Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pvmoutside

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.

Pvmoutside[edit]

Final (63/68/20); ended 00:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Pvmoutside (talk · contribs) – I've been an editor since 2006, and I've been spending most of my time in Wikiproject Birds and lately some in Wikiproject Fishes. My efforts have been to keep taxonomy pages up to date, although I have done some reverting of vandalism, and other edits that are incorrect (see Goldfish for a recent update.Pvmoutside (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading all the comments below, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. I appreciate all those that supported my self-nomination. I also appreciated all the constructive criticism in both supporting and opposing opinions, and learned a lot. It is clear I was not specific enough in my answers to questions. I also enjoy creating/editing content so I was not put off by a probable rejection as an admin. I offered it up as an assist to the community, and not trying to be selfish with my interests. I will say that some comments bothered me a bit. I know admin requests are not for new editors, so you all have some expectations with candidates. However I was sincere with my request, I really do want to see Wikipedia continue to be an outstanding resource, and really do want to help the organization in any way I can. To suggest otherwise or to question my motives hurt a bit, as I try to live my life with as much integrity as I know how to live it. I am usually conservative with my actions, so my tendency is to not take any actions for the first time, without consultation. We all make mistakes. I know I learn from all of mine. No one is perfect. So again, thank-you for all your comments, and for any of you out there having any further positive comments on how I can further assist Wikipedia, please by all means share them with me. It was a pleasure learning from you......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: The reason for my request is so I can have the ability to delete redirects if a species page is locked if the page needs to be moved (see a recent edit I've done on Pomarine jaeger). With that and other edits, I would request another admin for the delete and move, and all have granted my requests. By becoming an admin, I would no longer need to bother them. Any controversial changes have been always discussed prior to my changes. I have a current request to admin Casliber for 14 fish species page moves that could be done by myself, so Casliber could be involved with something else Cas could be more interested in doing. If granted adminship, I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Best efforts were collaboration on the bird article, a cleanup of goldfish. My tendency is to make articles up to date and accurate as possible given it is a volunteer effort.
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: So there was some pushback on my statement of my perception of no recent edit conflicts. So let me try to explain a bit more. I have had discussions with other editors over controversial edits. They normally start with a questioning back and forth before we both reach consensus. If no consensus is reached, then I usually take it to the wikiproject for a larger consensus discussion...And, I do not stress over any of those discussions..Pvmoutside (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Ritchie333
(note, I have supported, this question is intended to strengthen the support from other people and avoid opposes; don't answer if you don't want to)
4. A brand new user creates an article. It reads : "Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz." What actions, if any, would you take?
A:....looks like a speedy delete to me......If it makes a difference, not knowing admin procedure, to be honest, I would have probably speedy deleted it outright. After learning a bit more over the last day, if a similar article structure would come up, I would now have tagged it as a speedy delete and wait for other admins to comment
Additional question from User:Drmies
5. Pvmoutside, a few admin colleagues are in hot water right now. One current case, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vipul.27s_paid_editing_enterprise.2C_again, boils down to whether an admin can unilaterally unblock someone who was blocked indefinitely following an AN/ANI discussion (as some argue, "de facto-community banned). What do you think? I'm not necessarily asking for a grand exposition of policy--I'm interested in your judgment. Thank you.
A:...a community indefinite block should not be unblocked without a wider discussion by the admin community
Additional question from Ahecht
6. It sounds like your primary reason for requesting adminship, swapping a redirect with its target page, could be done with the Page mover permission by performing a round-robin page move. Do you have an actual desire to work on page protection and user blocking, or would becoming a page mover be sufficient for you?
A: I believe I can do that now if I'm moving an article to a new page. The issue becomes if I'm moving a page to an existing page, usually a redirect and I get blocked. Reading pagemover, it would be I believe a 5 step process, which would be too time consuming to me, and I'd rather contact one of the admins I've been using to have them do it. I have a wonderful time editing content, and am happy with that. I offered to become an admin to help the greater Wikipedia if it is needed, and am willing to learn the admin functions slowly over time, and with other experienced admin advice.....I see there is some objection to my admin request. If the request is not granted, I am happy what I'm doing now and continuing to contact other admins with the move requests as needed.
Additional question from Newyorkbrad
7. Would you be willing to address the concern a couple of people have raised below about your edit summary usage, but setting your preferences (as I have done) to prompt you for an edit summary when you forget to include one?
A:...yes
Additional question from Glrx
8. You uploaded a picture of Representative Stephanie Murphy on 11 January 2017. You identified the source of the image as https://www.facebook.com/RepStephMurphy/ and claimed the picture was public domain: that is, that some person had waived copyright. The copyright holder is not identified. Who holds the copyright? Where is the public domain grant?
A:...I found her picture on what I thought was a public site, particularly since other congresspersons had similarly looking portraits that were kept on their pages from a couple of weeks prior. Since it was a US government related site, I didn't think it had a copyright, and was already in the public domain....given the other pages showing similar images. After a discussion, the issue was handled comprehensively with all the questionable pages dealt with.


Additional question from Herostratus
9. Pvmoutside, I don't usually like to ask this, but in your case it might be a good idea: will you make yourself available to recall per Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall under the default procedure? In your case I don't see you making lots of enemies by wading in with warnings and blocks in contentious fights etc., since that's not your interest. At the same time, some concerns have been raised. So in your case I think it would be functional if we could recall you reasonably easily if these concerns prove justified. Fair enough? Just a Yes or No is all that's needed.
A:..I'd hope you do this with any admin, especially first time ones....most definitely yes


Additional question from Forceradical
10.Pvymoutside,If you were to encounter an IP adress who removed "best know for" from before a word in an article citing POV in the edit summary, What would you do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forceradical (talk • contribs) 11:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A:..On the face, it looks harmless, and I would leave it, unless the POV referred to the statement in question, to which I'd try to find the Wikipedia information page that answers that question and act accordingly.
Additional question from FriyMan
11, Infamous RFA question: You come upon the following usernames at UAA. What do you do? Cheers, FriyMan talk 12:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammtar
  • Donald Trump
  • Chick-fil-A
  • StepanatMcDonald's
  • FriyMan lives in saint petersburg
  • Suckmy
  • LOL GUNNA breakWiki
  • BobTheAdmin
  • MegaBot
  • Justin Bieber OFFICIAL
  • Jay Zeamer
  • Requests for Adminship
A:..Some reference business brand names, some suggest vandalism, some suggest vulgarity, some suggest Wikipedia functions. I would search appropriate Wikipedia information articles and act accordingly.
Additional question from Mr. Guye
12. Some editors have raised concerns about you, essentially saying that you are overspecialized to redirects. Many in particular point to your relative lack of Articles for deletion participation; they say you have participated in AfD only 9 times in 10.5 years. This has (so far) caused a lot of pile-on opposes. What is your defense?
A:I spend most of my time in the Wikiprojects Birds, Wikiproject Fishes, and Wikiprojects U.S. Congress pages. I've tried to participate in Rfds whenever I see one come up on those talk pages. I may have missed a few. Even if this request for adminship fails, I could spend a couple hours a week offering opinions if it would be helpful.....My primary interest is still content, but don't mind spending a bit of time in Rfd if you all think that would be helpful.....


Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. support pvmoutside will be using tools for gnome-work. He is sensible and has the best interests of the 'pedia at heart. I highly doubt he is going to do anything untoward. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support Thanks for being willing to take on these additional responsibilities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - seems like a thoughtful user who engages in productive discourse and will make use of the tools. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Normally, Cas's OK would be enough for me, and I support giving the bit to gnomes who don't have a history at the drama boards, WP:AIV, etc. but who want use it for maintenance. That might be a tough sell to the normal RFA crowd, but I like it. Plus thru-hiking the AT counts towards a support too. My only concern is the stated willingness to help by "blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing". I wish pvmoutside would reconsider that; I won't oppose over it, because they seem like a clueful sort and they seem pretty unlikely to be too aggressive, but that's not a great area for a new admin to offer to wade into without any significant vandalism fighting experience, or dispute resolution experience, or familiarity with blocking "norms". If you agree not to block anyone without checking with another admin first, at least for a while until you're more familiar, I'll make this a full-throated support; right now it's a bit more hesitant than normal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the plan......I offered the other services in a way to best help Wikipedia. I know even experienced admins have trouble over blocking and unblocking editors....I would check with other admins before taking any action I am unfamiliar with....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, "full-throated" it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Pvoutside is one of those editors doing great work in the background that no one ever hears about. Specifically, they have a BS degree in wildlife biology and their editing definitely reflects that. They've created over 900 scientific article stubs for various animals and 2600 helpful redirects. The admin tools would assist them in their article creation by allowing them to make non-controversial deletions and page moves to improve this space of the encyclopedia. Pvmoutside is responsive and civil in explaining their actions to others as can be evidenced by their userpage and they can be counted on to avoid controversy. I think Pvmoutside would make a great addition to the admin corps.--v/r - TP 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support clear understanding of role and responsibilities w/ no indications of misusing the mop-and-bucket. Dlohcierekim 15:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support with reservations With over a decade's tenure, a clean block log, and extensive and nontrivial taxonomic gnome work, the candidate has demonstrated a need for some admin tools and a reliable temperament. I have reservations about his ability to communicate clearly with other editors (e.g. in Talk:Hillary_Clinton/Archive_37#Requested_edit and User_talk:Pvmoutside/Archive_1#Alectroenas_nitidissima), as well as his "fluency" in WP policy and conventions (e.g. User_talk:Pvmoutside/Archive_1#Lists_of_Caribbean_reptiles_and_amphibians, User_talk:Pvmoutside#IUCN_updates); however, I do not believe these problems will interfere with his using the tools as stated, and he seems unlikely to go too far beyond this remit. FourViolas (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Seems trustworthy enough. Welcome to the team :) WaggersTALK 15:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I had concluded at the recent WP:ORCP that I would support an RfA, and the concerns about Q3 were addressed immediately. No other issues. A lack of experience with obscure template formatting is something that can be learned "on the job" and is easily fixable anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral support, but... an RfA might get ugly fairly quick, and my reading of Q1 is "I want to be able to overwrite redirects, and since I need to show I will be a useful admin I volunteer for some dirty work". As hinted to in the general discussion below, the first part seems to be covered by the page mover user right, which would probably be granted without much noise, so I would suggest that Pvmoutside withdraw the RfA if that is all they need. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that RfA seems on the way to go down in flames (35/35 right now). To be honest copyright issues give me a significant pause as well, but I will stay there for encouragement. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. This editor will make good and careful use of the tools. I've never seen anything to give me cause for concern, no reservations at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: No issues overall and per my comment at RFAP. Good luck with the mop! KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 16:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support notwithstanding my comment below. Candidate's most serious misconduct is evident in a few unpaired bracket and disambiguation link notices in their talk archive, none of them recent. They've created over 3,600 (!) articles and another 2,600+ redirects, plus 400-ish templates in their 10+ years. 90,000+ edits, 82% of which are in article space. Lack of participation in administrative functions is apparent, but I don't see any cause to be concerned about carelessness on this candidate's part. As Ritchie333 observed below, they're able to recognize when they've made mistakes and work quickly to correct. Good luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Superlative content work, low drama. I'm not sure why adminship is required for a motivation that seems covered by WP:PAGEMOVER, though. I'd be glad to have clarification about that, purely out of curiosity. Given the tenure, I don't think adminship would be inappropriate even if that's the only part of the tool they are really interested in. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Pvmoutside has an excellent knowledge of the moving policy and if they do move into other areas, it will be slowly and with the advice of other, more knowledgeable admins. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: Anyone with this experience of content creation (how many articles?!), with no real drama and a very collegial approach, should almost get adminship automatically. While the page mover right might be sufficient for the main stated intention here, having access to the rest of the toolbox should be of benefit and I see extremely low risk in granting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Discussion here so far shows that the candidate is a trustworthy editor who has done a lot of content work. The nomination and answers demonstrate a clear benefit from getting admin tools. (See also my analysis in #General comments below on why this editor deserves more than PMR.) Deryck C. 17:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No apparent difficulties. As with most admins, I suspect that once you start with the main work you want the tools for, you'll soon start using them more broadly. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral, because of very weak answers to the questions. At see my comment in that section. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per DGG and Boing. Kablammo (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as a net positive move for the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support candidate is a net positive. In my opinion, the lack of need for the tools is irrelevant and the mistakes in transcluding the RfA hardly disqualify the candidate. Lepricavark (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as a net positive. Not transcluding correctly, while maybe a high-visibility mistake, is (I think) practically irrelevant. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - don't see any issues at all. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I must say, this is not your 'average' RFA candidate. I get the point that he has barely any experience in the traditional admin areas, but what he does have is thousands of edits over a decade of editing experience, which is more than enough in my opinion. Let's face it: he's not going to suddenly become a prolific AFD closer, blocker or page protector. What I am sure of is he will tread carefully, and continue as he has always done so since 2006 - edit, create, write, discuss, collaborate. Should he feel the need to venture into those areas, I know he will do so with extra caution. With the addition of some extra tools, that I am sure that will come in useful from time to time, I'm sure this candidate as an admin will only be a net positive. Aiken D 19:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Long-time dedicated editor. I don't doubt that he would be careful as a new admin, and would learn as he goes. Daphne Lantier 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per Floquenbeam. Andrevan@ 21:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Find the oppose rationals weak. Editors have too much of a habit of looking at bare statistics and blowing up minor mistakes in an attempt to find a reason to oppose instead of looking at whether giving the editor the tools will be a net positive. Nothing gives me any doubt about that and I couldn't care less that they struggled to transclude this properly and I cringe when I see the usual "no need" !votyes trotted out. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support As Boing! said Zebedee makes clear: contributors like Pvmoutside are exactly the folks we should be giving admin tools to when they ask. Massive content creation, an absence of drama and a willingness to learn are far more desirable qualities in an admin than "success percentage at AfD" or huge volumes of mindless button mashing on NPP. It's about time we returned adminship to what it was always meant to be: a few extra abilities for editors that we are happy to trust with them. --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I see no problems that should bar him becoming an admin.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Candidate is a conscientious, veteran contributor who has actively worked to improve WP. His on-line interactions with myself and others have been both helpful and collegial. RfA transclusion trip-up is a non-issue and edit summaries back up his competence. I fully expect that Pvmoutside will wield the mop responsibly. Loopy30 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Floquenbeam and RexxS. Double sharp (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support a dedicated editor who likes birds and hates drama would make a good admin. It's a misconception that all admins need to do tons of AfD, we need different kind of admins to do different things. Karlpoppery (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support WP:NOBIGDEAL Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I find the oppose rationales weak. So pvmoutside may not need the tools or may not be fully aware of protocol ... so what? If (s)he is not going to hurt the encyclopedia or do harmful things that are not easily reverted, that's sufficient for me. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate wants the tools so that he can beaver away on content by himself. If he lacks competence and makes technical mistakes, as he seems to, then the risk is that he will create a mountain of issues which will then take time for others to unpick. We've seen this before with other industrious types like Neelix. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. I'm not concerned about the difficulty transcluding this template, which could trip anyone up. This editor has been creating articles about species since 2006 with little drama. We do need more non-dramatic admins and I think granting it here would benefit the project. Jonathunder (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I don't think he would mishandle the mop. A lack of experience in admin-related activities doesn't mean that he can't ease his way through. I mean, I don't see him diving straight into WP:AIV or WP:AE anytime soon. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Moral support, because there is no way this will pass. It is clearly a good-faith attempt by a long-time editor with outstanding content creation to improve the encyclopedia, without knowing about what it takes to pass RfA. Their intentions can be covered by the page mover right anyway. Laurdecl talk 08:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, because of great content creation with little fuss, no reason to believe trust will be betrayed. A need to balance the current slant in administrators, different admins for different things. Ear-phone (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Quirky. I like it. Nice to see a gnomic content producer here. Ericoides (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. We need to continue to promote new admins. Candidate is supported by several editors whose opinion I respect. Answers to questions are fine, and Oppose arguments not that strong. Objections are mainly on technical issues on which candidate can get up to speed -- no one is suggesting that candidate is a jerk or anything. Seems quite the contrary actually. If you're a jerk, you can't easily change, but if you're not, you can learn the technical stuff. So what if he doesn't care about AfD much. Finally, candidate has agreed to be subject to recall, so if it doesn't work out, we can do that. Herostratus (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per Floq, TParis and Boing! said Zebedee. I was hoping to see answers to additional questions, but don't blame the candidate if they're discouraged. They're a net positive, and I trust them not to misuse the tools. Many decent admins don't know where they'll end up working when they submit an RfA. Miniapolis 13:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Candidate answered my question, and I am satisfied with the response.--Mr. Guye (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Quoting WP:RFA: "The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be...." The user has a good track record and initially asked for the tools for a very specific, gnomic purpose. I think it's a net positive to have some people like that have the tools.
    No, they may not know the ins and outs of every tool in the mop bucket, but what admin did on day one? What I am seeing signs that they're willing to learn and ask for help as the need arises. As Herostratus pointed out, there's always the recall option, but I'm thinking that the admin community could mentor this user so we wouldn't need to go that route. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. This user's content creation and fine work in an esoteric area convinces me he would be an OK administrator. However, I understand the opposes' rationale. My main contributing factor here is his long service and obvious aversion to drama. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. With extensive use of Wikipedia, and apparently clear understanding of acceptable policy, I don't have major opposition for this wikipedian to assist in important article curation. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Admin tools are needed in pursuits both adventurous and mundane. There is, of course, a learning curve, but a dedicated editor who is clearly here to help build a good encyclopedia will learn what is needed just fine. bd2412 T 23:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - long time editor, will not likely abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - It's pretty clear where this RFA is going at this point, but I find the opposes unpersuasive. On the subject of question 4, while speedy delete might not be the optimal response, I have trouble seeing it is a particularly damaging one...and, in any event, the candidate doesn't appear to intend to work in that area. Steve Smith (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Failure to transclude the RFA properly is a positive. It just proves the point that the candidate is not the kind of mouth-breathing IT geek who comprises at least half the administrative corps -- and the bad half -- but rather someone who actually focuses on the big issues, like ensuring that wikipedia presents accurate and comprehensive coverage of areas within the candidate's expertise. As BsZ says above, this is a very low-risk proposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to Q4 is correct. Some punk kid spends 10 seconds creating a silly "article". The correct response is a quick and easy delete, regardless of the damn criteria. An admin who doesn't delete that is just wasting time. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The person I had in mind was a 70 year old retired electrical engineer who had always worked "hands" on with hardware and not had much experience with computers or formal documentation - quite different. Please read this carefully, then formulate a response over there. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your engineer mate is functionally illiterate and has no business being here. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - This is the kind of dedicated editor that would have been made an admin immediately a few years ago. I agree that there are areas where Pvmoutside lacks contribution/knowledge but I also believe he's a careful editor who won't abuse the tools. I see no contributions that really worry me and he seems level-headed and to-the-point. So what's the problem? Give the man a mop. Yintan  14:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support While the candidate is not perfect, there will almost certainly be a net positive with the tools, especially if they stick to the gnoming work they have historically enjoyed. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I almost voted oppose. Their knowledge and experience are too narrow to handle the full range entrusted to administrators, but that's true of the 1/2 the current corps and why the role needs to be split. I think that the candidate will self-limit to their areas of expertise. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I'm not "supposed" to be here, I guess, and I do think you were poorly served by the poll. But really, the project has gotten along just fine giving productive content editors the tools and I see no reason to think Pvmoutside wouldn't do perfectly well within his areas of interest. There are some reasonable and substantive oppose rationales to take into consideration here (the file mistakes are genuine problems) but there are also some really lame ones (ZOMG! How can we possibly trust someone who transcluded his RfA wrong?? I after all have never made a mistake on my first try at doing something complicated.) Mouth-breathing geek (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Opabinia regalis: I laughed at that last parenthetical comment. epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Pvmoutside's contributions look solid; they are a long-time contributor with much content creation. I was a little hesitant to support at all when I noticed that they haven't been editing much in admin areas at all over their wiki career. However, I would like to point to WP:NOBIGDEAL for the reason for my !vote. Even though it doesn't look like their nomination will pass at this time, I will gladly support this editor in their wiki-gnome admin work. epicgenius (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. A good contributor. Deserves a chance to be an admin. - Chandan Guha (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I don't see why not. FACE WITH TEARS OF JOY [u+1F602] 17:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I have no concerns that this user, who I've interacted with for years here, will misuse the tools, and can plainly use them for gnomish tasks. I trust them to check before trying anything new. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - Pvmoutside although you have good content experience, being an admin requires much more experience in the core maintenance areas of Wikipedia. Hence, I would strongly advise you to read all the relevant policies and guidelines before taking any administrative action. Thanks for the good work so far. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - mostly harmless. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Moral support. I've seen Pvmoutside's work around the encyclopedia, and it's excellent. He's a trusted, long-time user. The actual probability that the tools would ever be knowingly misused here are practically nil. However, he is inexperienced in the bureaucracy side of Wikipedia, and it shows, big time. And that's why this is going to fail, unfortunately. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Long term content editor and I see no reason at all to believe that they will misuse the tools. Make mistakes, sure, but don't we all? But I don't see them being dogmatic about their mistakes. The transclusion error isn't really a big deal. Not everyone is proficient at the obscure procedures that seem to rule the world of computing. No worries about this candidate. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support from gnome to gnome, also per Floq, Boing and others whose clue I admire. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, moral at this stage, per regentspark, Sabine's Sunbird just above & others. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support good long-term editor with no issues. Gizza (t)(c) 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support a long-standing contributor with a good record. Hardly likely to thrash about blindly in areas they don't understand. Poltair (talk) 07:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. After more than ten years block free editing I think we can trust this editor with the mop. I'm not greatly worried that they are as yet unfamiliar with areas that they haven't been active in. ϢereSpielChequers 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support: Just read some of the oppose comments and they seem a bit harsh. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Tentative oppose. The candidate has given a good reason for the tools, but the botched RfA insertion gives me pause.[1] O Fortuna raises the issue below, but the candidates's response "....I did read the instructions, and I thought I was entering information correctly" just makes me more queasy. I pawed through some parts of deleted (not archived) user talk page, and I land here.[2][3][4] I don't like even mild issues (no harm, no foul) erased.[5][6] Look at User talk page history for deleted topics. Not being careful, not following directions, and not paying attention are not a good mix. I'll need more time to look through things, and I hope to change my mind, but .... Glrx (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose: Seeing the issue that happened, plus the fact that a few of his requested actions can be just done with WP:PMR. I just feel that it's unnecessary to promote this user to admin so far. I'll be waiting to see the response to Question 6 to see if that'll change my opinion. —JJBers 16:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC) (Changing to neutral)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Zero activity in administrative tasks or areas, zero need for the tools, zero few edit summaries, deletes rather than archiving many important talkpage posts [7] (I'm not talking about bot notices), nearly zero presence at AfD (has only participated in 9 AfDs in 10.5 years and 95,000 edits) [8]. "The reason for my request is so I can have the ability to delete redirects" is absolutely the weakest (and most self-involved/selfish) RfA rationale I have ever seen. This is a very strong no for me. Although this is a very good content creator and encyclopedist, this is not administrative material at all. Softlavender (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC); edited 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary tool shows about an 80% edit summary rate. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't seem to be seeing 80% when when I scroll through his contribs [9]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose – You're a workhorse content creator and you've clearly made Wikipedia a better place over the last decade. If adminship were an editing award, you'd have my vote. I'll be frank, though: this nomination seems extremely rushed. Yesterday you posted your nomination statement directly to the main RfA page without following any of the instructions about creating a subpage and transcluding it. That's the kind of mistake you'd expect from a WP:NOTNOW-caliber user. Your main rationale for requesting the tools seems to be general housekeeping like moving pages over redirects. That's a perfectly good reason; for this purpose, the admin tools still provide many benefits over the page mover right. However, in an effort to appease the WP:NONEED crowd, you've appended your statement with an off-hand remark that "I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages". This was a mistake. Since you've indicated a desire to work in just about every major administrative area, you'll be expected to show experience in those realms. You want to work in blocking, but you've never edited AIV or UAA. You're happy to help with page protection, but you've never edited RFPP. I think you can probably guess where this is going. Normally I'm willing to overlook a lack of time spent at admin noticeboards if there's extensive behind-the-scenes work of a different nature, like building up WikiProject infrastructure, but your last 250 projectspace edits go back to 2007. Adminship is very much a learn-on-the-job deal, but not exclusively so. Per Glrx, neglecting to satisfy attribution requirements and then sweeping plagiarism warnings under the rug is not a good look for a prospective admin, especially when done multiple times. Finally, I think your on-wiki communication practices could stand to be improved. In particular, your edit summary usage is comparatively low; while this doesn't matter in many cases, like when replying on a talk page, large removals of article content like [10] and [11] need to be explained. I'm sure you wouldn't deliberately abuse the tools or cause any serious damage, but I'm just not satisfied that you're ready for this particular role. Sorry and best of luck. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose - Firstly, the candidate's inability to transclude the nomination properly worries me, and secondly, mainly per Softlavender, you have zero experience in administrator areas, and as a result whilst you have a lot of content creation, which is good, I cannot support a candidate who has little experience in admin areas. Sorry. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. It's reasonable. I just want to say that we have made transcluding RFAs to be a huge pain in the ass. I'm a software developer and I fudged it on both of my RfAs.--v/r - TP 18:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with TParis. I screw up every nomination I make. Katietalk 13:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, per Julian. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Softlavender and Juliancolton. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for now. I am impressed by this editor's work and not concerned about a number of the issues raised, like transcluding. I am concerned about some of the issues raised by Juliancolton regarding communication, though "sweeping plagiarism warnings under the rug" dramatically overstates the problem. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gamaliel. How so? Anyone is free to remove just about anything from their talk pages at will, but the candidate has blanked warnings (both templated and hand-written) about providing attribution at least four times ([12], [13], [14], [15]) between August 2016 and April 2017, apparently without acknowledging them or addressing their central problem. This doesn't leave a bad taste for you? It's possible that I'm overlooking something, but a quick look suggests to me that the attribution concerns were valid. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concerns about this and voted oppose partially on this basis, I just disagree with your phrasing, which implies deliberate deception about something which might be more charitably attributed to ignorance. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages. The candidate has hardly any experience of any of these areas: there isn't any record of edits to AIV, UAA, RFPP etc, or tagging pages for deletion, or significant participation in deletion processes (Pvmoutside has taken part in a handful but not more than that). Based on that I wouldn't trust Pvmoutside to take admin actions in any of those areas. They aren't rocket science but there are things you need to know, you can do damage if you make mistakes and there are plenty of people who wouldn't be trusted with it. It is important that admins know their limitations and avoid performing actions in areas where they don't have the necessary skills (or at best tread very carefully). I suggest applying for the page mover user right instead, which s/he would very likely get and which would take care of the main reason for requesting adminship. Hut 8.5 19:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sorry - while you're clearly a good, committed editor I think you need to brush on what admins do/need to do. GiantSnowman 20:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I could have overlooked the mistake when forming this RfA regardless of the seemingly rushed nature of the nomination. I really could have. I can't overlook the lie in response to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's comment.[16] They did not read the instructions. That much is painfully clear. Anyone who even glances at the instruction page should be able to understand that nominations are on subpages. Even brand new NOTNOW editors understand that. Saying that they did look at them instead of just owning up to the mistake is unbecoming of an administrator. You must be able to admit when you are wrong if you are going to have the mop. Saying that they will learn as they go is also iffy at this juncture since that would require actually pausing and taking the time to read instructions. Sorry --Majora (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I never like sitting here in this spot; especially since your creations and expansions have been very good. But there are things pointed out above that give me pause. The consistent use of edit summaries (especially with content removal), proficient experience filing AIV, CSD, and RFPP reports, as well as solid participation in AFD with detailed rationales - are basic hoops you need to jump through before I consider someone for adminship (based on your statement regarding what administrative areas you want to work in). Your follow-up statement offering also to help with blocking users, protecting pages, and deletion comes with very little experience contributing to these areas as an editor. Your first indication was that you wanted to work with redirects, yet you don't have the page mover user right. This is a user right that I'd expect someone to have if they were proficiently working with page moves and are bringing that experience to ask for administrator rights. You're doing good work, but there look to be basic and essential hoops that you haven't made it through that candidates are expected to be proficient at. Sorry. :-/ ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Juliancolton and Majora....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. File:Tom Suozzi.jpg was recently uploaded by the candidate under the {{CC0}} license. It simply isn't freely licensed at all. It happens to be public domain for a different reason, and I've fixed the file description page, but falsely claiming an image is licensed a particular way when it is not is a hard no from me. It's not just a simple mistake to select a free license when the image has never been licensed at all. It borders on deceit. Further, a candidate who indicates interest in "blocking editors" should have some experience with the blocking policy. Zero AIV edits given this candidate's interests is a bad sign. ~ Rob13Talk 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Juliancolton. The last 250 project space contributions going back to 2007 is worrisome for me. It shows a lack of experience in the back workings of Wikipedia, which admins should be familiar with. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose You are a great content creator and I don't know that we've had any recent candidates with 0 automated edits and no use of automated tools, which is kind of cool but I just don't see a need or use for the tools for you. The lack of work in some major admin areas is concerning as well, especially AfD/CSD. Even if you don't plan to 'dabble' in that area, as sysop, you have the ability to do so and should be able to show some experience. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I checked the candidate's article creations and liked the sound of the bean goose. I checked its history and found most of the content being created by the candidate as a cut/paste edit from another page without adequate attribution. As the candidate wants the tools mainly for article work of this kind, I think they need more experience before they can be trusted to go solo. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I also am not impressed by someone who cannot follow instructions on a WP: page and by the lack of experience outside of article space. I see no serious reason why this individual needs admin credentials. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - As others have said, you are a fantastic content creator and if adminship were given simply based on content creation, you'd have it. That being said, i'm concerned with the lack of participation in administrative areas, failed RfA transclusion, and trouble with using edit summaries. There is limited participation at AfD, CSD and AIV and a lot of what you're looking to do can be accomplished with page mover. If you participate in more administrative areas and demonstrate a need, I could support this in the future once a decent history is built. -- Dane talk 23:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Sorry, but your rationale for being granted the tools is incredibly weak. You do not have enough experience in admin areas to actually need the mop. I admire your content creation though, it can be unappreciated sometimes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I was hoping to wait until later before commenting (as I normally do), but the answer to Q4 nudged me here in short order. You mentioned that you want to help with deleting and undeleting pages, but your answer, ...looks like a speedy delete to me......, is really unsatisfactory. Why is it a speedy delete? Can you elaborate? Can you point to a specific CSD criteria? I know the kerfuffle with Dane's RFA about CSD tagging, and I'm not trying to stir up more drama here, but if you want to help out with page deletions you have to at least know CSD. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: I'm not concerned about content creation edits, and I don't expect admin-hopefuls to know everything about adminship (That would be impossible). I'm happy to support an admin-hopeful that needs the mop to work at AFD even if they haven't touched AIV that much. Most admin candidates that I know of tend to specify the part of Wikipedia they hope to work at (or be more active in) when they get the mop. However, I don't quite see that in the answers to your questions. You mentioned that you wanted to help with blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing. How so? There are lots of places where we need admins to block users, such as AIV, UAA, SPI, and AE, among other places. Please be more specific. Juliancolton mentioned that you have not participated at AIV or UAA, so I'm not sure which direction you want to go in with the block tool. The answer to Q11 is also unsatisfactory, I'm afraid, as you were not specific about each individual username given to you (i.e. How, if it does, violate policy) and what you were going to do about it (You really shouldn't be searching Wikipedia articles for "Requests for Adminship" or "Suckmy"). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Regretful Oppose (edit conflict) per Julian and Softlavender. You don't have enough work in the administrative areas (RFPP, AIV, UAA, AFD, ANI, MFD, AN etc...) . The fudging the rfa transclusion is no big deal in my book. The AFD stats worry me, (mainly how few there are that you've contributed to in 10+ years). I love your content work and you are a great editor, but I don't think you are quite ready for the tools. Also per Rob's rational, the copy right issue is a biggie :( --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  22. weak oppose no demonstrated need for tools. WP:NOTQUITEYET -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose due to the candidate's answer to question 6. The main functionality being sought is available to them through the page mover user right (a request can be made at WP:PERM/PM), or if they don't find that agreeable as they have expressed, continued technical requests for moves to implemented on their behalf. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Juliancolton. Needs more experience in admin areas. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose – Unfortunately, like k6ka, I am opposing on the basis of Pvmoutside's response to Q4. The best approach, in my view, to the situation presented in the question would be to first do a basic Google search of keywords from the article to see if there's context that might suggest an alternative to deletion. Here, a search revealed that Bazz Ward and Lemmy were part of the crew for the band The Nice—see The Nice#Early career. Lemmy does appear to be more well-known than Bazz Ward. While I don't think speedy deletion is out of the question, redirecting to The Nice is an option to consider. Beyond not mentioning which of the criteria for speedy deletion such a page might fall under, the lack of depth to the candidate's response to Q4 indicates to me that the candidate may not have sufficient experience at this time. I would recommend gaining additional experience in some of the more "behind-the-scenes"/janitorial areas of Wikipedia, such as WP:NPP or WP:AFD, prior to adminship, especially if you are interested in deleting and undeleting pages. (AfD stats only show 5 !votes, the last one being almost 2 years ago.) Mz7 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Fails my criteria. Recent answers to questions are so slapdash I can only assume the candidate has given up. The crowd at ORCP did a poor job in this case. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose with regret. I was expecting to solidly land in support. I don't think that ORCP necessarily got it wrong, they were expecting a low-drama, low key admin who wanted to delete pages to accommodate page moves, and the candidate certainly has the experience and judgement to do that, and that's enough need of the tools for me. Unfortunately, this RfA has revealed that they also want to participate in areas for which they don't have the experience or judgement, such as question #4 reveals. WP:BEFORE, there's quite a bit of information about him on the web. I think Pvmoutside could make a great admin, but they do need to brush up on deletion criteria, and other "adminny" things before the whole set of tools are given to them, given their interest in more complex matters. I hope I am stating this such that it is of no discouragement to the candidate, the contributions made here by Pvmoutside are of, well, invaluable value, and their desire to further serve this community should be seen as a great positive. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)(move to neutral)[reply]
  27. Oppose: Juliancolton puts it far better than I can. Pvmoutside is a good content creator, but neither appears to need the tools nor appears to be ready to handle the task. While I don't consider mistakes, such as the setting up of this RfA page, to be disqualifying—after all, even our greatest admins make mistakes—the mistakes are both representative of a broader problem, and evidence that the problem is a current problem rather than one in the past that the Pvmoutside may have overcome. As I say, we all make mistakes, but what matters, especially for admins, is the response to mistakes, and the reaction to having made a mistake. Here, I'm sad to see, as Chris Troutman points out, Pvmoutside almost appears to have given up. I sincerely hope this RfA can be closed without much more rigmarole so Pvmoutside can put this in the past.

    However, I also want to recommend that Pvmoutside not give up on adminship. If adminship is your goal, Pvmoutside, then please take the rest of the year and focus on areas where admins work. Try to hit each major area that has been suggested above and see how you can contribute as a regular editor. You will make mistakes at first, but build up a track record of successes, and write down what you learn from each mistake. Read policy and see how it is applied in practice. From all appearance you have the chops of content creation to satisfy the usual RfA opposes; you just need to build up the background in policy and practice to show you have the knack and temperament for it. If you can do these things, I will gladly support you, and I'm sure most of the opposers here will overlook this RfA and other issues that truly lie in the past. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pvmoutside's updated and expanded answers don't address my concerns here or below. The response to Q4, indicating that Pvmoutside's gut reaction would have been to summarily delete it (still without any clear indication of what CSD rationale applies; something that should have been required when giving the deletion log reason) does not fill me with confidence. Moreover, in light of Ritchie333's explanation of the scenario below, it's clear that the response to this question should hinge on other details. While the CSD rules, especially for A1/A3/A7, are highly objective and therefore provide for little discretion, Pvmoutside's response suggests a failure to understand that other factors, such as the age of the article, have an enormous bearing on whether deletion is warranted at once or after a brief wait. I'm also not pleased with the response to Q5, which is just a rehashing of a blackletter rule. While Drmies was clear that a "grand exposition of policy" is unnecessary, the response provides no real insight into Pvmoutside's mind. Q10, of course, misses that one of our best known LTA cases is involved, which honestly I can live with; what I don't understand is the second half of Pvmoutside's Q10 response, which generically promises to look for a policy that fits the situation. The response to Q11 is about as clear an example of why Pvmoutside's responses are unacceptable. A cursory review of past RfAs should show how these questions should be answered, and it is not by vague waves to uncited policies. In short, I just don't find the responses to the questions to be sufficient. Admins do learn on the job, but the arguments up in the support section appear to articulate the position that candidates need not know anything about adminship to be qualified for the tools. These arguments misconstrue and distract from the point here: The concern is not about a lack of experience as an admin, which would be silly, but a concern about aptitude and temperament. General questions about policy, and hypotheticals designed to elicit a candidate's thoughts on both routine and thorny areas of Wikipedia policy, are how we peek under the hood. Put briefly, it's not about whether tasks can be learned on-the-job, but whether the candidate will learn the right lessons from that training. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Juliancolton who's summed it up better than I ever could, In short it's great you've created thousands of articles however you've not participated in the admin areas and so I don't believe it's wise to give the tools to someone who for instance wants to delete pages when they've never participated at AFD nor RFPP, The RFA set up again was another concern - We all mess up from time to time completely understandable however in short I would expect that cock up to come from a newbie not from a 10 year editor, All in all I don't believe you're ready for the tools just yet. (and if this RFA is unsuccessful my best advice would be to start working in the admin areas and then in the next few years go back to WP:ORCP and see what others think). –Davey2010Talk 03:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per incredibly weak answer to Q4. Mz7 has nailed my thoughts pretty well (FWIW Bazz Ward also roadied for Derek and the Dominoes and fixed up Eric Clapton's live guitar rig). [17] Even if you never work in CSD, you should be able to communicate the basics before I can trust you with the delete button. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 04:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose (edit conflict) I had initially thought the RFA transclusion issue was a minor formatting error, which happens all the time, but this attempt at filing a nomination right onto the RFA pages seemingly indicates that you did not read the RFA instructions. That along with the recent licensing issue at File:Tom Suozzi.jpg raises concerns. You've either hastily put yourself up without any due diligence about adminship or you're not quit ready for it. Mkdw talk 04:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose In addition to the concerns above (mainly, per Julian) the candidate's answers to some of the additional questions are very weak. These questions are opportunities to show thoughtful consideration of editors' concerns-- unfortunately, they confirm my feeling that you're not ready for admin tools yet. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. The weak answers to the questions, especially Q4 give the impression that you don't understand this process. The lack of backpage contributions and not transcluding the page properlly only strenghtens my oppose. You need to be more specific with your Q4 answer. Admins should not be running around without a care in the world speedily deleting stuff, except in certain circumstances (blatant vandalism, attack pages, etc). Even if you're an admin you should add the CSD tag and wait for another, uninvolved admin, to come along and delete it. You haven't even specified what criteria it'd fall under. If there were no possible redirects and no available sources (though as Ritchie and Mz7 have said, he is possibly notable), it'd fall under A7 with a possibility of G11 (somewhat promotional, IMO). Your answer shows that you didn't consider anything except deleting the article. Redirection is always more preferable (and they're cheap). The other opposes that mention you removing talk messages instead of archiving and the recent file tagging isue also lead me to be here, though I have no specific examples. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Partly per Juliancolton, but also the weak answers to the questions. With the weak answers, I don't get the comfort factor of someone explaining their rationale for an action based on specific, named policies. I suggest a withdrawal now, and a year spent being active in all the areas that other opposers have mentioned (Oshwah provides a handy list of activities to work through) before re-applying. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, regretfully. Species and taxonomy articles are also my main hangout, and everything I've seen there of the candidates work has been great; no issue here, a highly valuable editor and content creator. Nor is the notion of a "limited pupose" admin out of the question - see the outcome of the RfA for Trappist the monk [18], which seems to have worked out just fine. However, in that case there was the clear understanding that Trappist would stick to the restricted tasks that he wished to have the toolset for, and not engage in areas that he had no experience or engagement in. That safety is conspicuously lacking here, and I'm very uneasy about the candidate's apparent willingness to maybepossibleperhaps jump right into contentious areas for which they have little preparation. I'd be happy to support if there was an understanding that the tools would only be used for the narrow technical purposes named.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose There are editor rights that require editors to demonstrate a need for them before they can be granted. Why aren't admin candidates required to do the same? In this case, you don't need to be an administrator. Come back when you have a clear need (and once you've read through a few successful RfA discussions to see how to respond to the questions) and hopefully it'll go better for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - I do not wish to echo everyone else's comments, but my views are very much the same as Softlavender's and Julian's. Not satisfied with one-word or simplistic answers to questions, either. Patient Zerotalk 10:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Oppose I hate, when opposers pile up, but I will have to do it. The user fails Kudpung's criteria (Edit summary usage, english language skill and AfD participation), So I believe this would be a rationale for opposing. I hope this user improves and nominates later. Cheers, FriyMan talk 10:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose unfortunately due to the answers to the questions. While I don't think a large amount of written reasoning and explanation is needed for all admin actions, I would certainly like to see it in an RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose It appears to me the candidate rushed into this after the ORCP poll without doing adequate preparation - reading through previous RFAs would have shown how important it is to give carefully thought-out answers to the questions. I'm sorry but the answer to Q4 is just embarrassingly weak. I also don't see enough participation in community discussion such as AFD.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose the failure to follow the instructions is definitely concerning but the worse is that the candidate has absolutely no experience in UAA , AIV or RFPP but neither at AFD Also I don't actually see a need for the tools. Page mover seems sufficient. I am really disappointed, but I am afraid that his excellent content or move log is not enough for me to support the candidate. Actually I would most likely support in the exactly opposite case. (weak content, but sufficient experience in some of the fields mentioned above) --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose based on the terribly weak answer to Q4. He's an experienced user, he's been through ORCP, and doesn't know to answer that with an in-depth explanation? I don't necessarily have a problem with those who want the mop for one specific purpose, but I do expect them to have some knowledge of the rest of the toolbox. Katietalk 13:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have mentioned Q4, and I don't get it. "Bazz Ward was a great roadie and I wish he was as well known as Lemmy. Cheers Bazz" just clearly least has serious problems as an article, so what do you want the candidate to say? "Looks like a fine article"? Is it really necessary for candidate to write a term paper on why it "looks like a speedy"? It does look like a speedy, period, and next question. Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something looks like a speedy, doesn't mean the only option is to delete it. I've followed up with this on Pvmoutside's talk page, and although this example was semi-contrived, it was based on a real example here. An A7 delete as an introduction to a Pepperdine University editathon would have been ... unfortunate Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Perhaps the question should have explicitly said "Show your work", but even a cursory review of past RfAs in preparation for the process should have informed Pvmoutside of the necessity of providing a rationale when responding to such hypotheticals. Look, there's giving the candidate the benefit of the doubt, and there's downright silliness. If Pvmoutside can't even be bothered to specify the CSD criterion or criteria under which the hypothetical would qualify, how are we to know Pvmoutside has any grasp of how CSD even functions? And what's with the hedging response on something that unquestionably meets A7? Nobody's asking for a term paper here. We should at least have the level of detail that Pvmoutside would have recorded for the deletion log entry: Actually saying what criterion applies. Moreover, Pvmoutside's response does not actually answer the question! Ritchie333 asked What actions, if any, would you take? Would Pvmoutside unilaterally delete this article upon finding it, or tag for speedy and let another admin take another look? That it looks like a speedy doesn't tell us anything useful. The bottom line is this: the whole point of RfA questions is to give us a look into the mind of the candidate. Pvmoutside's taciturn response to Q4 frustrates that goal. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv said it in the manner in which I should have said it. :-) Does he believe it's an attack page (no), or a no context (no), or an A7 (ding ding ding we have a winner), or even something else? How does he arrive at whatever conclusion he reaches? I know how I would get there, but I want to see some thought put into his answer to see how he gets there. It's insight into how he would approach being an admin, and while this is CSD and not blocking or protection, the same careful thought process should apply to all administrative tasks. That's all I'm saying. Katietalk 21:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose While the transcluding issue definitely didn't help, the answers to these questions are really my top concern. An RFA takes time and patience to answer questions, and from the answers so far it seems that this process is not being taken seriously. Mamyles (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I don't see sufficient awareness of the responsibility that comes with the admin toolbox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Sorry, but not at this time. Q4 nails it.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Lack of experience of admin areas, appreciation of relevant policies, poor answers to questions. Particularly the response to question 4—no way I want you near a delete button. BethNaught (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Very poor responses to the questions in general, plus just not enough experience in the main areas I want an admin to have experience in, and then to top things off, he blows the initial RFA process. I think there's enough other tools out there to accomplish what this user wants to do without the need for being an admin. Apologies and best wishes. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose The responses to the questions are entirely unsatisfactory. I would need to see evidence of better communication before supporting. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. I was initially a bit concerned with the statement describing "blocking and unblocking user accounts" per the same concerns expressed earlier, but additionally there seems to be no particular consideration towards alternatives to blocking. I was hoping this was just a communication issue, but the question answers continue to show a very weak approach to the use of the speedy deletion process and username account restrictions. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose per above. Concerns with communication and experience. -FASTILY 23:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose at this time. Based on the first few sentences of the candidate's answer to Q1, I was entirely ready to support a candidate who had a well-defined purpose for the toolkit and a clear track record of staying in their lane. However as the answer went on, it and other elements of the candidate's track record have made me concerned admin territory contains a lot of unknown unknowns for Pvmoutside, more than would make adminship constructive at this time. I absolutely join those who've suggested that if Pvmoutside wishes to spend time getting more experience in admin-related areas, I've no doubt they'd master them well and greatly to the benefit of the encyclopedia, so I hope if it's of interest, Pvm won't hesitate to do so and give RfA another go. While it looks like ORCP very unfortunately didn't give Pvm an accurate sense of where they stood, I think this RfA has at least given a lot of useful guidance on preparation for adminship going forward. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose per above; admins should be expected to demonstrate a modicum of understanding regarding policy if they are to be trusted with the tools; such cases as this don't exactly inspire confidence. Mélencron (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose You answered very few of the questions particularly thoroughly. People ask these because they seek assurance that any doubts they may have are nothing to worry about. Your extremely vague answers don't serve to assure me at all. Sorry. —Frosty ☃ 04:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak oppose. An asset to Wikipedia but page mover grants them the tools for moving pages, which is what they wanted so there isn't a significant reason to become administrator and as Juliancolton said, they aren't active in the admin areas. Also, I think the questions are answered poorly. - TheMagnificentist 10:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose The sentence I have an issue with is "I would search appropriate Wikipedia information articles and act accordingly." (question 10 and 11) The reason being that I would expect an admin either to know what the correct procedures are, or at least to be able to show that they can look them up to answer the questions in the RfA. Olidog (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak oppose due to answer to Q6, "Reading pagemover, it would be I believe a 5 step process, which would be too time consuming to me, and I'd rather contact one of the admins I've been using to have them do it." If the user is not prepared to do this kind of work, but is willing to ask an admin to do it, then they are not prepared to take up the tasks of an admin. Clean Copytalk 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose I will not pile on about other questions, nor about the transclusion issue, but must criticize the answer to question 11. The answer is true in large, but I would have preferred it if each suggested username was discussed individually, I believe that this was the intention when the question was posed.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Most questions not answered well, reflecting a very poor understanding of what is expected of admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. The candidate wants to deal with redirects and deletions, and says that they tried to participate in RFDs when notified through WikiProject talk pages that they follows. Assuming that the signature hasn't changed, they have apparently only participated in 2 RFDs, one from December 2010, and a "per nom" !vote in October 2011. While neither !vote is incorrect, his is an insufficient body of work to assess someone who wants to deal with deletion and works heavily with redirects. The short and borderline flippant answers to the questions do not inspire confidence, and the various other reasons noted by the above oppose !voters (e.g. lack of edit summary usage to communicate, failure to follow clear transclusion instructions), especially those of Juliancolton and Hut 8.5 are also valid reasons to !oppose. Sorry, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. No problem with the main area of usage this user says that they intend to be involved in, however Pvmoutside says they also "are happy to help" in a variety of other admin areas, but has no experience in those areas. Per: "I would be happy to help with other tasks such as blocking and unblocking user accounts and IP addresses from editing, editing fully protected pages, protecting and unprotecting pages from editing, and deleting and undeleting pages". I agree with Juliancolton, this is a mistake, as you have zero experience in these areas, particularly deletion discussions. Pvmoutside has participated in just 9 AfDs, and doesn't even have a CSD log. Also, as has been pointed out, the area they do intend to be active in can (largely) be accomplished by getting the page mover user right instead. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose per Juliancolton. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - Even though you are a good-standing editor, I could see a lot of potential flaw in your edits. First and foremost, you did not read the instructions of how to open a RfA correctly such as this and ignored. That is a huge mistake since admin must thoroughly understand the concepts and instructions of Wikipedia's guidelines etc. Your words in self-nominating and answering questions gave out that you does not understand the process of Wikipedia. Such as in Q4, looks like a speedy delete to me..., you did not elaborate of which speedy delete to be complied and why you did so. In other words, the way you answer the questions (especially in Q7) were inadequate. Sorry, but after this RfA I hope you can learn from everyone's advice and try again in the future. Good luck! QianCheng虔诚 10:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose per Juliancolton. WikiPancake 🥞 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Neutral opposition without a breath of support. I checked this RfA every day or two and started wondering why it's still here. Nothing new has come forth in evaluating the user's suitability or readiness after it had already tanked with no hope of untanking. It's become a meta-discussion. The self-nominee wants certain powers and deems that desire sufficient to be granted additional tools which s/he/it may or may not be able to grasp or handle. One line (00:44, 3 May 2017 UTC) really stood out: "pagemover ... would be I believe a 5 step process, which would be too time consuming to me, and I'd rather contact one of the admins I've been using to have them do it." A five step process is too much for you? No wonder you botched the page initialization. And you've "been using" admins? Really. I don't know how much you thought this through, there's more to it than "I can totally afford all this cheese" (old California Lottery commercial reference). Bottom line: per Juliancolton, who was very thorough and much nicer about it. Please, as you go about your usual conscientious editor rounds, lighten up on the using admins angle: we're colleagues, not livestock. – Athaenara ✉ 11:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Per Juliancolton. Answers to questions weren't detailed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Several answers are partial and don't give me confidence that the candidate would take decisions seriously. In particular, 4 gives no mention of following up with the user involved, 7 isn't helpful without some explanation of why edit summaries weren't important before, 10 (assuming 'known for' instead of 'know for') isn't helpful without explaining "Wikipedia information page" and 11 doesn't detail which names fall under which categories or what the according action would be. I'm also unnerved by this edit which rewrote an answer after it had been responded to. Transparency seems to be a basic feature of Wikipedia etiquette, which a post hoc edit like this goes against, since you'd have to go into edit history to understand the conversation. Of these, the answer to 4 is by far my biggest concern, as talking to editors - particularly new editors - constructively is really critical to the project succeeding. Mortee (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose - Nominees who want the tools to work in a specific area are problematic, since the tools are bundled and there's nothing to stop them from using them all once they are an admin. (Especially in this case where the pagemover right would accomplish what the nominee wants.) That means that it comes down to an evaluation of the general trustworthiness of the candidate. I have !voted for candidates in the past who wanted to do a specific kind of work, but only because I knew their editing well and trusted that if they stepped into other areas they would not misuse (let alone abuse) the tools. In this case, I'm afraid I don't know the candidate at all, so while I AGF that others are correct that they've contributed well and extensively to the project, I can't take that as a basis for supporting when it comes to RfA. Unlike some, I don't start with "Why not?" as my default position, and I do not believe that being an admin is "no big deal" anymore -- it is a big deal. So with all this in mind, I must oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. The "I've seen you around" mentality is reminiscent of state bar protectionism from decades ago, and is precisely why RfA fell victim to blackballing over the last five years. Permitting adminship to ride on pure subjectivity and personal knowledge like this rather than an objective evaluation that the candidate both needs and can use the tools appropriately, particularly where adminship grants access to non-oversighted deleted or revdel'd material, is absolutely inappropriate in consideration of our current needs. It is not 2004 anymore. Wikipedia isn't a minor website with a low media presence, and the maturity of different methods of disrupting the encyclopedia require that new admins not only learn on the job, but learn much faster than before. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - I cannot support a candidate whose responses to questions regarding policy amount to "Sir, I'll find out, sir." Candidates at RfA, especially self-nominations, are expected to already be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, since all tools are available as soon as the bit is set. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 05:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I disagree. I like this candidate because he is fair-minded and takes the time to find out what he needs to. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. A good editor, but on principle I can't support giving the full range of tools to a candidate who acknowledges having neither the need nor the experience to use most of them properly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Well; this wasn't a good start. As the edit summary says: perhaps should have read the instructions. And I'm sure CasLiber is correct that the tools won't be misused- but understanding instructions is a pretty important part of wielding them. And I have to say, Q3 is rather- weak? A good nominator would probably have prevented that :) Sitting here for now. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Saw that. There are so few RfA's these days that I felt a bit of awkwardness in setting the thing up was not a problem, as it's becoming a lost art. Dlohcierekim 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry O Fortuna....I did read the instructions, and I thought I was entering information correctly.....I think I have fixed the information you require.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, the RfA was transcluded prematurely, and Pvmoutside did a "quick scramble" to fix the issues. That actually strengthens my support rationale. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'm convinced; but thanks all for the replies. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced either. The RfA subpage could not be transcluded because it didn't exist. The botched edit to the RfA page was 20:36 1 May 2017.[19] Majora reverted it at 20:39.[20] This subpage was created at 20:45.[21] Glrx (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, there seem to be a fair few support votes / comments based on the failed transclusion. All saying along the lines that is an easy mistake to make, etc. Which I agree with. None of them actually address the point I was making, which was that it might reflect something else and / or a broader issue. About instructions. Cheers, — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning oppose. While I don't have huge expectations for admins (unless they made mistakes that indicate bad judgment or clue problems), I don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has even problems following the RfA instructions and writes his nomination directly on WP:RFA. Adminship is not a big deal but we should at least have candidates who we can expect to read and follow instructions in areas they are not familiar with. Also, admins should be able to communicate, which imho includes always using edit summaries to explain edits. The candidate's edit summary usage is fairly low, not even explaining 2 out of 3 minor edits in Main Space and not a single edit to this very page. The candidate's explicit declaration that they plan only to use the tools in a limited area stop me from opposing at this time. I might reconsider when I had time to review the candidate's contributions more thoroughly. Regards SoWhy 20:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Well... I would likely !vote weak support if the candidate would confine their work to page moving and only move out after reading multitudes of policy pages multiple times, or reporting things to AIV and such before using the tools in whatever area. The oppose vote of Majora is something to take a look at, certainly. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning towards Support. I generally support RfAs by default, and the candidate has a reason for the tools, but the AfD participation stats are ridiculous. Waiting for the candidate's defense.--Mr. Guye (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think ending your candidate question with "What is your defense?" is a bit confrontational? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahecht: No, because that is one of the three big reasons for people choosing "Oppose" (the others are the RFA transclusion debacle, and what they say is a lack of need for the tools). People are taking the RfA down on this premise. I want to give the candidate an opportunity to respond to the criticism.--Mr. Guye (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've indented this !vote because you've changed to "support" above. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I'm torn on this. While there's nothing in this candidate's past that I feel is disqualifying enough to make me want to vote Oppose, there's also not enough history of participation in the admin areas that they want to work in to make me want to vote Support (and the answers to the above questions are lacking the thoroughness and thoughtfulness that I would've like to see). If the candidate is serious about getting the tools, there would be a much stronger case to be made if they spent a few months participating at WP:AfD, WP:ARV, WP:RPP, WP:NPP, etc. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Planting myself here to say thank you to the candidate for their 90,000 or so edits, but not supporting per Juliancolton. ~Awilley (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Moral support. The edit summary issue worries me. I'm also unclear on why blocks occurred during redirect attempts before. There were a few more issues above, but I think overall this is a well-intentioned nomination and I cannot oppose due to that. South Nashua (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. The issue of not needing the tools is minor for me. The user has demonstrated their loyalty to the project so I'm convinced their heart is in the right place and I do not believe they would willingly abuse the tools. In such cases I subscribe to Jimbo's idea that the tools should be viewed as "no big deal". I also don't think inexperience would get them into too much trouble as it strikes me as a user who isn't interested in using the tools much at first except to improve editing in their areas of interest. Yes, so they flubbed the nomination a bit, so what. I am concerned about the lack of edit summaries, and I see the user is already working on improving that, which is good. I am not concerned about a lack of withdraw; I feel a person running this gauntlet has a right do see it through to the end. I only now got a chance to comment myself. Not everybody can review an RfA daily so by asking for an early withdraw doesn't give some people a chance to comment. I just hope the editor's spirit's stay high enough they they can try again in the future. I think many !voters, while up so high on their horses, are forgetting that we REALLY need new admins and the long term feasibility of the project is at stake. For that reason alone, I am almost inclined to support and ignore some of the candidate's aspects that need polishing. But, this strikes me as a case where failing an RfA may in the long term be beneficial, just like it was for me. One day, if they stick with the project and learn from this, they may come to view it that way too. I think they will so with that hope I'm okay if this round doesn't work out for them. I think they would probably fair much better the second time around. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm putting myself here as a sort of moral support, because this is a veteran user who does good work and is not a drama-monger or egotist (and WP:DEAL, for whatever that's worth), and because the outcome here is already clearly settled. I do acknowledge that there are strong arguments in the oppose section, and therefore I am not supporting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral This is an outstanding editor and a candidate I really want to support. I couldn't care less about a a less than elegant RfA transclusion. My own tech skills probably peaked with the electric typewriter. The only reason I am not pulling the support trigger is because they have a big blank spot on their resume when it comes to behind the scenes adminny stuff. And since they have explicitly stated they would like to work in some areas where they have little or no practical experience, that's a problem. My suggestion is to lower the curtain on this RfA, spend the next six months focusing on AfD, CSD, RFPP, maybe a little AIV and then come back. Barring something that hasn't come to light, I think they'd pass easily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral If this was close, I would probably oppose gently, but I am concerned with the "pile on" nature of this RFA, with too many opposes restating points with repeated negativity. Sometimes, making a point once is enough, and things get hurtful to no good end. This is obviously a highly productive editor who stumbled a bit with this RFA. Ad Orientem gave excellent advice above, Pvmoutside. Do that type of work for six months and I will be happy to support your next RFA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Limit the number of oppose votes allowed, you mean? Interesting. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 04:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not suggest any limits on oppose votes at all. I suggested that it is not helpful to reiterate the same point over and over, when simply saying "I agree with editors X and Y" ought to be sufficient when support is below 50%. Kindness and self restraint are good character traits, in my view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I supported based on the excellent record, but I should have waited for the questions. Probably not ready yet. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral The candidate's content work is great, and they could clearly use the tools productively for page-moving. At the same time, I'm very concerned by their responses to some of their questions, and their desire to use the tools in areas they have no experience. Even now, I'd be okay voting support if they promised to use the tools only for page moving, and to stay out of deletion. We cannot, after all, expect administrators to be proficient at everything; there are a number of areas into which I do not even venture. Vanamonde (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral After reading a few more answers to questions, I have seen a bit more of a reason to support this candidate, but not enough to go on full support. I think the misplacement of the RfA isn't as big of a issue as originally thought. —JJBers 14:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral . No point in piling on, and no reflection on those who supported among whom are admins and editors whose opinions are highly respected. Juliancolton sums it up well. I think we failed at ORCP - me and Ritchie333 included - possibly by being lulled into believing that one fairly recent RfA had set a new tone for the process, but this should not be taken as a criticism of ORCP which on the balance actually does quite a good job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral - my reasoning behind my original oppose stands, but candidate has contributed too much to this project for me to remain there and sleep at night. I do not (and never did) believe Pvmoutside would break da Wikipedia as an admin, and I trust his intentions to a high degree, but until they learn maintenance areas better, the tools would be a detriment to their overall editing. They would get jumped on too often. They would overcome it, but it would be better if they waited, so I'll remain at neutral. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral While the candidate's editing history is perfectly reasonable and I generally trust them, I can't help but feel that they didn't take the questions asked here at all seriously. It implies that they either didn't look at previous successful RfAs to see the level of answer being requested, or simply don't care enough to answer someone's question in any detail. Either way, that leaves me here. Sam Walton (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral If in a future run, more detailed answers to the questions are provided, I'll be happy to support. --Joshualouie711talk 19:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral due to unfamiliarity with the back-end of the Wiki. I would like to invite the candidate to help with WP:RFD though. We could use a fresh set of eyes back there and in return you gain more experience in Xfd's --Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral This RfA is doomed, and while he has every right to keep it open I have every right to find that he is wasting people's time by letting it drag on. I had supported, but am changing my !vote in the face of his behavior during this RfA, or rather lack of same. I continue to commend him for his fine content work and wish him well, but at the same time being an admin is a big deal as BMK pointed out above, and this user has failed to show correct judgment by not recognizing that he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate is wasting nobody's time. There is no mandate to participate in an RfA. Everybody who comments here has chosen to do so. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This very discussion is a waste of time. I'm sympathetic to his desire to see it play out, assuming that is whey he is subjecting himself to an overwhelming defeat, but I am increasingly seeing it as poor judgment. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding from his talk page is that he wants to let this continue for a bit in order to get as much input as possible from other editors on ways to improve. But he is under no illusions about how this is going to end and is planning to withdraw. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neutral. I rarely add a neutral entry but I would like to give moral support, comment that I could see Pvmoutside as an administrator with some more experience in a few other maintenance areas and perhaps some more detailed answers to questions, and commend Pvmoutside for being a great contributor. And per Tryptofish, Sam Walton, Ad Orientem and others with similar comments. Donner60 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • pvmoutside is rather [YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER], in my opinion. Mélencron (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mélencron: Not sure I understand you? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed by nominator. Mélencron (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: yeah, quite effectively --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although as the candidate pointed out on their talk page, the Round Robin procedure is a really round about way of doing it compared to the admin's ability to just move over a redirect. It would be nice if we could give page movers the right to swap redirects with histories. (Although I don't know if admins can do that. Is it a software issue?) ~Awilley (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several editors suggested that the candidate's rationale for requesting adminship would be fulfilled by performing round-robin moves as WP:PMR. I disagree with this analysis, because the candidate specifically requested to be able to delete to make way for move. Although moving the existing page to an arbitrary location in draft-space achieves the same result in article space (assuming public visibility of the deleted page history isn't a concern), it is not the same thing. The candidate's statement didn't say it out loud but I think candidate would also benefit from being able to WP:HISTMERGE given the kind of content work he's trying to do. Deryck C. 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any user should also be able to move a page over a redirect if it doesn't have any significant history. I know that's not the same thing, admins can move anything over anything, just pointing it out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: It is effectively the same thing, the only difference being that the page mover method retains and creates a bit more history. The community decided to allow round-robin moves through the page mover user right, which is a de facto endorsement that they are just as acceptable as the traditional method. However, that is not to say that deletion is not preferable in some cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why we don't currently allow those with the page mover right to delete to make way for moves and HISTMERGE? If not then perhaps the community can consider whether to grant those rights to pagemovers. Alcherin (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcherin: That would require granting page movers the ability to delete any page, not just pages blocking moves. The idea of granting non-administrators the ability to delete page history as opposed to just titles has been rejected in the past. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why giving page movers the right to delete to make way for move could be a problem that the current PMR isn't. While a PMR can theoretically vacate a page by moving it away without redirect, no log entry is hidden from public view. So the crucial difference is the ability to suppress revision history from public view - rather like revdel - which PMR is currently unable to o but admins' delete button can. Deryck C. 10:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcherin and Godsy: A more interesting proposal is to invent a MediaWiki feature that allows histmerge without first deleting the old page and then restoring it amidst the new page's logs. If such an interface is created, both admins and page movers can perform histmerges and histsplits without resorting to deletion, because the end outcome doesn't involve changing the public visibility of any log entries. Deryck C. 10:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a question lined up that was similar to the one Ahecht asked (i.e. question 6). I find such a question to be very relevant and look forward to hopefully receiving an answer to it before making my decision. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think judging by how this RfA has progressed so far is reason enough for the optional RfA candidate poll to be scrapped. Think of it this way, you get a bunch of 8 or 9's out of 10 as this user did in theirs and you are confident of passing your RfA - then when you go ahead and launch your RfA, everything goes 100% pear shaped and oppose after oppose piles up. How fair is that for prospective candidates? -=Troop=- (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trooper1005 ORCP is still a useful tool for potential candidates. It explicitly says that the results of a poll may differ greatly from the actual RfA. Frankly, I do not think the concept of ORCP failed, I just think the editors who commented there failed...badly. But I hope this was just an anomaly because usually they offer more accurate predictions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with ORCP as I see it is that the editors who comment there consider themselves to be Admin Experts, dismissing negative comments as unhelpful or "drive-by comments from inexperienced editors" - it's turned into some sort of echo chamber. The massive disconnect between ORCP and the actual results of RfA discussions means that ORCP should now be taken with a pinch of salt the size of Pluto (the Disney character, not the plutoid non-planet). Exemplo347 (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why the gratuitous swipe at Pluto? Don't you think that it is already getting battered enough due to its lack of atmosphere and location in a field of similar-sized orbiting junk? Clean Copytalk 15:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: I don't see a massive disconnect. For the most part, editors who run RFA after a poll are successful. Now, ORCP might be rejecting editors who would otherwise be seen as fit to serve by the community, but this is not really ORCP's crime.... --Izno (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Perhaps if the ORCP in this case had been allowed to run longer there wouldn't have been such a disconnect. If User:Juliancolton, who often does participate in ORCP had given his opinion there before the RfA went live things might have turned out differently - it's hard to disagree with any of the points in his oppose.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the ORCP stying open longer. It was filed on the 24 April and not closed until 2 May- six days, and no-one had commented since the 28th. And even then it wasn't closed until this RfA had been lodged. So I'm not sure what exacty anyone could've done about that. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't take full blame for the discrepancy between the ORCP consensus and the result unfolding here, I don't suppose it's unfair to suggest that I dropped the ball. As a rule, I only participate in ORCP (and community discussions in general) when I feel I have something new or persuasive to add. Since Pvmoutside's ORCP feedback was overwhelmingly positive, I assumed that it was a clear-cut case, that any further comments would have amounted to little more than piling-on, and that there was no need to take a closer look. Knowing what I know now, I think the aggregate ORCP rating was a bit too high in this case, but speaking as a meteorologist, predicting the future is hard. Sometimes you get it wrong for reasons that should have been obvious. I do strongly suspect that if the candidate had been more thorough in preparing this nomination—either by finding a trusted nominator to guide them through the process, drafting stronger answers to the default questions, or formulating a more persuasive rationale for requesting the tools—the voting pattern here may have turned out at least incrementally closer to the ORCP forecast (though I fully agree there are more fundamental issues that should have surfaced). On the whole of it, I wouldn't lose faith in ORCP—we're usually pretty close to the mark. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling us you're a weatherman? I won't ever believe anything you say from now on. Yesterday's weatherman predicted heavy rains and thunderstorms at 4 p.m. At 4 p.m. I could have worked on a sun tan and it hardly rained at all yesterday where I live. 4 p.m. or otherwise.
Now I'll be serious. ORCP is voluntary and the editors who give their views do so voluntary. Like weathermen, they can be wrong, don't be too hard on them....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely it's voluntary, and I did not intend my comment to be a criticism of Juliancolton, more just to point out that it's a shame for Pvmountside that more of the "regulars" didn't participate in his poll (maybe due to a lack of time).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wider participation at ORCP is desperately needed, particularly from the editors who always comment here but never comment there - editors should know what to expect, warts and all, no coddling or protection from the negative comments that they may attract. Long term, I'd love to see ORCP become more of a "request for feedback" rather than a vote that gets arbitrarily counted. In this case, it would have helped because Pvmountside would have been advised to read through the last few RfA discussions, because the questions are becoming pretty samey. I personally hope they come back when they are able to demonstrate a need to be an Admin. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll swim upstream and say that WP:ORCP did a reasonable job reviewing this candidate. In that proceeding, the candidate gave a similar nomination statement. O Fortuna opined,
Just to point out, Pvmoutside, that although the need for tools is clearly demonstrated by page moving, that bit you tagged on there- 'If granted adminship, I would be happy to help with other tasks'etc- would immediately require you to show experience and knowledge in those 'adminy' areas too. As RileyBugz says, page moving doesn't attract much controversy; but the other, more high-profile, activities most certainly do. So I wouldn't guarantee a lack of controversy if you bundle them up.
If the candidate had followed Fortuna's advice and dropped mention of other 'adminy' areas, then many of the delete/AfD/CSD comments would be off the table or at least attenuated. RfA can be kind to narrow, technical, requests. ORCP maybe should have recommended against a self-nom, but I'd expect most editors going for the mop would have read enough background material and seen enough RfAs to know that is a good idea. An outside nom might have taken the template fiasco off the table. As an aside, the candidate is not unfamiliar with templates (a couple hundred edits to template space) and so should not have botched the explicit template instructions (which are highlighted in red) so badly. Told to delete specific XML comment characters around subst, the candidate deleted a whole paragraph in the question section. On another attempt, the candidate deleted the double left brace, the comment characters, and the subst:. With so much content experience, the candidate should have known how to use the preview button. The candidate is so far outside the norm that ORCP didn't expect the problems. Similarly, I don't fault ORCP for missing the deleted talk page entries. There were some talk page sections that pushed for archiving, and archiving was set up. We don't expect long term editors to erase material from their talk pages. Furthermore, ORCP is not set up as a question and answer format; it is just a review of the record. Consequently, there is no hint that the candidate will perform poorly with questions. We expect editors with lots of content to do research and give clear responses. That's one of the reasons many !voters want to see significant content and experience with referencing. ORCP expects its candidates to know something about RfA, and how questions should be answered is part of that expected knowledge. This candidate is an aberration. ORCP may paint too rosy a picture with its typical estimates, but that issue seems independent from this episode. Glrx (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Glrx: As a point of copyright law, "waiving copyright" is legally meaningless in many jurisdictions. The law is not that clear in the United States on this matter, but in the UK, for instance, courts have ruled that "releasing something into the public domain" doesn't carry legal meaning and certainly isn't irrevocable as required of all free licenses on the English Wikipedia. To functionally waive copyright in a way that is binding internationally, one must release it under a license such as CC0, which states that you irrevocably declare that anyone may use the image without any conditions to the extent allowable by law. You still hold the copyright, but the license is a defense against infringement for anyone who uses the image. ~ Rob13Talk 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do congratulate you on the fact that you haven't withdrawn yet, even with all this pressure against you. Confidence is something needed in adminship at some points. —JJBers 16:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we also expect admins to recognize consensus, the obvious consensus here being that they are not ready for adminship? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of other suggestions from them to withdraw, I think leaving it open longer has the opposite effect and actually works to their detriment. There is very little valued gain from keeping this RFA running. It questions their motivations in why they would keep it open and whether they can assess the situation they're in and make a judgement call that considers the time of the community and process. Mkdw talk 21:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it bothers you so much, unwatchlist it. If people want to come here, look at the level of support, and still give their opinions, that's on them, not on Pvmoutside. What the hell does "considers the time of the community and process" even mean? He volunteered to help out as an admin, it didn't go well, he's probably not feeling great, and now after only 2 days his lack of rushing to close it quickly enough for you leads you to "question his motivations"? Man, people around here are mean spirited. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about administrative competence and if they understand the situation. Whether they're able to accurately assess the situation such as consensus and make a determination. It's a skill beyond article writing. It raises questions on whether they're trying to make a secondary point now that their RFA hasn't gone well or they've adjusted their intention to use the RFA for feedback as opposed to the purpose of the RFA which is to seek a community consensus about receiving the tools. I'm not bothered by it and I didn't mean for my comment to be mean spirited. I'm saying that leaving it running will probably be held against them and contrary to the initial comment. It's not wrong to point that out or at least make them aware of it. WP:RFAADVICE mentions this as well. Mkdw talk 22:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My only point is that the outcome is obvious. Confidence is certainly a good attribute for an admin, but not to the point where they are comfortable substituting their own judgement for the plainly expressed consensus of the community. This RFA is currently "underwater" at only 47% support. I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't added an oppose because they don't want to pile on. We have historically had a concept of a mercy rule in these situations, where the RFA would be closed to prevent opposition from piling even higher, but a dignified withdrawal of the nomination is preferable so far as how it reflects on the candidate. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a mercy rule, we have WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW, neither of which apply in this case. If the user wants to keep it open, they may. Andrevan@ 01:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My two cents, I don't have a problem with user leaving RfA open to get more input, nor closing if they've gotten as much as is useful to them at this juncture. Either seem entirely legitimate to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm hoping Pvmoutside comes back in a few months, better prepared, and starts this process again. Leaving this RfA open to run its full length of time does no real harm (unless, of course, they take the buildup of Oppose comments personally) because I've seen 2nd RfA discussions take place a few times and I've never seen "Oppose - You left your previous RfA open for the full 7 days" in any of them. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's of fundamental importance that candidates are allowed to leave their own RfAs open for as long as they wish (i.e., of course, the full 168 hours). There could be good reason for this. For instance, we repeatedly tell 'failed' candidates to read the comments carefully, and learn from them as a roadmap to being back here succesfully in X-months. So they may well wish to rinse the proceedings of the full gamut of replies, get the maximum amount of advice possible. We can hardly blame them for interpreting it that way. And in any case, as Exemplo347 touches on, I assume / hope a 'crat doesn't exist who would give any weight to such a lame argument. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's obvious this one is going to fail, but he definitely is within his rights to leave it open and we shouldn't even be discussing this. Coretheapple (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting they don't have the right to keep it open. I haven't seen that strawman argument made. Mkdw talk 18:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This UAA thing is getting silly. One question is one question and if something needs 12 separate answers, like in Q11, it's 12 questions. I think we should start a discussion on these multi-part questions and get things formalized. With all due respect to @FriyMan:. Yintan  15:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: FYI. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 15:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thanks for that. But it's not just FriyMan's question, this multi-part UAA thing is becoming an RFA staple. An undesirable one, in my humble opinion. Where would one go to start a discussion about this trend? Yintan  15:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a request for comment on the talk page perhaps? I'm thinking something similar regarding 'joke' votes; either that or ANI :D — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially since the question is flawed. A real UAA submission would have an explanation posted by the editor that submitted the username to accompany it. As the question is presented here, it's sort of a gotcha — "oh, you didn't remember that FriyMan was an active user and said that FryMan was okay? No mop for you!" If that were a real UAA submission, it would say something like "FryMan (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – WP:IMPERSONATOR of FriyMan. Example (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)"[reply]
Yes, Ahecht, that's a very good... example ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The correct answer to question 11 is "I'm not going to waste my time jumping thru 12 silly hoops. I'm not your trained monkey." I somehow doubt I'll ever see someone say that - I can only imagine the number of outraged opposes that would follow - but it will make me very happy if I ever do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Floquenbeam, and it confirms once more that maintenance tasks, esp. RfA, are magnets to new and inexperienced users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because a percentage of them- a good percentage, perhaps- register an account with the express intention/ expectation of becoming an administrator (even checkuser, I saw recently!), rather than write decent prose for the world's ?seventh biggest website and biggest online encyclopaedia. So, logically, if you wanna be a big boy, you have to play in the big boys' sandpits. Which they do with alacrity. But just to show I'm not completely cold-hearted, there are, thank goodness, always going to be some new editors who will be satisfied in writing decent prose, etc., and then eventually perhaps choose to descend, on a gentle incline, into the Caves of Maintenance and Bollockings. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I am ever foolish enough to submit to RfA as it currently stands, I will promise Floquenbeam to respond exactly so. It would give me some, somewhat masochistic, vicarious pleasure; and, after so many years editing here, I have this tiny, perhaps forlorn hope, that it might not make the slightest difference to the outcome.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: At some point, we have to question whether that's a bad thing. People who sign up to contribute in maintenance areas, including with admin tools, aren't inherently bad. It's bad if they just want to go on a power trip, of course, but that's a bit different. Hat collecting is a problem if they're not using the hats or using them poorly. Is it a problem if they're using all hats to help make the encyclopedia a better place? I'm not so sure. ~ Rob13Talk 03:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a couple of editors I'm thinking of who started off exactly as I described, but, having realised (I expect) the dangers in 'trying to hard,' have settled down in various areas of the thing, and will, I hesistate to say, probably make good admins when the time comes (a year or so of course; shouldn't rush these things). So no, I'm not saying that everyone who arrives with that expectations is unhelpful; but they become useful editors when they stop expecting that expectation to be met. But some of the most time- and energy-consuming new editors we have are those that insist on diving into administrative areas where experience is at a premium, with the net result of fucking things right up. They don't mean too; they think they helping- especially when they see us bemoaning the lack of admins. But they end up wasting the two most important commodities we possess, the time and energy of experienced editors. Best thing in fact would be a six-month apprenticeship where the only pages available to aditing were articlesace and associated talk. That would give everyone a grounding in WP:HERE that would set them up well for their later careers. Indeed, consider how often otherwise good candidates fall at the fence of content creation; with six months' already in the bag, almost no-one would ever fall on those grounds again. They'll just fail because they wanted to A7 a one-liner but didn't realise it was about someone with a WP:CCS AKA John Bonham's roadie / bottle washer on the difficult third acoustic album where they fucked off to Wales and smoked too much weed. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:32, 6 May 2017 (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/Pvmoutside&oldid=1147961756"