Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R 2

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

R

Final (65/42/14), closed 18:34, September 30, 2007.

R (talk · contribs) - Once again I am nominating User:R (formerly TeckWiz) for administrator status. RfA regulars may recall that I previously nominated this candidate in April. At that time, I wrote:

I am nominating TeckWiz for administrator status. TeckWiz has been editing for some 15 months with contributions across a variety of namespaces. In addition to article contributions, TeckWiz contributes to vandalism fighting and regularly reports vandals to AIV after correctly escalating through the various warning templates. He has also been a regular participant in addressing alleged username-policy violations reported to WP:RFC/N, and in AfD discussions. He has also been one of the most active adopters/mentors in the adopt-a-user program, reflecting his commitment to welcoming new members to the Wikipedia community and answering their questions about our sometimes complex methods and processes. On the "teck" side, TeckWiz is the operator of TeckWizBot, a bot account currently approved and being used to "subst" user warning templates using AWB. This user is unabashedly enthusiastic about Wikipedia and his place in it, and I am confident that he would use the administrator tools prudently and exercise good judgment about where he can most capably serve the project as an admin. His two prior RfAs were unsuccessful with opposes based primarily on his then lesser level of experience. Three months and several thousand edits later, I submit his name for the community's renewed consideration and am pleased to record my support. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 April 2007

Although this prior nomination was passing at one point by a margin of about 25/0/0, ultimately consensus to promote was not achieved either in TeckWiz/R's April nomination or in a subsequent nomination in early July, in which Ryan Postlethwaite was the nominator and I submitted a co-nom. Significantly, each of these nominations came reasonably close to being approved by the community, with ultimate support margins of approximately 67% and 70% respectively. While editors are urged to review the complete contents of all of R's prior RfAs and reach their own conclusions, I believe a fair summary would be that support commenters believed that R had a long record of contributions including extensive vandal-fighting and attention to username issues and bot work, among other matters, and could be trusted to use the tools effectively and not to misuse them. Opposers asserted, among other things, that the candidate has a relatively limited record of mainspace contributions, which is true enough, and also made some criticisms that I consider less substantive, such as questioning a single disputed AfD nomination that R later withdrew.

With R's having failed in several prior RfA attempts—albeit with considerable support from experienced editors and by relatively narrow margins—prudence might counsel that he postpone his next RfA for a number of months and increase his contributions in areas, principally mainspace, that his prior opposers accused him of neglecting. I believe that many of R's wiki-friends have urged this course upon him, and frankly I am one of them. R has continued some anti-vandal work since July, and has also uploaded a number of free images from photographs he took while on vacation over the summer, and has operated a bot for newsletter deliveries among other tasks, but it is obvious that R has not taken the advice of many opposers by expanding his contributions into mainspace.

Of course, before writing this nomination, I pointedly asked R why he has not responded directly to the prior RfA results by increasing his experience in mainspace, primarily article-writing. The essence of his response was simply that article-writing is not the area in which he believes he can best and most usefully contribute to the project at this stage of his editing career or of his life. Not intending to be a writer after his RfA closes if it is successful, he is unwilling to try to pass an RfA by pretending to be a contributor of a type that he is not and does not imminently aspire to be. Nor does he believe that further delaying this RfA, for the sake of heeding requests that he wait longer next time, will be useful, because the nature of his commitment to the project, his level of experience, and his qualifications or lack thereof for adminship are not going to materially change in the next month or two or three. This eagerness for adminship reflects, in my view, determination to serve the project as best he can, without regard to what the best strategy for passing an RfA might be.

In a perfect world, all of our administrators would contribute brilliant prose in addition to their XfD and AIV and ANI and other work; but the fact is that we have dozens if not hundreds of admins whose contributions are primarily or exclusively in other areas than writing. Some of these before their RfAs had similar editing records to R's, although I will now and hereafter mention no names. Wikipedia has chronic admin backlogs in many areas. We need administrators who can perform all the different sorts of administrator tasks that may arise from time to time; and if an admin wants, as R does, to specialize in dealing with vandalism and username issues, that leaves all the more time for other admins who wish to deal with other types of matters.

I fear that R's RfAs have by now become a symbol of opposition to promoting candidates who do not have major contributions in the mainspace, because the issue has been raised with respect to him on multiple occasions and sticks in people's minds when his name is raised—even though other candidates with comparable records have been promoted without incident and are doing satisfactory jobs as admins. I know that R feels that this is a bit unfair to him, and it is difficult for me to conclude that he is altogether wrong.

I take the consensus of the community as expressed on the prior RfAs seriously, and I have carefully reviewed the reasons that various editors gave for both supporting and opposing his nominations. Having done so, and with due respect to all concerned, I am left with the definite and firm impression that this candidate is qualified for adminship and will use administrator tools exclusively to benefit the project. I therefore submit his name for the community's renewed consideration. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Nihiltres

(Note: I concur with Newyorkbrad's excellent nomination - omissions in my nomination attempt to avoid redundancy.)

Adminship is a privilege we Wikipedians elect for those among our community who demonstrate a clear understanding of our norms, a trust to follow and, if need be, enforce them, and a history of helping with the project that is Wikipedia. It seems to me that R has these qualities: as a well-known member of the community, he continually lives up to the model we like to set and demonstrates his commitment to our goals. Having been here for over a year and a half, he has consistently shown that he can act in the interest of our community, whether reverting vandalism, operating a bot, participating in AfD, TfD, UAA WP:CHU/U, being available on IRC, et cetera. Besides the point of participation, I find R to be an approachable user, whom as a newbie I might be able to ask for help. These seem to me to be qualities that are generally found in our administrators and, as such, it seems to me that R should be one. Whether it would be through blocking vandals and bad usernames, rolling back vandalism faster, deleting pages as needed, or other classic examples of admin actions, it seems to me that R would be a prime candidate for the mop. Let's allow him to live up to the potential he has as an active Wikipedian. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Riana

Why were people taking part in this RfA before it was transcluded and all the nominations were up?

It is an honest pleasure to be given the chance to co-nominate R for adminship. I will waste little time discussing R's work - it is well-known and appreciated by many of us, especially those are regulars at RfA ;) Suffice to say that in every area he decides to put his mind to, he exhibits maturity, competence, civility, humour and dedication. Instead, I will use the space given to me to attempt to help satisfy concerns which have come up in previous requests, and which may pop up again.

• Mainspace editing: The big one. R does not write articles - R does not wish to write articles. This does not make R a poor user. In many, many other ways, R has shown his dedication to the encyclopedia, willing to clean up for those who do write articles, trying to prevent harm to said articles. R is a better maintenance man than an architect, but the latter cannot be relied upon to fix the air conditioning :) Many admins - myself included - do not engage in article writing, preferring to work on the smaller details. This does not make us worse users than the article writers, merely different.
• Maturity: I have never been given any reason to believe R is not just as mature and cogent as the next person. Small issues from months back should not be looked at - rather, evaluate the improvement since then, and which will continue to occur. Issues like WP:SLG and similar were outside R's control - he was away from Wikipedia at the time when the trouble here started, so I'll be a bit miffed if I see any opposes based on that :)
• Here we go, another TeckWiz/R RfA: Basically, the guy does administrative task already. He's doing all he can do without the actual buttons. He's considering retiring if he can't do what he knows he can do competently, but isn't being given the chance to do. Please try to judge this request on its own merit. This is not a person overeager for the tools - this is a person who faces a dead-end, as far as Wikipedia goes, because he isn't being given more of a chance to improve the project. I'm not asking you to support him because of that, though. I'm asking you to support because we have nothing to lose by supporting him, a great deal to gain by giving him the bit, and a fantastic editor to lose if we don't.

Will R be fighting the good fight for BLP? Probably not. Fending off hordes of nationalists? Doubt it. Mediating difficult content disputes? Nah. Patrolling the project for the run of the mill vandalism, the grotty usernames, the garden variety trolls, the various morons who walk through our doors daily? Yes, yes, yes, and he can do so competently. His work will make life easier for you, the article writer; for the admin who desperately wants to take UAA off her watchlist but can't because it gets backlogged (no names here :) ); for anyone who despises the chores that someone has to do, and often end up performed too hastily by admins who have other things on the mind. What many consider chores, R knows to be a vital part of maintaining our encyclopedia, and would be honoured to perform them. I see no valid reason not to support this request. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the wonderful nomination statements. I accept. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I do recent changes patroller and report to AIV. Instead of reporting after a vandal violates a final warning, or does an extreme type of vandalism, 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 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 major backlogs. 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: My best contributions to Wikipedia include updating information on currently airing television shows (such as The Amazing Race and Survivor (TV series)). I’ve 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 a few months 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. While on trips, I sometimes take pictures for myself that I upload to Wikipedia if they're relevant. An example is the Washington Monument, which I took on a camp trip this past summer.

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. (Yes, this is basically the same answer as my last RFA. The reason being I’m not really controversial and I don’t get into arguments :])

Optional question from [[Animum | talk]]

4. Since someone will inevitably ask it, I'll get this out of the way. Do you think you have satisfied the concerns of your prior opposers? Why, if so?

A: As far as article writing is concerned it is true I haven't written a great deal more. However, I have spent a lot more time in working on the behind the scenes stuff, such as recent changes patrol. I don't like writing, which is why I don't do much article writing on Wikipedia. Therefore I spend my time helping out in other ways. Also, the main thing I plan at helping at, blocking at AIV, UAA, and RFCN, has nothing to do with article writing whatsoever.

Optional question from HiDrNick

5. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not? ➪HiDrNick! 05:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A: Yes I'd be happy to add myself to the category. I see no reason why not. If for some reason I'm not using my administrative powers right, I should lose them. I'd probably say if 5 or more established users requested it, I would be happy to resubmit myself for RFA.

Optional question from Nick

6. How would you react should this RfA fail. You have, I believe, threatened to leave should this RfA fail, is that a threat you would follow through, if not, why not ?

A: If this RfA doesn't pass, I will be disappointed. I wouldn't retire, but I would be frustrated at not being allowed to contribute to my full capabilities.

Optional question from CO₂

7. Could you please explain your influx of edits leading up to this RfA?

A. Yes I can. For the past few months, I've busy in real life, away on camp trips, and just bored with Wikipedia itself. A few days ago I went to my toolbox, and saw the button "Filter recent changes." I remembered installing Lupin's tool a long time ago, but it never used to work. I tried it, and it worked, and made vandal fighting easier and quicker. So, for the past few days, I've been using it, and actually enjoying Wikipedia again.

Optional questions from Mr.Z-man

You say you would help at CAT:CSD and WP:AFD, but I don't see a lot of experience with these in your deleted edits or wikispace contributions, so I have a few questions related to deletion. You don't need a long answer, but please give some insight into your reasoning. (Answer each as if you were an admin) Mr.Z-man 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

8a. An editor has tagged an article for speedy deletion as db-nonsense (G1) but the article does not meet the Wikipedia policy definition of nonsense and fails none of the other speedy deletion criteria. The article looks to be absolute crap (but not incoherent to be nonsense) and the author has put a {{hangon}} on it, but not provided a reason on the talk page within 20 minutes of contesting the deletion. What do you do?

A. <sorry, I've been very busy, I'll answer this very soon>

8b. The full time for an AFD discussion has elapsed and it is ready to be closed. There are 6 comments in favor of deletion and 5 comments in favor of keeping. All of the comments are perfectly valid but the article is a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?

A. <sorry, I've been very busy, I'll answer this very soon>

8c. Same situation as 8b, except there are 3 comments to delete and 7 to keep. The article is still a WP:BLP violation. What do you do?

A. <sorry, I've been very busy, I'll answer this very soon>

Optional question from Ilmari Karonen

9. I've already indicated support below, so you don't need to answer to get my "!vote". That said, you mention above that you'd be spending time at WP:UAA, and that you consider yourself familiar with the username policy. Thus, I'd like to ask you how you'd handle a username such as Ryan likes guys (talk · contribs). How do you feel about the way I handled the situation? Would it have made a difference if the user's contributions had been different? Basically, I'm trying to find out where you think the line should be drawn between appropriate and inappropriate usernames, and how you'd handle cases that fall in the gray area.

A. Judging by the vandalism and username put together, I would of course block. Going by the name: If the person was someone trying to make fun of Ryan, and is clearly showing that, I would block because that's an attack, and not meant for Wikipedia. However, if "Ryan likes guys" is Ryan himself (which can probably be told my contributions, userpage, etc), and is just expressing his orientation, I see nothing wrong with it, it's his choice, and I doubt he's trying to attack himself.

Optional question from Melsaran

10. In your answer to Q1, you say you mainly plan to help at AFD and TFD, which [you're] most familiar with. However, your last edit to AFD was back in June. Do you feel you have enough experience in this area to thoughtfully close discussions? How would you handle AFDs that you feel uncomfortable with because you don't entirely understand the article and related (sub)policies? Melsaran (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the candidate actually said they don't understand article and related sub-policies, or is this your own personal opinion ? Nick 19:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the assumption is that nobody knows and understands every policy and guideline on Wikipedia, nor for that matter is familiar with the subject of every article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though, Melsaran. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's what I meant. An example would be an AFD on a certain number while you don't know anything about mathematics and haven't ever read WP:NUMBER. Everyone has their areas where they have less experience in, so I wonder how R would handle such AFDs. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 3
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R

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

---

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

Discussion

• I hope no one makes a comment about "R2." —[[Animum | talk]] 19:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going to make WP:RFA/R 2 D 2 a redirect... MessedRocker (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Can an admin give us an idea what the contents of the deleted pages were? * Aillema 19:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • SLG was an exclusive cabal of users with single-letter or number names. Very cabalistic in nature. Maxim_(talk)
  • "SLG" was a playful page for those users whose username is one letter long. It unexpectedly became controversial while R was on a trip for a few days and was put up for MfD, and when he got home and saw the issue, he immediately consented to deletion. The "rant" page consisted of R's expressing disappointment with the functioning of the RfA process, and echoes concerns that various users routinely express on WT:RfA every month. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict x2) SLG (Single Letter Group) was a fun page for persons users with a single-letter name, it was funny at first but then they became cabalistic (removed any edits by people with more than one letter in their username from the history so "the history looked funny", got their own IRC channel, etc) and an MFD was opened. Melsaran (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Rant page also contained elements of how R felt that he knew more about using the tools that some/many of the admins themselves. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of the tools, true. His experience with vandalism and username issues is substantial. Not the most politic page, of course, which is why he quickly agreed to speedy it. Newyorkbrad 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Notice to people intending to comment here: I think that there are some oppose reasons that should be avoided in this discussion, and I justify each:
  1. Lack of article writing - I find article writing to be a skill only auxiliary to the admin work. As long as he doesn't using the tools to arbitrarily force discussions (there is no indication he would do any such thing), there's no reason that he can't be trusted with the tools. He also has indicated the area in which he would use the tools, with regard to his strengths. As long as giving him the tools is beneficial to the encyclopedia, we should give him the tools, and I would like people to comment based on legitimate concerns rather than an arbitrary ideal that few admins really reach, including myself. In fact, if you count text contributions by byte, it is highly likely that I have removed more text from the encyclopedia than what I have ever added, with over 4500 deletes since my RfA in May. My article writing has suffered, since the sources I need for the next article I will write are stuck in limbo. Yet I doubt there would be some who would criticize me for this: My actions have aided the encyclopedia and helped keep down critical backlog. We should treat R the same way: if his being given the mop would aid the project, there is no reason we shouldn't give it to him.
     1. If he's not writing articles, then adminship is perfect! That way, he's still helpful despite not contributing to the encyclopedia. MessedRocker (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. "IRC concerns" - Even the best of editors are sometimes off-topic, occasionally uncivil, or immature on IRC. It seems to me that problems in chat should not be used against R on-wiki, since IRC behaviour does not necessarily transfer to on-wiki behaviour. Please provide diffs when making "maturity" complaints - if it's off-wiki, it's probably not worth talking about.
  3. SLG, EFD pages - R intended the SLG as a joke, one small page where the history would look funny and people could be associated by a pattern. Would you question Radiant!'s admin classification page as immature? I don't think the SLG should be an issue here: R created it as an amusing community facet, and then requested it be deleted once people thought there was something wrong with it. He did not cabal around it, so let's not accuse him of any problems in the group. This is exemplified by when the SLG was MfD'd: while R was away. Further, EfD is also a joke, parodying the culture we as Wikipedians have built around deleting content, since we take it so seriously. If you don't like the jokes, would you oppose because you think the joke was in bad taste?
  4. "Desperate to be an admin" - Can any of you reasonably justify why this is a bad thing? I wanted to be an admin for a long time, and R has had a history of being opposed in RfAs for reasons that he cannot fix or which are trivial. A touch of cynicism is warranted, with many of his concerns being echoed in the general consensus that RfA could use an eventual reform if we could find a better way of doing it that people could agree on. Further, I must note that R's activity would be enhanced by the tool: many areas in which he works would be benefitted if he could apply the correct administrative action rather than merely suggesting it - that he wants the tools is not a bad thing.

I'm sick of people making R's RfA's prime examples of problems in the process where valuable users are denied the potential to expand their role, and I hope that YOU read and consider this before !voting. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But then what grounds can we oppose on? But seriously, lack of article writing can be a problem. It creates a disconnect between admins and editors that can lead to friction and bad decisions. It's important for admins to understand how articles grow, how edit wars start, how they are likely to be resolved. That being said R does have some experience with article writing, but that's still a valid concern. Any way you want to look at it, the main thing that has people doubting R's candidacy is his maturity and that's about as good a reason to oppose an RfA as you will find. Some see this on IRC: I'm not on IRC so I don't know but that's certainly consistent with what I've seen from R and it's definitely fair game to bring it up. The same goes for the desperation to be an admin. Has there ever been a time where R wasn't either in the midst of an editor review or an RfA? You can take that as a sign of willingness to improve but I see it as a yearning for recognition. The argument is often made that we have had very successful teenage admins and that some adult admins behave like 13-year olds. Both of these things are true, but that does not mean that we want admins that behave like 13-year olds. Chances are that a 13-year old will behave like a 13-year old and that would include displaying immaturity on IRC, actively seeking recognition from peers and responsibilities, sulking when that doesn't work, being unable to recognize that 19th century cricket players can be a valuable encyclopedia topic, being unable to communicate effectively with people criticizing him, giving answers on RfA that "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" (as Steve nicely put it in the last RfA). Pascal.Tesson 21:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson, your initial statement is exactly the point I am making - almost all the arguments for opposing seem inherently flawed. If you think that there are good reasons to oppose, then mention those! :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got me confused. I think the reason(s) I just gave are pretty good. If you think that a lack of maturity is not a sound reason to oppose, we'll have to agree to disagree but I'm pointing out that this is essentially what other opposers are saying (and so are two of the supporters and three of the neutrals). They use as examples his behavior on IRC, his behavior with regards to RfA, with regards to SLG or his refusal to write substantial content. In the end though, they are all saying: I'm not comfortable with his maturity as a Wikipedia editor. Pascal.Tesson 00:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Nihiltres, you must be joking! Wouldn't it be nice if each RFA candidate could make a list of arguments that opposers should not be allowed to consider? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm making a general statement that I think that a lot of these reasons aren't great reasons to not give him the mop, not that these reasons are necessarily to be completely avoided. While I strongly support his becoming an admin, I invite well-reasoned opposes rather than opposes which take facts out of context, especially the SLG issue. Nihiltres^(t.l) 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I think that my reason, that he will have a temper tantrum one day and abuse the tools, is completely proper in this context and is exactly the issue that we should be addressing, not attempting to dodge. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Has User:R thrown a "temper tantrum" that you have observed? Or can you provide some sort of diffs illustrating the basis for your vehement belief that User:R is unstable or immature?   justen   21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the opposes on this page are pretty disappointing. I thought adminship was no big deal, and the purpose of the RfA was to gauge the trust of the community in using the tools? Do you honestly expect that because he doesn't edit articles he'll suddenly find himself acting capriciously in article disputes? Give me a break. Avruch 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not trust that R will do a good job with the tools, yet I think I speak for most of the opposers if I say that nobody expects R to willfully abuse the tools. I am however very concerned with the potential misuse of them, potential errors in judgement and potential mishandling of interaction with difficult users. Nobody is sugesting that he'll "suddenly find himself capriciously acting in article disputes" and I'm not quite sure where you got that. What I am suggesting is that when the day comes where R faces a complex case of blocking or deletion, he won't have the kind of judgement to handle it properly and to interact with the blockee or article writer in a responsible, effective way. I'm not sure why you'd find that reasoning disappointing. Pascal.Tesson 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, I more often am of the mind that a non-content-editor should not be an admin, but Riana's co-nom is fairly convincing. I encourage you (and others) to re-read it. And maybe even discuss it here! (Speaking of which, this is the largest discussion I've seen at an RfA in a while...) --Iamunknown 10:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because your suspicion is contrary to his views as stated, contrary to his record as shown, and seems to suggest that you think making him an admin is 'handing him the keys to the kingdom'. R seems to be a good faith editor, like most, and I'd expect him to rely on other admins for assistance - as well, it seems he is appropriately reluctant to involve himself in areas outside his expertise. Adminsip is no big deal and isn't about authority - all decisions can be reviewed and reversed and all admins can be removed. The fact that he has been repeatedly nom'd by an ArbCom member means he's being watched fairly closely anyway. Avruch 10:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue anyone into support. As I said, just disappointed. Avruch 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown, I have read Riana's comments and though I have tons of respect for her, I disagree with her optimism on this one. Adminship is all about making good decisions and I don't think R can be trusted to do that on a consistent basis. Avruch, I'm not sure what you're saying. R's immaturity is "contrary to his views as stated and contrary to his record as shown"? No, I think his record demonstrates that pretty convincingly. Decisions can be reviewed but most often they are not, simply because they go unnoticed. Editors can be driven away by an admin mishandling the interaction with them. The damage done by admins with good intentions and poor judgement is considerably greater than the damage done by admins with bad intentions. The latter delete the main page, everyone notices, they get de-sysoped. The former make bad decisions whose impact add up in the long run. The ArbCom certainly has no interest in monitoring R or any other admin they feel might be a bit of a liability, they trust that the community will have the wisdom to only appoint admins who have shown they can do a sound job. Pascal.Tesson 12:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, for the record, I'm not an arbitrator, though I am an ArbCom clerk, not that that has much relevance here. What I can say is that I have complete faith that the candidate would use the tools appropriately, or I would never have dreamt of nominating him, much less doing so thrice. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the bickering and picking at of almost every "oppose" is not making anyone involved look good. Neil ム 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's necessary. RfA is a vote, but is also a discussion; questioning opposers is allowed, and anyone who has decided to oppose ought to be able to justify their opinion in rational terms. Walton^One 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That said, I do agree that long inline discussion among the "!votes" can make the section hard to read, and could also be perceived as an attempt to "shout out" the opposition. Accrodingly, I've moved the one such thread which I started to the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Many (not all) of the opposers seem to be reasoning thus: This candidate can't be given the mop and bucket, because he already spends too much time scrubbing floors with a toothbrush, and is clearly far too eager to spend more time scrubbing floors. I can only support janitors who are also architects, and spend at least some of their time constructing extensions to the (already very large) building. :-) Walton^One 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from Wikidudeman - I find it quite disconcerting that some editors are taking offense to other editors questioning their comments. Request for admin is not a vote and thus simply joining the discussion and only saying "oppose" or "support" isn't acceptable. You need to not only explain your rational for opposing (or supporting), you must also justify your rational with further comments and responses to questions. This is the whole point of RFA, discussion. If you take offense to criticism of your support or oppose then you probably should not involve yourself in RFAs. Simply saying "Oppose per above" or "Support per above" really isn't helpful at all. Making a comment of support or oppose and then taking offense to any requests for further explanation of your comments isn't helpful either. Saying that no editor needs to "justify" their support or oppose is absolutely incorrect. Everyone needs to justify their support or oppose as much as anyone wants them to justify it. Since RFA isn't a vote, but rather a discussion, not justifying it doesn't add much of anything to the discussion. Some editors have brought up immaturity as a reason for not supporting this RFA. This is a very valid reason to oppose a RFA. I don't know the veracity of these reasons for opposition as I haven't looked into the editors history, however I do know that if it is indeed true then it is a good reason to oppose. Someone opposing for such reasons shouldn't have trouble responding to comments made about their oppose or backing up their oppose with further evidence and or explanation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  I think this was discussed at WT:RFA and associated reforms before, but would like to point out that in de-facto supports are rarely questioned, while most burden of proof being put on opposing parties. That's why most opposers feel that they are being heckled. If what you say is true indeed, then there are a lot of supports that need to be questioned. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  That's true, Questioning supports or oppose should be encouraged and backing up your decision to support or oppose should be encouraged. When I add support or oppose at RFA' I frequently elaborate extensively on why I'm supporting or opposing and I always answer responses to my statements, and I frequently ask questions of other users concerning their statements. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from Orangemarlin to Wikidudeman - Please show me where is that policy memorialized? Or did you invent it? If someone wants to say Oppose, so be it. If they have never contributed here, it's given little weight by the bureaucrats, I'm sure, but I don't write or set policy here, so I have no clue. I'm tired of people replying to opposes. People have a right to say whatever they want in support or opposition to candidates. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  Well, Firstly, Adminship is supposed to be a discussion not a vote. Going with the long held idea that Wikipedia is not a democracy, Simply "voting" anywhere, especially at an RFA would be going against the flow of what Wikipedia is about. Secondly, Simply adding "oppose" or "support" without explanation or justification is unhelpful. It's simply unhelpful and doesn't further the discussion at all. Adding a short explanation without further discussion and ignoring comments or criticism of your initial comments is also unhelpful. What purpose does it serve? How does it help the person requesting adminship? Let's say that someone says "Oppose, Per above" and then fails to further elaborate on his opposition. What is the person requesting adminship supposed to think? How does he take anything from this? All he knows is that someone opposed him and is doing so due to comments above, however if the comments above are so vast and complex, the person can't take anything from it. Not to mention the fact that many people frequently oppose just due to seeing a lot of large blocks of text in the oppose area without ever reading it, I even did that when I first started joining RFA discussions. This is why it's so important to respond to comments or criticism of your support or oppose. Not only does it benefit the person requesting adminship so that he or she can learn further why someone is supporting or opposing to improve him or herself, but also people who initially oppose might be convinced to change their oppose or support based on discussions with other editors. This has happened many times, where I engage someones comments at a RFA and they decide to change their votes based on my comments because they saw that perhaps they might have been wrong in their initial judgments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator, per above. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nominator, with reasons given there. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support. This user should have become an admin long ago. Article writing isn't everything. R is an experienced editor who clearly won't abuse the tools. Melsaran (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Do you have any diffs for this alleged "experience"? Neil ム 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Not insane. Moreschi ^Talk 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - good luck! The Rambling Man 18:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Supportgood user--Phoenix 15 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
7. Support, with minor provisions. R is a good editor who has my every confidence, save a few things on IRC which I will not state on-wiki as it is not the appropriate venue. However, it is my opinion that people should only contribute to the project if they enjoy it. Now, R became a near-recluse after his most recent RfA, which may allude to the fact that he does not enjoy contributing when criticized. Being able to take criticism as an administrator will be a crucial part of the job. But still, he's a solid contributor who has many positive contributions, save some of the frivolous things for which he's been previously opposed, not to forget that where a person's treasure lies, there his/her heart lies also. R's a great user and the opposers leave me with no other impression that he's like the rest of us — flawed. I have strong confidence he'll take other people's opinions into consideration as an admin, his heart's set on becoming one, so let's give him the mop! —[[Animum | talk]] 18:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Content writing experience is helpful to producing a well-rounded administrator but I'm not sure we need to insist on all candidates having such experience. We should make use of our volunteers based on their strengths - some people are more suited to performing maintenance and administration tasks than to writing content. That someone is a poor editor does not mean that might not be an effective admin. My interactions with R lead me to believe that he has his head screwed on correctly and I trust that he'll use the tools in areas where he has experience and avoid doing so elsewhere. I think giving R admin tools will be a net benefit to the project. WjBscribe 18:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Yes, another editor who has shown vast improvements over recent months. GDonato (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - He has improved tremendously. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Support I have to say I do have some concerns about the stuff raised in the discussion section. But overall, I believe you're a constructive editor with experience, who has vastly improved with time. You should do fine with the tools. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Support, per all of the above. Friendly user who would not abuse admin rights. Good luck. — jacĸrм (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
13. D_arkF_alls ^talk 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why? More reasons than just signing your name should be given. Metros 10:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Probably "per nom". Because adminship should be no big deal. Ideally, every reasonably experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools is an admin. The opposers are the ones who raise an objection, not the supporters. Melsaran (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Support as before, as above, and as always. Teckwiz has shown me nothing but good intent, and therefore won't abuse the tools. Prodego ^talk 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
15. I support this nomination as strongly as I supported the last one. Now it is time to write my rationale: First off, I do not know why IRC is being mentioned here; I do not know how IRC is even relevant to Wikipedia, let alone adminship. Maybe that view is because I do not use IRC anyway, but even so, even if I did, I do not factor off-Wiki events into my participation at RfA. Secondly, regarding article writing, why can we not accept R's work for what it is rather than for what we want it to be? We need technical-wise administrators as well as article-writers, and R is a user highly familiar with policy and technical-matters. If he does not feel comfortable writing-articles at the moment, then fine; let him start writing them in his own time; I see no need to force him to do it. I am sure he will start writing articles when he wants to do it, and when he does, we can expect high-quality writing. In fact, I think telling him, or any user for that matter, to write articles is ultimately counter-productive. With the subpages, I do not have a problem with any of them: SLG was meant as a joke, and R didn't think it would go the way it did, which was why he had it deleted; the fact he had it deleted shows maturity on his behalf. Rant is nothing major as far as I am concerned, he had it deleted very quickly, and looking at the deleted edits, I see nothing wrong there anyway; with EfD, it is a joke page, nothing more, which is why it is in the "Wikipedia humor" category. With R's behavior, he is good-natured, and very civil and polite all the time; I have never seen him be uncivil. As for "obsession with adminship", R of all people knows that adminship is a technical ability and not power or rank. With R's username, I see nothing wrong with it: it is a good username, short and easy to type; it does not make him immature at all, and it does not have any relevance to how he would use the tools. Finally, those last words I used in the previous sentence, "use the tools", bring me to closing of the rationale: the two most important questions on RfA: do I trust R with the tools? Yes. Do I believe R will be abusive with the tools? No. Acalamari 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Extremely weak support, leaning oppose This must be R's fifth time for the mop. The point of RFAs is to determine whether or not we can trust the editor with the tools. I do have a few issues with R first, before I around to that. My first issue is those echoed by Nick. R tends to be immature on "official" IRC wikimedian channels. I know IRC isn't officially related to Wikipedia in anyway, but this leaves room for concern over his maturity level. I also have a problem with R's lack of focus on building an encyclopedia. Looking over his last 200 edits or so, you will clearly see an influx in vandal reverts leading up to this RfA, an attempt to build up his general mainspace contributions (most appear to be in the user talk space or the user space). Article writing is not extremely important to admins (getting the tools doesn't give you some special writing powers), but I'd like to see at least some mainspace contributions, outside of your recent influx of vandal reverts. It also appears (although I maybe be wrong) to me that R views the mop as some sort of a trophy, which it is clearly not. However, above all of this, I still trust that R will not abuse the admin tools, and I'm sure if he does, ARBCOM will hit him on the head. If this RfA fails, I'd recommend you hold off on RfAs for 6 months, at least. CO₂ 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Changed to neutral. CO₂ 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

16. I've thought long and hard about R's adminship since last time around, and I've come to the inevitable conclusion that someone in my position would come to, which is "admins don't need mainspace". R has everything else, including my support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, with my normal disclaimer: my own RFA was vulnerable to "lack of mainspace edit" warriors, and I believe I've been an effective admin. I believe that R's collaboration with this project has been effective and further believe that he's taken some heat by becoming the public whipping boy for certain issues. He has my respect, and my support. - Philippe | Talk 03:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. I would be very disappointed not to have R join the admin ranks. Do I trust him? Yes. Do I believe that anything that he might do that is not supported by consensus can be easily repaired? Yes. R, I hope the community sets petty and small issues aside and finally makes the decision that I think you deserve.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Support per my nomination statement. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 24 September 2007(UTC)
20. Support A very good editor. It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:53, 24 September 2007(UTC)
21. Strong support. Per nom. Opposing arguments are based on off-Wiki maturity concerns or the immaterial lack of content editing. You'll note that admin tools don't facilitate editing but the protection of the encyclopedia and its process, and I don't see serious concerns that this editor will disrupt either effort. As for the other concerns relating to non-article userpages, I believe they've been adequately addressed if opposers would just read up. Avruch 04:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
22. Support it is a shame that some people mistake good-natured playfulness for immaturity. I hope they laugh in real life and even once and a while laugh at themselves. No reason to believe that this editor will abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Seems like a good Wikipedian. King Lopez ^Contribs 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - Adminship isn't about contributing to, or creating, articles, it is about recognizing the quality of other user's contributions to aricles. Od Mishehu 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
25. Support In my on-wiki interactions with R, especially on WP:UW, I have been impressed by his maturity. He has shown that he has a need for the tools, and I trust his best judgment. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
26. While I'm not enthusiastic about R's desire to be an admin, it doesn't seem like it's an "I wanna wield da power" sort of thing but just an eagerness to get full privileges. Seems to create enough mainspace content, is looking to be helpful, and seems to have no real malice, so why not? Milto LOL pia 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
27. Support - I doubt he'd embarrass Wikipedia that much with adminship, and if he does, there's always arbitration isn't there? MessedRocker (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - Please, everyone, let's just give him the damn tools. He is more than ready for adminship, and has been so for several months (he was certainly ready at the time of his last RfA). He knows policy inside out, as demonstrated by his answers to the questions. The SLG was no more harmful than any other fun page, and it's gone; let's consign it to history, rather than robbing the project of another good administrator. I swear, the flood of Opposes here demonstrate perfectly why RfA is broken. If this fails to reach a consensus to promote, I will actually lose what sanity I have left. Walton^One 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong support - I find it sad that R has the same arguements every time about him becoming an administrator, yet others who have similar concerns about their editing don't get a single oppose at RfA. It does look like some people come out in force here when R goes for adminship. That said, R appears in admin area's all the time and does a fantastic job here. Maybe he isn't the most prolific article writer, but he would certainly benefit the project by having the tools, and I trust him more than quite a few current administrators to use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Support- Would make a good neutral admin. Astrotrain 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
31. Support Much of the opposition comes for reasons I find irrelevant. The SLG discussion was annoying, but when I first saw the page I thought it was cute, and at worst a bit of harmless fun. Likewise for EFD. I don't know what happened on IRC, but I really, really don't like dealing with IRC stuff: I've never gone there, and probably never will. On Wikipedia itself, R has done a fine job. Shalom ^Hello 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
32. Support. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 14:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why? More reason than just the word "support" should be given as this is not a !vote. Metros 10:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Actually, it is a vote as well as a discussion; the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. (This has been discussed to death at WT:RFA.) And "support" usually implies "per above" or "per nom"; it's only opposes that need an active rationale, per extensive precedent. Walton^One 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

33. Support.As per Newyorkbrad and Riana and has over 8000 edits with a good track with necessary experience and nothing in his edits to show concerns and not seen any diffs from any oppose vote to show concern and incrediable for a student of his age will be great Wikipedian for years if given the tools now.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
34. Support with due respect to opposers. Ultimately the only question that matters is whether the candidate can be trusted with the tools, and I think R's dedication to the project reveals the most important part of his character. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Switch to support. Specialist admin. Thanks NYBRAD. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Nothing to suggest R would misuse the tools inadvertently, let alone purposefully. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Strong Support. I see absolutely no reason to oppose. I notice no one harassed me over a lack of article writing at my RfA...double standards anyone? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Support. The "justifications" I'm seeing for oppose below are very disappointing. Based on User:After Midnight's interactions with User:R on IRC, AM suspects R might "delete the main page" (clarifying that AM said R would not delete the main page, but "would do something [otherwise] completely inappropriate")? SLG, EFD? If I recall correctly, R was away when AM nominated SLG for deletion, and as soon as R returned, he had User:R/SLG deleted himself to remove the drama. As for EFD, the only thing I can say is: it's a joke, laugh. In any event, R has proven himself to be extremely helpful in keeping Wikipedia as spick and span as possible, he conducts himself in a calm, thorough, responsible, and reasonable manner, and he tries to promote on Wikipedia a sense of collegiality and friendliness.   justen   19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Support. I just don't see any harm in granting this dedicated user adminship. If he screws up big time, he can be recalled, but I don't even think that is very likely. I find the opposers' arguments uncompelling. To wit: (1) Immaturity. To properly deal with the vandals, he just has to be more mature than them. Maybe you haven't seen RC lately, but that's not asking much. Sure, R is young, but he's not filing flawed reports to AIV or anything like that. (2) SLG. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Single-letter usernames were a little trendy for awhile, and maybe R got a little carried away with that. But SLG got all esperanzariffic when R was on vacation; immediately upon his return, he recognized the problem and took care of business immediately. These are qualities that I want to see in an admin. (3) EfD. It's just fun. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's not like it's detracting from our goals. Some of our most prolific contributors blow off some steam there from time to time. (4) Desperation. Sure, 5 RFA's in quick succession is pretty lame, but is that a reason to oppose in and of itself. Does his eagerness for adminship identify him as some sort of WillyOnWheels sock? When past opposes have been based on "too young" or "doesn't write FAs" (things that are unlikely to change in the next three months or a year), why wait? (5) Parole template is just another wording of Template:second-chance. (6) Cricketer speedy. Give it a rest already. Do you really think that R will really delete, edit, or even read any article on Cricket for the rest of his wiki-life after that nonsense. Anyway, please reconsider; ask yourselves if giving R (talk · contribs) admin rights will be a net benefit to the project. Surely it will; I think so. For that matter, Newyorkbrad thinks so, which should be a good enough argument for anyone. ➪HiDrNick! 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Nick with all due respect, I know that 95% of vandals are obnoxious pranksters that can be dealt with easily. My problem is that I don't trust R to be able to handle the other 5%. They come in different sorts: the kind of nutjobs that drive the Durin's and JzG's away from the project, the kind of one time offenders that can be reformed if handled properly, the apparent spammers who actually become contributors once you explain to them what the project is about. This is where I think R is likely to have insufficient judgment and communication skills to benefit the project and avoid drama. Note that the cricket AfD is not being brought up because anyone expects R to go on a cricket deletion spree. It's being brought up because it shows a very poor understanding of the most basic principles of Wikipedia. Similarly, the SLG and EFD and IRC behavior are not a problem in their own right, they are a problem because they make us doubt that R has what it takes to take on the admin responsibilities. Pascal.Tesson 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I agree with the first part of your statement. R will not grapple the really nasty trolls, at least not at the moment; I think this is something that Orangemarlin touched on earlier in his oppose. Do you think that R would ask for help in dealing with the nutjobs? Maybe he'll have the sense to defer them to more experienced admins? Not every person to pass RfA has to be some sort of Admin McDreamy Superstar. They can't all be {{YOUR_FAVORITE_ADMIN_HERE}}s. I respect and understand that everyone has different standards for RfA, I just can't see why we can come together as a community and put R to work on the other 95%. ➪HiDrNick! 20:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

40. Support from another "janitor" with no featured articles so far. User seems, though not perfect, at least aware of their own limitations and capable of learning from mistakes, as demonstrated here for example. This is all I can ask of a human being. Also, frankly, some of the reason others have given for opposing just seem silly to me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Support from another person down in the muck. I can write but do not like doing it. I personally enjoy looking for patterns, hidden vandalism, and trying to stay one step ahead of the vandals. I truely know how he feels. Based on his past history (not just since the last RfA), he has shown repeatedly he knows what a vandal is and what is a misguided/new editor. He has shown that he knows how to use the tools and more importantly, be trusted to use them correctly. Rather than getting burned out spinning his wheels doing what he is doing now, I would rather see him help unload the already loaded AIV and UAA areas during peak times. (I swear I saw 10+ names & IPs awaiting AIV a few times in the past few days). Spryde 00:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Supportcompetant. Unlikely to be a problem.Geni 01:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
43. Support Reservedly. I do have some concerns with R. Without proof, I cannot totally believe claims of his immaturity on IRC. However, they cannot be totally unfounded, which causes pause. I also take issue with the amout of RFAs, and the lack of response to them. You obviously want to be an administrator; why not listen to the suggestions by opposers? Also, the "fun pages" although not harmful, they aren't wonderful. That said, R is a good editor. I mostly agree with the nominations; he would do well with the tools, and would be an asset to the encyclopedia (albeit the meta side of it). Take the concerns about your maturity to heart. A word of cuation— if this RFA fails, I encourage you to do three things: continue being a great edtior, take the advice of those who commented here, and wait a considerable amount of time before requesting again. — i ^said 01:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, as an admin and article writer with eight FAs to my credit I can say with conviction that articles aren't a big deal. Adminship is mostly about minor, technical maintence. A PhD and ability to write clear prose has never been even the sightest help with admin tasks. He seems sincere and wants to be useful, I don't think he will do anything to damage the project. Tim Vickers 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. I understand the concerns, but my personal observations and interactions with R at WP:UTM have been sufficient to convince me that he wouldn't abuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. I believe I went into a lengthy support the last time, I am not quite sure. My support from the last rfa stands. daveh4h 03:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
47. Support - as above my support stands from his previous RfA. ^Khukri 12:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
48. Support - to me, everything appears fine. :-) Lradrama 14:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
49. Support even though love of the Yankees is prima facie evidence of stupidity And yes... I'm a Sox fan. In all seriousness, I share the concerns of the opposition, but do not feel they will actually amount to a crisis. Too many highly respected editors are on board with you so that if you did get sideways, there would be no shortage of those willing to intervene. I think just letting R do what R does well, and not making him venture into areas in which he is uncomfortable will suffice. Hiberniantears 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
50. Support Per noms. nat^tang 17:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
51. Eh what the hell, I think this is a go for admin. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
52. Support as I believe I have on two previous occasions. The opposers have raised a great many points, all of which I have considered. However, when it comes down to it, I still very much hold my opinion that he will make a very competent admin. He has plenty of experience in the areas he intends to work (AIV being one notable example) and has clearly stated his intention to avoid areas with which he has less experience. Sure, he doesn't have the mainspace contributions to his name that some have, but as has been pointed out by various people already, we have numerous very able admins who don't do a lot of mainspace work and, in numerous instances, never have. That's not to say that mainspace work isn't vitally important, but it is to say that it is perfectly possible to work competently in various areas as an admin without having done any great amount of article writing. And I agree with the points made by Riana, Nihiltres and Newyorkbrad whose comments are much more persuasive and coherent than my own. Will (aka Wimt) 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
53. Support based upon Newyorkbrad's nomination. If Brad thinks he'll make a good admin, that's good enough for me. - Crockspot 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC
54. Support - I have read and considered the opposing arguments, and feel that they are valid points, but I do not feel that R's lack of article writing keeps him from having the know-how and experience to be trusted with the admin tools. He is very experienced in admin work, and is basically doing whatever possible without the tools; the project would definitely benefit from his sysopping. Neranei (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
55. Support. I highly doubt that lack of article writing would seriously affect R in administrative duties. Although I highly value this, I'm open to bypassing that criteria if the candidate shows that they can benefit by being an administrator. Second on the issue of maturity, R has been on the project long enough to know what is the line for maturity. While we all have different ideas on what maturity entails, I am very certain that if R was to hold the mop, he wouldn't go rogue and decide one day to delete everybody's user subpages. Moreover, with so many failed attempts, it would be silly to suggest that R would give in to his juvenile side and forget his obligations and judgment as an editor of the wiki. Now of course, he has much to work on, but I genuinely think that R will be constructive and not go rogue. bibliomaniac15 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
56. Support: I would trust this user with the tools. — mholland (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
57. Support Per right above (mholland's Support); I also would trust R with the tools. ♠TomasBat 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
58. Support I had mixed feelings about this RFA. There are editors whose opinions I greatly respect on both sides of this issue. After I thought about it, though, I realized that it's not that big of a deal. R isn't a vandal. The things he does are aimed at improving Wikipedia. His userspace things generally seem well-intentioned, if a bit ill-advised. He never seems to be trying to push people's buttons. I have some issues with how he responds to criticism, but that's mostly on IRC, and he does seem to be getting better even there. I hope that if this RFA succeeds (or even if it doesn't,) R will heed the advice given to him by people when things get heated. kmccoy (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
59. Tarragon Support Some good reasons to Oppose, but some great reasons to Support. Dfrg.msc 02:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
60. Support No reasons to question R's maturity on-wiki. Earlier I opposed someone for what supposedly happened on IRC and I regretted it later. SLG was a joke turned sour through no fault of his. I trust that R will seek advice from others if he's unable to handle a difficult situation. - TwoOars (Rev) 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

61. Support — for all the sound and fury about not making mainspace edits, I see no evidence that this user would use the tools in anything but an intelligent and mature fashion. I hate to break it to people, but every responsible user should have tools; adminship is not a big deal. --Haemo 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
62. Support I am sure this person will not abuse the tools. Marlith ^T/C 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
63. Support (Originally opposed) -- even though you like the Yanks and I like the Sox. "But, Bushcarrot. R is way too immature to handle the tools." True, the Single Letter Cabal got out of hand, but R took care of it in a mature manner; what more can you expect? So, why don't we give him a chance? R is going to do a great job with the mop, and no one needs Nostradamus to predict that. Bushcarrot ^Talk _{Please Sign!} ^{Let's go Lightning!} 02:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
64. Support I have one or two concerns but I am going to support on the strength of some of the nominators, the fact this user appears to be a hard worker, and the lack of evidence that they would abuse the tools. Orderinchaos 14:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
65. Ah what the hell. I'd like to him get a chance. -- John Reaves 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose due to immaturity. Please note that this is not ageism, but rather a feeling from interactions both on wiki and off wiki that this user may actually get bored or silly one day and may not actually delete the main page but would do something completely inappropriate. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Any diffs? Melsaran (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   How about some diffs from the supporters? I understand AM's feelings about this. * Aillema 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not going to start diff hunting, but I will prodive 3 pages (User:R/Single Letter Group, User:R/EFD , User:R/Rant) all of which deal with this issue. Some of them may only be accessed by those who have the ability to view deleted edits. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   EFD is still up, but a social networking mess. Maxim_(talk) 19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   EFD is a play page. It has no great encyclopedic merit, but is also completely harmless. It has been participated in by quite a number of respectable administrators and users, including myself, and an MfD on it was closed as "Speedy Keep." The existence of this page strikes me as having little relevance here. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   As the admin who performed that speedy keep, I agree that the the page causes no harm. It, by itself, would not be enough for me to oppose. The problem is that pages like that and the other 2 seem to me to be more typical of R's indicated behavior than the positive contributions that he makes. Any one of them alone is no big deal, but together they say quite a lot to me. When you put that together with his temperament as I have observed, I can not trust him with the tools. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose No, because of his whole attitude about adminship and RFAs in general. I understand it must be stressful going through 3 failed rfas, but that's no reason to have the whole "adminship sucks" attitude. He's also desperate to be an admin it seems, which I don't like the idea of. I don't believe he's mature enough for the responsibility ( and no, this is not about age, as I am a minor as well). Sorry R... * Aillema 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Absolutely not: I was concerned about the candidate's immaturity, as displayed on IRC, I'm well aware that IRC doesn't equal Wikipedia (as was pointed out by the candidate about 5 minutes after I commented here), but it does, in my view, show aspects of the candidates character that are wholly undesirable in an administrator. I note that the candidate has been repeatedly kicked from official Wikimedia IRC channels for disruptive behaviour consistent with immaturity. I also left a comment earlier, prior to the candidate's acceptance of the RfA, and I did ask he restored the comment when accepting and transcluding the RfA, I'm disappointed to see it hasn't reappeared. Nick 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Commenting only on your last sentence: A bureaucrat deleted the comments because it was posted pre-transclusion. It would have been questionable for R to have re-posted them. At best it was a borderline situation, and I don't think R can be faulted for not having copied someone else's comment into his transclusion. Newyorkbrad 19:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yeah, R did contact me to explain the situation, I notice looking through the history, the comment was removed, added but commented out, then removed again. I was intending for R just to remove the markup to make the comment show again, rather than fully restoring my comment. I also have to say, I kind of agree with Riana's nomination, I do think R would do good work as an administrator, but I think there could be problems too, which is the reason I'm unable to Support, despite my great respect for all of the nominators. Nick 06:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I have no doubts that R has the best interests of the project in mind; regretfully, however, my interactions with him make me concerned that his behavior is often somewhat immature, and I am not sure he will be able to consistently apply the sound judgment required as an administrator. --krimpet⟲ 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose all you do in the mainspace is vandal revert, nothing has changed since last time. T Rex | talk 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose My observation of R has left a very sour taste in my mouth. One of the thing he has done is create User:R/EFD, something more suited for rubbish heaps like Facebook and Myspace, not an encyclopedia. He has only 500 mainspace edits since the beginning of March, and except doing some work on The Amazing Race 11, they're all reverts. And when R doesn't revert, he doesn't even do anything in the Mainspace. Albeit adminship is not all about writing, I do expect some encyclopedic writing. I feel R is too immature, and even if Melsaran wants diffs, she won't get them. You don't notice immature because of diffs; it's a pattern of general behaviour and attitude. Editors for deletion strikes me as a bit immature. I'm extremely unimpressed with User:R/Paroleoffer. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This template makes it sound like a block is punitive, and consequently a serious misunderstanding of the blocking policy. Also, R edits his userspace way too much. Also, I forgot to mention the User:R/SLG. They had its own IRC channel at a time. That's social networking, not building an encyclopedia. And User:R/Rant ain't nice. I'm not impressed by this user. Maxim_(talk) 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   How does that template make it sound like blocks are punitive? It looks like a good idea to me to use for vandals that have been blocked and say "unblock please I promise I'll never vandalise again"; you say "okay, I'll unblock, but one more vandalism edit = reblock". There's nothing punitive about that. Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Maxim..I had nothing to with with SLG besides the main page. The exclusion of people from the IRC channel (which I didn't even know about) and the MFD was all during a period I was away on a trip. When I got home, I saw the MFD, and speedy deleted the pages. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   It was in your userspace, therefore it means you agreed with having such a page, and being part of it. That's not good. Maxim_(talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes it was in my userspace. I'm saying I was unaware of the IRC channel, people not allowed into it, the MFD, and the discrimination against non single letter users until I came back from my trip. When I came back, I found the MFD, and had the page speedy'd because it had turned into even more nonsense. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I'm troubled by the Parole Offer template, but for different reasons to Maxim, the block on a user is solely the responsibility of the administrator in question, and the unblock is solely the responsibility of the same or another administrator. Not to sound too Cabal-ish, but editors without access to deleted contributions and suchlike shouldn't be going around offering "parole offers" to users when they may be unaware of the evidence for a block. I'm curious as to how the whole parole process would work, would R ping an admin and have them unblock, or did R assume he would be an admin. Nick 19:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   No, Nick, it wasn't for non-admins. It was a proposal I started and never got around to fixing. It would've been only used by admins, since they are the only ones that can actually unblock. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've frequently seen admins, in addressing unblock requests, ask the user to propose what sort of edits they would make if unblocked, or even post the text of a specific improvement they would like to make. I hadn't seen this before, but this could have worked as an extension of that concept. Users recently blocked for vandalism are effectively "on parole" anyway, in the sense that they will be reblocked if they vandalize again more quickly than a first offender might be. Newyorkbrad 20:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   I don't think that template was intended to be used by non-admins. Melsaran (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Oppose - While EFD is fun, SLG was not, and the very demand for a single letter username echos the above maturity concerns. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose My concerns of the previous RfA still stand. I don't think R has the maturity to handle admin duties. There are many signs of this: the deleted rant page, the way he reacted during and after his failed RfAs, the SLG thing, the notorious cricket AfD, the 5 RfAs and 2 editor reviews in the span of 10 months and, yes, I'll also include his age. I'm confident R won't delete the mainpage but that's not the issue here. I don't trust him to handle the inevitable interaction with problematic users in a way that benefits the project. Pascal.Tesson 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Maxim. Dureo 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose Too many issues. Having five RfAs is a real concern to me. What I have heard about the rant page and SLG are not good either. Though I don't go on IRC much, bad actions there could suggest potential bad actions here. Sorry. Captain panda 22:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    What, we have a rule about the maximum number of RfAs now. As far as I know, the record is 7, and that user is now one of the *most respected* and *best* admins (correct me I'm wrong). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Before this RfA, I had never even heard of five RfAs. I realize that there is no rule about the number of RfAs a user may have. What I do realize is that when a user has 5 RfAs quite close to one another. In addition the user in question has not really worked on what the opposers suggest. Perhaps R cannot write well, but can't he at least try instead of ranting on the evils of RfA voters? Even though my own RfA failed because of a lack of article writing, I realize now that this is an encylopedia. R has done good work, but his behavior and lack of willingness to improve really worries me. Captain panda 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    When you have a failed RfA, I'll bet working to appease the opposers is not the first thing you'll think about when you get wind of its failure. As for the number of RfAs, they've been as temporally apart as community practice upholds. Please rethink your rationale. —[[Animum | talk]] 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I know that when I learned that my RfA failed, I did not immediately think of what I could do to convince the opposers next time. However, now I am focusing more on this. Having a few months helps a user to consider what the oppposers have suggested. I do no see why your first sentence invalidated my point. As for your second one, there was one month between the first and second RfA, three months between the second and third one, three months between the third and fourth one, and two months between the fourth and fifth one. At best, some of those months have been the bare minimum of what the usual three month consensus. Others have only been one and two months apart. This really does suggest a bit of overeagerness for adminship. I realize that wanting to be an admin is normal. However, that is no excuse to ignore opposing comments. Captain panda 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

11. For the first time ever, I oppose R's RfA. Your participation hasn't really improved. For the 139th time, please work on the suggestions people give you. Your failure to listen to the suggestions made by established editors in your previous RfAs prevent me from being able to trust you with the tools. If this RfA is succesful, I'm sure you'll be a great admin, but I just don't think I trust you right now. Sorry. BTW, 5 RfAs in less than 1 year is 0_o --Agüeybaná 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Have you read the nom? The guy can't write - are we gonna make him write? Methinks it might be worse for the project if we do. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    I can't, either: my English sucks. Has that stopped me from creating articles and nominating hooks to appear at WP:DYK? No, it hasn't. This is a wiki; try, and we'll help. --Agüeybaná 23:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Your english sucks, big deal. I spent the first 3 years of my life in Romania, but do I use that as an excuse to write crappy prose? No, I have other excuses xD Maybe R has reasons other then crappy/good/brilliant/ChuckNorris English - maybe he just doesn't like writing. I don't like UAA reporting, you gonna make me? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    LOL. If he doesn't want write articles (or at least add content to existing ones), then I don't understand what he's doing here. --Agüeybaná 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Not everyone is great in article writing. Some are good with bots, others are good with images. CO₂ 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm a native American-English speaker, so that's not the problem :D. I just don't like writing. I write enough in English class and I hate that also. I'm here to help a good cause. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Attack! Attack the opposer! btw, what's UAA? They keep inventing acronyms in this joint! -- Y not? 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    (EC with CO, R, Y - response to Eddie) He's reverting vandalism. Would you rather edit an article that reads "John is gay xD", or that actually discusses its subject matter? R's the guy who ensures #2 takes place. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    H2O, he's not even doing that much reverting. He's made a total of 157 mainspace edits since his last RfA, but 126 of those edits came in a three day period from September 21 to September 23 (almost all were reverts). The biggest concern has always been R's lack of mainspace editing. He's always maintained that he's not great at article writing, but surely, there must be a way in which you can contribute to articles that wouldn't be so geared towards writing. How about copyediting or sourcing? Sourcing is very helpful, and it doesn't really require you to do any article writing. Tackle a category like Category:Articles lacking in-text citations, and you can surely make a number of worthy contributions to the encyclopedia without the need of serious article writing. R, if you do that, I'm sure people would support you in a future RfA. If you do choose to follow this path (and I wholeheartedly wish that you will), please wait a few months before re-requesting a RfA again. People want to see a long-term change in your editing pattern, not a short-term change. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I have no interest in attacking the opposer, or anyone else, as I value everyone's right to an opinion, but I do have a question. Agüeybaná, you state that you are sure that R would be a great administrator, and yet you cannot trust him with the tools. Perhaps I am failing to understand you correctly, but that sounds to me like a contradiction. Newyorkbrad 00:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's an excellent example of my suck-ish English. I meant to say that I don't doubt the fact that he's great with admin-y tasks, but his mainspace contribs make me believe that he will not be able to correctly use the tools in that area. Therefore, I do not trust him with admin tools. Hope this explains everything well. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    R won't use his tools in areas he has no experience with. He will not use them to decide content disputes, for example, so mainspace contribs shouldn't be an issue here. Melsaran (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Basically per immaturity and this notion of RfA-via-the-battering-ram method. I just don't have the stomach for it, despite my respect for the nominators. -- Y not? 23:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

    Do you have any diffs for this alleged "immaturity"? Melsaran (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

13. Strong oppose - has spent a lot more time on EFD and SLG than articles since the last RfA. Spends more time on joking around than editing articles. Also, the obsession with adminship is particularly unpalatable and all the old things about no article edits except for basically all machine edits still hold. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Let's see... Article writing isn't a problem, as pointed out above; everyone has their own specialities, and R's is mostly maintenance work. He won't use his admin tools in content disputes, so why is this even an issue? I haven't seen Ryulong, or DerHexer, or Radiant!, or CSCWEM, write any articles, yet still they are excellent administrators. And for the "obsession with adminship": adminship is currently a big deal, even though it isn't supposed to be one, like it or not. Becoming an admin is not just getting a few extra buttons, it is an endorsement from the Wikipedia community for being a trustworthy and competent editor. R had many RFAs fail because of silly reasons that others normally don't get opposed over, so it's quite logical that he is really disappointed by that and that he wants to become an admin. Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'd like to remind you that adminship is neither a trophy nor something that feeds your ego - not some higher status or rank. It is a mere privilege to selflessly serve the community and the encyclopedia. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Let's face it: Anything is more enjoyable when you have fun doing it; that's what R was doing, trying to let some people have good-hearted fun. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

14. Adminship is not a trophy. Neither a flying broom. It's a mop. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Do you think R would abuse the tools? Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Resolving content issues isn't always a choice; you can do vandal-fighting, 3RRs, blocking, perhaps even as simple as closing AfDs... and somehow wind up with a content-related dispute in your hands, and you can't run away all the time. Furthermore, there are times we can fool around...but not to the point it causes WikiDrama. So I'll say yes, it is possible for him to go Sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

15. Oppose per the issues raised above. Jmlk17 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose. I am concerned that only 157 mainspace edits have been made since his last RFA, with 126 (chiefly reverts) being made in the 3 days immediately prior to this RFA being opened. It strongly suggets R has learned nothing from his last RFA, and failure to respond appropriately to suggestions and/or criticism is not a good trait in an admin. I would not trust him with the tools at this time, particularly in light of the concerns about his immaturity. If no improvement has been shown (and it has not), then why should another RFA pass where previous ones have failed? It should also be noted Riana's co-nomination statement helped convinced me to oppose. Neil ム 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps you would care to explain that last statement? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Third bulletpoint - I read that as "make him an admin or he'll leave". Blackmail, even if courteously phrased, is disagreeable. Neil ム 09:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Somehow, Riana's co-nom convinced me from my usual admins-should-write-content line-of-thought. Thus I was totally surprised when I read your last sentence.  :-p --Iamunknown 10:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose. As I said the last two times, write content. Everyking 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why? He is simply not a content writer, he works on maintenance jobs. He will not use his tools in areas he has no experience with. Melsaran (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

18. Oppose. I've found the oppose reasons to be much more convincing the support reasons. A case where the chance of abuse of admin tools is very low but the chance of misuse is very high (IMO). Chaz ^Beckett 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose due to lack of experience, per above comments. Majoreditor 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Lack of experience? Are you serious? With nearly 9000 edits in total over a period of 1.5 years, 305 edits to AIV, etc? Edokter recently passed RFA with flying colours with only ±3000 edits.Melsaran (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Edit count is not a good measure of experience. There is a legitimate concern that R's experience with writing content, handling conflict and dealing with complex situations is limited. 9000 edits and 300 edits to AIV don't alleviate these concerns. They show R's dedication and value to the project, which nobody is disputing. Pascal.Tesson 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's why he will use his tools in the areas he is experienced in (vandal fighting, usernames, etc) and not in the areas he's inexperienced in (content disputes etc). Melsaran (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    There's quite simply no way to guarantee that and besides, a good admin on UAA shows not only familiarity with the username policy but also the necessary tact and finesse in judgment to deal with contested blocks. R's assessment that the name Innuendo was an inappropriate username (see last RfA) struck me as overzealous, his rant page and disappearing act after the last RfA make me worry about his handling of conflict. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

20. Oppose — I actually came to this RfA hoping you had addressed my concerns from your previous RfA, deep down inside I knew you hadn't though. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I honestly don't believe we need another administrator who is solely interested in the politics of Wikipedia. Matthew 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Whatever else one might say about R's editing record, I don't think anyone could possibly claim that he's overly concerned with the "politics of Wikipedia." If anything, he has shown unusually little concern for our politics, and is paying the price for it. Newyorkbrad 15:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

21. Oppose, per Riana's third point. @pple complain 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I follow. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    "He's considering retiring if he can't do what he knows he can do competently, but isn't being given the chance to do." ---> sounds like a bargain "Give he the mop or he will say bye bye." I have had enough drama recently.@pple complain 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Also from my nom: "I'm not asking you to support him because of that, though. I'm asking you to support because we have nothing to lose by supporting him, a great deal to gain by giving him the bit, and a fantastic editor to lose if we don't." If R leaves, he does so on his own steam. I for one will not attempt to persuade him to return - which is the point of the user subpage you have linked to. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

22. Strong Oppose Per my usual reasons of maturity, wanting to be a janitor rather than a leader, and, frankly, nothing seems to have changed since last RfA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but I don't follow; I thought "I'm just a janitor here" is the attitude that many users want admins to have. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    This may answer your question. Acalamari 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I agree wholeheartedly with your position that we need more leaders as admins, but isn't that a good reason to solicit those sorts of editors for adminship, and a rather poor reason to oppose an otherwise qualified editor for adminship? "All admins should be leaders" does not follow logically from "we need more admins who are leaders." ➪HiDrNick! 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Damn, I'm trying to be nice. This is the 5th attempt to get this adminship in what 6 months? NO I'm not going to check the official timeframe. This kid is completely immature and is NOT otherwise qualified to be an admin. OK, no sense in being diplomatic, I'll just pile on with everyone else. And no, I don't want janitors--editors can do the cleaning up. Admins should do something more--lead the project where necessary, whether it is to build or drive consensus, or to put a stop to edit warriors who waste the project's time. R shows nothing to me to be able to do that. So now that you outed my real reasons, I'll move to my real feeling about this user. STRONG OPPOSE. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    A small fraction of admins do article writing; opposing a user based on a lack of it is not well-thought out. Editors can't clean up everything on the site: Doing so requires access to restricted technical functions. He has shown no signs of being immature, in fact, he was did the mature thing in the SLG fiasco (one of the nastier things I've seen on-wiki) and had it speedily deleted. Opposing based on arbitrary impulse with no diplomatic reasoning is another issue entirely; it nearly beats the purpose of voting. One last thing, he has not requested adminship in 6 months; it has been spread out across two years, not 6 months as you incorrectly claimed. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    How hard is it really to look at the dates of the four previous RfAs which are linked above? It's 5 RfAs since December 2006. That's 10 months. Not 6 months, not 2 years, 10 months. Pascal.Tesson 23:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks for informing us. BTW, 10 months is pretty close to 6, so I'll take that as a compliment to my outstanding memory that nearly all of the RfA's were recent. And thanks for arguing with my well-thought-out vote. Oh, I guess, based on the commentary to my simple Oppose, I don't get good faith that I actually have an IQ that is in the triple digit range, making me quite capable of reading, reasoning, and developing a conclusion. But you guys are so much more knowledgeable than I about what makes a good or bad admin. Thanks for the lesson. I'll take it to heart. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

23. Very weak oppose I was planning to support but there was a large fuss on IRC around this editors RFA and I dont think he handled it very well. -Icewedge 18:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I heard about the kerfuffle yesterday. The candidate had promised that he wouldn't transclude the nomination until a co-nom came in from someone in a very different time zone, but people started participating early, and IRC people (including a bureaucrat) started pushing him very strongly to go ahead and transclude it now. A very unusual and difficult confluence of circumstances, not to be blamed on the candidate, and to me not much of a reason for opposing. Newyorkbrad 18:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    The fuss on IRC was quite an interesting little gang-up against R - I wasn't online but I read the logs. Suffice to say the people involved know who they are and should be ashamed of themselves, basically forcing someone to transclude their own RfA for no good reason apart from the fact that people were already commenting - entirely outside the candidate's control, as I'm sure you will understand. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

24. Oppose Wow, 5 RFAs in the space of one year? From my experiences with this editor, I do not think he is ready to be an admin. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    Could you be more specific? ➪HiDrNick! 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

25. Oppose. per above comments. —dima/talk/ 00:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Which comments? What concerns do you have exactly with this candidate? Melsaran (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

26. Oppose Candidate clearly is too divisive to inspire my confidence, and many of comments concerning the level of maturity leave me with serious doubts. VanTucky ^Talk 01:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    [Discussion moved to the talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]

27. Oppose. I wish I could point to specific incidents that make me not think he'd be a good admin, but I can't. I just remember that I don't really trust his judgement (although as a note, from what I see he acted fine in the IRC incident). -Amarkov moo! 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oh noes! If I vaguely remember something that somewhat resembles something, but have no proof, then it must be true! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Amarkov, while I obviously respect your opinion, that's not really a constructive comment. If you really don't have faith in R's judgement, then I suggest that you review his contributions very carefully, look through his contributions to various discussions, and come up with some diffs, or perhaps reconsider. Vague comments like these aren't really helpful in a RFA discussion (no offence). Melsaran (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Like I said, I wish I could say why I don't trust his judgement, but I can't. I don't pretend to be persuading anyone. -Amarkov moo! 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

28. Oppose Maturity and Judgment issues. And no responses please, I tire of the bickering over every oppose vote. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    You can't expect to be exempt from any critisism; your participation indicates that you want to be part of the discussion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Really? Well allow me to clue you in on a little secret -- contesting every goddamned oppose vote does nothing to help the candidate and in fact generally hurts the candidate. People oppose the candidate, deal with it, accept it -- you can do nothing to change their minds. Of course another possibility presents: oppose votes cast your support vote into question, thus making you feel either uncomfortable or needlessly and foolishly combative. A lesson for the future: do not start a pissing match with those who oppose, that way lies disharmony and enmity. How's that for critical? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why do you think that contesting every oppose vote does nothing to help the candidate and in fact generally hurts the candidate? A.Z. 02:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

    The evidence is before you: interpret. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

29. Strong Oppose. When I read all the discussions I think R should continue with his Wikipedia work as now, I miss the patience and engagement to take the tips and hints of the last RFA serious. I do not blame him for misusing the tools. My feeling is, that disputes that arise from creating articles together are not to be solved by R as admin. I have the feeling he lacks the experience from writing articles which I personally believe is very useful to deal with admin issues. Changed to strong oppose from oppose since R does not answer questions 8a to c using an excuse about lack of time. Neozoon 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
30. Strong oppose Lack of article space experience, lack of maturity, far too eager for admin tools for my liking. Come back when you've finished high school and have a couple of FA's under your belt. – ornis⚙ 12:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Yeah, expect he finishes school in (my estimate) 4 years - that is kinda pushing it... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 12:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Telling him to come back when he's finished high school is unreasonable. Acalamari 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

31. Strong Oppose Filll 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why? Melsaran (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Maybe he's opposing because people keep harassing the opposers. -- John Reaves 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    It's not harassment at all. RfA is a discussion, and therefore people, whether they support or not, are sometimes questioned about their rationales. Acalamari 16:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    It is absolutely harassment. Unless there is some problem with good faith (let's say a confirmed sockpuppet joins in), you should accept what is written. This isn't a vote, it is a discussion. The bureaucrats will weigh the discussion. Maybe they think Filll is full of it. Or maybe they think Filll is a man of few words and accepts what he says at face value. Maybe they don't care. But I am frankly sick and tired of the applicants or their intentional or unintentional meatpuppets arguing with every oppose. Stop harassing the voters, plain and simple.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Since RFA is, indeed, a discussion, and not a firm vote, it is perfectly appropriate to question people about their rationales. That's not "harassment", it's trying to engage in as constructive discussion with others. If you think my reason for supporting is flawed, feel free to question it and I'll engage in a discussion. Likewise, I'm allowed to question your reasoning (you're not obliged to respond, of course). Melsaran (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    I would normally agree with that, but you've gone and posted comments concerning two seperate Oppose comments at the same time. There's plenty of room for "Well, why do you think such and such ?" but your comment in response to Sir Nick isn't really designed to start a discussion on his thoughts of the candidate, they come over as you telling Sir Nick what his comment actually is. That, and the number of people you respond to significantly changes discussion into heckling, I'm afraid. It's not something that helps the candidate either and it's could weaken your Support arguments when a bureaucrat tries to determine consensus. Nick 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

32. Oppose. The candidate reveals an extremely detailed knowledge of every bullet-point in policies, and the correct technical procedure for blocking usernames, but it is important for admins to show tact and know the correct way of handling an issue, which might sometimes be different than the "recipes" given in policies. R seems to be too focused on following policies to the letter and has problems discussing issues with other users. He specifically says that he wants to help by blocking usernames, but in fact the username policy is one area where being too strict without seeing the larger picture causes a lot of harm and drives newcomers away. In fact, there has been a discussion at WT:U lately about how we need to have a more friendly attitude towards username violations, and I fear that R will not be able to show the necessary judgement beyond "it violates bullet-point 23, block". Also, I don't like the way the candidate and supporters are badgering the oppose voters. This makes it seem like those accusing R of being desperate for adminship are quite right indeed. Is he back? 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    AFAIK, the candidate hasn't "badgered" any oppose voter. And since RFA is a discussion rather than a firm vote, it's a perfectly good idea to challenge a comment by someone else to engage in a discussion. Do you have any example of a comment or action by R that indicates that he may be too focused on the letter of the rule rather than the spirit? Melsaran (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Jolly good, so when are you going to start asking those editors having left Supportive comments to expand them and discuss them further ? Nick 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

33. Even his signature exudes immaturity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Why? I don't see why it is immature. If you hadn't known his age (which I suspect plays a factor in your decision to oppose the candidate Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)), you probably wouldn't have opposed this candidate for something as silly as a signature. Melsaran (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Please do not make assumptions on my part. I do not know the age of the candidate nor am I interested in acquiring the particular piece of information. Once again, read my comment properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm amazed. We had countless discussions on maturity and I'm sure many of us agree that age isn't the factor. It is the way you project yourself to others, and signature is one of them. - Mailer Diablo 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    But how can you oppose a candidate for being "immature" only judging by his signature? That's quite silly. Melsaran (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    It didn't say only his signature, it said 'even'. Like "This guy is immature in all aspects - even his signature manages to be immature" kind of thing. 86.138.190.45 19:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Whoa, Melsaran, I think it's time to give it a break. This RfA is clearly going to fail, and interrogating all the opposers isn't going to accomplish anything. In the case of this particular reason, I quite agree that the sig doesn't really demonstrate maturity. Chaz ^Beckett 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    OK, no one can say that I EVER harrass opposers... but I have to say, this is one of the craziest oppose reasons I've ever seen. We have admins who portray themselves as puppies, chemical equations, and music notes. And THIS GUY'S signature is immature. /me sighs and walks away. - Philippe | Talk 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    Coming from an administrator who named himself after a Harry Potter character? OK, I'm really starting to get pissed off here. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    I will assume that either people are too busy to read my single sentence or they do not understand English. (Hint: Read what the IP said) I generally tend not to oppose anyone on flimsy reasons. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

    So let's help the candidate improve. Would you like to suggest a new sig for him? Maybe one that doesn't link to his editor review (oh golly, who needs those?). One without talk page/contribs/email links? One with the "Let's go Yankees!" (well, they suck, but he's entitled to an opinion). I know, how about just R! Problem solved, no you can support. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

34. Oppose - 5 RfA's in one year is too many. Going through this once is tough enough, and willingly exposing yourself to it five times indicates that admin *is* a big deal to the candidate. I'd need to see more maturity than I have. Ronnotel 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
35. Oppose. I actually approve of R for avoiding writing, if that is not his thing, and I can see how it must be frustrating to do so much admin work without the extra tools given to a full-fledged admin. But I want those extra tools to used with care. R's replies to some of the questions above are rather shallow (or flagged with excuses about being busy) and, given his experience, that surprises me. --Una Smith 04:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose. I have given this one a lot of thought but there's just no way I can come at supporting it. As with the previous RfAs, I still have concerns about maturity. I went through the edits since his last RfA and I'm seeing little but automated edits and social-networking. And I don't see any sign that R is actually listening to what the community has told him in previous RfAs because we've essentially been saying the same things each time and yet here we are again. Watching these multiple RfAs is like watching someone trying to bash down the front door while the people inside are shouting that the key is under the doormat. R, we've told you where the key to the janitor cupboard is, it's up to you to go and get it. I think these multiple, frequent RfAs without responding to feedback in the hope that you eventually get lucky and scrape through are going to backfire on you. I really recommend that you don't come back to RfA until you can answer a straight yes to question four. I personally don't expect you to go out and write FAs if you don't like writing, but there is a middle ground between writing full articles and only making automated reverts. Sarah 09:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose - I'm not comfortable supporting this candidate with the issues raised above. The number of RfAs in such a short period is also a concern for me. LaraLove 14:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
38. Per much of above. Lack of article writing, ignoring the concerns at (4!) previous RFAs and concerns of maturity. Two additional points unrelated to my oppose 1) I'm unhappy with the defensiveness of the other opposers. I frequently oppose so I think it's fair for me to say this: When you oppose, you owe everyone a clear explanation. Stop acting like your unarticulated opinion is so obvious that you can't be bothered to clarify it. The onus falls upon the opposer and you absolutely owe clarification to those who do not understand your position. (As a corollary if I ever oppose and don't respond to a follow up, please poke my talk page. You are always justified in asking me for clarification.) 2) I had a spectacularly bad encounter with R. Or maybe it was E. Or L or I or O or N. I know it wasn't Y because he has a consistent and distinctive signature. But it could be any of the others. Honest to God, I can't remember—I've looked but can't find it. These names remain unhelpful to me. This is not part of my reason to oppose, as it's partially cognitive failure on my part, but I think it was a mistake to allow the proliferation of these names. We prohibit names that are too lengthy; in hindsight, should have done the same for too short. --JayHenry 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
39. Oppose for a number of reasons. First, I think that substantive experience of editing in mainspace is an important pre-requisite for an admin, because that's the core of what wikioedia is about: no matter how well anything else is done, without content there is no project, and I belive that the experience gained from editing is essential to an understanding of how editors react to the use of admin powers; but R seems to lack that experience. Secondly, I share the concerns expressed elsewhere about maturity. R's comments about being bored, his creation of [[[User:R/EFD]], and some strange judgment calls all add up to me to a picture of someone who is well-intentioned but is not currently well-rounded enough to make an admin. Having been an admin for 18 months, I am increasingly aware that it is a role which requires an ability not to be offended by the inevitable criticism, as well as an ability to address the sensitivities of editors who editors who may feel harrassed and stressed: in short, it requires a lot of diplomatic skill, and I don't see the evience that this editor has those skills.
    R is clearly performing a very useful role in vandalism patrolling, and I woukd encourage hom to continue with that good work, and to accept that adminship is something which we hope he will grow into. I really don't want to discourage R's participation into the project, but his promotion wuld be premature. Maybe in a few years' time? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose: Five RfAs in less than a year? What the hell? Quite aside from any other concern, an admin needs patience. Is there any compelling reason why this candidate has to keep hammering away with RfA after RfA, tumbling over one another in short order? Does he need to be an admin that badly, and if so, why is that, exactly? Frankly, I wouldn't want to see another RfA from him within the next year. Beyond that, don't be silly: of course RfA is a vote, however much the word "vote" is verboten on Wikipedia. Even so, the nominee's myrmidons disputing most Oppose votes may be legal, but they can't imagine that kind of behavior is helping the candidacy.  RGTraynor  10:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
41. Oppose Not convinced the user possesses the necessary maturity needed of a WP admin. As others have said, said named user needs to heed the advice of others before submitting another RFA. Also, statements that one might quit Wikipedia if not granted adminship bother me. — Ocatecir^T 01:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
42. Oppose Maturity concerns. Would be a liability if given the 'mop'. Apologies. Scarian^Talk 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - were it not the fact that I like this particuar dude, it would be "oppose per confusing username". Миша13 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   We already have several admins with single-letter names, and a bureaucrat approved this name-change, so I think this concern is raised a bit too late in the day. Newyorkbrad 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   That doesn't change in the least the fact that single letter usernames are confusing (in fact, there's only two sysops - B and Y; with H being a former one). I might also add that 1) any more SL admins and I'll might start confusing one with another and 2) the said 'crat made a mistake (though it doesn't compare to requesting the name change in the first place). Миша13 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   RfA is for judging editors, not usernames. —[[Animum | talk]] 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   No, it's about judging the editor's (editor = human + account; account = username) ability to perform as an administrator. "Perform" covers interaction with other sysops, which in turn requires the ability (for others) do discern one editor from the other. And this particular editor's confusing username does not help with that. Миша13 21:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

   (one make take this comment seriously if they wish, but this is only making a specific point, not to count for or against anything) I'm an admin on Commons with the exact same username as here; would that make me a bad administrator there? There may be even more confusing usernames there, as my username is veery similar to Ö. Were there any times somebody confused me with that user, and was my communication with other admins bad at all because of the username issue? —O (说 • 喝) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (GMT)

   Unfortunately for R having a gimmick username isn't likely to help his efforts in convincing people that there are no maturity concerns here. On the whole I agree with Misza that the change shouldn't have been allowed in the first place. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I don't know, but based on the IRC comments I've seen in a past few weeks (yes, people think IRC dosen't weigh for adminship), it makes me feel that you think that adminship is a desire rather than a tool. Also, you have the skills of an admin, which is good, but there is one slight problem, try to do some article-building (spelling/grammar checking does count in this case). You should do some article-building so you can develop the skills of dispute resolution. Well, that is my comment of the day. However, if his behavior both changes on-wiki and IRC during the course of the RfA, I might be willing to support.PrestonH 15:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
3. From all I've seen from R, I know this is a great user. However, maturity issues and the like bolstered by opposers trouble me from supporting. —O (说 • 喝) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (GMT)
4. Neutral Leaning to Support The user seems to be very active in serveral administration tasks and can only be aided by giving adminship, and I do trust him with the tools. While lack of encyclopedia writing is apparent, I don't see how this strongly contributes in either direction ot an adminship request. The user seems reasonable about putting himself up as open to recall. The only worry I have is an apparent slight immaturity that may work its way into admin responsibilities. A solid candidate, with a bit more apparent maturity would have my full support. Liempt 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning to oppose, but persuadable. As I've said ad nauseam - including on at least one of your previous RFAs - I believe admins need to have a reasonable creation/expansion/rewriting history; until you've seen for yourself just how hard it is to create valid content, particularly on controversial topics, I don't think one's in a position to empathise with or credibly debate with people who are having material they've worked hard on deleted, and I don't think your mainspace contributions are up to scratch. I do also wonder why someone who doesn't appear to have any particular interest in content wants to be an admin. While your knowledge of policy is fine - which is why I'm not opposing - I can't really support. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   The main reason I want to be an admin is to help out blocking at AIV, UAA, and RFCN. That has nothing to with content, except that users at AIV are ones destroying content. I don't need article writing to know how to appropriately block a vandal. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

6. I feel unable to support at this time. It just seems, R, that you desire adminship to a degree where it has become one of your only goals here, to a degree where you desire it so badly that it has blinded you to the true purpose on this project. The tools are no big deal, and to attempt five times in nine months to obtain some extra functions really seems to bring to light a lack of patience and good forethought. Also, your apparent ignorance of the issues brought up by your previous opposers, over the last five requests, further makes me unsure whether you should be an admin at this time, as it shows a lack of a willingness to listen and take action based on what others are saying, which is something much needed and valued among sysops. People are not opposing you for the fun of it; you can't just continue to schedule the next RFA. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
7. I'm deeply torn here between some very good arguments presented by Wikipedians I respect greatly. I'm currently trying to weigh them up and either support or oppose, combined with recent editing patterns by R, but I still can't decide whether I support or oppose this nomination. Daniel 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral I could have supported a specialist admin, but the parole subpage raises a concern in the specialist area. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Switch to support. Thanks NYBRAD. Feel better after re-reading that. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Please see comments under Oppose #6 for some discussion relevant here. Newyorkbrad 14:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Despite my somewhat obvious bias, I think parole offer is a wonderful idea. I frequently offer {{2nd chance}} to users requesting unblock - this seems to be somewhat similar. *goes to be desysopped for being a softie* :) ~ Riana ⁂ 15:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Although I agree with some of the opposers, I don't quite feel the reason are good enough to deny adminship. Persoanally, I am uneasy about the idea of R being an admin. I'd like to see him open to recall with lower requirements (like 3 admins or users in good standing). -- John Reaves 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   The balance there is making recall a genuine as opposed to purely theoretical possibility, without making it too easy for recall requests (and the drama of a desysopping or a reconfirmation RfA) to be initiated frivolously, as some have been in the past. Interestingly, although the criteria that recallable admins have listed for themselves have varied, the most common number and the number given as an example on WP:RECALL is six. Newyorkbrad 17:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, that's why I can't support. If there were some way to make recall binding I would offer my support. Unfortunately, all he has to do is remove himself from the category and we're out of options (were he to become recallable). I requested a smaller number because, were there to be a recall, I would want it to be as swift and without drama as possible. -- John Reaves 19:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

   Your comment reminded me of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.39.161 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

   Apparently it didn't help so I didn't do it. -- John Reaves 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

8. I'd trust R with the tools, but he seems over-eager to get them. I don't find five RFAs in a ten month period to be a particularly good thing. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
9. Moreschi's support may be misplaced, if you accept this line of thought. I don't know that I'd go that far, but since this is the fifth RfA where the opposition has mentioned broadly similar issues, there may be something to it. There's not quite enough in the opposition arguments to convince me that R shouldn't be an admin, but the case for has some gaps in it. If the opposition is going to look similar at every RfA, perhaps R should endeavour to address the concerns. Adopting Nishkid's advice could be the answer, and Wikipedia can always do with more copyediting, even if it is no more than running AWB to find duplicated words and common misspellings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
10. Worried about this candidate's immaturity. I won't pile on oppose.However, I won't pile on oppose, because he wrote RBot which replaced Ral315's signpost bot. M.^(er) 21:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

    That's an AWB bot, very easy to run. CO₂ 21:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

    CO, I was already honest and told her that on IRC :]. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

11. Neutral, leaning towards oppose I disagree with his rationale in not acquiring the experience asked of him in previous RfA's. I have a professional career. My boss will often ask me to perform task or learn new skills that I have no intention of learning or using in the future. They may not be directly applicable to my job. But if I wish to advance, I need to learn/understand them. R may never write an article after becoming an Admin (and I believe he will someday) but that isn't justification not to write article before becoming an admin. Part of passing an RFA is showing that you know and understand the tools and culture of WP in multiple phases. Part of passing an RFA is showing that you can be a good follower/listener. Consensus has shown that you need experience elsewhere, show some effort to get that experience and many of the opposes will disappear. Think of it this way, in order to graduate from H.S. you have to take courses that you don't want to take... and that you don't think you'll ever need/want. But you still have to take them. The same is true here, you may never think you'll want/use the experience you might gain by going outside of your comfort zone, but others believe you will benefit from it. I tend to agree. Get the experience, it'll show maturity on your part and help quell the dissenters.Balloonman 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
12. Neutral. Over the past couple of days, I read all these pages of discussion, most of it very good, some just piling on, and then read the above comments by Balloonman, which I must echo. Persistence is an important trait, both in life and at WP, as is patience. You must learn to mix a bit of sacrifice and bliss. Better luck next time. Bearian 18:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
13. Too many valid reasons listed by the opposes. I am neutral. CO₂ 01:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
14. Neutral leaning towards weak support. Some editors just aren't article writers but htat doesn't mean they can't help take care of the encyclopedia through other methods. R is a good vandal-fighter and I would normally support in this case but unfortunately the reasons for the opposes above cause me to withhold support from this RfA for now. --Hdt83 ^Chat 01:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
15. Neutral. This RFA's already gone south, and I'm not sure whether I would support or oppose had I got here earlier. I have absolutely no problem with people who can't write articles being admins (and I got the mop and bucket despite having very low article-writing levels). That's not a bone of contention. Nor is the fact that you've had previous unsuccessful RFAs or issues in the past. However, there are some things I could suggest to have a better chance of succeeding with your next RFA, in ascending order of importance:

    1. Make sure you answer the questions people put (at the time of this edit questions 8a, 8b, 8c and 10 weren't answered).
    2. Make sure you act maturely at all times. That is not to say that you have not been mature to date, however it seems fixed in opposers' minds that you are acting immaturely. If they can find a diff between now and your next RFA that has even a hint of immaturity they'll beat you about the head with it.
    3. We both know that it's not, or shouldn't be, a requirement, but edit some mainspace articles. Say what you want (and people have done above), but there's a decent body of editors who simply won't give adminship to people not involved in the mainspace (and a minority who insist on you having a featured article).
    4. Don't heckle, reply to, or argue with people who oppose you, and get your friends to refrain as well. It simply gets people annoyed and I would oppose (and have opposed people in the past) for this alone, as it shows an argumentative attitude that I don't think is conducive to being an admin. If you really have a concern about something someone said when opposing or think it might be wrong, ask them on their talk page.

    Good luck. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 30 September 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.