Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here 2

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

It Is Me Here[edit]

FINAL (84/1/5); closed by EVula at 07:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It Is Me Here (talk · contribs) – Hello there. This is my second request for adminship. After my first RfA, I went away and tried to follow the advice given to me in RfA number one, and now feel that I am once more in a position to request becoming an administrator. Namely, as well as increasing my edit count in general, I have tried to increase my experience in "adminly areas", by participating in more xfD discussions for instance. I now have two successful DYK nominations ([1] [2]) and one successful FPC nomination ([3]). I feel that I am open and transparent about the work I do at Wikipedia, with my user page containing a table of practically all my cross-wiki accounts and contributions, as well as a {{Usercheck-full}} template of me so that people can check any statistics they like about me relatively easily; {{Usercheck-full}} being a template, incidentally, which I helped create. As was the case during my first RfA nomination, I still try to replace PNGs with SVGs wherever appropriate in my Wikipedia edits, or alternatively tag PNGs with {{SVG}} templates (although a lot of those tags I do over at Commons), but I now do more copyediting regarding the placing of references within articles and also carry out other general grammatical corrections. I had started removing date links from articles a while back, but have stopped now due to the recent controversy surrounding date links and pending the results of the two currently ongoing RfCs on the matter. It Is Me Here t / c 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Although I would still, as was my intention during my first RfA, use my administrative powers to carry out non-controversial edits to fully-protected templates if I felt it was appropriate, I would now also look to patrol CAT:PER to help other Wikipedia editors who want fully-protected or MediaWiki namespace templates edited in some way. Furthermore, since I now use Huggle as well as editing Wikipedia manually, I think I have become more adept at CSD-tagging, and would, as an administrator, look to delete any patently nonsensical new articles I came across, as well as reviewing others' CSD tags at CAT:CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The article to which I have contributed the most information remains the Europa Barbarorum article, I feel, and although it failed a recent GA review, I still feel that I have managed to improve the article considerably with my edits to it. Furthermore, on a more technical level, I hope that I have helped the Wikipedia administrator community by instigating the creation of CAT:AI, which lists all pages with administrator instructions in them, and Template:Usercheck-full, which I started, is now fully functional, I believe.
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 can think of a few occasions where misunderstandings or conflicts have arisen between myself and another Wikipedia user. On one occasion I came across a user who appeared to speak only Turkish. I had first come across him by notifying him that I had tagged two of his articles for speedy deletion. However, when I began to suspect that the user did not speak English, I tried to help move him over to tr:, as well as going over to tr:, finding an administrator and asking him for help. Eventually, it turned out that he was just out to do no good, but at least we tried. On another occasion, I was reviewing my global contributions when I suddenly discovered that I had been blocked on sco:, one of those wikis that I might visit so rarely that I have not included it in my table on my user page. I must admit that it was just after discovering that I had been blocked for what I felt (justly, as it turned out) was no good reason that I was the angriest I have ever been regarding something that has happened on Wikipedia. After finding an sco: bureaucrat, I messaged him with my problem here at w:, after which he replied that it had all been a misunderstanding.
Additional questions from Jon513
4. The speedy deletion criteria of G4 (reposted deleted material) applies only to material that was deleted through a discussion (like afd) - not a prod or speedy. Do you think this distinction is important? and if so why?
A: Oh, I remember once adding a {{db-g4}} template and then later realising that it had been incorrectly used for the reasons you have stated (as the article had been previously speedily deleted). Sorry! Anyway, I had since learned that {{db-g4}} templates are only for xfDed pages, and I suppose the thinking behind the rule is that, with a discussion and community-based decision, consensus has already been achieved and so there is no further need to review a page's eligibility for deletion or inclusion; with a proposed or speedy deletion, however, the decision to add the tag and/or delete may rest with one or two users, and so if the page's author contests the speedy or proposed deletion by recreating a page, then the subject matter of that page should be given more attention the second time round.

Optional question from Richard Cavell:

5. You have gone to some trouble to strip square brackets from dates - eg [4]. Why do you do this?
A: First and foremost, I had started removing date links (manually at first, and then using a script) because it was stated at MOS: that dates should not be linked arbitrarily. However, since that decision to change policy (that is, the decision to change it to saying that dates and years should not be linked) has come under question and two RfCs have been started on the issue (1, 2), I have temporarily stopped removing date and year links pending the outcome of those RfCs. As it happens, I do personally agree with the view that dates and years should not be wikilinked in general, since a link implies that the article related to the word linked is relevant to what the article in which the link has been placed; articles such as 1957 or 3 May, I feel, very rarely offer information which is directly relevant to a given article which links to them. In other words, just because George W. Bush was born on July 6, that does not mean that any other event which happened on the same date will have had any impact on his life or be relevant to him in any way. However, if the outcome of the two current date linking RfCs leads to a reversal of policy to once again support date and year links, then I will not contest that or edit in such a way as to go against its recommendations.

Optional question from Nsk92:

6. Could you please describe in more detail your mainspace contributions?
A: As well as my aforementioned work in improving and expanding the Europa Barbarorum article, which included me getting OTRS permission to use some of the images on the article (as images previously uploaded for use in the Europa Barbarorum article had been deleted due to a lack of permission / rationale to use them), and minor grammatical or stylistic fixes (many of which are now to change the placement of references in articles in accordance with the recommendations of WP:REFPUNC), I have also made more substantial contributions to articles. For instance, I, with the help of several others, added another column to what was already a featured list, Colleges of the University of Cambridge, using an article from their student newspaper, Varsity, as a reference. I will also add more information or references to an article when I can (e.g. [5] [6] [7]).

Optional question from Keepscases:

7. Please name one specific Wikipedia administrator whom you consider to be a fine role model, and explain why.
A: I am afraid that I do not actively track the contributions of or aspire to any particular Wikipedia editor; from what I have encountered, the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's administrators are polite, helpful and efficient in their duties.

Question from User:Pohta ce-am pohtit:

8. What RTW or EB mods did you use? clarified on request
Note: EB and RTW are the top two articles on the candidate's mainspace contribution list; see also candidate's answer to Q2, above.  Frank  |  talk  23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question; could you please clarify?
I must admit I still find the question somewhat ambiguous. I understand what you mean by "RTW" and "EB", but are you asking me about what other articles pertaining to Rome: Total War modifications I have edited, or about what my "rig" is when I actually play the games? If the former, then I have done a little cleanup of the Rome: Total Realism article, but nothing too major, not having had as much experience with it as I have had with Europa Barbarorum. The same is true of the Invasio Barbarorum article, the last one (currently) in Category:Total War modifications. Regarding the latter point, if you feel it is important, I currently have a clean install of EB 1.2 and have practically never used "EB mods"; that is to say, "mini-mods".

Optional question from RockManQ

9. What do you think of WP:IAR and have you ever had to invoke it? When do you think an admin should use IAR?
A: I believe the thinking behind WP:IAR is two-fold. Firstly, it is in place to allow new or infrequent editors to make positive edits without having to first read Wikipedia's rulebook; something which I think is entirely justified as it is only after they have been around on Wikipedia for a while that people begin to become interested in its rules or "behind-the-scenes" section. Forcing new editors to act in accordance with every MOS: policy we have would very quickly kill off practically all new editors. The second reason for having WP:IAR is so that common sense exceptions to rules can be used, so that edits are always made so as to make a net positive contribution to Wikipedia and rules and policies do not have to be applied even where they would clearly be unhelpful. In other words, one should follow the spirit of a rule, rather than the letter of a rule. Somewhat embarassingly, the only time I can bring to mind of carrying out an edit because I thought it would be useful, rather than because any particular policy stated that I should do it, was in the rather minor edit of removing centering tags from the Charlemagne article. When I asked why those tags had been used, it turned out they were no longer needed anyway, so everyone was happy. Regarding situations where an administrator should use WP:IAR, WP:EXCEPTIONS uses the rather amusing example of the Dalai Lama failing WP:POLITICIAN, but still clearly being notable enough to warrant inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. Clearly, WP:IAR should be used in such common-sense situations where a particular policy is not applicable to a given situation. The IAR-related essays warn against using the rule as a last-ditch resort in an argument; to save an article from deletion which is clearly non-notable, for instance; and, clearly, administrators should not take WP:IAR into account in such situations, and should rather act according to Wikipedia's other rules and policies.

Optional question from George The Dragon

10. Why do you display the rollback logo on your userpage?
A: Simply put, it is so that people can see that I am a Rollbacker in case they need that information. I have included it for the same reason that I have included a list of my cross-wiki accounts, Babel templates and other userboxes. Including such information in the form of a userbox or similar just puts me in the relevant category for people to be able to find me if they need a Rollbacker, or someone who contributes using Inkscape, or whatever else.

Optional question from Dendodge (talk · contribs)

11. Where do you see yourself in a year's time...
a. If this RfA passes?
A. If I were to be granted administrator status, I would start out by becoming involved with the administrative tasks that I have outlined above, and would later see whether I was willing and able to start participating in other administrative tasks, too, all the while continuing with the sort of work that I do at present, such as replacing PNGs with SVGs and correcting grammar and punctuation in articles.
b. If this RfA fails?
A. If this second RfA were to fail, I would continue with my current non-administrative work, trying to focus on addressing the areas brought up in the RfA that caused it to fail, and would wait a longer period before running an RfA again (at least 6 months, I would say).

Optional question from Prodego

13. What is patent nonsense?
A: This is when a page consists of pure gibberish and contains no useful or meaningful content to speak of. Having just looked at CAT:NSD, I would say that this article would not qualify for {{db-g1}}; it may be eligible for an AFD, but not for CSD, I would say.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. No nom to beat support. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support talk page and archives show a sane and useful editor, 6,500 edits and no blocks is good enough for me ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support clean block log, good amount of contributions, all-in-all, a good candidate; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as there is really no reason to oppose. It has been about 3½ months since your last and you have worked hard. Certainly those of us with the mop will be glad to show you which end to use on the floor. Good luck! JodyB talk 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Good contributor, good vandal fighter. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support' - Use is obviously experienced and qualified. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. 2 DYKs is what I have, that's no problem. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support looks quite fine. :) abf /talk to me/ 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks like you've been working hard. No reason not to support! V D on a public PC (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - WTHN? — neuro(talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I didn't have a GA (or even a DYK) when I became an admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good enough for me. America69 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support gladly. I supported the first time around and see (as I fully expected) a consistent, solid contribution history since. Plus, I can't even spell "GA" or "DYK".  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Pass go, collect $200 and a mop. Yanksox (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Trustworthy editor with good contributions in a variety of areas and an interest in areas that often need the attention of those with a mop. Would be a fine addition to the cabal, in my opinion. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good & trustworthy editor. Knows and uses policy. I couldn't care less about a GA. FlyingToaster 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Sure, looks good. Marked improvement since last RfA. Good luck! GlassCobra 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I looked at his last nom; he seemed to be a suitable (albeit slightly inexperienced) candidate at the time, and have only improved since. In particular, his positive and mature attitude, as demostrated by his learning from the criticism at his last RfA, is exemplary and a sign of things to come were he given the mop. It would be a net positive to promote this editor to adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. macy 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Would make a fine sysop. Sam Blab 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SupportEnough for me to say yes.Wikidude57SBC 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I supported last time. IIMH continues to contribute well and remains a good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Good user, I can't see him blocking Jimbo any time soon! :D JS (chat) 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, I can do that? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Support Good contributor, could use some more work in admin-related fields like AIV and ANI though.  Marlith (Talk)  01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I've seen you on Huggle, and a quick look through the rest of your contribs reveals nothing disturbing. J.delanoygabsadds 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, natch. Not swayed by the article writing arguments, seems like an excellent user. - Revolving Bugbear 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak Support - even w/o article building experience, this user seems like he would be a net positive. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Dlohcierekim 03:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see not writing GA's or FA's as a reason to not support. The question is always, "will the project benefit from allowing the user to have three more buttons than before?" GA's and FA's do not guarantee the answer will be "yes;" a lack of them does not guarantee the answer is "no." This user does not seem likely to abuse/misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 16:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 06:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - Yep. AdjustShift (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, I supported last time, and cannot find anything since then to make me change my mind. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  34. Support. No problems here. And good job sidestepping the landmine (Q7). Tan | 39 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I read answers to questions (they are reasonable, in my opinion) and briefly reviewed nominator's contributions and found no reason to oppose. Yes, he has only a limited article witting experience. However pushing something through FAC is a difficult business now, and I can not blame the nominator for the lack of FA articles. Ruslik (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - WP:WTHN, no big deal, and net positive. RockManQReview me 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Good experience, and patiently accommodates lame questions on the RfA. Patience with confused newbies is a valuable skill for an admin. Pcap ping 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Seen the user around. No concerns. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support nothing to cause me any concern here. --Rodhullandemu 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support No overwhelming reason to oppose, no trust issues to be weary of. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support As per EVula and track is okay.See no misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Per User:NuclearWarfare/Admin Standards NW's Public Sock (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Abso-fucking-lutely. Garden. 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Per question number six and extensive vandal fighting history. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - No problems here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Sure. LittleMountain5 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support ayematthew ✡ 02:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Alrighty MBisanz talk 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support as we hit the halfway mark for WP:100! DARTH PANDAduel 05:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Net Positive -- Pedro :  Chat  08:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. First self-nom I've seen in a while; no issues. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Trust the user, and the lack of mainspace contribs doesn't bother me. Xclamation point 11:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support No real reason not to GTD 13:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Nothing wrong here. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 14:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Bucketsofg 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support will do fine. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Absolutely no reason not to. Good count, contribs and they will be a good admin. Andy (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Per statement in nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive helpful contributions in varied areas of this project. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Appears to have good experience. —BradV 23:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I could not believe the people who opposed on your last RFA. Good reverter, vandal fighter, and editer. This MUST suceed. MHLUtalk 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Can't see why not. Fine contributor. I don't care about the article writing GA FA alphabet soup, a hard worker is a hard worker.    SIS  00:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seems to be a quality candidate and I think that he deserves this.--Iamawesome800 01:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I am moved by the willingness to learn from the previous RfA. Seems to be a mild-tempered hard-working contributor. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No problems here. User has enough experience. I have also seen him during vandal fighing and I think he can handle pressure very well. Chamal talk 03:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Seems willing to learn, and up-to-date with things, such as the dating system. Vltava 68 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Seems like a good candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britishmid (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Icewedge (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. I would encourage the candidate to address the neutral voters' concerns (below) and make it habitual to contribute to article space—as well as to Wikipedia namespace—pages: we are writing an encyclopedia, after all. I see no other obvious issues with this candidacy, however. Support. AGK 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support I've opposed candidates before with little article contributions, however you did significantly contribute to Europa_Barbarorum and, though it failed GA, I implore you to continue to try to get it to GA status and work on articles, even if only one and awhile. Besides that, you are trustworthy and have good contributions. --Banime (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - It Is Me Here took the comments at RfA1 to heart and successfully addressed the concerns raised there. Obvious need for the tools and will not abuse them. As for article writing, I'd be more than happy to co-write an article with you on a topic of your choice. Feel free to give me a buzz on my talk page after this is over. -- Suntag ☼ 03:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Definitely has the experience to be trusted; answers the questions with confidence. – Alex43223 T | C | E 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support: Why not? Dendodge TalkContribs 15:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support:Good editor.Spudicus (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 山本一郎 (会話) 16:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Looks good to me. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. It Is Me Here works to better himself; of course he's qualified this time around. DiverseMentality 07:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Although I realize that you don't have much article building experience, I think an administrator works on administrative things. Content builders, in my views, will become Wikiproject leaders if they are really committed. Knowing MOS s good enough. Leujohn (talk)
  82. Support - No reason to oppose - the candidate is qualified and has no problems, and also followed the advice at their first RfA well; one does not need to be an admin to write articles; it's illogical to oppose a user for not writing enough articles when adminship has nothing to do with writing articles. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 19:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - looks OK, meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Excellent and improved editor. Acalamari 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Moral Oppose, per question 2. DYKs, GAs and FAs can often mean little more than a person knowing how to game the wiki-credit system, but there's not even this. It is a moderate rather than strong oppose though as the candidate's areas of admin interest don't concern me, not really requiring a decent 2. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral - I simply cannot offer my support to an editor with so little article writing experience. Two DYKs and one article that did not pass a GA review does not suffice in my book. However, I find nothing glaringly wrong with you as an editor and, because of this, cannot oppose. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my nearly three years of editing Wikipedia (and over two years of being an admin), I have generated 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, 0 GAs, and 0 A-class articles. My two "best" article contributions are a start-class article and an unassessed article; both were done before I got the sysop bit, and both remain my best single mainspace contributions since (and, in all seriousness, both are likely to remain my best contributions for the foreseeable future, given my wikignome tendencies).
Just throwing that out there; article writing isn't the end-all/be-all for adminship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that article writing isn't the end-all/be-all for adminship, but it is, however, one of the easiest ways to assess a user's contributions to the project. Also, I don't think we should use a common-denominator approach when assessing a candidate (i.e. current admin X passed without "fill-in-the-blank", so don't hold that against candidate Y). I think that, especially for article-writing and mainspace contributions, we should not simply ignore the fact that an editor is lacking in a certain area because a current admin made it through RfA with a similar deficit, unless there are some mitigating circumstances. That being said, I am considering changing my vote to a "support" because of the candidate's response to question #6. This user has made a number of significant contributions to the mainspace that I seemed to have miss when I reviewed his contributions. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(@ EVula) Assessed. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet, now I have two start-class articles. Go me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to "support" because of Question 6 and vandal fighting work. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral - Sharing Littlealien's concern. Two DYK's does not an article writer make; i've come up with 32, and in article terms I'm a complete hack. Ironholds (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral until question 5 is answered. I will choose my vote then. Leujohn (talk) Changing to support per answer
  2. Neutral No glaringly obvious reason to Oppose, but no overwhelming reason to Support. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Both article-writing and admin-related experience is still a little weak. Epbr123 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, tending towards oppose. I concur with LittleAlien's comments - there just isn't enough substantive article building going on. I do see plenty of vandalism fighting and bitmap to vector graphic conversion going on which are both valuable and mundane work, but ultimately for me nothing demonstrates commitment on a genuine, emotional level than fact checking and adding new content and cites as necessary. This is an encyclopedia after all, and that should be the bread and butter of the project. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, concerned about article contributions, but it really isn't a terrible deal (most of us have our areas we find interesting, some involve working with articles in such a way to make them prominent, others don't). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 9 December 2008 (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/It_Is_Me_Here_2&oldid=1089065838"