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

Final (70/10/3); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PresN (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to nominate PresN for adminship. PresN is one of the most active and successful editors in the Video Games WikiProject. Since joining in June 2006, PresN has amassed more than 22,000 edits, including more than 8,000 in the main space, 6,000 on article talk pages, 4,000 in Wikipedia space, and 1,000 in Wikipedia Talk space. He has worked substantially on twelve featured articles/lists, dozens of good articles, and quite a few Did You Know? submissions. He has also dabbled in numerous other featured articles, especially in the Final Fantasy area.

PresN's style of edit summary use may concern a few users, as he is hovering around only 75-80 percent for both major and minor edits. However, most of his article work is relatively stable and often on uncontroversial topics; when he participates in a heated discussion or makes a bold move, he leaves a clear and concise edit summary. I actually don't mind this, because I have grown to trust when he is making uncontroversial improvements and when he is being bold/forming a judgment.

His extensive participation in consensus building on talkpages, as well as his participation in the GA, FA, and FL processes—including several discussions on the relevant criteria pages—demonstrate that he has a level head. Although he has not participated in many AfDs or vandalism issues in recent years, he has more than made up for this in his talkpage discussions and by actually improving articles based on the standards enforced in AfDs. Furthermore, he has participated in WikiGnome activities in the past, such as maintaining the WikiProject Video Games deletion pages (another task that shows his exposure to the AfD process) and judging member inactivity in our Square Enix WikiProject.

The fact that he helped bring numerous brand-new articles up to DYK standards shows that he understands our inclusion and quality policies—this ability to judge quality and interpret policies/guidelines correctly can transfer to an understanding of administrative procedures, should he decide to use the tools on a regular basis. Even if he does not wish to use the tools regularly, he has demonstrated civility, maturity, and compromise in my numerous discussions with him—many of which revolving around joint FA/GA pushes. When he is the one reviewing articles, he is clear, concise, and polite. In four years (well, more like 3 since I was on WikiBreak), I have never seen anyone have a major issue with PresN, myself included.

I see no reason not to grant him the tools, and I am confident that he can answer the questions effectively. Even if he does not use the tools that often, the occasional use for speedy deletion, AfD closings, and blocks for vandalism will be more than worth it. Besides, I feel that denying someone administrative tools just because they don't plan on using them regularly sets a bad example—that adminship is a status—when in reality it's just a reflection of earned trust. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by David Fuchs: I've interacted with PresN on many occasions at WT:VG. Many times, editors bring questions of deleting or merging content there, and with these and other discussions PresN has always shown himself to be a reasonable person with a good head and a grasp on Wikipedia's policies. He's got a lot of edits, but more importantly the quality of those edits is I believe indisputable. From gnomish chores to helping write several FAs, he is an excellent editor and can benefit from being entrusted with the additional tools. Deckiller has said most of what needs to be said, so in short: he is a fine editor and would be a fine admin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. --PresN 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: Generally in between content creation projects I like to run around and do little behind-the-scenes tasks; with that in mind I plan to initially work on the backlog- at the moment I see that there are about 200 images that are duplicates of Commons files, 80 article candidates for speedy deletion, and a bunch in Possibly Unfree Files, and clearing that out sounds like fun in a kind of OCD way. I expect to branch out to other areas as well (such as XfD) once I become comfortable with the tools.

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

A: As said above, I have a lot of content-creation experience; I'd have to say that my best contributions are my two Featured Articles: Flower (video game) and Aquaria (video game). FAC can be a grueling process, and having a bunch of people poke through your writing in that amount of detail and still find it worthy is a great experience. After that, I'd have to say the Music of the Final Fantasy series Good Topic - it's a bit of an obscure subject, which meant that each of the 18 articles in it that I took to GA or FL were essentially hand-written by only me, and they form a nice, cohesive whole.

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: Not anything major that I remember. We all run into disagreements, of course, and I'm no exception, but I find that when I get stressed or upset the quality of my writing and reasoning is reduced. As such, whenever an argument gets more heated, I typically start a reply, realize that I'm not really making any sense (and therefore not convincing anyone) and take a break from wiki for a few hours until I feel calm and collected again. I then come back and try to rationally explain my side of the argument; a few times I've even come back and decided that I was wrong and they were right. If I can't come to an agreement with the other editor, for content disputes I generally then turn to the relevant wikiproject for advice; I try to word such requests neutrally as nobody likes it when it feels like a bunch of people are ganging up to help an editor they like more. I don't really see that changing much in the future; for admin areas the venue may change, and there will be more times where the rules and guidelines are explicitly in my favor, but there's still no reason to get angry about editing. --PresN 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FASTILY

4. Would you ever consider blocking an established and registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?

A: Yes, there are a few cases. Narrowed down to established users (rather than new users): Sockpuppets of banned/blocked users and users making legal threats.

5. An editor in the United States takes a photo of a copyrighted statue with their own camera. The editor then uploads the photo to Wikipedia, claiming it under a free license, because after all, the photo was taken by the editor. Detail how you would react, if at all.

A: As summarized at Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works, photos of copyrighted 2D artworks don't change the copyright, but photos of copyrighted 3D artworks such as statues do, so the editor in question is correct in labeling the image as free if indeed it is their own work. It might be worth verifying that it is their own work, though. Assuming that it is theirs, at that point I would move it to Commons and remove the local copy so that the other 'pedias can use it easily (assuming that the editor in question uploaded it here).

6. On Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, an editor adds and uses twenty-five non-free screenshots from the game (all accompanied by very little or no critical commentary) to illustrate gameplay. Detail every step you would take to address the situation.

A: Step one would be to warn/explain to the user that their actions are outside the bounds of fair use- this comes first, as it helps prevent them from continuing on in this manner while I'm doing the other steps. Specifically- these actions don't comply with the Non-free content criteria policy and the Non-free content guideline, which state that non-free images should only be used if they're the subject of critical commentary and that their usage should be minimal, neither one of which is followed here. I would then pull the images out of the article- if one of them is better than one used in the article or could be the subject of critical commentary I might leave it as a content point and pull the old one (and put in said commentary) but for this specific article I'd probably pull all 25 (plus 2 more I see in there that probably shouldn't be there). Per Wikipedia:NFCC, at this point the images aren't being used in any article so they get to sit there for 7 days- tag them and wait. Keep an eye on the article/images- the regular editors to the page may decide to swap out the images if they feel that some of them were better than the current ones, and the original uploader may ignore the message and put them back in.

Questions from Sven Manguard _Talk

7. I noticed that you don't seem to have any vandalism fighting or AfD history. While it is refreshing to see a purely content creating user, much of the work admins do deals with handling problematic users, problematic pages, and other problematic problems. How do you respond to this?

A: I'd have to say that we were all new at something once, and that I wouldn't make rash actions without verifying them against the proper guideline first. We have a wealth of rules and procedures for how to deal with problematic cases and problems, and I feel that it is more important for a perspective candidate to have the maturity and common sense to make sure they know what they are doing before charging in than it is to have experience in every area. Experience can be gained; knowing how to rationally approach sticky situations is harder to learn.

Questions from SoWhy

8. I noticed that you use edit summaries rarely, if ever (stats). Do you have a reason why you don't use them?

A: Actually, if you look at my edit summaries across all of my edits- here, you'll see that I'm at 78.4% in mainspace and 92.5% in Talk. The past 150 edit summaries looks so low because of articles like this - when doing 100 edits in a row, converting a list from one table format to another year by year, I leave off edit summaries. As those are what I've been working on directly prior to my RfA, it skews my edit summary percentage. As Deckiller mentioned above, I try to leave edit summaries whenever I'm replying to someone, or making an edit that's not obvious what the purpose is.

9. In question #1 you said that you want to work in speedy deletion, if this request is successful. Do you have any experience in this area and if not, how would you handle this area if you were granted adminship?

A: I do not have any experience in this area yet. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion are pretty explicit about when an article is speedy-able and when it isn't. At first, if I was unsure about whether an article is speedy-able or not, I would leave it alone and keep an eye on it. When another admin comes by and speedys it or AfDs it, I would then learn a bit about where exactly the line is for, for example, A7 deletions, and over time would step up and trust my own judgment.

Questions from The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs

10. When, if ever, is it OK to block an IP address or nonautoconfirmed account that doesn't have four warnings on their talk page?

A: Per the Blocking policy, blocking a uesr/ip address without going through the warnings is permissable if: the account is used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism, if its a public account (shared between multiple people, though that would be usually difficult to know within the few days before the account is autoconfirmed), if the account has an inappropriate username, if it's a bot that doesn't have approval, or single-purpose COI/spam/promotion of a company accounts. IP addresses can also be blocked on sight if they're an open proxy.

11. You may have seen this question already, as it's a commonly asked one in RfAs. What is your stance on WP:IAR? When should it be used? When should it be ignored?

A: IAR is the flexibility in the rules; it should be used when following it results in an improvement to the project over blindly following the rules. It should not be used, however, to ignore consensus or as a defense against consensus, or as a carte blanche to do as one wishes.

Questions from Hipocrite (talk)

12. Wikipedia's coverage of Video Game articles is obviously your main focus, and the area in general has quite a following. Please detail some of the strengths and weaknesses of our coverage, and what would change about our coverage if you were the sole arbiter of policy. Thanks!

A: Hmm. Well, as for strengths, I'd say that Wikipedia, at its best, has the best coverage of video game-related topics of anywhere on the internet, and indeed, pretty much anywhere. I know that in particular an area I spend some time in, video game music, WP is pretty much the only place that has a cohesive discussion of the music and video game music composers. As for weaknesses, well, I'd say that the topic by its very nature tends to attract editors that, while certainly enthusiastic, are less knowledgeable not just of WP policies and practices but of what encyclopedic writing and tone is. It's certainly more likely to attract them than, say, the roads wikiproject. If I was the sole arbiter of policy, eh? Well, there aren't really any policies that I would overturn; I think I tend more towards merging articles together even if they could technically stand on their own if they form a better and more cohesive article merged than many editors there, but that's not really a policy, more of a case-by-case or general trend kind of thing.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 13. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 13a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Blocking an editor is done to prevent disruption/protect the project/its users. It isn't a punishment, and there shouldn't be such a thing as a punative or cooldown block. You're not blocking a user for the spam they already put in articles, you're blocking to prevent future spam because they have continued after several warnings and you think they will continue unless forcibly halted for a time.

• 13b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Similar reasoning to the above; protection is to prevent future abuse. Ongoing and persistent vandalism from numerous ips can be met with a semi-protection- this prevents future disruption, and the time limit should be enough to outlast it but not longer. Full protection, on the other hand, is used more for important templates that shouldn't be touched regularly, and for articles that are experiencing large-scale edit wars between established users. Salting and page-move-protection should be used when a deleted article is in danger of persistent recreation against consensus, or page-move vandalism/edit warring, respectively.

• 13c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: I started to just summarize WP:CSD but that got really long, so I'll just describe. We speedy delete an article not when it has problems, or even when it's probably not acceptable, but when it is unsalvageable. Gibberish articles, test articles, articles that provide no context as to what they are about, etc. The rules are really explicit about when an article can be speedied as opposed to AfD'd, but in general if it could be fixed, it shouldn't be speedied.

• 13d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: I'll quote myself from question 11 - "it should be used when following it results in an improvement to the project over blindly following the rules. It should not be used, however, to ignore consensus or as a defense against consensus, or as a carte blanche to do as one wishes."

• 14. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A: Consensus is determined by looking at all of the arguments and weighing them against each other, and determining which, if any, position is held in common by most of the participants. This is not to say that it is a straight vote- In AfD, an editor saying "keep, its useful" doesn't count for as much as one saying "keep, notability is established by these sources I just found [1][2][3]". As you intimate, consensus means different things in talk pages than it does in XfDs- for a talk page debate, 3 editors coming to an agreement on a content matter and 1 disagreeing can be consensus, while an AfD with such low numbers should probably be held over or restarted to get a broader participation. For XfDs, the editors and arguments for deletion need to significantly outweigh the editors and arguments for keeping- a fairly balanced split defaults to keep generally, as no overall consensus has been formed.

• 15. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: Bullet time.

• First off, look at the article history (and the user histories while I'm at it). They're there for a reason, I don't need to take JohnQ's (or anyone else's) word for what is happening. Assuming that what JohnQ has said is correct (and that he's uninvolved in this edit war),
• Warn JohnDoe and JaneRoe. Edit warring isn't cool, whether they're technically violating 3RR or not. It's just not in line with the way people are supposed to behave on-wiki. The warning should tell them that they need to take the dispute to the talk page, rather than hashing it out in the article itself. Remind them that even if that means that the article is stuck on m:The Wrong Version, that there's no rush to have everything perfect right now.
• At this point, it really depends on what the circumstances are. Pure content dispute? Keep a lid on the article until it's resolved- 2 people probably doesn't need a semi/full-protection, but if more people get dragged in it may. They continue to revert and not talk it over? Warnings leading to blocks. In any case, try to facilitate the discussion- if they were edit warring they may need a helping hand in keeping the discussion in line, as they weren't doing it themselves.

• 16. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: Basically, I just like to fix things and build things. (for example, your template has a bug- it's outputting "{{#expr: 13 + 3}}" instead of evaluating it and outputting "16", and my fingers are itching to fix it). As I work on WP, I run into places where the tools would be useful- deleting a page so the histories can be merged, or backlogs that I'd like to take care of. I'm not interested in the prestige (hah) of being an admin, and I don't care for any recognition or status- I view the tools as just that, and so I'm requesting to be allowed to use them as I feel that I'd put them to good use.

• Links for PresN: PresN (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for PresN can be found here.

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

1. Nominator support—Deckiller (t-c-l) 04:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Seems fine to me. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 05:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A review of his contribs gives me no reason to think he'll abuse the tools. DC T•C 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support I don't find lack of summaries a problem, as long as he doesn't abuse them. Other than that, this is clearly going to pass. Minimac (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support highly likely to be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - no problems from me :) —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:17pm • 08:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support: Experienced, helpful and mature user; I've never—nor, as far as I know, has anyone else—encountered problems with him. As has been said, his appointment would be a net gain for the encyclopedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support — I have watched this editor for quite a long time and he definitely seems worthy of the broom. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jubilant Support Net positive editor. PresN will be a good addition to the admin corps.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 11:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support;. Clueful, level-headed content editor. Net benefit. -- œ^™ 11:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - plenty of experience and seems trustworthy. Axl's oppose raises some concerns, and in general I agree that candidates should have some recent experience at Articles for Deletion, however I think overall the PresN will be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support – as a good editor with experience. Perseus!Talk to me 12:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Looks good. ~NerdyScienceDude 14:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. PresN seems to have a clue and generally seems to know what he is doing. I am sure he would be able to figure out the admin tasks he want to do, and to ask if he could not figure it out. Doubt he would be a net negative at all. NW (Talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Good content contributor, looks to have sound reasoning skills, and I trust the nominators. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. Thanks for the great content! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support -per nom statement. BUT i implore you, use edit summaries more, please :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Weak support - Per nomination, I don't see much of a problem. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Net Positive, agree with the others, Please use the edit summaries. They are there for a reason.--intelati^talk 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - I don't see any problems. Would like to see edit summary usage when you use your admin tools though! What I really liked was the comment in Q1 - "when I become more comfortable with the tools". Proof of sound judgment and will not rush into something.  Orfen  ^T • _C 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support – Clueful editor that can be trusted with the tools. Great article work as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Look below before you yell at me... Sven Manguard _Talk 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - I'm going on faith a little bit here. I would prefer to have seen more experience in admin-related areas, and I don't see a strong need for the tools. However, you seem like a level-headed contributor who interacts well with others. I guess this a "why not?" !vote from me. I hope/think that you will wade into the admin waters slowly as you get comfortable with the tools. Great job with what you have done so far! Please always use edit summaries. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Nothing worries me here. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Strong support. No concerns, seems to know policy very well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Strong support – If I recall, I wanted to nominate PresN for adminship a while ago but was turned down. Good to see a change of heart there. More than enough clue and competency to easily support. –MuZemike 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Weak Support. Great content creator, but answer to #5 did cause me to pause a little. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 22:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. It is refreshing to see a content oriented editor here who requests the mop. There are plenty of vandalism oriented admins around to help keep the house clean. Although he may have been incorrect on the statue question I find that no reason at all to oppose. We all have learned on the job and I am sure PresN will be no different. JodyB _talk 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Should be a fine admin. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Valuable contributor, no strong concerns Jebus989^✰ 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support—per NW, mainly. I believe PresN will be a net positive. Airplaneman ✈ 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Seems to know what they are doing. Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 01:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Agree with NW. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to add that SoWhy's worries about the use of edit summaries are important and I hope the candidate works to improve on that as an admin. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

35. Trustworthy. No concerns. ceranthor 03:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Great editor, great member of the Video Game WikiProject, and I think that he should be given a mop. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Has been around since June 2006 and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support clearly here to build an encyclopedia, opposes fail to convince me that there's anything he won't soon come up to speed on. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I see a very good contributor here, and I'm convinced by the answers to the questions that we'll get an admin who can be trusted with the tools, and who will be very careful with them and won't rush in without being up to speed. One specific caution on CSD, though. The categories might look clear enough, but that's deceptive, and real examples can be quite tricky to get right - great care is needed before you start deleting. (I've seen a lot of articles tagged when they shouldn't be, and, worse, deleted even with inapplicable tags by admins who don't understand the categories properly.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support An editor with much experience and good temperament. Deli nk (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong Support - This editor seems to know what wikipedia is about. Since it seems that his (lack of) usage of edit summaries was only because he was fixing table formats, I have no problem at all with granting this user admin privileges. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong Support Long history of creating exactly the kind of content that enhances Wikipedia's reputation. Clearly trustworthy, experienced and collaborative. The project is fortunate to have people like this seeking additional responsibility.Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Great content work along with good answers to questions show trustworthiness. Derild4921☼ 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Looks like this editor is ready for the tools, good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

48. Support. Plenty of positives, and if there are any negatives, it's up to the Oppose voters to bring them forward. And they haven't, the Oppose arguments are not strong or convincing. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. I have no major concerns. Although his answer to Q5 could have been stronger I trust the candidate's judgement and believe that his strong track record at WP indicate he's qualified for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support No reason not to. --Banana (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support While the answer to question 5 is enough to give pause, editor seems more than capable of learning from it. Since that question isn't about policy, but about law, any problems in the area would be quickly corrected by those with more experience anyway. None of the opposes are convincing, although I hope PresN would strive to get to 100% edit summary usage from this point on. They are an important method of communication, and admins should be all about communication. I have never cared for the "need for the tools" argument, and don't find it to be persuasive in any way. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Sure. No reason not to support. Active, experienced editor. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support: My interactions with PresN have been pleasant and fruitful. He is knowledgeable of most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and he has exercised good judgment in his overall editing. I see an extra set of tools for him only helping Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
54. Weak Support Good content work- I've reviewed a fair amount of it at FLC, but poor edit summary usage is a concern. Courcelles 18:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Looking though PresN's contributions I don't see any issues. The lack of edit summaries does not concern me. When I do repetitive tasks I too occasionally forget to type one in as well. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue isn't "I forgot", it's the attitude that "I don't want to". - jc37 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

56. Super Support: Superbbbb Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Good content work, see no significant issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. No problems with content, nor with the Commons stuff, as I've indicated below. But I do have a problem with lack of edit summaries, which I think are essential. Nevertheless, supporting, as I think candidate is competent. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support I have no problem with you not using edit summaries for tedious edits. That's what popups are for. Marcus Qwertyus 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Contributions look good, answers seem to have clue. (I would endorse a few more edit summaries in some cases, not everyone has popups and summaries are nice for scanning, but I'd probably have omitted them too in a very long series of repetitive table formatting edits, so, not a deal-breaker for me.) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Fully qualified candidate, although I do think the request that the candidate use edit summaries regularly is well-taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support I advise many block happy admins to memorise your answer to 13a (particularly those who gravitate to certain places on wikipedia because they seem to like blocking people). Polargeo (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. An eminently sensible and even-tempered candidate. Even if he were to initially stumble in a few areas due to unfamiliarity, I have little fear of PresN becoming an incompetent or abusive administrator. Skomorokh 13:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support - Worthwhile editor at the video games project with proven track record of content work. No reason not to trust with the tools, although I understand that Adminship is a massive deal now. hahnchen 00:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support - Looks good Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support: Not perfect but will make a good admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - Despite some very good opposes, I support. I do hope the candidate will take their advice to heart and study those areas he plans on working in. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support – S/he seems like quite a nice person. Some thoughtful and considered replies to some very difficult questions. A lot of them seemed designed to trip him/her up. S/he did well; I'm impressed. Good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He, by the way, if anyone cares. --PresN 19:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry; I've fixed that with some Wiki-biro. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

70. Support Appears to be a very good editor who will not dissapoint as an administrator.--PinkBull 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The number of my vote is malformed, but I don't know how it can rectified. Would appreciate some help here. --PinkBull 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Guyinblack!--PinkBull 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. PresN is a great editor with excellent content contributions. However I do not see evidence of activity in areas requiring admins. I didn't find any comments in XfDs over the last six months. In the answer to question 1, I am particularly concerned by PresN's intention to be involved in speedy deletion in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per (a)Lack of almost any visible edit summary. (b)Zero reasoning ever given by the editor in almost all the reverts they've undertaken. Will add more after further analysis (or move my vote to support if I think everything else is fine). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 15:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I've never noticed PresN revert major non-vandalism edits without an explanation (he often reverts using popups for vandalism and so forth, but that's really no different from a rollback). I notice the occasional revert when a redundancy or typo is introduced, but that does not strike me as major. Can you offer examples of this being the rule rather than the exception? —Deckiller (t-c-l) 20:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose. I'm sorry, but your answer to question five is dead wrong. Freedom of Panorama and Derivative Works are, among many other things, topics you will encounter on a frequent basis at PUF, FFD, and in moving files to Commons. For someone who wishes to work in media files as a sysop, I cannot, in good faith, support someone who lacks fundamental knowledge in media file policy. If this RfA passes, I strongly urge you to read up on media file policies before starting work in the field. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   For anyone who is interested, FOP does not apply to copyrighted statues in the United States; photos of these statues, if uploaded to Wikipedia, must be uploaded as non-free. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually did not know that, mainly because I haven't been focused on images as an administrator. Is there information about it available anywhere other than Commons? I understand your oppose and don't want to badger you, though I do find that many administrators learn on the job and still manage to minimize mistakes. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm really not aware of any place other than the comprehensive (and often tl;dr) image copyright policy pages here and on Commons to learn about these things. A lot of it comes with experience working with images, but copyright debates at Commons are sometimes both fascinating and ugly to read. It's not a big deal, but FOP is (to me) a more "basic" thing than, say, Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and the whole URAA debate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I haven't yet voted in this RfA, but I've contributed a fair number of images to Commons, and I had to 'learn on the job' about this issue of photo rights for statues and the like, and basically because one admin there was kind enough to explain it to me. Some of the Commons stuff is tricky business, and one learns as one goes along. I wouldn't hold it against someone if they didn't know all the in's and out's. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Same here. I've learned through the detailed explanations given by image reviewers at FAC, like Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs). I don't view this as a major slipup because copyright policy is extremely complicated. PresN, a word of advice: be sure to check commons:COM:LICENSING if you face a similar scenario in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose - Ironically, a few hours ago in another discussion, I said something about 'not needing the tools' to be a weak reason for opposing on an RfA. Here, however, I'm afraid, together with the low importance attached to making edit summaries, and with what I feel is rather a vague notion of where the candidate would be active with their average of ten edits a day, is enough for me to suggest that s/he does not need the tools just yet. Getting more into the thick of things and racking up some broader experience to include NPP, AfD, vandalism, and other areas that demonstrate measurable skill of judgement in the more contentious areas, then coming back here again in six months would move me to support whom I have no doubt is a trustworthy editor.--Kudpung (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Over the past few months, I've been barely averaging ten edits a day. Is that a reason to strip me of adminship? We contribute (hopefully) at a level we can afford and that is not stressful; maybe in two months the candidate has far more free time to devote to Wikipedia, maybe less. Activity changes over time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd like to add that not every user is experienced in every area. In fact, most are not; this includes admins. As has been said, PresN's obviously a clueful editor capable of learning on the job. He is not the type who would wreak havoc by using tools before understanding them. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - While I did like some answers (#15, for example), I'm opposing mostly for four reasons. The first is that the editor's main intentions for being an admin (per question #1) are in an area that I feel that I'm not very "fluent" in (File:), and so I typically seek out the insight of those who are; and so User:Fastily's oppose (and other comments on this page affirming the accuracy of the info) would seem to be enough to cause me to oppose. The second (which is more a case of "neutral, leaning towards oppose"), is because he really doesn't show a "need" for the tools (question #16 in particular). Not that anyone must, but having a wont to fix stuff, doesn't necessarily mean that the tools are needed to do so. And the answer to #7 seems to confirm the lack of need, for me. The third, the answer to #9 (about CSD) is bothersome to me. The impression I'm getting is: I don't help out there now, and know little about it, but it sounds like a good starting place to cut my teeth as a new admin. - That concerns me. And fourth, the propensity for a lack of edit summaries - Communication is one of the more important aspects of adminship (and really, editorship, for that matter). Note: At this point, just from "vote" counting - 42/6/2 - this nom will likely succeed. If so, I sincerely hope the candidate will take my concerns into consideration upon becoming an admin. - - jc37 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak oppose I think this candidate has the best interests of the project at heart but I don't think adminship is right for him. I share many of the concerns mentioned above about the lack of edit summaries. While his reply to question #8 might be plausible, it also demonstrates a lack of understanding what edit summaries are for. They are not only to explain potentially confusing edits but should allow people to understand what you did without having to review your edits. Also, it's not easy (if possible at all) for anyone to judge whether an edit of theirs is potentially "non obvious". As jc37 put it, communication is a vital skill for an admin and edit summaries are one of the main tools for said communication to happen. I can understand missing a summary here and there (my record isn't 100% either, although those edits are from 2004 or 2005) but the candidate is systematically not using them, as he admits himself, which is not something an admin should do. We have plenty of such admins already and each one of them makes Wikipedia a bit harder for old and new users to use. On a side note, as some mentioned above, CSD is more tricky than it looks, so if this is successful, please consult a more experienced admin in that area before starting to work there (despite my opposing !vote, I would of course be happy to help). I don't think that's a reason for opposing the request though, many admins found their area only after they were granted the tools. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I find it amazing you're using an 80% edit summary usage number in reference to an editor with 23k+ edits, as though he's not explaining his actions. Edit summary count were popular back in the 2005 admin days, but they've degraded in importance for a reason. Frankly I think that you don't agree with this user's CSD opinions, and answer. I obviously disagree, but I'd rather you make that argument than complaining that 20% of 23,000+ edits were unexplained. Shadowjams (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   We can disagree about that of course but I still believe that all users (and all admins especially) should use edit summaries and that's what I am concerned about with this user. 20% missing edit summaries in general could be okay but it's not when it's 20% of mainspace edits. We routinely revert new users who make edits without summaries that might be disruptive and it's imho a bad idea for experienced users (let alone admins) to act the same way. As for CSD, I do see that the user lacks experience in that area (see above) and I am concerned about that as well, but not as much. His answer to question #9 shows that they will be careful when approaching this area and the answer to question #13c contains some correct parts, although it's probably phrased a bit imprecisely. I'd really love to hear though, what "opinions" the candidate has that I allegedly disagree with. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Weak oppose I cannot support someone who does not try to get their edit summaries close to 100%. Admins should lead by example, I have often explained to other editors the benefits of the edit summary - I would not feel happy doing that if my count was not very high (99.8% for >63,000 edits) - they would be likely to ask "why should I do it, if you don't?". Personally I have my preferences set to not allow an edit without a summary, if I'm doing a chain of edits, then I use a suitable summary for all - then after the first edit, just by just typing the first letter, firefox will fill in the rest with a click of the mouse.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Oppose Concerns about the edit summaries and the 'need' for the tools add to a weak oppose from me. MurfleMan (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. answer to Q5. Cannot support a user wanting to work in File namespace who doesn't have a basic grasp of FoP regardless of your other contributions. -Atmoz (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose – inadequate experience of AfD and counter-vandalism work, which are both core areas of admin activity. Content building alone, laudable as it is, is not a core area of admin activity. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on Fastily's questions Was leaning slightly towards oppose based on lack of vandalism fighting, then read Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Question, which did a fine job of correcting my silly notion of the necessity of vandalism fighting towards adminship. Assuming you don't totally screw up on Fastily's questions, this will be a support vote soon. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to his answer to question 1, he doesn't have any intention to go vandalism fighting like some other administrators do. You might think that the rollback button is included in the admin package, but not all admins would want to try out every single tool to see what it does. Minimac (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Minimac, but I already knew that. I was just worried because there will be times that every admin has to get involved with these types of things, not because they want to, but because a problem winds up on their doorstep. I am now waiting on question 8. I'm dead neutral now. While edit summaries are not that critical, and I wouldn't have a problem with even 75% or so usage, but 11% is worrisome. Not enough to sink this, IMO, but combined with my other concern, I can't support at this time. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the article writing is wonderful. Solid work there. The answer to Q5 is off, and you know you need to learn CSD/deletion policies—knowing what you need to learn is good. This seems on track to pass, but I'm neutral because I'm hoping you would know about CSD, etc. already. It's a very tricky area, and "learning on the job" may not be safe always. But I think you're very clueful and will learn quickly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral While the candidate has made some valuable contributions to the project, the answers to question 1 and in particular question 5, causes me concern with respect to understanding Wikipedia's policies.--Hokeman (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral - A very fine editor but I'm a little concerned about their lack of experience in admin areas. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:34, 18 November 2010 (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.