Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Paste

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

Paste

Final (5/18/5); Closed by bibliomaniac15 on 05:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) per WP:NOTNOW.

Paste (talk · contribs) – Paste ^Talk 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been active on Wikipedia for about 30 months with about 6500 edits, and find that as time goes by I am becoming more and more involved to a point where I would welcome being trusted with becoming an administrator and thus being able to more actively keep this valuable knowledge base as accurate as is possible in the circumstances.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I currently am active in new page patrolling with Twinkle and Rollback facilities. I look at recent changes when I can and participate in both nominating articles for AfD and participating in discussions put up by others. I have recently been allowed to use AWB and this is a very useful tool. I have made about 105 new articles, none of which I am putting forward as the finished article by any means, but most of which I have felt have added to the project. I will continue to try and keep vandalism to a minimum, assist at AfD and create articles that I believe add to the project. I am a member of the schools project and wish to get more actively involved there as I have considerable experience in this area in the UK.

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

A: A very difficult question to answer. I have no 'stand out' contributions, I just feel that I am a regular positive contributor who is passionate about seeing Wikipedia being constantly maintained and improved.

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 cannot recall any conflicts and certainly none that have caused me any stress. I did recently have a few rather childish people from the University of Newcastle vandalise some articles that I had written and my user page because they did not like me nominating one 'Andy Matthews' for deletion but that was quickly resolved by another admin.

Optional question from Keepscases:

4. What are the origins of your username?

A: It goes back 40 years to when I went on holiday with my parents and came back whiter than I went, I never did like sunbathing. Paste as in pasty just stuck with a very few old friends and I just thought I'd use it as a nickname.

Optional question from Hoary (prompted by Ironholds's observation below, this is a follow-up to question 2 above):

5. Even if, as you say, none of your contributions stand out, can you at least name one or two good articles to which you added a substantial amount of material?

A: I think that I would reply by saying that I have tried to find gaps where articles are required and then at the very least tried to start the relevant articles hoping that people with greater expertise in the subject than me will be able to flesh them out. A good example would be the article Antiques Roadshow. It was noticeable that the experts, who are integral to the programme, in the main did not have articles on them, so that a visitor to the article who did not know the programme would have no idea who these 'experts' were. I have started most of the expert's pages, but fully admit that they are all stubs. Pages on UK gardening experts would also come into this category. The same would apply to schools in West Sussex where I live, and indeed UK schools as a whole, I have started several articles on schools. I would be the first to admit that I do not have encyclopedic knowledge on any one particular subject, more I have a good general knowledge. In terms of contributing to an article that I did not create, I have added a fair amount to Photobooth for example, for the simple reason that I do know quite a lot about them having worked in that industry. However I would say that my major contribution to Wikipedia is never going to be the creation of large and significant articles. I hope that answers your question.

Optional question from — neuro^(talk)

6. At the moment I am neutral, so I am posing this question so I can decide on my stance. You list anti-vandal work as something you want to be a part of in an administrative position, but you have a very small amount (19 to be exact) amount of edits to AIV. How can the community trust your judgment over such issues when you have such a small amount of edits to such a vital administrative part of the anti-vandalism process?

A: That's a fair question, I can only really answer it by saying that I have only 19 edits to AIV because that is the number of times that I have felt the need to report an incident or individual there. I generally find that most (but by no means all) vandals stop after receiving warnings and those that don't are in the main blocked by admins fairly quickly. Most of the anti vandalism work that I have done is in respect of speedy deletes of new pages if necessary, reverts of vandalism via recent changes and keeping a close eye on a large watchlist. In terms of trusting my judgment that of course is not for me to decide, however I try very hard whenever I am using Wikipedia in any form to do to others as I would expect them to do to me and I try to use whatever experience I have gained over 52 years on this earth and rather less time here in a positive and polite manner. If I were an admin intervening against vandalism then these points would guide my approach (along with necessary Wiki policies of course).

Question(s) from CharlotteWebb

7. You mentioned an interest in AFD work. What is the role of "notability" guidelines in deciding whether or not an article should be deleted? Given an article about X, under what circumstances should a rough measurement of X itself be given more weight than a measurement of the information about X published by available sources? (always/sometimes/never, explain when and why) — CharlotteWebb 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for Paste: Paste (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/Paste before commenting.

Discussion

• Withholding vote until the candidate has answered at least the standard three RfA questions (unless he is not planning to respond, in which case, I would appreciate an indication to that effect). Thanks, AGK 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Done. AGK 17:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support 6,500 edits and no blocks, a civil talk page and looking at your contributions the articles you have recently nommed for deletion are now redlinks ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Candidate seems trustworthy and I hold no real concerns. Not terribly active in the "usual" areas we see RfA candidates at, but that does not unduly concern me; Paste will probably not be a hugely active administrator, but even sporadic use is a net plus. Answers to questions are fine, too. Support. AGK 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Solid edit count, and I have no doubt he is ready for the mop! America69 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - trustworthy editor. Has created over a 100 articles, so I think his article writing is sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - good answers to questions and a solid history of good contributions to the project, especially with regard to CSD. The candidate's interest in CSD and AfD work are a big plus as these are areas that typically have backlogs, sometimes quite large. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

   Support per PhilKnight and Balloonman. Pcap ping 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

   Comment how can you support "per ... Balloonman" given that he opposed? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Strong Oppose - A thorough look at the user's contributions reveals an extremely weak interest in building an encyclopedia, but a rather strong interest in deleting content. I don't have anything against deletionists on the whole, but I find this balance unacceptable. Furthermore, AFD rationales are unimpressive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to strong oppose based on glaring errors and inappropriate CSD taggings.
2. Opposevirtually no work in the wikispace, no work in the wikitalk space, no articles where he has even made 10 edits to the articles talk space, and the one where he made the most (5) his first comment is If you had the common decency to wait you'd see it is now referenced and that it is not written from a biased perspective. Try signing your comments as well! He's only made 40 edits to his own talk page, and has not talked to another editor more than 8 times. A quick review of the people whose talk page he has posted to the most show mostly speedy deletion notices via twinkle. I don't see enough here to overcome the concerns that I have from what I do see. Since a fair amount of his work is tagging articles for deletion, I took a look at a number of articles he tagged. He often mistags articles. Some of them are deleted under the tag he provided, but in several cases the deleting admin retags them with appropriate tag. For example,
   • The collection of water in the parking lot south of Palmer Hall on the University of Toledo campus in Toledo, OH. was tagged G1--the article could be possibly be speedied, but is clearly not patent nonsense/gibberish.
   • The article was deleted and recreated. Paste asked for it to be deleted G4, but that is improper request because G4 expliticly excludes articles speedily deleted.
   • An article that was written about how some guy's name is an acronym was incorrectly tagged G1, but properly deleted A7.
   • An article written about michaeljacksonism, which was an obvious attack page, was tagged G1.
   • A day the is rumored to be the day after cyber monday. In fact it is just dirty lies spread by business teachers which give there students something to do. was tagged G1. G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes or poorly written articles.
   • ′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→§·ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy–—…‘“’”°″′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ was tagged with "vandalism" whereas it is a perfect example of G1.
   • ****** **** has both male and female genitalia was tagged G1, but is a clear case of an attack page.

   These examples are just from the past 24 hours or last 40 speedies he's tagged. Hasty or careless speedy deleters can be a bigger scourge to our project than the vandals they fight. Only those who clearly know what they are doing with the tools should be promoted to Admin, and Paste IMHO hasn't shown that he is among the best. Admins who are speedy deleters need to be able to train/correct others who mistag, else our guidelines will be corrupted.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

   • Thank you for your comments but perhaps I could be allowed my reply? I do not know how many hundred of speedy deletes I have suggested but I do know that I always try to make sure that they are correct suggestions and I think that you will find that the vast majority of my suggestions are deleted and with correct tags. I do not make spurious suggestions. I may make the odd mistake on a category I'm sure as no one is perfect. Of the few you have found at least a couple of them may be open to interpretation. I felt that an article about a puddle in a car park was nonsense but maybe another category would have been just as appropriate. The second example starting 'A day the is rumored' still seems to me to be nonsense rather than anything else. I am extremely surprised to put it mildly that you can make the comment 'speedy deleters can be a bigger scourge to our project than the vandals they fight.' about my contribution to Wikipedia even though the sentiment may well have some merit. I think that the point where you have put up a comment I have made is very unfair, anyone who looks through my contributions will find that I am scrupulously polite and civil and this phrase must be the one case where I was even remotely blunt.unsigned comment by Paste

   My comment about hasty/careless CSD'ers is a comment about CSD'ers in general, not about you in particular. CSD'ers can be as big of a scourge to the project as the vandals they fight. A careless CSD'er can chase away productive editors before they even get started. A careless CSD'er can ruin the reputation of the project or piss off somebody who might be very productive in the future. As for your tagging hundreds of speedy deletions, I find it frightening that I only reviewed about 20 of your speedy deletions and found 7 that were questionable if not wrong. As for the puddle in a parking lot, please take a look at Wikipedia:Nonsense, which states it falls into two categories:

   1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdshgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.

   2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.

   Neither the puddle nor a "day rumored" fit either of those. They both make sense, even if they are both garbage.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

   The above come from articles that were actually deleted, I took a look at the requests that were denied: by WilyD, by Gwen Gale, by Tikiwont, by an IP, by fabrictramp, by Ohnoitdjamie, by Seresin, by SoWhy, by bongwarrior. I excluded the cases where Paste removed the tag himself or where the article was substantially rewritten before the CSD was declined. These are all cases in his past 500 edits of undeleted article space.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per Balloonman's finds. The speedy deletion thing is a big issue; I don't care if 95% of your stuff is well-tagged, if 5% is badly tagged then it is an issue. 5% doesn't sound like much, but it says "X found this a good rationale for deletion" when it wasn't; something like that cast doubts on your appropriateness to hold the Delete button. In addition the talking problems are a big'un; 8 conversations? No (real) way of judging the users interaction with other users, something key to a good admin. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Per Baloonman, sorry, you seem like a nice enough guy though. If you were to come back in a while, I would have no hesitation switching if the problems were gone. :) — neuro^(talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose, in light of the CSD-tagging issues brought up by Balloonman. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose - thanks to Balloonman for the work put in, which saves me from doing an extensive search of my own. Speedy deletion is, in my view, an area where a zealous admin can damage wikipedia irreparably. I believe that the criteria should be interpreted strictly and that all controversial cases should go to AfD or some other consensus-building forum. Paste has a lot going for him, and could make a good admin, which means that I have to oppose. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I decline a db of his today (as link'd above). With so many careless new page patrollers active, admins (especially those who're likely to touch that are) can't be careless. WilyD 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Baloonman. macy 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Balloonman brought very concerning issues of Paste's CSD taggings. But if that weren't enough, Paste's user talk and talk contributions are very low, with most of the user talk contributions being automated by Twinkle; I fail to see much discussion coming from Paste. DiverseMentality 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
10. I would like to take this moment to thank Paste for volunteering to assist with adminship work, but I don't believe he is quite ready for the mop yet. I can ignore some examples of improper speedy tagging; for instance, I wouldn't make a big deal out of a G1 tag for something that should have been tagged G3. However, a lot of what Balloonman lays out above is concerning, as too much improper tagging could potentially turn new editors to the project away. In particular, this point stuck out: "A day the is rumored to be the day after cyber monday. In fact it is just dirty lies spread by business teachers which give there students something to do. was tagged G1. G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes or poorly written articles." Speedy deletion is generally not the way to deal with hoaxes - the proper way to handle them is to put a {{hoax}} tag at the top of the page, and nominate it for deletion. My recommendation to the candidate is to review the criteria for speedy deletion thoroughly, gain some more experience in the area, and return within a few months after demonstrating a more solid understanding of deletion processes, and I will hopefully support. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong opposum. He thinks that ′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→§·ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy–—…‘“’”°″′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ is not nonsense but vandalism. Pcap ping 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    • vandalism include[s]...the insertion of nonsense into articles. Lets not split hairs too much in our critique. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

12. Very Weak Oppose. per Balloonman. Jonathan321 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

    User does have about 6500 edits. He has about 4900 edits that have not been deleted, and about 1600 edits that have been deleted. For a total of about 6500.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)!vote has been redacted from the original [1]

13. Oppose per Balloonman. Most newbies come to Wikipedia with good intentions, so when their articles get speedy deleted, it is important that they know exactly why. Of course, criteria G3 and G10, and extreme cases of A7 (e.g. John Doe redefines "awesome," end of story) could be regarded as an exception to this rule of thumb, but somehow I don't think that someone who writes an article about an upstart garage band is coming to Wikipedia with bad intent. Yes, they have to know that Wikipedia is just not a free web host, and that means we must tell them exactly that. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose Very unimpressive afd nominations and poor deletion calls after years of involvement in Wikipedia. I do not trust this user with the tools.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Wisdom89 and Balloonman. You should certainly try again once you have addressed all these issues here though! Happy editing :-) JS (chat) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose as there is a lack of experience with AIV and other Administrator Related fields besides deletion. Could use a lot of work, then I will support in another RfA.  Marlith (Talk)  00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Strongest Possible Oppose Irresponsible with speedy deletion. Thanks, Balloonman. Townlake (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Sorry to pile on here but Ballonman's findings are too unignorable. The extra buttons seems a bit risky at your hands at this moment. Contribute fairly to article building, make precise tagging of deletion needed articles and come back again-- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now, but easily swayed. While your record seems pretty good, the 30 months is a bit misleading; you've been contributing regularly (i.e not 2 edits, then another five in 3 months) for about 12 (although that isn't a problem). The article-writing bugs me, though; while you do have a lot of articles to your name, the 10 random ones I opened up are start-class articles at best with no inline citations. To me this shows you're not too experienced with article structure, which begs the question: what else might you not be experienced at? As mentioned I can be swayed either way by evidence. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Switch to

1. Neutral – Wasn’t sure if I should place this here or up in questions. Here won. Right at the moment I have some concerns with experience regarding administrative dutiesand interaction (or lack there of with other editors. In reviewing your archived talk page, shown here [2] I noticed just recently, November (paragraph 79) a well respected editor and Administrator commented that your reasoning, in both nominating and expressing opinion at AFD, may fall short of what is expected and may even be taken as agenda pushing. Likewise, I saw similar comments from other editors expressing the same concern within your talk page. In addition, I saw very few responses from you to a great majority of comments or questions placed on your talk page. As a Administrator I would hope for more interactions and thoughtful comments. Can you explain how and what have you done to correct these perceived shortcomings. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Reply Thanks for your comments, with regard to the experienced admin I took his comments in the way that I think they were meant, as kind advice. I don't believe that he thought that I was agenda pushing (indeed I certainly wasn't) merely that I needed to be clearer and I have taken that advice on board. I'm not sure what the other concerns were but whenever anyone, admin or not, has posted on my talk page I have always endeavored to learn from those comments if appropriate. With regard to replies I suppose that I have tended to reply on their talkpages rather than on my own.
2. On the Fence I don't want to oppose you, you do understand what should and should not be deleted. I'm just troubled by the lack of cooperation with others. If you show more action on talk pages and AN and ANI, I would consider nominating you. Yanksox (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral The candidate's vices and virtues are too evenly balanced for me, so I am sitting next to Yanksox on the fence. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - don't want to pile on. I think the concerns raised by Balloonman are valid- as a new page patroller it's okay to make some of these mistakes because an admin will always be there to fix your mistakes. However, as an admin, you don't have a back up, no one looking over your shoulder. That said, you seem dedicated to the project and it takes a large amount of courage to nom yourself for adminship: I respect that. Consider this a NOTNOW neutral, and I look forward to when I can support you. l'aquatique || talk 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

   The sad thing is that there are a number of admins who make these mistakes as well... and there is little recourse to them, which is why poor tagging of articles pre-rfa is a deal breaker for me. Once we give the bit to a CSD'er, it is hard (if not impossible) to remove---and worse, we might never realize that there is an admin making major mistakes!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral - To avoid pile on at this point. Tiptoety ^talk 02:05, 4 December 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.