Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 2

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

Rcsprinter123[edit]

Final (10/25/11); ended 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC) - per WP:SNOW. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) – Hello, I’m Rcsprinter. The first time I applied to be an administrator, it transpired that contrary to my thoughts at that time, I was not a suitable candidate for the mop. This time, however, I believe that I have matured significantly both as a person and an editor, an as such, I am now worthy of the tools. But why should me saying that be enough to convince you? I’ll show you how I've improved. So, last RfA the major problem identified was my previous trouble with the area of copyright when it came to uploading media and text to Wikipedia. Since then I haven’t had one issue regarding copyright on either a picture or plagiarized text in an article. I’m hoping the time since is enough to show that I won’t return to that. Every thing I write and upload is my own work or freely-licensed, and will continue to be. There is AfDs, which I have closed in the past and a large number of which were undone or appealed because I hadn’t made the right closure. I’m not so sure I would be so great with them still, so even as an administrator I plan to keep away from them and focus on other things.

I’ll give a summary of what I do for those who weren't at the last RfA and aren’t familiar with me: I run RscprinterBot, help out new users on IRC, write pieces occasionally for the Signpost, I help out at and nominate articles to DYK, I upload pictures to illustrate articles (and create some in Inkscape too), and when it comes to content creation (look) I am mainly transport based, centering on buses and roads. I revert vandalism, participate in AfC, hack away at backlogs, disambiguate links. A bit of everything. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 11:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As an administrator, I will involve myself in areas such as changing user rights and blocking vandals. I also see myself doing protection and attending to protected edit requests. Deletion I only plan to do when necessary but not in a routine way.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I can’t really pick out things to call my “best”, but article-wise I’ll say my most recent creation, Transportation in Montana, and I intend to create some more articles along a similar vein. I’m also proud of my work in creating vector graphics to upload.
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: Of course, many, but mostly not this year. However, I think that is simply part of editing if you’re going to be on Wikipedia and it sets you up for the inevitable disputes of adminship. To answer the other part of the question, what I do is just let the discussion run its course, comment or take action when I see it needs it and generally let the whole thing blow over.
Additional question from Begoon
4. You give Transportation in Montana as an example of your best contributions. I'd be interested to hear whether you think its "C-class" rating is too low, too high, or about right, whether there are any current problems that should be addressed in the article, and what you think the most important improvements to the article should be, in order to progress it to the next quality level. Thanks.
A: I am happy with the current C rating, which is simply because I have not submitted it for any reviews yet or given it some extra work to meet any criteria. It is still my best work so far and I do intend to raise the rating to GA or perhaps higher, but not right now.
Additional question from Scott Martin
5. You mention IRC in your nomination. Do you believe that Wikipedia's non-access-restricted channels should be publicly logged for accountability? If not, why not? — Scott • talk 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: I suspect this question is partly coming from when I did log a couple of conversations to prove a thing about somebody. That said, it wasn't the right decision and that I feel logging is the right step in tracking what people say isn't a consequence. It is important to respect that the conversations held in those channels are not on wikipedia, and shouldn't be involved in wikipedia by pasting extracts of the log. Also, the discussions held there are mainly non-official and are in a lightly humorous manner, something that if it was publically logged would stop editors using it for fear something they say there in jest could be used against them in a serious discussion on-wiki. To summarise: I do not think they should be logged because irrelevant conversations would be taken out of context and used on-wiki.
Additional question from Ottawahitech
(No obligation to answer this, per comments by KumiokoCleanStart and Dlohcierekim at #General comments.)
6. What is wikipeia’s current internet ranking? Do you feel it is important to follow? -Please elaborate
A:
Additional question from 99of9
7. Do you believe you hold the copyright of the file commons:File:Louisiana scenic byways.png?
A: No. Although this may reflect rather badly on me, I must say I didn't know that the file license said I own the rights. Although I suppose Louisiana own the rights to the design, I did recreate it myself on a graphics programme (not an excuse), but I was following the format used for road shield licenses everywhere. (here's one I picked at random). So, a reassessment of the copyright owner needs to be done, yes. I would not call this an urgent copyvio requiring immediate deletion, however, unless someone can find the document from Louisiana state government stating the exact rules in use here.
For the record, there are plenty of mistagged highway shields on Commons, just like that one; out at commons:Commons:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Licensing we are making efforts to fix this, but it will take a while. --Rschen7754 09:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Lsmll
8. You said you would work on changing user rights. Please briefly describe how will you handle requests for autopatrolled, rollbacker and file mover on WP:PERM?
A: To consider a rollback requester - I will look for the following criteria: few hundred edits and evidence of fighting vandalism to some extent. I'd also like to see use of warnings and not just blatant reverting without acknowledgement. No blocks within at least the past few months and basically a show of trustworthiness.
To consider an autopatrolled requester - essentially the same good edit record, and a demonstration that they create good quality articles frequently eliminating the need for each one to be patrolled. Again it comes down to whether I consider them trustworthy to be given a permission.
To consider a file mover requester - once more, make sure they are in good standing generally, and also that they have a clear interest and history in maintenance of files.
For all, I would check outstanding complaints and decide if they should be given the tool. The idea is that the extra tools are there to help with specific areas (vandalism, files, lessening the patrol backlog) and if abused, they can always be taken away again.
Additional question from Philosopher
9. Your advice to Arctic Kangaroo is referred to by several people below. I see that that was a few months ago, so please briefly discuss what you would or would not change about that advice if you were writing it (to any user, not necessarily AK) today and how that reflects your overall understanding of Wikipedia's copyright policy. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Question from Nick
10. Please elaborate and expand on your reply to Scott per Question 5. Who/what/why did you log and what did it achieve ? Do you think comments made by those involved with Wikipedia should really be separated out for additional attention, should sanctions be applied as if the comments were made on-wiki, or should sanctions be applied but less stringently ? Should admins and others with advanced permissions be expected to behave to a higher stand off Wikipedia ?
A:
11. If this RfA fails would you stand again, what will you do between the closure of this RfA and any future RfA, what will you do differently, what will you do the same ?
A.I think I will stand again, but if it is in this year or 2014 I will not be nominating myself. "Do between" - not too sure what this means but my plans are just to keep on creating articles and doing maintenance and keeping out of trouble. As for any actual future RfAs, I don't know any particular way I will be doing it, aside from having a different nominator.
12. Why do you think people are opposing you ?
A.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

  • Question 6 has nothing to do with the candidates ability to perform the administrative tasks. The sites ranking is an arbitrary thing that has as much to do with the Google algorithm coding as much as anything else. I recommend it be stricken. Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He's under enough stress already w/o that. Dlohcierekim 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Seems okay with me. Good luck. Jianhui67 Talk 11:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Aside from the arguments below there is little harm in giving him the tools. Mistakes can be reverted and if he makes too many the tools can just be taken away. Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about this user as an admin, but many of these opposes are ridiculous. "Only 11 months after rfa" (that's awfully long), "No self-noms" (stupid), and anti-"no social media" (you seriously think this is facebook? oh god). (misread that one) Valenciano's oppose, however, does make me consider not supporting. Wizardman 15:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (moved to Neutral)[reply]
    @Wizardman: either you or I have misread Kraxler's oppose (currently #7), which you describe as anti-"no social media". I believe Kraxler is pro-"no social meida" and is opining that the candidate's userpage fails to comply with WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. (I'm not saying I agree with that, just suggesting a misunderstanding here.) Now, since I plan not to !vote at this RFA, may I ask whether it's really a good idea to !vote against your judgement of a candidate, just to militate against the !votes of other editors? Would it be reasonable, in that case, for me to oppose in order to counteract your !vote? This way leads to a tactical-vote-fest that will have ever more to do with voter interaction and ever less to do with the candidate. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Redacted that one after re-reading it; I don't necessarily agree that the userpage is a violation, but it is a pain to read. If I don't consider the opposes valid, then why would that be an issue? I'm considering myself a weak support, but I'm not voting just to counteract, especially since the outcome looks pretty clear, my vote's not going to change that. Wizardman 19:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Per Wizardman. We have self-noms all the time. Quite a few succeed. And my eyes tend to glaze when someone gets into mistakes in the AFD alphanumeric soup. That can be learned. I'm interested in the person.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - my interactions with Rcsprinter123, including through the adoption program, have been nothing but positive, and I would trust him to wield the mop to block some clear-cut vandals and doing some work at WP:RPP and WP:PERM. My only concern would be should he or she decide to tread into ANI, but he or she expresses no interest to do so. Go Phightins! 19:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support 11 months is a loooooong time. Having to wait several years between Rfa's strikes me as ridiculous. I see absolutely no reason why RCSprinter wouldn't make a fine admin Tazerdadog (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Wizardman and Kumioko. Most of the opposes are unconvincing because they are poorly informed and misleading (Jasper Deng), want ridiculously long times between requests (Kudpung and buffbills7701), contain incorrect claims of 3RR violations (Trevj), focus on the candidate's now-indeffed adoptee (various), or are utterly frivolous (PinkAmpersand and Automatic Strikeout). Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Added frivolous opposers comment. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC) EDIT #2: I just researched the Artic Kangaroo issue more and struck my claim that the opposes are unfairly focusing on Arctic Kangaroo the adoptee rather than Rcsprinter the adopter. I still do think that several of the opposes read like they are opposing based on Arctic Kangaroo's actions rather than Rcsprinter's. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that 'yearS' is probably OTT, but my concern is one of months and the level of maturity which I also feel has been adequately expressed by some others in the oppose and neutral sections. I also linked to my neutral !vote in the previous RfA. More than just RfA, I see an over-eagerness to be involved in maintenance areas and support roles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issues with people opposing over maturity issues. I do have an issue with people saying "11 months is not enough time since the last RFA". If the candidate has improved, he has improved. If he has not, then he still is not ready. The length of time is largely unimportant. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's somewhat disheartening to see you describe my comments as "utterly frivolous" (just as it was disheartening to see Rc describe my joke as "meaningless"). A) I didn't say it was the only reason I was opposing; rather, I think it's indicative of a temperament issue I see with Rc in general. That was just the only time I've been directly involved in the issue. While lurking around the drama boards, I've seen him behave like that countless times. B) I'm not sure what's so bad with picking the MfDs as my example of this behavior. It's one thing for admins to get grumpy about jokes that consume excessive resources or disrupt mainspace; it's another thing altogether to try to shut down harmless and minimal projectspace humor (humor that, mind you, two arbs, several functionaries and 'crats, and a WMF employee [in his official capacity] saw fit to partake in). C) I agree with you about some of the oppose !votes (though I think Kudpung's points have been largely misunderstood), but I'm surprised to see you lumping the ArcticKangaroo stuff in there. The phrase "now-indeffed adoptee" itself should be setting off alarm bells, whatever Rc's complicity may or may not have been. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing someone because he takes a dim view on the April Fool's Day jokes or tomfoolery or whatever you want to call them is frivolous. One joke RFA or AFD might be humorous. 5+ is excessive, and there were far more than that number of AFDs that I alone deleted. "I didn't say it was the only reason I was opposing"—I can only go by what you write, and when you only cite April Fool's, then all I can conclude is that is your sole reason for opposing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've had one or two nice-enough interactions with Rc, but I've had far more unpleasant ones, most notably his MfDs of the April Fools' Day RfXs (emphasis added). Please read more carefully in the future. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have seen Rcsprinter123 editing around the project too many times to not already know they are a clear net positive. Something appears awry in the tally; moving me to support. :) John Cline (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Wizardman, Kumioko and John Cline. I have spent nearly two hours looking over the votes and the record as well as wavering between support and neutral. I come down in support for the reasons stated by other supporters, because the candidate has improved considerably on areas of concern since his last Rfa, because he has made an extremely large number of contributions in a wide variety of areas and because some of the opposers concerns appear to me to be dated and insufficient in view of positive contributions and improvements by the candidate not to vote in support of the candidate as a net positive. I do see a few incidents of overzealousness and perhaps immaturity and a few mistakes over the past six months. Anyone with the number of edits the candidate has is likely to make a few mistakes. Perhaps he could have handled a few matters a bit differently or let them go. However, I think the candidate will learn from these and continuously improve as he has been doing. I do take the opposers views and a few of their examples seriously, which is why I took some time to reach a conclusion. But for the reasons stated, I come down in support. Donner60 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I'm generally fine with your answer to my question.Although I don't have time to do deep investigation,I believe you can be trusted with sysop tools.Lsmll 12:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support, largely per Wehwalt. Frankly, I agree with the criticisms that the answers to questions 1–3 seem too casual, and about the bad advice to an adoptee, and I expect that this RfA will not pass, but I want to go a few nanometers beyond "neutral" in expressing the opinion that we shouldn't fail a candidate on age concerns. This editor is someone I've seen around, and I believe that they have good intentions and are willing to learn. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose, per my !vote on his previous RfA. I only !voted neutral because in spite of the many issues I listed, I didn't want to pile on, but the reasons still stand because IMO this new RfA comes too hard on the heels of the previous one, and I don't believe that an editor can mature that much in only 11 months to the point of being granted the tools and the other responsibilities that comes with them. That said, he is an enthusiastic and valuable content contributor and should be encouraged to keep up the good work. Perhaps in another 12 months I may support. 12:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  2. Regretful Oppose I also agree that only 11 months since your last RfA isn't enough for you to be mature enough to be granted the tools. buffbills7701 12:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, there are many second-round RfA that took place 6 months after failing in the first attempt. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, unless I see evidence that an this editor who's unfortunately broken the three-revert rule as recently as April 2013 has enough plenty of clue. (I see that there was a sockpuppet investigation, but I still don't agree with the adopted approach to resolving this issue.) The image licensing advice offered at Arctic Kangaroo's adoption page was not well informed. I know it can be daunting for new users to be directed to policy documents, but doing so can avoid the spread of misinformation. I was neutral last time, and I'm very sorry but I still don't feel able to support just yet. I'd suggest further discussing some issues with community members (if you've not already done so), with a view to a successful 3rd attempt not being a self-nomination. The candidate's experience, honesty and eagerness to help certainly merit adminship - if this request proves unsuccessful, I think that a further request early in 2014 wouldn't be inappropriate, provided that editors' concerns can be demonstrably addressed. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Reaper Eternal's support comments above, apologies if my assessment of 3RR is incorrect. I'd very much welcome some elaboration to help me understand. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC) OK - sorry, I missed more than three reverts! I'll revisit my position a bit later on today. -- Trevj (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)  Revisited [1] -- Trevj (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose because you seem a good editor who wouldn't abuse most of the tools. However I'm concerned at some of your recent CSD tagging. While your CSD log looks good at first glance, it doesn't give an accurate picture due to you removing articles like The_Veg_Shed from the list, which makes it more difficult to get an overall idea of how you would be with the tools. Looking at The Veg Shed article, 8 days ago you nominated it for deletion on A7 grounds 2 minutes after creation. Besides the fact that that's way too quick for A7 (only things like vandalism, attack pages and copyvios should be used so quickly) a simple google search immediately brings up reliable sources which suggest notability. On the page creator's talkpage you justified that by saying "Two minutes it may be, but if there isn't enough there to justify keeping, I'm inclined to speedy." That's quite worrying. Also a week ago, I find another ill judged A7. Being "a distinguished Soviet mathematician and economist [who] contributed to the fields of mathematical economics and especially game theory" is a credible claim of notability disqualifying the article from A7, and again searching would show up various obituaries and even a theory, the Bondareva–Shapley theorem, named after her. Those two together suggest to me that you don't follow the basic preliminaries of WP:BEFORE. The declined speedy of Two Curious Puppies from last week is less serious, but also indicates a tendency towards deleting rather than seeking suitable alternatives. Most of your prods look fine, but there is the prod of Pakistan Tobacco Board a few weeks ago, where you say "No proper explanation of what this thing does or why it's notable for wikipedia", even though the article at the time stated that is "a statutory semi-autonomous department of Government of Pakistan [which] oversees the promotion of the cultivation, manufacture and export of tobacco and tobacco products in Pakistan" and news articles about it and its activities are easy to locate. I don't expect admins to be perfect but this is all too recent and unfortunately I wouldn't have confidence in you having access to the delete button, especially since you say that that is part of the admin work you intend to participate in. Valenciano (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I actually said I will stay away from deletion, particularly CSDs, not the opposite as you suggest. I know I'm not too strong with them and I don't want to go making even larger mistakes when I can delete. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 14:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RC, I think that you are actually reinforcing a widely held view that with adminship as it currently stands, RfA candidates are expected to be able to handle all the tools responsibly if they have access to them - whether they say they intend to use them or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    RC, if you'd explicitly said that you would avoid deletion altogether, then I'd probably have sat this one out. However what you actually said was "Deletion I only plan to do when necessary but not in a routine way." That's quite vague, but indicates some involvement in the deletion processes. In general I trust you, so if it were possible to give you the tools without deletion buttons, I'd be for that. Sadly, as Kudpung notes, it's all or nothing and deletion buttons to me are far too important a part of an admin's arsenal for me to support you at this time. Valenciano (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the levels of maturity and clue I'd need to see in order to support. As a self nomination, I'd expect much more thought to have gone into the nomination and the answers to the questions. It's important to use the questions as a vehicle to demonstrate your knowledge and illustrate how you would approach the admin role, and it's equally important to make sure you have answered them fully. The candidate is obviously very keen to help, but I'm not convinced they have the judgement and skills necessary for the mop at this point. Valenciano's deletion nomination diffs/links are a little concerning, too. I'd also agree with Trevj that the best way to know when you are ready for another nomination is to wait until someone is ready to nominate you next time. I do encourage you to keep up the good work, and I'm sure, in time, you could be ready for this chore - I just don't think that's quite yet. Begoon talk 13:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Per Editor Valenciano: To quick to delete especially in situations that may require a tad more investigation. Plus. I'm not fond of self-nominations. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - User page layout disagrees with "Wikipedia is not social media" guideline, un-clean block log, very weak answers to questions above, the well founded opposes above, etc. etc. Kraxler (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but what's wrong with the user page? So it's colorful--I don't see a problem there. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks rather like a Facebook page, IMO, especially the infobox. When I saw it, on August 27, it also had a box, calling the visitor to complete a phrase, with the first three words given, sort of interactive net game... Also, the excess of barnstars makes me believe that the candidate is "hat collecting" here, the intention being to show the admin badge, but not really to work with the mop. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose after the April 3RR and Valenciano's comments about speed. This user also recently gave incorrect advice to an adoptee, who is now blocked. Surely, this article that you recently created needs a reference so the content can be verified? In your reply to Valenciano, you state that you will "stay away from deletion", when in your answer to the first question, you say that you shall only do it when necessary. Will you stay away from deletion completely? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that I won't delete anything apart from things in my own userspace and very basic housekeeping, if only occasionally. As for the adoptee episode, that was not brought to my attention when that ANI was filed (or at all until just now) and although it may not have showed quite rightly in my advice to the adoptee, I do know what I am doing with copyright. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 17:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of your answer to question 7, would you consider modifying your above statement "I do know what I am doing with copyright"? Media copyright is a complex and difficult subject. (Also, your answer has still not considered the basis for commons:Template:PD-textlogo, that is commons:COM:TOO.) --99of9 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Begoon and Thine Antique Pen. For your next RfA, I'd encourage you to seek advice from other users before running. (Note: I don't exactly have a problem with the amount of time elapsed since the last RfA. A lot can change in a year).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jasper, You are taking one aspect of a much broader and longer discussion and twisting it to your needs for this oppose. Yes he gave bad advice but there was a lot more to that case than just bad advice and it wasn't Rcs's fault that user got blocked. It isn't fair to blame Rcs for that. I recommend reviewing that case and then refining the statement above to match what actually happened. This may also shed some light as well. Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not convinced the candidate's maturity is suitable for adminship, and I should've clarified that that's my main concern.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but IMO if they are trustworthy enough to run a bot for a length of time without issues then its unlikely they are going to abuse the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Although the time since last RfA isn't problematic to me, the more recent issues are indicative of lack of critical thinking skills. Even though user will avoid deletion, the reasoning ability is needed. Even housekeeping deletions require judgment (as well as quiet dignity and apolmb), as supposedly non controversial G6's can turn ugly. Page protection requires careful consideration and a weighing of pro's and con's. Before one can block other users, the most terrible of our tools, one must demonstrate good judgment. The advice given to AK was poor judgment, even though it was not the only factor in that debacle. Not sure how user violated 3RR. It's not easy sometimes to follow 1RR, but sometimes one must step back and regain perspective. The need for this is even greater when one has the buttons. Again judgment, what others are calling "maturity". I'm afraid I haven't the confidence to grant the user the tools even on a limited basis. Dlohcierekim 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per the above. I also state my in my RFA standards that going a year with out a significant incident is a requirement of mine. Mkdwtalk 22:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose - per my objections at the last RfA. RCSprinter needs to consider multiple years before getting the mop not a just months, I understand the eagerness of youth but admins need to demonstrate patience as well. It should be noted that I'm involved since RCSprinter attempted to get administrative action against me in April [2] for having used the term "Bus Spotter" (not directed at him but at people who self identified by that term. It's also worth noting that in the fallout from the "Artic Kangaroo" case that it was RCSprinter who adopted AK and mentored him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per the above concerns. And its been only a year since your last RFA, so maybe wait a few more years before requesting again. StevenD99 Talk | Stalk 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I find this (and other opposes based on "only(!) a year since last RfA") a tad ridiculous. Years before applying again? That's completely arbitrary; not many volunteers stay more than a few years before moving on to different things. We should be encouraging our best editors and helping them to get on, not hitting them with worthless restrictions just for the sake of it. The worst possible outcome of this (or indeed any) RfA is that the candidate ends up leaving the project in dejection, but this kind of oppose is exactly what leads to that scenario. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I think I've had one or two nice-enough interactions with Rc, but I've had far more unpleasant ones, most notably his MfDs of the April Fools' Day RfXs (1 2 3), in which he demonstrated both an unhelpful uptightness (which Jimbo has recently [rightly] proclaimed to be one of Wikipedia's greatest challenges) and a stunning degree of incivility (under what circumstances is it appropriate to describe dozens' of editors' contributions, humorous or not, as "mindless"?). We have more than enough admins dedicated to rigid enforcement of the rules at the expense of the 'pedia. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 15:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose because of the April Fools' Day MfDs, which are noted above. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. 11 months isn't long enough compared to other admins who have been here for years. Shakeheitor (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if you've read that right - I've been here over three years, and it's only been nearly twelve months since my last RfA. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 16:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sock, blocked indef by Legoktm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Kudpong and AS (among others). Intothatdarkness 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The advice to Arctic Kangaroo was incorrect and problematic, please be a lot more cautious about advising others in future - if in doubt reread the relevant policy and quote it. Copyright is especially important to get right. Re the CSD tagging, I wouldn't have a problem supporting a candidate who was going to avoid deletion, but if a candidate has recent deletion tagging then it really ought to be accurate. Thanks for your contributions here, I'd be happy to reassess in a few months if you address those issues. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Kudpung & PublicAmpers. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Lord No I was thinking of supporting, simply to cancel out those 11 months not enough votes (when did we came to that conclusion?), until I found he had a major role in the Arctic Kangaroo fiasco. Considering that the case was very sensitive, (there's more to it but won't reveal) I simply can't support at this time. Secret account 01:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose per above --cyrfaw (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Too many problems, too terse an attitude to other editors and serious lack of good judgement. This recent edit on the talk page of a good faith editor, who was editing in line with current consensus on lists of local bus routes, shows the readiness of Rcsprinter123 to intimidate others. Not long before this he had conspired off wiki with User:Adam mugliston, an editor who had been inactive for some time, to make a joint complaint against myself and several other editors at the administrators noticeboard. This seemed to be some bizarre attempt to get all of us topic banned so that the pair of them could get back to their favourite pastime of creating a huge secondary source database of local bus routes within Wikipedia, contrary to WP:NOT. If there was another level of sysop restricted to routine housekeeping tasks that might work but adminship is all or nothing and it is clear from various comments above that this editor would not be regarded as competent to work in large areas of admin work. The answer therefore has to be no.--Charles (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I spotted some NOTDIR action while looking through Faresaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's clear to me from WP:NOTDIR that such detailed bus route information is unlikely to be appropriate as encyclopedic content. An example given in that policy (For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable) can be extrapolated to other topic areas such as bus routes. The most up-to-date information can't realistically be maintained here on Wikipedia, and readers would be better served by visiting a dedicated timetable/planning site or similar, e.g. http://www.transportdirect.info. It should also be noted that WikiProject Buses/Bus route list guide did not achieve consensus and isn't fully in accordance with NOTDIR.
    Having said all of that, IMO it can be encyclopedic to include historical and notable information about certain routes, giving such information due weight within the content of the overall topic. However, a default to including all such information (particularly where such information is liable to change and cannot be reliably sourced, e.g. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided) falls under what Wikipedia is not, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet. -- Trevj (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - I don't agree with many of the opposes on the original RfA, but the terse attitude and immaturity issue seems to keep cropping up. I don't think adminship is suitable right now. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Enthusiastic - that's great. Unfortunately you appear to overrate your understanding of copyright, and that led to trouble when advising AK. It's also somewhat disappointing to see someone apply for adminship twice before trying once to get an article above C-grade. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I think there is a misunderstanding here too. I have got two articles up to GA, but neither of them were primarily written by me. That article mentioned in the questions is simply my best which I have written, but it doesn't mean I can't promote content. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose You need a bit more seasoning before you get the mop. Whispering 14:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, largely per Shadowjams, the non-clean block log, and the April Fool's Day RfXs. JPG-GR (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - agree with some of the opposes regarding maturity and answers to questions, however there is not enough for me to join them. GiantSnowman 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Seems like a rush for the tool kit. Not sure why. You don't need validation in this way, friend. Just work hard, don't get any more muck on the block log, and in the future when you really need the gear for a concrete purpose, I'm sure it will become available to you. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I've seen sprinter here and there and I have found nothing troublesome enough for me to oppose. Actually, i have not seen him involved in any of our showtime dramas. However, I don't think he's ready yet for the role of an administrator. Maybe next time. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Some opposes do make sense, but there are merits as well. Currently undecided. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I opposed last time around, but now I'm bumping myself up to neutral. The 3RR violation mentioned in the oppose section is too close for comfort and There are lingering concerns regarding Rcsprinter's judgment, but I have also seen vast improvement over the past year. I can only reiterate what I'd said last time — try again in 6-12 months with a demonstrated track record of sound decision making, and I'll likely support. Kurtis (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no 3RR violation. While all the involved editors reverted each other more than was necessary, they did resolve the dispute, and Rcsprinter, at least, did not violate the three revert rule. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually just coming here to correct myself. I didn't have much time to review the RfA in its entirety when I went neutral. I've striken the above note. Kurtis (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - The only thing that's leaving me from supporting is that I'm a bit concerned about this user's clue when it comes to vandalism. Back in February, he left this message on a user talk page after I reverted this bit of obvious vandalism. This thread on his talk page followed, which left me with mixed feelings. I am a bit concerned about this, but everything else seems to be in place, so that's not nearly enough for me to oppose. This !vote is not based on that of anybody else, and I'm not concerned about the eleven months he's spent between RfAs. TCN7JM 12:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not convinced by time since last RfA oppose argument, but I'm generally not quite ready to support on maturity concerns. NativeForeigner Talk 17:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral, leaning oppose. After re-reading the opposes I saw the Arctic Kangaroo link that I missed the first time. The bad advice caused problems big time, and as someone who takes copyright seriously, that concerns me enough to withdraw any support I had. Wizardman 16:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral. I can't support at this time because of the Arctic Kangaroo business, but there's no need for me to oppose either. I trust that the candidate digests some of the sound advice given above, and I hope to support next time. — sparklism hey! 11:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral Despite the AK issue, the candidate has made a number of positive contributions (including maintaining a bot) but not enough to be considered a net positive. Take this as moral support, and keep on keeping on. Miniapolis 23:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I have seen Sprinter here and there. And believe me I had been impressed. However, 1 or 2 of the issues listed in the "Oppose" section weren't rejuvenating. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 08:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rcsprinter123_2&oldid=1142989737"