Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R

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

R

Final (80/35/5); ended 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC) - This is at the low end numerically, and even most of the support and neutral comments believe that the oppose reasons have some degree of validity. I do not see any particular irregularities in this request despite some comments to the contrary; consensus does not appear to exist at this time. Andre (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

R (talk · contribs) - I am happy at being able to nominate R (Nee. TeckWiz) for adminship. He has been here since February 2006 and has a steady stream of contributions since then. His close to 8,000 edits cover very different topics. R has a sound understanding of the username policy and has been very active in helping to create UAA, this board often gets backlogged, and although it is not essential to deal with username violations right away, it's better that obscene names are blocked to stop them getting into page histories - R would be a great help at this page in determining what is and what isn't a violation. I've been very impressed with R since his last RfA, and I think he has learnt from his mistakes, increasing his knowledge of the notablility guidlines. I also see R contributing to more articles, I believe he now fully understands that we are here to write an encyclopedia - the other stuff just comes with it! Whenever I see a report at AIV from R, it is always accurate and always results in a block, he'll certainly help reduce the back logs there. R actually does some really good work on user warning templates and the tools would allow him to edit protected templates and protect them when required. I also see R's constructive comments at AN and AN/I and I believe the tools will help him further his work there, and sort problems which he is currently unable to. R has a technical side as well, running RBot to subst user warning messages - it's certainly been a great help clearing up my mistakes from earlier days. I believe R's greatest asset is his determination and his dedication to the project, if he's down, he doesn't run away, he gets up and carries on with it - we need more admins that care about the project. After doing a full review of R's contribs, I am happy to say that I believe he is now ready to become and administrator, and I ask that you could help me give him the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I was the nominator in TeckWiz's most recent prior RfA. I felt then, and still do now, that R would use the tools within his areas of expertise and for the betterment of Wikipedia, and be wise enough to consult with other admins when that is appropriate. In the future I expect to see more mainspace contributions (this is true of many admins, of course, recently including me, alas), but in the meantime I feel strongly that this candidate should be allowed and encouraged to do the administrator work he wants to help out with and is fully prepared to perform. He has shown, and continues to show, continual growth as a Wikipedian and I look forward to many years of service from him as an editor and an administrator. Newyorkbrad 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: A great pleasure to co-nom R for adminship. I was, in fact, thinking about nominating him before Ryan did so. R is truly an amazing user, having the ability to program two bots. His contributions and experience are well distributed between the article and Wikipedia namspaces. He is knowledged in policy, and has worked in administrative areas. R has shown that the admin tools will help him better contribute to this encyclopedia. In addition, he would make a great asset as an admin. I don't think anyone should take his age seriously at all; I find it a complete bias that many have a tendancy to take. Good luck. Sr13 08:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you Ryan for a very well written nom (and it seems that your a good mind-reader because you already said half of my answer to Q1 in your nom. :) I would also like to thank Newyorkbrad and Sr13 for their conoms.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A:1. I am a recent changes patroller and often report to AIV. Instead of reporting after a vandal violates a final warning, I will block the user myself. I will also help out at AIV by checking each user’s contributions and blocking if necessary using a duration determined by whether the vandal is an IP or user, if they have previous blocks, and how bad the vandalism was (personal attacks, page blanking, etc). Another place I also plan to spend a lot of time at is the still relatively new UAA, a place where users report blatantly inappropriate usernames to be blocked. Not many admins currently help out, and sometimes there are names sitting there for over two hours. I’m very knowledgeable in the username policy, and will determine if the names there are violations of that policy or not. Upon blocking, I will disable autoblock and put {{UsernameBlocked}} as the description, so the user finds out why he was blocked, and is allowed to create an account. Alternatively, I can use {{UsernameHardBlocked}} and leave autoblock if the username is obviously in bad faith (ie. [editor] is a [adjective to attack that editor]). Since they’re related, I’d also help out at RFCN. Another thing I plan to help with is closing xFD’s or relisting them to gain a better consensus if not enough people have participated. I mainly plan to help at AFD and TFD, which I’m most familiar with. I also plan to help with speedy deletion, which sometimes has more than 200 candidates. Before going through CSD, I would probably check ASD first, since that is more harmful to the project, its members, or other people/things the page attacks. I also occasionally patrol new pages, though users often beat me to tagging the pages. I’d probably look through new pages and speedy delete some that haven’t been tagged, or have been tagged and are waiting to be deleted. I’ll occasionally handle requests for page protections and do protections for other things (i.e. new user warnings which are high-risk). Besides what I've said above, I'd be happy to help out with any other administrative tasks editors request I do.

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

A: 2. My best contributions to Wikipedia include updating information on currently airing television shows (such as The Amazing Race and Survivor). I’ve also created some of the Amazing Race and Survivor individual season articles, where I source the official application form, since that’s usually the only thing available. I also think some of my best contributions are vandal fighting, because though it may be easy and quick, people seeing vandalized versions of Wikipedia may get the wrong impression (which is one of the reasons that leads many schools and teachers to ban Wikipedia as a reliable source). Also, vandalized versions may shows up in Google and other search engines (I remember about a month ago, a Google crawler had crawled Wikipedia’s George Washington article when it was vandalized, and when someone searched “George Washington on Google, it came up with a summary which defamed him and included a profanity.) That doesn’t look good for Wikipedia. Probably my best contributions to the Wikipedia space are at WikiProject User Warnings and WP:UTM. All those nice, new, standardized user warnings (such as {{uw-vand1}}) are thanks to participants of WP:UW, including me. Even now, when the main templates are done, we still discuss additions and changes at WT:UW and WT:UTM. (By the way, as a sneak preview, we’re drafting new templates that you can leave on users’ talk pages if they create a page that is tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion. Instead of being uw-, we’re going to either start them with sd- or sp-).

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've never been in any major arguments, such as those that would lead to an RFC. I’ve had a few (probably under 5) issues that were on WP:ANI. I think I started one of those. I try to stay away from disputes as much as possible, and prefer to solve them on a talk page, and not by edit-warring. A major problem that me and other users faced was a trolling user at RFCN. He would constantly troll, and his talk page had 25 sections about his trolling. He was eventually indef-blocked, after he received a shorter block for the same reason. Minor problems that I can think of are when a user was using inappropriate edit summaries to egg on another user, and when I asked a user to change his signature because it had an external link in it, and he refused, though I showed him the policy saying it wasn't allowed. As a sysop I would deal with users on their talk page (or mine), and if needed, would bring the conflict to the attention of other admins at ANI if needed or requested.

Optional question by DarkFalls

4. How do you interpret the policy on ignore all rules, and in what circumstances would you invoke it?

A: IAR is so simple and short that I interpret it exactly as the text says: "If the rules (policies) prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Some policies even have IAR (exceptions) in them, such as 3RR, where reverting vandalism more than three times is an exception to, the rule, because obviously, you're not going to leave a page you see vandalized if you've reverted on it three times already. Without that exception, you wouldn't be able to maintain the encyclopedia as good. I would invoke IAR when something is preventing me from doing something that's needed, or hurting the encyclopedia and it's editors. For example, blocks are usually given out after about 4 warnings. However, if the users first edit is to a users talk page saying "[User] is a [profanity] [profanity] [profanity] [profanity] and should die", the user should be blocked after that first edit, as assuming good faith is almost impossible, and it's certain the user will not be doing an useful contributions.

5. How would you treat an potential violation of biography of living persons, and what line of action would you take? Furthermore, how do you identify a violation of biography of living persons, in comparison to neutral point of view, and what is the range of the policy (BLP not NPOV)? Is it strictly in the article namespace?

A: First of all, I don't know why these questions are asked in every RFA, especially when the user doesn't say anything about working with BLP violations. On seeing a potential violation, I would revert it. If the user is new, I would warn him with {{uw-blp1}}, and then escalate. For an experienced user, I would leave a personalized message. BLP is not strictly in article namespace, as it's bad to have defaming or unsourced information about a living person anywhere on Wkipedia. However, something that may be violation of BLP could be put in the talk namespace if the user says something like "I have heard that x happened to y. Is there anyone who can find a source for this?" This is a good example of how to avoid a violation of BLP in the article namespace.

Question from Nat.tang

6. If you ran into an editor that was clearly trying to push an extreme POV and yet, he/she was not committing any obvious, or "simple" vandalism, what steps or actions would you take to deal with this person? Please state you points or steps clearly.

A:First, I would probably assume good faith, and kindly tell the user on their talk page that all edits must have a neutral point of view. If the user doesn't respond, and is still pushing POV, I would probably ask him to stop again. If that doesn't help, I'd take it to WP:ANI.

General comments

• Links for R: R (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• *See R's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• For previous RfA's, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 3.

---

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/R before commenting.

Discussion

• For everyone that has or is going to oppose because of my lack of article writing, please see here. Thanks, R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• In a nomination it says>"R has a technical side as well, running RBot to subst user warning messages". Bot of these bots are AWB bots, which, really aren't hard to run. ~ Wikihermit 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note to closing crat(s): Please also see comments on WP:BN here if you haven't already. Newyorkbrad 03:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Beat the nom. I always thought he was an admin. O_O (oops) -Flubeca^Talk 03:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Hopeless aren't I? Ok. I'm weak supporting, but I'm locked in for support now. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   No problems that I've seen. Good contributor. --Dark Falls ^talk 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Support good old thought he was one cliche. Great help on IRC too. Kwsn^(Ni!) 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support (earlier support comments moved to co-nom statement above). Newyorkbrad 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Support Seems to know more then admins sometimes. ~ Wikihermit 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (Changing back to neutral)

5. Support. Clearly knows a lot about the workings of Wikipedia, but I very much wish that R would just help write up an article. It's fun and it's what we're here for, anyway. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Support He's a smart guy who knows what he's doing, and I trust him to do the right thing. The concerns cited by Blngyuen are worth considering, but in spite of this I know that he will not be a bad admin. We all have our different strengths. I trust that R will lean on more experienced admins, including his nominator, if he is faced with difficult choices and doesn't know what to do. Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Support From my experience, R is good editor. His focus doesn't really bother me; we all have our strengths. The important thing is that I trust him to be a good admin. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 05:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Support - as nominator. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
9. I've opposed and been neutral in the past, but this fellow is a fine exception to usual rules. Be careful with the mop, but should do well. Moreschi ^Talk 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Have seen him around at WP:UW. Candidate is clearly dedicated to the project and would not abuse tools being entrusted to him. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Terence 08:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Support Seriously, this editor puts in the time and effort to improve this encyclopedia, and always acts with good faith. This editor is a wonderful help to new users, and doesn't hesitate to contribute where necessary. By all means, I think it is time for R to have the mop and bucket!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Strong support. As I said in his last RfA, I have always been impressed by R's well reasoned arguments and comments. All my interactions with him have also been very positive and I can certainly say from a personal point of view that I have absolute confidence that he will be an asset as an admin. Insofar as this AfD is concerned, which a number of people seem to be picking up on again, I would argue that it is an innocent mistake, which he withdrew after he was informed of it. As a cricket follower myself, I had never heard of said player, so it seems quite forgivable that someone unfamiliar with the sport would make that mistake. And it's also worth noting that by listing it at AfD, he was opening up to a greater community discussion, not making any kind of unilateral action that could cause concern as to his use of the admin tools. I'm also sure that R is sensible enough to ask for advice in the future if he's unsure of anything. So overall, I have no concerns in giving my strong support. Will (aka Wimt) 12:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Support. With respect, I'm fed up with other editors making comments like "too bureaucratic" - that kind of unnecessary Oppose has already lost us one good potential admin recently (Amarkov). Vandal reverts and maintenance are just as valuable as creating new articles - in fact, increasingly so, as brought up in WP:FLOOD. Not being a fantastic article-writer does not prevent him being a good admin; he's proved that he's aware of deletion policy, blocking policy, and everything else an admin needs to know. Basically, the opposers' reasoning boils down to Oh no, we can't give him a mop, because he spends too much time scrubbing floors, and not enough constructing extensions to the (already very large) building. Walton^talk 12:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Support I agree totally with Walton and my support reasons are the exact same ones. Captain panda 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Strong Support - (2edit conflicts) I have known this user for some time now and he is one of the most experienced wikipedians around. His contributions to article space and Wikipedia is excellent and I doubt it that he will abuse the tool.. I fully trust this user to use the tools wisely..Good Luck..--Cometstyles 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Strong support bordering on co-nom - I've worked alot with this editor over the last 8 months or so, and I didn't vote in his previous RfA's as I didn't think he was quite ready for reasons mentioned previously and he sometimes avoided discussing a situation. I've seen this user develop over time and now feel confident to support. Unlike some here, I believe contributing behind the scenes is as equally important to the running of this encyclopedia and certainly has a greater requirement for the tools than writing an article. I question those who think that his contributions to WP:UAA, and from my perspective more importantly WP:UTM, are of someone who is not interested in furthering Wikipedia, and have not fully understood this editor or his contributions. I've seen increasingly more insightful discussions and actions from this editor that show understanding of policy. I believe he will certainly continue, as he already has done, to help the project and I wish him all the best. ^Khukri 13:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Support (again) Bucketsofg 13:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
19. Strong Support - I supported your last RFA and I have always thought of you as a right minded and good contributer. You seem to be well experienced and I have no concerns on your civility, good luck! Camaron1 | Chris 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Although I think these political statements are not a very good idea, I think he would make a great admin. --Mschel 13:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    O! He has removed them! --Mschel 14:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

21. Strong support I've offered to nominate him a few times already... --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    You have? Hmmm... I don't remember. :) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

22. Support: I trust this user with the tools. — mholland (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
24. Support- I've been watching him since I first joined Wikipedia, and I've never had any problems with him. As Walton said, maintenance tasks are just as important as writing articles. He'll make a great admin. Eddie 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
25. Support Not likely to abuse the tools. R can help with the tools, and it would be a shame losing his help simply because he doesn't do article work. —Anas ^talk? 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
26. S. I've seen R (Teckwiz) before, and I think he's ready to be trusted with extra tools. For example, I'll point to his clerking at WP:CHU. Shalom ^Hello 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
27. Support, he's improved enough that I have no problems with his adminship. Wizardman 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
28. Very strong support an excellent editor. I strongly supported last time, and R is an even greater user now than he was back then, so I am "very strongly supporting" this time around. Acalamari 16:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
29. Support A trustworthy editor, I've supported before and so I still support. GDonato (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Support R should have been a sysop LONG ago. Also, to the opposition based on the AFD'ed cricketers, the notability guidelines may say that anyone who played in a professional game is notable, but here's a thought: If I played a game of cricket professionally, would I be notable in hundreds of years to come like those included? —« ANIMUM » 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    Actually it's important to understand that the answer to your question is yes. If you were playing a first-class cricket game and if there were reliable published sources documenting the fact, you would not only be notable under the guideline's definition, it would also make sense to have a proper article constructed from these sources. The fact is that in hundreds of years, people will care as much about 21st century cricket players as they will care about Britney Spears. You can kiss a huge chunk of Wikipedia goodbye if you believe we should only keep things that will be of anything but extremely marginal interest in hundreds of years. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    "...if there were reliable published sources documenting the fact...", that's just it, anyone who played a game of cricket hundreds of years ago will hardly have any reliable sources. —« ANIMUM » 16:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    The fact is that if you play first-class cricket today, there will be reliable sources documenting the fact. Whether these sources are still available in a hundred years remains to see but most likely a fair number will be. As for people who played cricket a hundred years ago, Wisden Cricketers Almanack would be happy to tell you that a lot of documentation about them is readily available, enough so that it publishes detailed books on the subject. I believe you may be confusing "reliable sources" and "Google hits".Pascal.Tesson 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, I'm not, I'm plainly stating that if the cricketer played a minuscule amount of professional games long ago, that it may seem there would be no Reliable sources. That is what leads me to believe that R either went off of impulse (which is correct, 8 times out of 10), and not by doing the research to find out if there were some sources out there. It's a mistake, and we've all made them, so let's not blow this out of proportion. —« ANIMUM » 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

    Cricket is the oldest professional team sport dating back to the 1660s, so it is considerably older than baseball or American football or even soccer. The biggest problem facing cricket historians is the lack of any data at all, let alone reliable data, prior to the late 18th century. There are snippets of information about some players from the early 18th century which show that they were notable and they are still recognised as such over 300 years later, but there must have been countless other notable players in the same era who are unknown simply because there wasn't the sort of media coverage in those times that we take for granted now. I can understand Techwiz/R's failure to appreciate the notability of cricketers from the distant past but unfortunately he went about it in the wrong way at the time and made a bit of a fool of himself. As long as he has learned, and I think he has, there's no harm done really and I'm sure there isn't a single admin on the site who hasn't made a fool of himself. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

31. Support I have seen this editor contributing quite often. He has been with the project for a fairly long time and seems committed to it. I suggest that others who may not be familiar with him check out his latest editor review. Additionally, I think any accidental misuse of the tools will be avoided by a kind admin guiding him. I don't predict there will be misuse, as I see that he has a good grasp of policy. daveh4h 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    We can also look at the 3 (!) editor reviews for TeckWiz here and his three previous RfAs. We'll always find the same thing: no doubts about his enthusiasm and dedication but doubts about his judgement, maturity and ability to deal with conflict and I don't think any kind amin guiding can really make up for that. Pascal.Tesson 00:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

32. You should have been sysopped ages ago, the four RfA's in seven months shows eagerness but this is not a bad thing, infact its a good thing. Qst 20:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Support per Qst - excellent editor, long overdue for access to the mop. Tim^{speak} 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Support A great editor that is really passionate with his work. He definately deserves the tools. Good luck R! E ^talk _bots 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
35. Support. This is a user I have dealt with before, and I see absolutely no reason why they should not be an admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
36. Support This user has the full support of the Single Letter cabal, and I believe he can be trusted with the tools. -N 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
37. Support, everything's been said, so I guess per all of the above! *Cremepuff222* 22:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
38. Support Perhaps we should pause and consider what we would look like without dedicated vandal fighters. Even a paper and ink encyclopedia requires a night watchman to prevent vandalism and an auditor to monitor the books. I commend you for that work. Good luck. JodyB _talk 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
39. Support Seems like a good editor to me; no reason to oppose... ♠TomasBat 23:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
40. Support He's been a very good and helpful editor. I believe he will use the tools well. I  ^{(said) (did)} 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
41. Strong Oppose Too good to support. ;) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
42. Support No reason to oppose, will do a great job. Ganfon 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
43. Support. Candidate has made some useful contributions. I'm concerned about maturity issues, but will give R the benefit of the doubt. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor 02:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
44. Support I am confident that he would be a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
45. Support as co-nom. Sr13 08:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
46. Suppost - I have a few concerns from some things that I have seen, but I have seen much good from you also. I'll trust in Brad's recommendation to tip the balance in your favor. By the way, please don't spam all our talk pages (or at least mine) with a thank you note when this is complete. A note on the Talk page of this RFA should be sufficient. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
47. Long overdue. Peacent 16:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. I do understand the concern of those who have expressed themselves as opposed to R's candidacy, all of whom are people I deeply respect, and dear friends of mine in many cases; however, my own personal experience leads me to believe R is willing to learn from his mistakes, and has nothing but the best interest of our project in mind. His field of expertise lies on technical issues, rather than article writing (as desirable as that would be); so I'm happy to support knowing that he'll make good use of the tools, adding his knowledge to them for the best of us all. Phaedriel - 16:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
49. Support - Phaedriel's explanation above is ridiculously close to what I had planned to write. I believe that R will be responsible with the tools, learn from any mistakes and correct them immediately upon realization of problems ( we all make mistakes [1] :p ), and contribute greatly to technical issues that article-writers may find challenging or insoluble. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 16:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Will make a great admin! Politics rule 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
51. Support no reason to oppose --rogerd 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
52. Support I believe he should be part --Aleenf1 10:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
53. Support - And put me down for 'support' in the next RfA too. - Richard Cavell 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
54. Support - folks who focus primarily on editing articles don't need "the buttons". Bureaucraticly minded folks, on the other hand, most definitely do. Rklawton 15:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
55. Strong Support, I am happy to offer my full backing to this user. He has consistently offered his time and resources to this project and done a fine job. I find most of the oppose comments to be rather petty, especially for opinions the candidate offered in the cricket AfD. I can definitely find much sillier comments I made in AfD before I became an admin, but I learned from them as I'm sure "R" has. Additionally, he handles criticism very gracefully, which is a desirable trait in a sysop. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
56. Support as I think the lesson in cricket history has been well learned and will not be repeated. (And, more seriously, for high level technical skills and anally precise knowledge of detail. The community needs some people with these characteristics.) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 17:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
58. Support Eusebeus 17:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
59. Support I strongly opposed this nomination last time around but I think he has learned from his previous mistakes. The main criticism about him now is evidently that he doesn't write enough articles. I am an article writer and creator with nearly 16,000 edits and I don't have time for admin-type tasks although I do occasionally get pulled in. The converse is that someone who spends his time doing admin doesn't have time for writing articles. Fact is: you can only do one or t'other. This lad seems to have a talent for admin and maybe the writing will develop as he gets older. I was perhaps wrong to oppose him before because of his lack of experience around how to deal with an unfamiliar subject but I think he has taken that on board now and will be a good, reliable administrator. Good luck to him, but I wish he would get a more imaginative username. A good username should have at least three syllables: like mine has  ;-) --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
60. Arrrrrr. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
61. Support I don't see why not! T (Formerly Known as FireSpike) 06:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
62. Support - The same reasoning as Walton's and what I said on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amarkov 2. - TwoOars 07:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
63. Support I am going to support "R" this time around, and good luck to him. I wish he would do a little more writing, but everyone is not going to do everything. I think he has been a good contributor in what he has undertaken. old windy bear 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
64. Support I've read through R's contributions, and I believe he may make a good admin. So far, most of the dissenting opinions have been basewd more upon personal quirks and nitpicks -- some of them quite immaturely and rudely -- rather than addressing any real issues. Personally, I'd rather have an admin who knows how and *when* to edit than one who just edits everything in sight without taking the time to see whether or not the article really needs the edit. Quality over quantity, and I think R exemplfies this quite sufficiently enough to grant him admin status. Geoffrey Mitchell 20:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
65. Support, unlikely to abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
66. Support just to cancel out those silly OMG he's in junior high, must oppose votes, the RFA is likely not to succeed though, just do some article writing and you will pass in a couple of months. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    That's not a valid reason to vote. Either have a ligit reason, or change it back. The "cancel out votes" platform is worthless and a violation of WP:POINT. Dannycali 23:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Saying someone is in high school is even worse mate. That's more of a POINT violation than this. We have tons of teenage admins doing a fine job. It's a perfectly legitimate reason to support someone. Majorly (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Reverting someone who's just changed their opinion, as you did here, is also far worse than Jaranda's support rationale. Acalamari 00:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

67. Support per Jaranda, signed teenage admin Majorly (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. I have come across R (née TeckWiz) on his anti-vandalism rounds on more than a few occasions, and have noted his diligence and thoroughness. In looking over his other contributions, he seems to bring a calm, reasonable approach to his work on Wikipedia. (To R, more directly: I see below that your request has encountered some resistance, primarily and unfortunately as the result of your age. I hope and expect that, despite that, you'll not forget that you're a valued Wikipedian whose contributions are recognized and respected by many.)   user:justen    talk   01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
69. Support Questions about age are ridiculous. A 30 year old could have as much knowledge about Wikipedia as an 80 year old, as could a six year old. --wpktsfs 01:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
70. Support. Appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and dedicated to the project. Let him toil away happily at Wikignome tasks. At least it frees up editors who enjoy writing so they have more time to do so. -- But|seriously|folks  04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
71. Support- per above + seems to be a good editor with a good number of edits and interactions with other users. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. I have seen the opposition based on the (lack of) encyclopedia building, but although the contributions there are on the thin side, the candidate has not come up empty there, he has some non-trivial contributions in various TV articles. Therefore, I believe he has some foothold in what the encyclopedia is about. I think R is a sensible person, and trust that he'll use the admin tools wisely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. AW 14:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
74. Support He's a good user and he's a kid. Cbrown1023 talk 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
75. I lost count of how many time he made a bid for the tools. All I can say is "Good Luck". BuickCenturyDriver 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
76. Support Teckwiz can be trusted with the tools, frankly most admin tasks don't involve writing articles. This makes me wonder if I could pass an RfA now. Prodego ^talk 05:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
77. Support he's a very good editor, just because he doesn't do much artical work doesn't mean he shouldn't be an admin. Oysterguitarist 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
78. Support. Although I always think that content writing (and resultant dispute involvement) experience is helpful to producing a well-rounded administrator, I'm not sure its right to insist on it in all cases. We should use people according to their strengths - some people will be far more skilled at maintenance and administration than writing - that may make them a poor editor, but not necessarily a poor admin. I have interacted with R on a number of occasions and feel that he has his head screwed on correctly - I think he'll use the tools well in areas where he has experience and avoid those where he doesn't. Adminship is no big deal (apparently) and I think the project would benefit more from having R perform admin tasks to which he is suited than in not doing so. I would have liked a stronger answer to Q.5 though. WjBscribe 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
79. Support - I have seen him at work and I feel he is ready for the tools. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
80. Support Multiple RfAs and respected editors on both sides of the discussion with reasonable views. I would like to see the 'crats decide this with published reasoned arguments. That is to say, the bureaucrats should judge consensus in this RfA through published reasoned arguments to determine administrator access. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    Support Appears to be knowledgable about policy and serious about the project. No reason to believe he will abuse the tools. -- But|seriously|folks  03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I have struck this because you have already !voted. No double !votes. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    No, I'M sorry for confusing things. I didn't remember opining here previously. Thanks for catching it! -- But|seriously|folks  03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

    No worries. The human memory can be a little harsh on the best of people :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Firstly the concerns raised in the last RfA have not been addressed at all in my opinion. There was a concern about the complete lack of article writing and its manifestation in dubious AfD nominations. Since then, TeckWiz/R has made about 120 mainspace edits in 2.5 months, all of which were machine vandal reverts. That was out of about 1750 total edits...So about 6-7% article edits (all of which were machine edits) seems far too bureaucratic. Secondly, This is the fourth RfA in seven months on top of the unaddressed concerns, which is a bit much for me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Blnguyen, while I understand your concern, please don't exaggerate and say that all were machine edits. Yes, a lot of them were, but not all. Also, a lot of those "machine edits" have specific edit summaries that I've entered and not the regular "Reverted edits by x to last version by y." R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I retract those statistics, I counted I think 105 article edits. About 55 were machine vandal reverts, about 45 were semi-automatic with the reverts, but only about five edits were not reverts and they were all small formatting tweaks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

2. Reluctant oppose good editor, dedicated to the project. However, I'm still unconvinced (as I was last time around) that the candidate has the level of maturity to be an admin. Much fuss came last time around over his words on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Brown and I'm sure some will find it unfair that I bring it up again but I find it extremely worrisome. Like I said last time, I'm positive that R would not abuse the tools but I'm not confident that he won't unknowingly misuse them. Pascal.Tesson 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair, that was three months ago. ~ Wikihermit 05:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   ...and before his last request for adminship. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I am perfectly aware that it was before his last request for adminship but such a complete misunderstanding of the core objectives of Wikipedia is not something that is cured by an RfA or three months of time elapsed. I am very willing to forget past incivility if I see evidence that the problem has been resolved: this is of a very different nature. I think R is a positive force on the project, I really do, but I don't think he's responsible enough to be an administrator. His overly-polished answers to the optional questions and a fourth RfA in 7 months confirm that impression in my mind. Pascal.Tesson 06:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose without prejudice. There seem to be a bunch of little maturity issues which keep tripping the candidate up. I would not consider supporting the candidate in any RFA which starts less than one year from the end of this RFA. the candidate appears to be someone who can do their best work for the encyclopaedia as an editor, rather than as an admin at this time. AKAF 09:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per bananabucket. Sorry, but this is an encyclopaedia, not bureaucraticopedia. You don't appear to be very interested in improving/contributing to the encyclopaedia.[2] Matthew 09:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Nitpicking aside, was it necessary to be so rude? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

   Vandal-fighting is contributing to the encyclopedia. If everyone spent all their time writing new articles, we'd have no one to do essential maintenance tasks. Most editors choose to specialise in one area; given the current size of Wikipedia, vandal-fighting is at least as essential as article-writing, and is more relevant to knowing how to use the admin tools. Walton^talk 12:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I guess you have a different definition of "contributing" to me. I see "vandal fighting" as a simple task that requires little effort, it's peculiar that the vandal fighters often cease "fighting" when they get their "mop". Matthew 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Vandal-fighting is not a difficult task. I did some vandal-fighting before I was an admin, and I can attest to its relative easiness. Everything works with a click of a button basically. Click here to roll back edit. Click here to warn. Click here to report to AIV. I still think that when you do article editing, you learn more about Wikipedia as a whole, and you grasp an understanding of how to handle yourself in disputes and discussions, which you will undoubtedly be involved in as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Regardless, can you truly undermine the importance of vandal fighting? Click-of-a-button or not, vandal fighters make sure that unwanted and often profane content is not added to the encyclopedia. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

5. There's no evidence presented in this RfA that shows any of the concerns I brought up at his last RfA have been resolved in any meaningful way. I still have grave concerns that R will unintentionally misuse the tools and I'm still far from convinced the user has the requisite level of knowledge to effectively work as an administrator and not at all convinced this user would be able to deal with sensitive and serious issues surrounding BLP subjects. Nick 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
6. I am strongly opposed to this user retaining any additional buttons. He is extremely overzealous and indeed, he is rather bureaucratic. His lack of encyclopedic contributions is a bit of a concern, as is my perception that he appears to be a bit immature as well. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Can you show me some diffs of me being immature? I've had this as an oppose reason, yet no one actually shows me where I was immature. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Sure thing, R! Specfically, I am referring to your silliness here, where you mentioned that fellows in the 1800's and 1900's are not really notable, hehe (unless they're of the Bambino's stature). Also, I find it rather immature to place such an importance on RfA. This is your fourth RfA in such a short time and you've previously listed "becoming a Wikipedia admin" as one of the five most important things you wanted to do at some point in your life. Apologies for the lack of a diff there, but you obviously know what I'm talking about here, right? Feel free to follow-up if you've any more questions or concerns. I'm not going to be as active as I might like, but I'll do my best to check back here for you. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for actually taking the time to show me you exact reasons! However, I'm just going clarify. Of course people in the 1800's and 1900's are notable. However, this person only played two games in his career. Apparently, that's still notable, however, at the time, I didn't think it was. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I hope you don't mind if I chime in here but since I also mentioned the perceived lack of maturity, let me add a couple of examples here. The cricket thing was a bad sign but I also feel that the multiple RfAs and editor reviews show that you're eager to get some sort of validation. I also find this to be a tad overzealous. Your attitude towards opposers in the last TeckWiz RfA also showed a mixture of snapping back at opposers (GRBerry, Sandstein, Radiant) and trying desperately to appease them (iridescenti, Nick). Sorry, Pascal.Tesson 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Pascal, the diff you showed was in response to a usurpation request. The user wanted to be renamed to Innuendo, and if I remember correctly, a crat never did it even after it was the date it was eligible to be renamed, and other users that requested on the same date had their requests fulfilled. That was just a guess about why the crat may have not done it. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough although that was pretty speculative and you did note here that you felt the name was inappropriate. Pascal.Tesson 20:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose The concerns in the last RfA brought up by Blnguyen have not been addressed. I talked to you about your lack of mainspace editing, and the complete absence of non-machine edits. We're all here to build an encyclopedia. It's hard to be confident in a candidate when there's no experiential evidence that this user can handle himself in tough situations like edit wars or BLP discussions (which always need to be handled carefully and sensitively). Nishkid64 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose as unhappy with answer to BLP question and also mainspace edits are the heart of our work, SqueakBox 19:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Good vandal fighter who I had good experiences with, but I have to agree with Blnguyen about your lack of article writing, thus Oppose, But if you fail, you will be an easy shoo-in with some writing experience though, and if you need any help, I will be willing to help you Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   Changing to support to cancel out those silly junior high oppose votes Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose I am sorry, I am unhappy with the answers to the questions. The answer to question 1 gives me a strong feeling of 'I'll block them all', in combination to the answer to the WP:BLP question, where new users get template-warned, while experienced users get a personal message. If someone needs to learn, then it are the new users, and I think they need the personalised message more than the others.
   I am combining that with this warning of two months ago. You give here a final warning on a talk-page blanking. The IP in question only has two edits, the moment he saved the talk-page blanking he may have gotten the 'you've got new messages' banner for the first time, but it results in a final warning. For me, that is a bit too trigger happy. Again, I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   It wasn't just a blanking. It was a blanking and replacement of "you suck" and before that "you all suck." That's attacking us, Wikipedia editors, which is why I gave a final warning. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think a bv/final warning was out of line in this instance, certainly not so outlandish as to be troublesome in an RfA, and I have regularly seen R escalate correctly through the appropriate templates for warning vandals in less blatant situations, and blocked on his reports to AIV which turned out to be fully justified. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

   I did see what type of vandalism this was, it is just that I do believe we have to make sure that vandals have a chance to read the warnings. Maybe a uw-npa (2 or 3) would have been more appropriate. Just to give the vandal a chance to rethink before a final warning. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose as per Alfred Brown issue. I think your response on this issue during a peer review is, unfortunately, not very well-handled. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
11. Per Blnguyen, and Nishkid64, especially. Not experienced enough doing stuff manually, so I don't know how this user would fare making decisions which a bot output can't do for you. Daniel 06:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I am starting to get annoyed at the seemingly never ending stream of RfAs for Techwiz/R. The community has clearly spoken 3 previous times on his lack of experience, but R's apparent desperation has led him to, not dealing with this issue, but simply waiting a few months and trying again. For God's sake, lad, go write some articles, stop plotting your next attempt at RfA. It is an invariable rule that those who most want power should never be given it, and until I see contributions that are not aimed at getting the bit, you will never receive my support. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Comment on the Alfred Brown AFD showed that you have yet to embrace the spirit of wikipedia, that is building a comprehensive, collaborative encyclopedia. Vandal fighting is important, but content is at the heart of this project. Recurring dreams 13:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose with all due respect to the noms and co-noms on this one. Per Nick, Pascal, and, to be honest, Dev (who said it more bluntly than I would, but whose sentiment I share entirely), but mostly per Blnguyen and Nishkid. There's nothing overtly wrong with the answers but they don't impress me and the expression strikes me as slightly childish and not the sort of communication skills I would like to see from an administrator to a blocked user or a person seeking administrative advice. I apologize for that as I know it sounds mean but it is honestly how I felt when reading the answers. I also agree that four RfAs in six months is a bit much, especially when each time the bulk of the opposes seem to be raising the same issues. R, if this RfA doesn't get through, I suggest you take a break from worrying about adminship and concentrate on what we've been telling you each time for the last six months: please cut back on the automated editing and focus on helping build the encyclopedia. Sorry guys, but no. Sarah 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per much of the above, particularly bureaucratic tendencies and a rather insistent desire for adminship. Friday (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose I read much of the previous requests for adminship. Per Blnguyen and Sarah, the concerns in previous RfAs have not been addressed at all. I'm uncomfortable with administrators who ignore the input of others on how to improve; who do the same thing over and over again, and expect a different result. These numerous RfAs demonstrate something of a tin ear. --JayHenry 18:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose with all respect to a good and well-intentioned editor. Per Sarah and others, I don't see enough encyclopedia writing to absolutely demonstrate that you need the tools, from the project's point of view. Sorry. --John 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I don't feel that the editor has enough experience in encyclopedia building and dealing with editorial conflicts to make a good editor admin at the present time. Espresso Addict 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    R is already a good editor. I think you mean good admin. ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, of course I do -- shouldn't edit so late at night... Espresso Addict 08:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Drink some more espresso. Will keep you awake. ;) ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose The answers to the questions offer an almost anal level of detail; overstressing the need to show us how you know the minutiae of the processes, but lack the larger vision of creating encyclopaedic content. And what's the big deal with a bad name sitting at WP:UAA for more than 2 hours? That generally means it's not an obvious case, rather than something that needs to be blocked. Most new accounts never even edit anyway, and if they make bad edits they are warned and blocked as vandals. A borderline name doesn't harm anybody. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 10:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Anal level of detail? Wow. never heard that before. :) ---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Education through RfA! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 10:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    With all due respect, I consider this oppose unreasonable. RfA candidates often get opposed for not paying enough attention to policies and guidelines, which I can understand - the rules and processes are there for good reason. But to oppose someone for paying too much attention for policy, and clearly spelling out his intention to follow the processes? This really doesn't seem fair. And as to UAA, current policy dictates that inappropriate usernames are blockable. If you think this policy is unnecessary, that's your decision, but please discuss it on the appropriate talk pages, rather than penalising a good RfA candidate for following the policies as they stand. Walton^talk 13:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose Per Sarah, who sums up my feelings pretty well. Once again, another editor who focuses more on policing the project rather than building. Both are needed, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me a lot of RfA's lately have too much interest in AfD's, vandalism, etc. This applicant doesn't give me a vision of how they can help build the encyclopedia. Almost a neutral, but Sarah convinced me. Orangemarlin 21:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per user's comments on the talk page of this nomination that he does not have enough time to write articles, I cannot see how he has time to be an admin. Tim! 09:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm....I said does? I meant did. Now it's summer so I do have time. And you can do admin tasks in a matter of seconds (ie. blocks and deletes). It takes time to write an article. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 15:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

    You're worrying me even more now, deletions and blocks should be carefully considered and not done on a whim. Tim! 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

22. Oppose: This enterprise is primarly an encyclopedia-writing exercise. A little bit of experience over a few months of actually authoring articles will go a long way towards helping round out this editor's experience. I had large gaps in my understanding of WP until I wrote a few articles, and watched how they evolved afterwords, having to interact with a variety of other editors with other viewpoints, and defend my articles and edits in a number of bureaucratic actions. Until an editor understands what it is like to write an article, and have it attacked or defend a few AfD's it is difficult for me to put much credence behind claims of understanding of the processes at WP. Learn some more, author some articles, and develop some more skills relevant to writing encyclopedia articles before venturing to become someone making judgements over those who are actually building this project. One of the worst types of managers in real life is the manager who has no background at all in the enterprise he is managing, but is given a large measure of power over those who are doing the actual work. I have seen this produce disasters over and over, such as the wholesale exporting of the work of Xerox PARC to competitors, to the bankrupting of what was once the largest company in the world (AT&T) through this kind of managerial blunder, to the Challenger disaster. All of these are directly attributable to giving managerial powers to individuals who have only the slightest acquaintance with the enterprise itself. This inevitably leads to bad decisions and extremely ill will, and the loss of the real talent. In Wikipedia, we rely on volunteer labor and good will. I fear that this sort of nomination will be more negative than positive.--Filll 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
23. Oppose. I'd like to see admin candidates with more real contribution to article writing. Crum375 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

    Oppose ^{(changed to support)} Per Blnguyen, and Nishkid64 regarding the concerns raised in the last RfA not being addressed adequately. Whether you personally believe that admin candidates need real contribution to article writing, enough editors have said it in your RfAs to form a consensus that this is what is needed in this situation. There is an apparent unwillingness to follow that consensus. As Sarah put it, "concentrate on what we've been telling you each time for the last six months: please cut back on the automated editing and focus on helping build the encyclopedia." I think that you are a fine editor, and encourage you to address the concerns posted in this RfA and try again in three months or so. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

    #Oppose User is barely in junior high. If we let people who aren't in high school and can't hold jobs in the real world be admins here, then WP becomes more about politics, and less about content. Dannycali 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    First of all, that's ageist. Second, if we have young admins, how does that make WP more about politics? Last, if I didn't tell you my age, you wouldn't know it, and you would probably expect me to be older. You're basically saying I'll make a bad admin because I'm too young. Lastly, yes I can't hold a job, but being an admin is not a job. It's something you volunteer for, and so is being an editor here. Last time I checked, there's no age requirement for signing up or becoming an admin or crat. 'R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Well, if you don't like my opinion, well, that's just too damn bad. I know there is no age restrictions to being an admin, but I personally do not think it is the best interest to have preteens and young teens as admins. I want this project to be about building an encyclopedia, not have a bunch of lifeless zombies just wasting themselves into just reverting vandals and turning this place into a political cesspool. And I can tell by how you write and respond that you are very young. I never said that being an admin was a job, I just said that you aren't old enough to hold a job, and being an admin is still a "job" in some respects, even if it is volunteering. Your callous response to me shows you are not of a proper maturity level to hold this position. We have 1,300 or so already, that's more than enough. I agree with SchmuckyTheCat on all counts. Dannycali 23:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    I fail to understand how you are drawing the conclusion that younger admins that will make Wikipedia "more about politics, and less about content". I see no evidence at all of our younger admins (a number of whom are younger than R) doing this. An oppose like this is hugely disappointing in my eyes and smacks simply of ageism. Have you reviewed his contributions, or just opposed after you read the userbox on his userpage? Perhaps you have, but your oppose reasoning gives me no confidence of this. I would encourage you to read my comments here and alter you reasoning here to be more constructive. Furthermore, your comment that we have "more than enough" admins already is entirely fallacious and leads me to suspect you have rather an unfamiliarity with this project. The English Wikipedia has one of the lowest percentages of active users who are admins of any Wikimedia wiki and the almost permanent backlogs in many areas show a clear need for more administrators. Will (aka Wimt) 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    I disagree with everything you said. You are dead wrong. Dannycali 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Dannycali, I'm a teenager (younger than 18), and I'm also an administrator; does me being a teenager make me a bad administrator? Jaranda changed to support, and R responded to your oppose because your oppose has nothing to do with adminship; you're opposing over a physical issue rather than an editing issue. Anyway, if R had never disclosed his age, we would never know it. Acalamari 00:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Well, he acts pretty immature, for one thing, so I would suspect that he would be young. And I do not want teens as admins here. That makes this place into a joke. I will not respond further on this matter. Dannycali 01:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Immaturity and age are different things, and neither is an indicator of the other. There have been users who I thought who adults but turned out not be be, and vice versa. With you not wanting teenagers as administrators, as I said above, R only revealed his age because he chose to; same with me, I chose to reveal my age. Age should not be a factor in RfAs. Acalamari 01:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Acalamari and R, I wouldn't waste anymore time on this chap. He's shown here and elsewhere with his massive 149 edits who is the one with the maturity problems. I find the idea of a person who calls another person "a jerk and idiot" for absolutely no apparent reason, who repeatedly refers to other editors as "cultists" and whose own mature communication skills include gems such as "You have got to be fucking kidding me", blatant vandalism and repeatedly adding false death details to a blp, deciding they have the ability to judge the maturity of someone else rather hilarious. And FYI, we're all "nerdy, ugly and have no lifes...although I'm way better than everyone already" (LOL). Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious who here has the maturity problems and I would just ignore this troll -er- sorry, guy. Sarah 03:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    (<--) Congratulations Dannycali, you're a winner! Giggy _U^CP 04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    I realise this is going to be controversial, but I've struck out Dannycali's vote. As Sarah points out, he's a troll, who also vandalised an article before departing. I don't know how the closing bureaucrat will interpret this, but I don't believe this vote should be counted on the final tally. Walton^One 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

24. Oppose Junior high? what? I have no problem being ageist. Teenage admins have shown repeatedly that they have poor dispute resolution skills, and here is one younger than that. I'm just not giving the banhammer to children. Second reason: Not enough article writing. Third reason, spends time editing meta stuff, not building the project. We don't need more meta-stuff, we need writers. Admins who aren't writers are out of touch with what the purpose of this project is and I see nothing to think this user is any different. SchmuckyTheCat

    Your input is appreciated, but we have dozens of young administrators who are doing fine jobs, some of whom are the same age as R is or soon will be, and your comments could be read as a slur against all of them. As for the article-writing comment, see discussion on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    (ec) Ah, so at least one crat and countless admins (including MessedRocker and other obviously useful contributors) who were/are underage should never have been promoted? They should probably be stripped of their posts now, too, for that matter. Why don't you ask a steward to do that? Oh wait, two of them were promoted before they turned 18 too. --Rory096 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

    Brad and Rory, I also provided 2nd and 3rd reasons for lack of a support beyond age. I'm perfectly willing to judge people on their merits when they've been proven, and I don't see that here. And yes, fwiw, the average age of the wikipedia admin corps is too young and that lack of maturity shows across the entire project. If folks are young and great editors who've shown maturity and tact, yes, give them the tools. What has R done to show me how he would deal with a dispute between two users? I fail to see the nuanced understanding required to deal with that situation in the existing contributions. SchmuckyTheCat

25. Oppose, simply not a content editor, and he will not receive my support until he becomes one. Everyking 07:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose, no real contributions to the encyclopedia. Neil ╦ 15:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    So my 8,000 edits have not helped the encyclopedia at all? R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 20:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

27. Oppose, administrators have to get down into the guts of the encyclopedia, and this user seems reluctant to do so. Which is perfectly acceptable in a volunteer editor, but not something I'm comfortable granting the additional buttons for. -- nae'blis 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Admins are volunteers too. If he get stuff done without doing any in depth work, why shouldn't he get the tools? We have tons of backlogs that don't really require much thought, just manpower. --Rory096 19:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    Administrative backlogs that don't require thought are suitable for bots. Administrative backlogs that require thought/discretion require experience. -- nae'blis 19:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    We both know that an admin bot has no chance of passing RfA. We need admins to do the work, and if some admin backlogs require experience, then we shouldn't force the admins with experience to do the menial tasks that people without experience can do. --Rory096 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    On the contrary, my criteria for adminbots would result in a fairly easy pass, I believe. -- nae'blis 04:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    We don't advance single issue admins. SchmuckyTheCat

    We don't? Or you don't like to? There's no reason not to promote admins who we acknowledge will have a net benefit to the project. --Rory096 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    ProtectionBot would have passed it's RfA though. Your comments that doing menial work requires little experience is simply inaccurate and does nothing to demonstrate how difficult it is to be an effective administrator. Menial tasks require a great deal of thought and in the case of deletions, a great deal of skill, diplomacy and decorum in order to deal effectively with disgruntled editors who have seen hours of their time as being wasted if their work is just deleted. Nick 00:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    I did not say that all admin tasks are menial, but things like clearing WP:AIV of obvious vandals, clearing CAT:NS, CAT:NL, etc, do not require very much experience. --Rory096 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

28. Sorry R but I can not agree with this nomination either. Why? Two reasons - lack of substantial content editing, and what appears to be an almost obsessive interest in adminship.--VS ^talk 02:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    Oh no, someone's willing to help out Wikipedia as an admin! We definitely shouldn't give him adminship! --Rory096 03:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    The Cincinnatus criterion has some merit, you know; not as a blanket statement, but as an advisement. Do you have any constructive responses to opposers, or are you just badgering at this point? -- nae'blis 04:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    While it would be nice if our admins were reincarnations of legendary figures in Roman history, it's simply not possible, and we have to make do with what we have. Though R might actually want adminship, that's not really a reason to oppose, if one judges that he'd otherwise help the project by being an admin. --Rory096 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

29. Oppose Sorry at this point I am going to have to agree with Dirk and Filll above. Dureo 15:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose Concerns about the candidate's temperament, due to some of the curt responses during this discussion and some of the activity raised below, including interpreting a vandal placing "you suck" on an article as "an attack on Wikipedia editors". TigerShark 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
31. oppose per concerns of Blnguyen, Pascal and others. I hope that a bit more maturity and work article writing will change my opinion in the future. JoshuaZ 02:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose per candidate's obsession with adminship. ➪HiDrNick! 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose per obsession w. adminship, the age factor (yes, call me "ageist" - apparently it's now politically incorrect to assume that people mature and gain better ppl skills with age). Further, he lacks substantial content editing which further makes me suspicious of his obsession w. adminship. --Strothra 03:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
34. Oppose I don't think the age thing is a huge deal, but I do think an admin should also be a contributor. There's no way (as others have said) you can get a feel for the conflicts and frustrations that can sometimes happen while editing without actually adding content. Some of the worst admins are those that don't edit Wikipedia, and some of the best admins are those that contribute heavily in article space. Most admins are in the middle and do fine. I'd like all admins to have a fair amount of editing experience. RxS 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
35. I'm aware the RFA is past closing time. However, I must add my opposition to this RFA. Nothing about age - that's rather close to personal attacks - but I do think you have an unhealthy obsession with becoming an admin. This is a major minus, it makes you seem power-hungry. Secondly the lack of proper encyclopedic contributions as brought up above. I'm not comfortable with admins who don't contribute a lot to the content - it's hard to judge how the candidate would do in disputes since there's no prior content dispute to go on. The answer to question 3 - "I try to stay away from disputes as much as possible" - does not help your case, given that as an admin you're very likely to get into disputes. – Chacor 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral(changing to support) For the political things on your user page. I don't think its a big deal, but others do. Otherwise, I don't have any problems. ~ Wikihermit 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought I got rid of the userboxes. What political things are you talking about? R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Even though I can't vote, I'm a democrat and I think Hillary Clinton will be our next president. I don't think the electoral college is fair. As you can see by the many user boxes, I am into and like many things" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blnguyen (talk • contribs)

Is that the problem? Why cant R express his political views? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...forgot that was there. I haven't read through my userpage in a long time. Is saying the political party I like an the candidate I like for presidency too much? If you think it is, I'll be happy to take that out, just like the userbox from the last RFA. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just pointing it out, since you were wondering what AD was talking about...I don't ever pay attention to or bother deleting userbozes and the like since it seems to be more trouble than any benefit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) Kelly raised the same issue in your last RFA. I'm more specifically talking about "this user supports the Democratic Party" and the quote by AD above. ~ Wikihermit 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats not my quote, its Blnguyen's: he forgot to sign. Ps: whats wrong with the formatting here? Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

cquote uses spaces... I've just fixed that and did a unsigned on the comment. --Dark Falls ^talk 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure it matters now, but it's done. R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok great. Just a question: why would it be so harmful for R to express his opinion on his own page. I've seen "worse" in other admins. Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Neutral, again. The oppose !votes leave reasons to have concerns. ~ Wikihermit 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Sitting on the fence. I agree that both the supporters and the opposers deliver good rationales. —AldeBaer (c) 16:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral The opposition just raises too many issues and thoughts for me to support. Jmlk17 21:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral You have contributed a lot thus far to the encyclopedia, but I would like to see you mature a bit as an editor before I could support you as an admin. -- MisterHand 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral Hey, R. You are a great editor, but the oppose arguments are just enough to put me on the fence. To provide my own very small concern (perhaps a typo?), I am slightly unsettled at the first part of your answer to Q.6 where you said you would probably assume good faith. In that particular situation, with no obvious vandalism, I don't think there would be another option that wouldn't violate AGF. After all, even editors who make mistakes have a belly button. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:28, 11 July 2007 (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.