AfD, how can we possibly trust that he will later? How do we know he recognizes all his other potential spheres of ignorance? DGG (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   To be fair DGG, my heart jumped when I read the answers to his questions as well, as really quite off, and I had already supported. So I almost changed my !vote, but reading what he typed, and knowing what his interests are and aren't, I don't think their is much concern of TheDJ going through CAT:CSD and mass deleting anything. He even said clearly that he prefers keeping articles if possible and would work slowly (if at all) in that area. I agree with Avruch that we should judge in good faith on what the candidate says he will/won't do based on what he is/isn't good at. If TheDJ jumps into deletions and closing debates with flagrant misapplication of policy/guidelines, we have ways to deal with that. Keeper | 76 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   • Well, I guess that answers the true question - it isn't that he doesn't know the policy now. You are concerned that when it comes time to make a policy-based decision he won't make the effort to read the policy beforehand. ^Avruchtalk 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   If trust is the issue, then I don't think I will be able to take away his concern, because apparently my edit history is not enough for DGG. We have not encoutered eachother before so beyond the questions he has little else to base his assessment on. I would however again care to point out that I object to the apparent definition of "the tools" as being equal to "the delete button". I have stated that I'm not particularly interested in deleting (perhaps with the exception of some deletes due to image moves). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   i've supported before candidates who want to work on particular issues and say from the start they dont know much outside it. But I will not support a candidate who when asked a direct question here about what policy is in an unfamiliar field, answers without checking what it actually is. If you don't verify what you are doing here when it's just a few questions and everyone is watching you, how can you be relied on to do so when you're out there on your own./ It would be reckless of us to give someone the tools who needs to be carefully watched o see if we need to take them away. It's not AGF---I think you mean the best, but does not understand the need to know rather than guess at policy--which is a fundamental problem. It's not particularly over deleting articles--the same question was raised above over some other topics, such as the power & role of administrators, and even fair use. DGG (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

2. I have to agree with DGG. An admin must understand speedy deletion criteria and notability. Also, I couldn't find any articles that you have written or that you have provided considerable content to. Wikignome tasks are important, but without content contribution it may be difficult to empathize with those whose hard work you have the power to delete. To quote CordeliaHenrietta, "I just don't think it's possible to understand and act fairly towards people who mostly edit content if you have no experience of improving content yourself. Wikignomish tasks are important, I agree, but an admin should have been involved in at least the creation of one article or assisting with getting an article to GA." All I could find were article tweaks. If you can point me to an article that you have done extensive work on, including significant descriptive writing, I may reconsider. The Transhumanist 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

   Not everyone is a content writer. A lot of admins don't even get an article to GA or FA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Sorry, Question 10 did it for me. Considering that you don't give an indication of any specific areas you are intending to work in, I have to assume that you might be working in any or, indeed, all of them and I do not trust you with CSDs at this time. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
4. 'Regretful Oppose As per others, Q10 is worrying. Article 1 (the city councillor) clearly has an assertion of notability. Whether the notability is actually there is a matter for a PROD or an AfD. Also, for Article 3 (the school), size is not necessarily an indication of notability and A7 does not apply to schools so this also should be PRODed or sent to AfD. Sorry, but I can't support a user who clearly is unfamiliar with CSD policy. XENON54 | talk | who? | 02 Feb 2008 01:48_GMT
5. Oppose per the items DGG brings up, which are reasonable doubts, and your answer to Q5. Fair use rules are not something you can tweak to your own preference - you just follow them. Violating them could put the project in legal danger, and that makes you untrustworthy in my book. VanTucky 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   I am surprised that you are the first that opposes over Q5. Going into this, I figured this would be my biggest problem. Regarding your commentary. I would not even "just follow" my own government, let alone an arbitrarily formed group that is wiki(m|p)edia. I will always go into a discussion with my own opinions at the foundation of my comments, that does not mean I do not respect the laws that the Foundation operates in or policies set forth by the Foundation. If I see problems (usually vagueness) in these things, then I will try to figure out what the line is within those cases. In my view this only benefits everyone, because it will keep people sharp and perhaps they realize that there is the potential for a problem before an actual problem arises. I see no point in simply following rules without thinking about them, without realizing their original intent, their history, their purpose, their current usage, their future usage, the possibility for the need of an exception, an amendment or a change. etc. etc. etc.

   If you want to "just follow" rules, then I will not stop you, but I do not "just follow", without discussing or thinking about why I should follow. :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your response does not allay my concerns, in fact, it just adds immaturity to the list. Our personal philosophies about "following governments" and whatnot are not relevant, and if I was a person that needed help with understanding Fair Use rules, the above type of response would only serve to confuse. Fair use is not an internal policy to be pondered and changed at will by the community. It's a legal precedent that exists to protect the project from litigation while simultaneously allowing the use of certain types of media in very particular contexts. Anything outside those contexts could put the project at legal risk, and therefore is non-negotiable. If you think that Fair use is something debatable, then you are not trustworthy as an admin. VanTucky 22:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose The deletion of articles issue is a bit unnerving. Jmlk17 08:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Re your answer to Q10: next time, I suggest either carefully reading the policy after reading the question and before writing your answer, or else saying something like "I would leave this for another admin to handle since I'm not familiar with this area of policy". CSD A7 is just one paragraph, and contains the word "schools". I don't think an RfA question should be handled with less effort and attention than the corresponding admin action. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per DGG. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose I believe that CSD is a policy that admins must have a solid knowledge of, and you have shown that you do not have a solid knowledge of it. I do not believe you will abuse the tools on purpose, but I can see you doing it on accident.--SJP (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Can't come up with one article where her authorship is worth mentioning? You have to know how to do something before you can guide others in doing it. WilyD 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per many of the arguments above. I really like this editor's contributions and I had every intention of supporting after looking at contributions, but at the same time I feel that there is just not enough knowledge of admin functions. I didn't know every single aspect of every single admin function when I became an admin, but then again I already had a pretty good idea of where I would be working at that time. I suggest that you get a more all-encompassing knowledge of admin functions, or find one specific area you want to concentrate on. Trusilver 21:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Sorry the CSD policy placed the nail on this candidate Secret ^account 22:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Adminship is not for kids, Please grow up ;) ..--Cometstyles 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    I'm hoping this is a joke that I'm not aware of. Ral315 (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose per DGG. Sorry, but your answers were awful. However, your user page and past edits give me no major worries. Can you try again in two months after you work a bit at WP:AfD? Bearian (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose, with Strong moral support. I feel really guilty to have given you the question that would swing this from pass to fail, but I have to say that as an administrator candidate that should be common knowledge. Also, you have plenty of time in answering these questions: nobody will oppose because you take too long to answer questions. Once again, I hate to oppose an otherwise excellent (and willing, due to selfnom) candidate, but I have to. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose: You have made some great contributions to the project, however, the issues raised above cause too much concern. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Weak oppose. I don't believe a liberal attitude toward "fair use" or a draconian attitude toward "notability" is in the project's better interest, and together they are a deal-breaker. That having been said, I do share your frustration regarding the wheelchair symbol thing. For the benefit of all humanity, disabled or not, please do petition the International Commission on Technology and Accessibility. Request that they release the image into the public domain (or some other "free" license), if for no other reason than to spare us from the absurd scenario where the grounds-keeper painting the parking lot at your place of business can (technically) only add "handicapped" spaces by explicitly or implicitly claiming "fair use" (lol?). I'll sign it. Until then, we work with what we have, and if anybody asks, we explain why. — CharlotteWebb 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Weak oppose - Dont mean to sound like a broken record, but your answers to questions are not the best. Tiptoety ^talk 04:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose - per DGG. Wait a while until you know the process better, then apply. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Reluctant oppose. Inappropriate speedy deletion is one of our biggest problems here at Wikipedia. I can't support someone who's careless about it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's regular contributor on en.wiki since 17 March 2006, that means, 1 year 10 months and few days (22 months). According to me, he's not experienced enough. I'm speaking from my experience (I'm on en.wiki since 30 June 2005, 2 years 7 months, total 31 month). A lot of that changed since I've been 22 months on en.wiki. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that TheDJ is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with a lot of experiences on heated things, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at the quality of his contibutions. Kubura (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but that's a risible reason to oppose someone. I'd say the vast majority of admins did not have 2 years' experience before being promoted, and a decent amount still don't. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    He's two months off your stupid criteria. How idiotic. Majorly (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Here you state two months is nothing. Why did you not apply that thought here? Majorly (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

22. Oppose we can't afford to be lax on copyright violations. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Wanted to support, but recall promises make me go 'merghgh' inside. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Switching to oppose. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

TheDJ is handing you an anti-nausea pill. :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Q10a was worrying, as it could scare off new contributors by deleting a half-decent article. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   I understand the concerns about Q10. In general I've had very positive experiences with TheDJ, and his judgement seems sound. I'm leaning towards support, but I'll need to think about it for a bit. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to support. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Your current answer to Q10 contains some errors, otherwise I would support. Addhoc (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Some changes of position, which a cynic might regard as just too convenient, make me worry a little. I think if you come here, you have to know and prepare your ground, and set out your stall. However, I don't see anything wrong with TheDJ's overall attitude, so I won't oppose, on the basis that perhaps a little more confidence in answering questions will make his next RfA sail through, and I look forward to being able to support it fully. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (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.