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

FINAL (43/37/19); closed at 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nosleep (talk · contribs) – I've been considering doing this for sometime and feel that I'm ready now.

I first came to Wikipedia in May 2007, and left in a huff a few months later. I wish like anything that I hadn't. A few months ago, I looked at my edit history from right around the time I left, and it seemed I was in a pretty contentious fight with User:Nahallac Silverwinds. I didn't want to open the diffs and see what the hell I did, because I simply wasn't a very good person then. I could make excuses, but I won't. I did what I could to make it right with Nahallac.

What brought me back, and what's kept me committed, was WikiProject Cycling. I am arguably its most prolific user - certainly mine is the name you'll find most often on the Project talk page. I've set in motion several advancements through that Project, and I can detail them if anyone likes. I am currently trying to form a WikiProject for another sport that I love, that being diving - this is my proposal, though looking at other proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals tells me I'm going to need to be a little patient.

I am as active as I can be in XFD's. I don't have a home internet connection right now (actually I'm at a Starbucks right now) so my somewhat limited internet time has been focused on improvements in the article space and drafting new articles in the user space in the last couple months. I feel that composition is my biggest strength as a Wikipedian. A list of articles I've influenced, ordered by my level of influence in them, is on my userpage. I greatly enjoy XFD's, but I often find that what I would say has already been said by others, and I'm not a fan of !voting with nothing more than *Oppose per User:JohnDoe. I enjoy XFD's and other community processes because of the procedure (it's near parliamentary at times), that's something that really clicks with me. I also like new page patrolling, and as a personal rule I new page patrol for at least an hour every time I create a new article myself.

Much as I'd like to claim it is, my tiff with Nahallac is not my only conflict in my time here. I will talk about the other as answers to questions below, since it fits in pretty well. I wish when I had come back to the project in 2008 that I had simply registered again (as I changed usernames slightly), but that history from 2007 is regrettably tied to me whether I like it or not.

I don't know if I'm shooting myself in the foot by being this honest and forthright, but I figure it's better for me to disclose as much as I can than have it found by others. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should address the other gap in my editing, late 2008 - I was finishing college at the time. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm gonna be back between now and the time this officially closes, so I'd just like to thank everyone for participating. It went a little better than I thought it would. For better or worse, I gave a pretty fair snapshot of who I am. I think a lot of you will come around by the time I come back here, which I think'll be around my birthday (and that's in late January). I expected, upon doing this, to see a lot of objections on the basis of my behavior or my experience - it's truly shocking to me that the two opinions of mine that have been much dissected here are this controversial. But again, thank you for the learning experience, and I'm going to do everything I can to better myself in the coming months. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A: Short answer, anything that has a backlog. It's unnecessary for several reasons to dive right into AFD - there's never any kind of backlog there, and I think the potential for making a mistake is pretty high. WP:PUF always seems to have a backlog, and that's something I have a bit of experience listing in (though the last images I listed there were erroneous - they were on the Commons). The most obvious backlog is in WP:PM, such that I and I'm sure many users have stopped seeing it as a viable option for community attention (it was even MFD'd twice in the last three months). It would take more than just me, clearly, but I'd like to restore it as such an option. I recently nominated an article for deletion, and the next day realized that I didn't want to delete it, but rather merge it to the parent article (which is what I ended up doing). I think it would be good if centralized merger discussion were as well known as centralized deletion discussion. This would start with clearing the backlog. As an admin, I'd also like to delete the nonsense, pure promotion, vandalism, etc. that I find when new page patrolling instead of having to simply tag it with a speedy and wait for someone else to do it. If that's considered improper, I think I would also enjoy following the speedy templates left by others and deleting those same pages.

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

A: I have, in my time, contributed to one featured article, Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race, and two Good Articles, Alberto Contador and Paris-Roubaix (though I believe the reviewer was being a bit generous in the latter in granting GA). The Cycling WikiProject has never been particularly motivated to get its articles listed as GA or FA - I'm really not sure why this is. I consider most of the articles listed on my userpage to be in about as good of condition as they could possibly be. The relative lack of GA and FA within the cycling Project, where I do most of my editing, means there's not really a standard to compare many of these articles to, and as such it's difficult to know if they merit GA or FA.

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: As mentioned above, yes. The second situation I didn't detail at first involved the article NFL playoffs, 2008–09. I and other users were editing the page to reflect the outcomes of games where the winning team had been decided before the game was officially over. Both of the NFC Divisional games were involved, if I recall correctly. We did not enter any final scores, but we did edit the page to reflect Arizona and Philadelphia moving on in the tournament, when they had leads of more than 10 points with only a few seconds left in the game. Another user, and I'll dig up who it was if you like but I'd really just like to forget this whole situation if possible, reverted the edits claiming WP:CRYSTAL. I reverted him, but did not violate 3RR, and we got into a spat over it. I claimed he was wikilawyering at that our edits were a correct invocation of WP:IAR. Unfortunately, for me, the dispute spilled over onto his talk page, where I conducted myself like a child. I'm deeply ashamed of it and wish I hadn't done it. At the end, I apologized to the user for my conduct but not for the edits or my reversions, because I did (and still do) believe WP:IAR was correctly invoked there, if it was indeed invoked at all. I'd like to say I'll never lose my cool in such a way again, and certainly I've done a better job of it in recent months, but who can legitimately make such a promise? We all get angry sometimes. I can promise to do everything I can to keep my cool in the future, and while six months without a fight might not mean much, it's my start. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Fuhghettaboutit

4. You say that you came to Wikipedia in May, 2007 but I notice that your very first edit on May 7, 2007 was to add the comment: "Please don't anyone "welcome" me, I'm not actually new" (diff). Can you explain a bit about what you meant? Had you been editing for a time as an IP, or is this not your first account? Something else?

A: Yeah, thought that might raise a few eyebrows, I'd have been more transparent about it if I had remembered in my first statement. I had edited as an IP for a little while, and I also edited a handful of times (fewer than 20, if I had to ballpark it) under the name of a guy I used to live with, a name that I honestly don't remember (he died recently, so whatever the name was, it's gone for good). I just didn't want one of those dorky-but-well-intentioned 'welcome' templates (I'd seen them on the talk pages of others, and found that I was pretty well acquainted with everything that was on them). I've moved several times since May 2007 and edited as an IP (inadvertently without realizing I wasn't signed in) numerous times under several IP's since then. It would be tough to track them all down, particularly as my current situation without a home internet connection has me, I'm sure, at a different IP every time I log on.

Let me know if that answer wasn't sufficient, I feel like I rambled a little :P Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Ottawa4ever (talk)

5.This question is meant to be a AIV scenario; A newly created account (User A) posts an incidence of which is percieved as vandalism and is subsequently warned against doing so by a User B. User A subsequently removes the warning from his/her talk page. And another user, C (which is an IP with no edits until now) places the warning back. User A removes the warning again and C places it back. This repeats until User A has removed the warning a total of 3 times. User B (not C) subsequently reports User A for vandalsim on AIV. Being on AIV how would you handle this? Would your answer be any different if User B says the IP of C is his own? If anything is unclear i will gladly clarify. This question as the headline says is optional.

A: I've always found proactive intervention against vandalism to be...not futile, exactly, but a use of energies that could better be put to work elsewhere. Of course, if the same IP (or hey, even registered user) has done nothing but unquestionably vandalize his entire career, then something needs to be done, but if somebody adds a sentence to an article saying one of their friends is gay, just revert it and move on with life.

Nonetheless, AIV is probably something every admin comes into contact with at some point or another, so I'd best answer the question posed. WP:TPG#User talk pages states that users are free to remove anything from their own talk pages that they care to (a right I recently exercised, removing a slightly acrimonious conversation that I just wasn't interested in), including warnings, with the removal of a warning taken as incidence that the warning has been read and understood by the user. The first thing to do in this situation is to determine whether User A's initial edit truly is vandalism. If it's not unquestionably vandalism, User A and User B should discuss, preferably with others (perhaps including the article's most relevant WikiProject) if the edit is helpful. If consensus is formed one way or the other, hopefully the user whose view is opposed by the consensus will be adult enough to accept it (if not, other problems, much more obvious in nature, are likely to result). I am a big proponent of discussion among interested editors and an even bigger proponent, perhaps to a fault, of the sanctity of consensus.

If the edit is unquestionably vandalism, then the warning was correct, but as User A is a new account, he or she was probably given a very light warning, like {{test}} or {{Uw-vandalism1}}. If User A reads and understands this warning, then he or she has every right to remove it from his or her talk page and go along his or her way. User C is not justified in re-adding it. User A should ideally be able to point this out to User C, but since User A is new, he or she might not know this. If User A continues to vandalize, then progressively sterner warnings will come his or her way from those who revert the user's edits, up to {{Uw-vandalism4}}, at which point the story pretty much tells itself.

I don't deny that I have a hard time trusting anons. User C should be informed that continually re-adding the warning to User A's talk page is improper, but as this is hardly grounds for an IP block, not much (if anything) else can be done. If User C and User B are the same person, this is akin to a sock puppetry case, but we are directed by WP:SOCK#Treatment of the editor to assume good faith and first explain this to User B. Personally, if C and B are not the same person, I would implore C to register, as it makes this mess a lot easier to deal with.

Bottom line, the first step is to ascertain the nature of what began the problem, and go from there. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from FASTILY

6. I am under the impression that, if promoted to sysop, you would work with files (you stated you would work in WP:PUF). Since that is the case, please answer the following:

a. What, in your opinion, are the several most important non-free content criteria? Please explain why you think these criteria are the most important and give a detailed explanation of each.

A:Gonna need a little time with this one. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC) All right:[reply]

1. No free equivalent. Failure of this criterion is the most obvious reason for an image to make its way to WP:PUF or WP:FFD, or to simply be deleted altogether. For example, File:Tafi roubaix.jpg was used in the article Andrea Tafi (cyclist) quite erroneously; its description page freely admitted it was taken from the official website of Tafi's team, yet it was being used in that article solely to show what the subject, a living person, looked like. This is never okay without something unusual and unlikely happening like the team giving us specific permission to use the photo. Failure of this criterion also shows inexperience or carelessness on the part of users uploading the image and using it, because it should be the first thing anyone thinks of when working with a file - is it free to use, and if it's not, can we get another one that is free? It is our responsibility to bend over backwards for free content for use in enhancing our articles. A lot of people who should know that don't.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities We're not going to have an image of a painting from, say, Tom Savage, since he might still be able to sell that painting and our file would pose a problem to his ability to. Guernica (painting), on the other hand, isn't gonna make a buck for anyone, so File:PicassoGuernica.jpg doesn't harm anyone's commercial opportunities. This all gets back to, and actually goes well beyond, the very reason copyright is respected in the first place - we don't advance ourselves off the sweat of others when we can at all avoid it. To not only use the sweat of others but keep them from advancing themselves because of it is just wrong on so many levels.

3. Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use This is actually another reason why I don't like articles on individual episodes of a TV series. {{Infobox Television episode}} provides for an image, which for this sort of article pretty much has to be a screen capture or a publicity still. And this has a reasonable purpose, to visually identify the episode, but that's one non-free image right off the bat. Consider an article like Par Avion, 10k in size with three non-free images. Maybe there should be a hard-and-fast rule correlating article size and number of non-free images, maybe there shouldn't, but I would argue that the presence of File:Lost-Claire-Par Avion.jpg or File:Jackfriendlyfootball.jpg, or both, come very close to violating this criterion, largely on the basis of article size (and that they don't add significant understanding to the topic). In scores of other articles on individual episodes of television series, the one image in the infobox is used to convey significant information pertaining to the topic (chiefly, visual identification), in compliance with this criterion. This criterion exists to keep usage of non-free content restricted to what is necessary for conveyance of significant information. It also exists to keep pages encyclopedic; without this criterion, our articles would begin to resemble Myspace pages.

7. One-article minimum. Beyond the common-sense desire to use what we have, this is a WP:NOT#WEBSPACE matter. If an image is not being used anywhere in the nearly 3 million articles we have, then it's wasting space. Wikipedia's file servers and bandwidth capacity are not infinite (though it may seem they are) and we need to have only what we use. And except in the case of a very newly uploaded image, if it's not used anywhere in the nearly 3 million articles we have, it probably doesn't belong anywhere in them.

10. Image description page This is undoubtedly the paramount concern for a non-free image. The lack of source and fair use information for non-free content can be (is?) a violation of law. Frankly, I'd like to see some standards developed as to what is and is not a reasonable fair-use rationale, and for there to be procedure in place to deal with unreasonable fair-use rationales just as there are to deal with images that lack them altogether. Consider Par Avion again; File:Lost-Claire-Par Avion.jpg and File:Jackfriendlyfootball.jpg both contain fair-use rationales for their usages in that article (they'd have been removed long ago if they didn't), but I can't read them and come away thinking anyone actually put any serious thought into them. I get the distinct impression they were written simply to have a fair-use rationale, and while my impression shouldn't necessarily count for a hill of beans, is one person's impression taken for discussion among interested parties the very basis of any and all XFD's?

I don't necessarily think these five are more important than the other five, but they're the ones I've been able to string a few words together to address. I'll try to address the others later, I kind of wanted to spit something out in response to this question. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist?

A: I'd say no. The only even remotely applicable example I've seen discussed in the past of a notable but extraordinarily reclusive person like Thomas Pynchon (though I see someone has found a public domain image of him from his youth). I think if, say, Pynchon had granted a magazine world exclusive access to him, one time only, and they took a picture of him, what we'd be best off doing is linking to it in the external links, or the references - chances are it'd be used as a reference in the article, and the article prose would indicate that a photo had been taken. As long as there's an "L" in BLP, a free alternative is available or potentially available. We would cease to be encyclopedists if we published a non-free image in this way - we'd become journalists trying for a scoop, and that's against the spirit of encyclopedia-building. We'd also be likely to run afoul of the subject, and while the subject's wishes should never be paramount in a BLP, they should be considered, and we should not unreasonably go against them. If someone "prefers not to be photographed" like Pynchon but changes his mind once, that's not free rein for us. What other scenarios are there were a non-free image exists but not a free one? About all I can even think of is an abduction victim, but in checking the most obvious article of that sort, it doesn't seem that it ever had a picture (still doesn't). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c. A user takes pictures of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag {{pd-self}} (public domain). What is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?

A:This is analogous to creating an animated gif with screengrabs taken from a DVD. A little under a year ago I found two of these on a page I stumbled upon by clicking "random article" (bored and listlessly). They were File:Spike Piledriver1.gif and File:Royal Butterfly5.gif. They were uploaded with {{pd-self}} (and what I didn't know at the time was that the user had uploaded around 20 such gifs), likely by someone who didn't know the difference between owning the content and building with it. I listed them on WP:PUI, as it was then known, and they were deleted. I think this constitutes a pretty obvious case of copyright infringement, and violates the Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use criterion of WP:NFCC. I think File:Bonds-6.jpg probably violates this criterion as well (James Bond (character) would be better served to do like Doctor (Doctor Who) does). Why is it an issue? Well, it's really why we respect copyright in the first place. We're not here to advance ourselves with the work of others. I wonder what article the Disney collage would try to be placed in. I think a better question is of an image like File:Disney princess pez.jpg, uploaded with {{GFDL}} despite being an image of something that's obviously not user-created. I wouldn't be sure how to address the copyright status of an image like that.

Rambling again, I think, hopefully I said something meaningful. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: As should be obvious, I'm more inclined to say Wikipedia is better off not including an article on Topic of Questionable Notability X than including it. I do, however, tend to defer to precedent and extrapolate - I wrote the articles 2009 Volta a Catalunya and 2009 Tour de Suisse largely because there were in existence articles on previous editions of those same races. I might have written 2009 Tour of Belgium, but we've never had an article on an individual edition of that race, despite it having a history bettered only by the Tour de France. Now that doesn't unambiguously mean one is notable and one isn't; someone decided to write 2005 Volta a Catalunya despite there never having been any article on an individual edition of that race beforehand, but personally, that's not a move I'm likely to make.

Nothing is automatically notable, or anything that would be seen as automatically notable is unquestionably notable for better reasons than "it's automatically notable." As a further example from personal experience, I have, actually, believe it or not, written first-draft stubs in my day - Craig Hummer and Jesús Rosendo (the second was even below 2K on the first draft! Quelle horror!). I now kind of wish I hadn't - I think Hummer is notable, but I'm not as sure about Rosendo. The "article" would undoubtedly be kept in any deletion discussion, though, under WP:ATHLETE, which I think is pretty seriously flawed. After the Volta a Catalunya, I considered writing an article on Julián Sánchez, a cyclist who had won a jersey in that event, but decided not to as I didn't personally believe Sánchez merited one just for that and also that the article would surely be one of the stublets I malign so. It would up being written anyway, and it really isn't much.

One sort of article in particular that satisfies the GNG that my perfect Wikipedia would exclude is individual episodes of television series. Aside from episodes that have clear real-world significance, for example the series finales of M*A*S*H or Seinfeld, I don't think individual episodes of TV shows have any inherent notability for inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia at all. To me, this is why projects like Memory Alpha and The Infosphere and Lostpedia were started in the first place. Now, if you asked that question of a member of WP:TREK or WP:LOST, there's every possibility they wouldn't think individual editions of the Volta a Catalunya are inherently notable! I would find their "perfect Wikipedia" as unattractive as they would find mine. Wikipedia would likely not have 10 million named accounts or even close to that if I were its undisputed despotic ruler, but I contend that that'd be true of anyone.

Another thing I see a lot in new page patrolling is articles on schools. I tend to leave them alone, except those that include text like "Mr. Thompson's homeroom rules!" or "Billy, I'll see you in third period tomorrow," but I don't think schools below the university level are notable by themselves. I'm not even sure I'd want an article like Columbine High School in my perfect 'pedia - notability pertains to events that took place there, not the school itself. No high schools or middle schools are granting doctorates or publishing papers that are changing the scientific world and very few, if any, are really receiving any kind of major media coverage about the school itself. Seeing the number of subcategories at Category:High schools and secondary schools is staggering to me, and I wonder how it got started, especially as there doesn't even seem to be a notability standard for schools.

I think that was mostly on-point. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. On your user page you state that new articles under 2K should be outlawed and that these tiny stubs have no value whatsoever. Take a look at Saint Fausta. This article is only 1.5K despite having an infobox. Do you really think that stubs like this are of "no value"? It is not uncommon for there to be very little know about notable figures from before the advent of the printing press. Indeed, often times the only way to get articles like these above 2K would be to necessarily wordy and/or repeat one's self. Many of these ancient history figures are important enough to have an entry in a print encyclopedia, and yet still there is hardly 2000 bytes of material known about the person. In light of this, do you still wish to stand by your 2k minimum or should historical figured be exempt? Why or why not?

A:Not ignoring the above questions, will get to them soon, but this one grabbed my attention first.

Short answer, if the article is as complete as it can possibly be, then it's not a stub. Or at least it shouldn't be - "stub" to me means "little piece of what can be a much more complete article." I see that that isn't necessarily Wikipedia's definition of a stub. I firmly believe that stubs (my definition) have no value unless they're eventually improved (hence the visually obtrusive boldface in that statement on my userpage). "Eventually" is something I deliberately left vague and open-ended, since Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Approaching the question from another direction, that 2K number I threw out, aside from being something I pulled out of thin air while typing (it could just as easily have been 1 or 3) was meant to apply to new articles, the hundreds (thousands?) of which we get every day about a Pokémon, somebody's garage band, their middle school, or their dog Skipper (or other, more clearly notable topics, of course). I'm pretty sure that anything we have that was fit for a print encyclopedia was written years ago (the exception being obviously notable world events that hadn't happened yet, like election of world leaders, but I can't imagine those have any trouble escaping stub-hood). My "perfect world" that I describe on my userpage could easily include a grandfather rule; matter of fact, it'd only be just to. I just hadn't considered that at the time I was typing out my wiki-beliefs. The spirit of having such a limit is to contain the number of new stubs that are added to the encyclopedia, not to deleting existing stubs (Wikipedia's definition). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Ktr101 (talk)

9a. Reading the question above, I get the impression that you think that any article created in a recent time period is kind of "damned" to forever be a stub, or will never get past C-Class. Do you think that this is true, and if so, why so?

A:Well, first of all, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with C-Class. That's probably a reflection of my work with sports articles, the majority of work here. A C article is "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." That's a problem for an article like, say, Butterfly, but not really for 1995 Tour de France. But in any case, no, I don't necessarily think this is true. Article improvement is largely dependent on collaboration of interested editors. The FA to which I contributed, Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race, was a GA 11 days after the event it describes took place, and an FA only two weeks later. That's absolutely staggering to me, and it's clearly going to be the exception and not the rule, but it's proof, at least to me, that any article at all can be improved to the highest standard of quality with sufficient interest in it and work behind it. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9b Do you think that these modern articles will ever get to a Featured status?

A:I think I know where you're getting this. I phrased something on my userpage incorrectly - I don't believe it to be particularly unlikely that articles that begin life as superstubs can become FA. What I meant to say, and I'm not sure I how I screwed it up this badly, is that articles that are created that small and left that way for any serious length of time (a few months, at the least) are unlikely to be improved. Any 50-byte article created this second can reach FA - it's gonna take a while and a lot of effort, and as a personal opinion I'd like more of that effort to take place before the article's original author presses "Save page" for the first time, but of course it can happen. It does all the time. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

10. What do you think would be likely to happen if we stopped allowing IP editing. (No one knows for sure, of course.) How much do you envision it cutting down on vandalism? On the flip side, do you envision it decreasing valuable content contributions as well? If the answer to later question is yes, how much vandalism does this change have to stop to compensate for the content lost as a result of it?

A: Yeah, I think vandalism would plummet precipitously. No, of course it wouldn't go away entirely, but it'd be so much easier to track and deal with. I don't know what the impact would be on salutary contributions. My experience leads me to believe it wouldn't be much. Most of the IP's that edit articles I do make occasional updates like when a cyclist wins a new race, or make spelling/punctuation fixes. This would still probably happen if, in the worst-case scenario of anon editing being stopped, those individuals no longer contributed to Wikipedia. I don't really see anonymous contributors bringing articles up to FA. If it happens, good for them (and good for us, for having another article at that standard), but I think those are the people who would register if their hands were forced. And they're the people I'd want; all respect to WikiGnomes, I think hard composition is a little more important than tidying. Of course we don't want hte or teh to appear anywhere in Wikipedia, but if they do happen to appear a time or two in a 45K featured (it would be caught in an FA, or at least I hope it would) article with 80 citations, is anyone really going to think less of the article, or of the project? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10a. On your user page you state that "Most IP's are vandals" which it appears to being your primary reasoning for requiring registration. This statement is likely true in absolute numbers, but certainly isn't true it terms of number of contributions. Someone who comes here and starts vandalizing normally gets blocked within 10 edits, while the minority of IPs who contribute productively rack up hundreds of edits. Regardless of that point, however, I could certainly see requiring registration cutting down on the amount of vandalism. However, what you may not be aware is that a large chunk - some studies have shown it to be a majority - of our new content comes from unregistered users. The anime fan who comes here to read his favorite comic may notice some gaps in our coverage and fix them. The biology teacher who comes here to check a student paper for plagiarism may notice errors in one of our articles and fix them. Indeed we have a lot of "one time editors" who improving one or two articles greatly. As such, I am curious to learn if you had previously taken this into consideration. It is certainly possible that these one time users would register if they were forced too - it is also certainly possible they would not and we'd never know we lost their contribution. So my question is, what level of vandalism reduction is worth lost content contributions? If say requiring registration stopped 80% of vandalism, and 20% of anonymous content contributions would it be worth it?

A: I tell you, when I was typing, the phrase that went through my mind was "I think most IP's are vandals" but what I got in response was my tenth-grade English teacher telling me never to weaken my writing by saying "I think." Kinda wish I had at this point. Anyway, I'm familiar with a lot of those studies that say anonymous users are the ones write Wikipedia and named accounts are the ones who come in and make it pretty. My experience has largely been the exact opposite. If I were Wiki-dictator and anons could no longer edit, and subsequently the wheels fell off the whole operation, then I'd be forced to reconsider. I think it's kind of synthetic to apply numbers to it (you probably do too), so it's tough to directly answer the question. We are a unique website in all of the internet, both culturally and structurally; I can vividly recall saying "Oh, forget it" when being prompted to register before I could contribute to other sites, and while I do take that as an indication that my true desire to contribute wasn't really that high, it wasn't like I was in line to contribute something people all across the world realistically might potentially read, or to add to any sort of actual compendium of knowledge. That is to say, the world didn't miss my review of that movie I just saw or my one answer in a crowd of dozens to an open question posed by a user. You're not changing my mind about this, but you are giving me a lot to think about, and I thank you for that.

Getting back to the topic (or at least trying to), the main reason I tie in vandalism and IP's is because of the (rightful, if anon editing is allowed, and as established, it is) reticence to IP-block. If an anonymous editor does nothing but unequivocally vandalize for hours on end, time and again, we're still not going to issue more than a brief block for fear of shutting out legitimate contributions from that IP at a later date. Yet, if a named account has never done anything but vandalize, we can block it indefinitely with little problem (little immediate problem, anyway). That's still an extreme step, but it's one we do take. WP:IPB explicitly says IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see this as a vulnerability of the encyclopedia.

So if we lose that science teacher and that anime fan making their one-time-only edits, that's unfortunate, but it's not anything I'm really gonna shed a tear over. We lose their contributions to any page that is semi-protected, anyway, and those are often pages of current public interest (that is, something somebody who's not terribly versed in the ins and outs of Wikipedia is going to easily find him or herself looking at). I don't think there is a perfect balance between freedom and security in this issue. If the science teacher and the anime fan find themselves coming back time and again, I think they're likely to think "You know what, maybe I should register, so I can contribute." I never thought of registering for a website, when I did decide to do it, to be all that big a deal. I don't know the arguments, among individuals making salutary contributions, for not registering.

Can't quite find a way to make a nice, sharp, closing point to this extemporaneous little rant, so I'll just type four tildes now. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Nosleep before commenting.

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. Javert ^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to this user's somewhat radical views on certain matters, there's a difference between having a belief and pushing a point of view. Wikipedia develops through collaborative effort, which requires many different viewpoints. I think it's quite healthy to voice honest, yet unpopular, opinions. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with your $0.02. However, I do feel that the strength with which the editor has expressed those views and the 'no nonsense' style of writing make for a combination that will impact their admin actions. A certain mush in opinion is always preferable (IMO)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Would having a userbox declaring herself to be a deletionist be problematic if she's given admin tools? Isn't that asking for deletion reviews and ADMIN AUSE accusations? please feel free to move this to a more appropriate place, I'm still learning, thanks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would hope not :P I take "deletionist" to mean "more articles in doubt should be deleted than kept." I'm not on a quest to delete anything - I just feel that if a discussion is necessary, the onus is on the "keep" side. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Questions 6b and 6c are both only half correct - questions which encompass basic image policy. An image admin without a good grasp of even the most basic image policy would more likely than not be a negative to the project. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Proud Support. This user's take on tags is fantastic, and their well thought out distinction between the wikipedia community and wikipedia writers shows a thoughtful depth which will serve them well as a level minded admin. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Looks good. Triplestop x3 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Having seen the comments in the oppose section, I am unable to support this at the time. Triplestop x3 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support; knows what he's doing, nothing glaringly wrong at first glance. I just wish you would use edit summaries more. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Honest answers to questions doesn't have any serious problems. Unless something comes up I'll be staying in this section Alexfusco⁵ 17:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I like and appreciate the honest and detailed nomination statement and answers to questions: in addition, the tone and style of them shows that Nosleep is not an RfA regular, which, in my opinion, is a good thing because it means the nomination and answers are direct rather than puffed to pass RfA. I hope that Nosleep gets more credit for them, not unfair and unnecessary opposition. I think she will make a fine administrator. Acalamari 17:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clean block log and civil talk page, seems a good candidate, I like to see a New page patroller who uses CSD and prod. I disagree with you on IP edits and stubs, and so wouldn't support you for a policy making position, but the role of admins is to enforce policy not to make it. ϢereSpielChequers 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. I like the contributions, and you sound sincere over past incidents. You probably chose a tough time to nominate yourself though, with the Tour de France finishing tomorrow and everything! Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support seems a worthy content contributor and knows his way around the wiki. I'd remind the opposes we have no shortage of mops. It is not necessary that a candidate work much at AfD before promotion, I didn't (still don't). The term is "net positive". Hopefully the closing crat will realize that if this one is close. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak Support - Agree that you need to use more edit summaries, but I like how you've acknowledged your past and have rectified this. Although you seem to have done great work on cycling articles, I'd like to see your edits more spread out across the article namespace. Also you've only contributed 185 automated edits (all from Huggle) so your edit count hasn't been boosted by AWB ect. Interesting to note how Nosleep has never commented at RFA before. I suppose you have a lack of experience in admin areas but I'm impressed by your edits of late. Good luck :) Aaroncrick (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Looks solid.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - You have strong views in certain areas, but I don't see any real indication that these views would lead to real abuse of the tools. Criteria for adminship is based on who can demonstrate that they will use the tools responsibly and productively; RfA shouldn't be a popularity contest on controversial opinions unless there is real relevance to whether they can use the tools properly. I have no real concerns over "limited content area" edits--some editors are generalists and some are specialists, but both are useful. As Wehwalt says, "net positive." Zachlipton (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support, looks decent to me. I appreciate people who are up-front about their past and their views, and I have no indication either of those things are likely to make you a bad admin. I've seen many good contributions from you and think you'd do well with admin tools. ~ mazca ^talk 11:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Seems to meet the criteria. Pmlineditor 12:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support It's refreshing to come across an editor who is honest and open about what they believe, and doesn't apologize for having opinions. Many RfA candidate become politicians, hiding their past indiscretions and moderating their beliefs. Nosleep has done neither of these, and has thus earned my trust. She may not be the most experienced candidate in admin-related areas, but she seems bright enough to pick it up as he goes along. (None of us with the mop really knew what being an admin entailed before we got the buttons anyway!) She'll do fine. faithless (^speak) 13:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Looks good. I too applaud the idea of giving the admin bit to editors who actually have thoughtful, controversial opinions. The question is trust and willingness to follow consensus in the use of admin tools, not perfect ideological conformity, comrades. Ray^Talk 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support; I'm happy with this candidate. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support per this. Peter Damian (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per 5. its not everything that could be mentioned, but what i gather from the response is there will be thought and consideration to be put into placing action/or not when asked to. I think there are questionable views about the editor that are justified. But I do like the transperency given. If i have any hestitation about support its over the stub issue. that said i think theres alot of honesty here by Nosleeps. I dont think they will abuse the tools Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Because having an opinion is allowed. And in any case, most of the things in the RFA-sinking diff are spot-on. Since there has no reason been given to oppose, I therefore support. Majorly talk 22:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I like your answers and you seem to exude common sense. Polly (Parrot) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support The editor's contributions to Wikipedia appear to be at a consistently high level. Furthermore, this editor has the ability to present opinions in a manner that is refreshingly direct and positive. The Oppose section has, to date, not produced any convincing arguments that would confirm Nosleep is either premature in seeking adminship or that Nosleep lacks the competenence to handle these duties. I have no hesitation in offering support for this RfA. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support per Acalamari and Pastor Theo. I like the answers to the questions, and the opposes are unconvincing. LittleMountain5 23:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I've been up all night reading Wikipedia so now's as good a time as any to express my support for this candidate. It's a shame that having unpopular opinions can be so damaging to RfA prospects; I'm sure we have hundreds of administrators with other controversial ideas that they keep to themselves. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 08:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support User appears to have clue. I think he'll be fine with the tools. hmwithτ 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. I see no problem with the user having slightly unusual views and don't expect these to hinder his her judgement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good candidate. Would be a net positive with the tools. Also, per Pastor Theo. Good luck! Javert^{I knit sweaters, yo!} 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support: Exceedingly honest - and therefore refreshing - answers from an editor who has had their WP problems (who hasn't?) and seems to have overcome them. I wish you all the best.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. support I'm a bit puzzled by many of the opposes. I disagree with many of his attitudes (especially in regard to IP editors and in regard to deletionism) but I don't see those as reasons to oppose if one thinks he will use the tools well which is a question independent of wikiphilosophy or long-term policy goals. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support This deletion-prone gnome with where-were-u-in-07 hang-ups still prefers rare intelligence, honesty and clue . Plutonium27 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support: Will be a good administrator, good luck.. South Bay (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support This is a little tentative, but I think you have the ability to rise above and improve the areas that the community thinks could/should be improved. I disagree that someone's views should count against them; as long as you're not grossly opposed to NPOV or some other such pillar, you can fit neatly into the community. I don't think you will let your creative views affect your behavior as a sysop, and they are valuable contributions to the community. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to badger a support but "The ability of anyone to edit (most) articles without registration" is a founding principle NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    And that's something that Nosleep will never be able to reverse. My point was that I don't believe her views on this matter will affect her performance as a sysop, and thus they don't concern me in this discussion, despite my strong disagreement. And it's not badgering, I think supports should get the same vetting opposes do. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support - Nosleep first got my attention through WP:BEEF, a pretty good essay though it appears to misquote an essay I wrote. I don't believe in opposing due to user's views either (see User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria), and I am moderately confident that Nosleep can leave these behind when he has his admin hat on. I must say that if I was just judging views this is a candidate I would definitely oppose, though I appreciate the transparency and it is good to see Nosleep has taken the time to try and back-up his views. I see some good article and XfD work, I take note of the past conflicts but again I applaud the users transparency regarding the issue. I would like a little more experience with image copyright, but I think you know enough to use the tools okay. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support, no problems here, no evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
34. Support, essentially moral at this stage, but I don't like the way her perfectly reasonable personal views on ISPs & minimum article length have been held against her by opposers. These may be minority views at present, but should not be brought in here in this way if Nosleep is ready to act on current policy in admin work. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Looks like an intelligent and thoughtful editor who could be an effective admin. I am not just unconvinced by the opposes, but dismayed by some of them. Holding certain views on policy does not imply that the candidate would abuse admin powers to push those views against consensus. Absent evidence that she would do so, I see opposing on those views alone as a failure to assume good faith. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Although I was at first skeptical, your answers have shown that you believe in the continuous improvement of articles. I actually never even looked at your user page, I just judged you from the other content here. You will be a splendid administrator someday once you gain the power of those tools. Just so you know, these questions are supposed to be odd and taxing, so i'm not being a jerk or something down that line. Good luck in future endeavours! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Your answers are well-reasoned and you made good contributions as an editor. No reason not to trust you as an admin. Coemgenus 14:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support, Answers show maturity and the ability to admit when wrong. A very important quality for us all and doubly so for admin. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support we need more deletionist administrators to clean up this cesspool we often promote as an encyclopedia. JBsupreme (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Like other supporters have commented on, your answers seem well-reasoned. There's nothing wrong with holding certain opinions either. You are clearly committed to improving articles and I feel that you can be a trusted as an admin. I'm sure you'll do a great job. Jozal ^(talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. Answers to the questions are well-written and you want to improve many featured articles. Cheers, Chevy Impala 2009 00:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support for basically the same reasons that Tan weakly opposes, it just led me to a different conclusion (I, too, generally support your IP views and do not believe that they are detrimental to this project). Might be a tad early, but no question user will be a net positive and self nom gains some brownie points. Interactions may be a bit rough around the edges, but not to a level that I would expect it to interfere with his abilities as sysop. Would be stronger support if edit summaries were at least 107%. wadester16 06:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support editor shows ability to sincerely apologize, to work within consensus even when against personal beliefs, and willingness to say unpopular things. While I'm concerned about the IP editor responses and the deletionist pov, it appears Nosleep can be trusted to work for the best interests of the encyclopedia. I have no problem with editing in phases - my own contribution history has roller-coaster tendencies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Weak oppose. I see everything that the current support camp is seeing. Nosleep's disclosure of past problems shows openness and probity. His cycling work is admirable, and, like Acalamari, I like that Nosleep is not an RfA regular. The AfD work looks relatively solid, with only a few hiccups here and there. The bottom line is that I see this candidate as a fantastic admin - in the future. I just don't see enough admin-related experience. I don't need Nosleep to go delving into AN/I; but I do want to see CSD work, RFPP work, or really any work in more areas where the tools will be used. I don't see enough experience in the areas Nosleep says s/he will participate in - WP:PUF and WP:PU. Even if there was sufficient experience, I prefer a more well-rounded candidate. If I'm wrong and this RfA passes, I won't be that upset - if I were a gambling man (and I am), I would bet on the candidate being an excellent administrator. However, I just can't support now. Good luck to you, and if this doesn't pass, I have every confidence I will support the next RfA. Like JulianColten said, think about bringing your edit summary usage up to 100% (I didn't oppose over this, but it did make contribution review difficult.) Tan | 39 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Heh, my comment was a bit of sarcasm in reference to this... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You know, you didn't really need to post that as a diff and give the impression that I've since taken that down. I don't hide and make no apology for what I believe. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Diffs are often used because they will stay good indefinitely. Not just this week, but a year from now, when your pages have been archived or altered. A link like User talk:Nosleep#Some thread probably won't exist in a year, but the diff will. tedder (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, okay, but I'm not going to stop believing what I believe or hide it in the future. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: I highly support your IP editor views. Tan | 39 04:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Sarcasm detector....off the charts! Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 14:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   No sarcasm at all. I agree completely with your views on IP editing. Tan | 39 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, my mistake, I apologize. I had gotten the impression that that view in particular had made me something of a pariah in many people's eyes. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually I'm sure a lot of people think that way (myself included).  GARDEN  19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Not nearly enough experience in the project namespace. Get more admin related experience and I'll likely support in the future. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I am changing my position to Strong Oppose on account of the above diff. Views are incompatible with a collaborative environment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose I am uncomfortable with the candidate's bias against IP editors and edits. Keepscases (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose I am uncomfortable with the editor's views on IPs, particularly the feeling that only registered IPs should be allowed to edit. I am even more uncomfortable with the 1000 word minimum for new articles idea. And, while I don't disagree with the views expressed on consensus, I'm not sure I would sanctify it to the same degree. These views are reflective of the kind of admin Nosleep would be and I'm uneasy about supporting the candidature. Sorry. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Tentative Regretful, but very Strong Oppose. Really per the issues brought up by Tan and RegentsPark. I don't approve of the user's position on IPs and the 1000 article work min. Frankly, I don't like what I see in terms of experience and policy knowledge. However, I am absolutely open to changing my !vote. Please impress. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Nosleep's answers to questions 6b and 6c are both half wrong. For someone who wishes to work with images as an admin, this could potentially be very detrimental to the project. However, there is no doubt that Nosleep has the potential to become a good admin - but a lack of understanding of image policy is a critical issue. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose, per views on IP editors. Shutting them out entirely would be a net negative for the project. Nakon 04:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose On his user page he writes "Stubs have no value unless they eventually become articles of greater substance." I just think that's entirely wrong and again would not want him to have the power to delete swathes of perfectly legitimate articles he didn't consider worthy of inclusion merely on the basis of their current size. The user also states that "Most IP's are vandals" although "I don't have statistics to back that up" which is a terrible attitude to have towards new and occasional users. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? Funnily enough, the user then writes "Consensus should be viewed with a certain sanctity. It should not be violated without a new, overriding consensus or a very, very, veeeerrryy good reason" on his user page. Well, which is it? Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and IPs are allowed to edit. Should these views be sacrosanct or does that only apply to policies nosleep agrees with? Nick mallory (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose Per Tan above. Just as an add on, I really don't find it nesscary to include any other editors names in your opening statement like you did to user JohnDoe. Just saying. America69 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   John Doe is a common example of a "sample" user. I'm sure he didn't mean to refer to the actual user User:JohnDoe, who only has one edit from 2004. Nakon 16:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   That's what I thought, but when I hit the link, it went to that user. Probably just a mistake. America69 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose. Disagree with the candidate's views as stated on his userpage [1] regarding edit summaries, IPs, templates and article tagging, minimum size requirement for article creation. Also other concerns as raised by other editors, above. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Have far too many opinions on what users should be doing or not that would stifle progress. Biofase ^flame| stalk  18:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. strong oppose - this comment (from the diff linked above) is baffling - If it were completely up to me, registration would be required to edit anything. We write for the masses, yes, but what in particular is gained by having the masses write for us? If registration were required to edit, those who really wanted to edit would register. - anyone can edit is at the root of Wikipedia, anyone can edit is where you get new editors from (a couple of copyedits through to creators of obscure academic articles) and any one knows that vandals are only too happy to create accounts to vandalise, as are other forms of disruptive editors (single purpose point of view pushers, vandal sock farms, malicious spammers, benign but determined conflict of interest pushers etc etc.) That one comment shows a serious lack of understanding about wiki philosophy and culture and policies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    please note that this is a new account, with few edits, many to RfA. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. Deletionist userbox is inappropriate in someone who wants to be an admin. Comments about stubs and IP editors are also problematic. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. More experience would be better for an admin. -- 科学高爾夫迷 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose as per comments regarding IPs, stubs etc. Am also troubled by the somewhat casual invocation of WP:IAR in response to question 3; I view IAR as a safety valve to be used when policies and guidelines (as written) prevent us from actually improving the encyclopedia. I don't think announcing game results on wikipedia before the game has ended is an applicable scenario. Aside: Although this doesn't impact my RFA vote, the candidate's statement that "I'm pretty sure that anything we have that was fit for a print encyclopedia was written years ago" - is demonstrably false. On the positive side, I find Nosleep's honest and straightforward answers to the RFA questions refreshing; I disagree with his view, but she has earned my respect. Abecedare (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a feeling someone might invoke bring up WP:NOTNEWS as a counter to my edits on the NFL page. I think that while Wikipedia is not news, there's really no reason for it to not have as up-to-date information as possible on events of surely encyclopedic significance. We have articles on every NFL postseason tournament, so I think that qualifies as surely encyclopedic. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've copy pasted your comments to the talk page, to allow full discussion to happen. Someone may like to put these comments in a collapsing box, or cut them from this page? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know who, if anyone, to frame these as response to, so I'll just post here. I urge you all not to think my "wiki-beliefs" as rules I live by. I would like every new article to be of a certain length - that doesn't at all mean I'd go around deleting shorter ones. It means I would dislike them and, at absolute most, encourage chronic authors of superstubs to write "beefier" first drafts. Those chronic authors would be free to take that advice or leave it. Same with IP's - I don't like them, I find it hard to trust them, but I don't automatically think they're out for ruin. I don't automatically think anything of anyone - it's just been, in my experience, a lot easier to earn trust of someone whose name I actually know (even when it's not really a real name, such as here or any online community). Think of it this way - if you don't support, say, marijuana decriminilization (or *insert divisive issue here*), you might not vote for a state Senate candidate who does. Your opposition should not, however, come from a fear that marijuana will instantly be smoked on every street corner in the world if that candidate is elected. If you think my generalized distrust of anons and preference for longer first drafts will by itself make me likely to misuse the admin tools, then you should...hell, you have a responsibility to oppose. But please, please, please don't oppose because you think I'd be IP-blocking every anon who looked at me funny or instantly deleting every 400 byte article I find while new page patrolling. I offer my sincerest word that that will never happen. I'm not gonna violate a consensus I disagree with just because I disagree with it - never have, never will. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to User:Nick mallory (I initially had this under his comment, but it disturbed the numbering): Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and IPs are allowed to edit. Indeed they are. Nothing I ever do will change that. And consensus is at the core of the reason why. I can believe one thing and abide by consensus to the contrary. I've even proactively implemented consensus with which I did not agree - here's the consensus, and here's my implementation of it. not want him to have the power to delete swathes of perfectly legitimate articles he didn't consider worthy of inclusion merely on the basis of their current size. That's never going to happen. I'll never delete anything except that which fits under obvious, established CSD criteria without a discussion taking place first. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for addressing my concern and clarifying your stance on the matter. I appreciate it. Nick mallory (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Nothing jumps out at me as a stopper in a future RFA, but I am more in sympathy with the opposition than the supporters here. Regarding doing all your editing away from home, I don't mind if admins do some of their editing in public places, but I'd rather that admins not do all of their editing that way. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering she edits from a Starbucks makes me think she's using her own laptop, and simply doesn't have wireless access at home. She's using not a public terminal or workstation. Kingturtle (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose For his view on IP editors (which leads me to believe that this user might treating IPs different than registered users) and his anti-stub stance (which leads me to believe that this user might be deleting stubs). Also, I am a bit concerned that this is combined with a deletionist stance. I am not against deletionists as admins per se but this user raises some concerns with me that I cannot overlook. Regards SoWhy 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. User is bordering on bitey interaction. Combined with strong beliefs and wanting to defend them, it feels like having an open mind while resolving disputes as an admin would be difficult. tedder (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've bitten before, and forum-shopped while doing it. Forgive me my sins, father. I've also wholeheartedly apologized for said biting. I'm not perfect, and if you think this means I'm likely to misuse admin tools, then so be it. I (obviously, or I wouldn't be here) don't think it does. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would respectfully like to ask the oppose camp to provide one instance of my incivility toward an anonymous editor from the last year (I do remember really chewing out an IP in 2007 for...something...but I'd have chewed out whoever it was, since, as I have mentioned, I wasn't very nice in those days), or of my seeking to have an article deleted simply because of its small size. Here's the only one that I can think of that comes close, but size was not my only reason in seeking that article's deletion; the article had not established notability in four years (funny how an AFD got the sources rolling in and increased the article's size tenfold). I think my behavior should be a better indicator of my future than my beliefs. In fact, my past instances of extreme incivility have all been with registered users. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nosleep, the 'bite' I'm talking about is what is seen here- I'm willing to AGF on your opinions (above), but rigidly refuting opposes is what worries me. That's why I said "it feels like having an open mind while resolving disputes as an admin would be difficult". tedder (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not my intention. I'm sorry. I only intended refute the opposes that think my 'Wiki-beliefs' would lead to wanton disrespect for and disobedience of established rules. Honestly, the implication is a little hurtful. If I crossed past that line, I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't mean to. I have nothing to say to those who think I am too inexperienced, too stupid (my words, not yours), too mean (there's demonstrable evidence that I'm a bitch sometimes, and only my own word to go against it) or even those who think it's wrong for an admin to think the way I do (I don't really agree that WP:NOBIGDEAL either, and if people think that distrusting IP's and liking long first drafts is something unbecoming of someone with the title of admin, then I don't really have anything to say to that). It's funny, because I'm so incredibly quiet and submissive in real life. Again, though, didn't mean to bite anyone's heads off here, and I'm sorry. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an excellent example to talk about. Why did you send other people's work to deletion, rather than trying to expand and source it yourself? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I always make a good-faith effort to locate sources and an unquestioned establishment of notability before nominating anything for deletion. I would hope anyone would. I don't devote my entire day to it, though, and sometimes users who come to the table with a better knowledge of the topic will be able to provide sources and establish notability very quickly and much more easily than I. I imagine you're referring to the Cytowic book - I tried to find sources before nominating that article and found only links to the book being for sale (and I think Cytowic's personal website, as well). Didn't establish notability, and if you'll notice, the sources present in the article currently are all print sources - tough for me to find. I believe the onus is always on anyone wanting to keep an article, when a question arises; you can agree or disagree with that however you like, but I never nominate an article before trying to establish notability myself. If I can't, it's not on me to expand an article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose from neutral. Concerned about views on IP editors and stubs, however what made me swap to oppose is the way this user almost seems to be pouncing on those opposing him. I'm sorry, but it just gives me such a bad feeling reading through this RfA now. Best of luck though! --Taelus (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose, I'm sorry to oppose you but I cannot support somebody with this kind of view on stubs and IP users. I have observed that the users and especially admins with the most radical views often are the most active and insistent in relevant processes and discussions, where they can easily do harm because less radical editors - with less strong opinions - are less active. As I said I am very sorry to oppose you as you are a very valuable content contributor - your article on Alberto Contador is great, for example - and seem to have a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and consensus in general. --Aqwis (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, can't support somebody with this sort of view on IP editors in general and gnomes in particular. Take one look at our massive backlogs of badly wikified, unreferenced or badly spelt articles and how quickly they fill up and you'll see we that we need more gnomes than we do writers of massive articles, and I say that as one of the latter. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose for several reasons. These include: needs more participation and experience in the admin-related areas; an anti-IP stance is inconsistent with the reality that hordes of accounts have been registered purely for vandalism and disruption; the candidate may like WP:IAR but "ignore all rules" doesn't mean admins don't need to know what they are; argumentativeness against opposers is unbecoming in a candidate (as well as inviting too long; didn't read repeatedly); and last but not necessarily least, a Wikipedia administrator should have at least one secure internet connection. — Athaenara ✉ 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose My only interaction with this user was not a pleasant one and therefore I do not trust this user as an administrator. Tavix |  Talk  04:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose given editor's history, multiple conflicts, and apparent misunderstanding of policy. - Dravecky (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. Needs more WP:DGAF. Unimpressed with [2][3][4]. Unsure about [5]. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 11:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per the Wiki-beliefs on NoSleep's user page, which I strongly disagree with. Aditya (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose very strongly disagree with the wikibeliefs on userpage as well; not a good attitude for an administrator at all. Pzrmd (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose, problematic views and philosophies. Unbecoming of an administrator hopeful. –blurpeace ^(talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per views on IP's and stubs. Much too likely to misuse the admin tools in furtherance of these views, which are entirely contrary to Wikipedia's principles. --LP ^talk 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Weak Oppose - I appreciate your views on notability and I think you've made some really good contributions. I thought it was great how you apologized to someone 2 years later and I think that's a great example for everyone. However, I'm a bit concerned by some interactions that have come to light, and though adminship is "not a big deal", I don't feel comfortable with giving the tools to someone with such a confrontational attitude (for example, the posting at WP:LOST). I also, while WP:BEEF is some good stuff, I'm not sure how you'd behave with CSD or AfD if you eventually move into that kind of work. Perhaps as others say, get a little more experience in "admin-type work" and try again some other time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose Sorry, but I must oppose. I was on the fence, but after seeing your answers to Fastily's questions, I'm unsure about your knowledge of the NFCC and other image-related policies/guidelines. I suggest either getting to know that area much better before your next RFA or just vowing not to work with images. Another suggestion is that you remove your opinion on IP editors from your user page. Although I do not think your views would impede your ability to correctly use any of the tools, it is clearly instigating a lot of opposition and would be best kept to yourself. Timmeh 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose: Per the IP comments.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. I have thought this one over carefully and in the end I had to oppose. I congratulate Nosleep for having the guts to take a couple controversial positions. Sometimes radical proposals are needed for progress, and while I disagree with her I admire her for being willing to take radical positions and defend them. I thought the answer to 10a was especially good. However, I don't believe Nosleep has sufficient experience in admin related areas. She sighted image work as a particular area of interest and yet the answers to the image questions were a bit off, as were a few of the other answers. Additionally, the slightly combative nature of her responses to some of the opposes was off-putting. I would be happy to support a future bid after the candidate has gained more experience. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. After reading the candidate's contributions I was intending to support, but then I read her stated positions on IP editors and stubs.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose. Says she wants to help with possibly unfree file backlog, which is great, but she has hardly any experience in this area. Although I'm bothered by both the attitude towards IPs and stub-length articles, I think that the latter is much more likely to adversely affect administrative actions than the former. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose at this time. Another situation where spending time in the trenches beforehand would be beneficial. Also, although having an opionion is good, as an admin there are core policies and procedures to be followed and not downtrodden. I'm afraid that by saying this, you might simply "give a good impression" for the next 5,000 edits and run again, however, that might just work in the long run. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add, as I'm someone who likes to give those "dorky but well-intentioned (Welcome) templates", you know you could have simply welcomed yourself with a short and to the point one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36. Strong oppose The astrological signs do not tell a good story about this editor in the future. With Mars coming into its most awkward orbit pattern around the sun, their is not a lot of good fortune awaiting if this editor is granted the tools. If his zodiac sign is a fire sign (Aries, Leo or Saggitarius) there will be especially ill fate awaiting the adminship of this editor. The alignment of Jupiter with Uranus at this time is also a concerning factor. A bad omen is likely to happen if this editor is granted the tools.--Spiritual Collector Of The Moonlight talk 05:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritual Collector Of The Moonlight (talk • contribs)

    This editor is an IP disguising himself to look like a regular user. His comment should be struck or indented as such. ThemFromSpace 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, the anon was reverting an edit by another user which removed the oppose, and did not write the comment itself. Apterygial 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sure that the closing bureaucrat will treat this "strong oppose" with the full weight that it deserves. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That account registered at 04:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC) and 67 minutes later (05:58) posted here. Shouldn't it be indented out of the numbering in the section? — Athaenara ✉ 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

37. Strong oppose at this time. This editor seems to have an interest in the welfare of the WP and has done good work (albeit in a restricted space -- cycling). Perhaps in future this may add up to a sufficient argument for adminship, but for now there is a strong commitment to enforcing rules with rigor, tempered by personal opinion on which rules/policies are sensible and proper. WP is a neutral place (NPOV and all that), or is meant to be, and admins must (should/ought/...) take the lead in that respect. They must (should...) not adopt this or that position based on personal standards, even if these are essentially congruent with WP:xxx of one kind or another. Other editors have just as much right (or leeway or ...) to edit and to have differing opinions, just as do admins/bureaucrats/steward and all the other inhabitants of our layers of supervision. Admins must (should...) respect this diversity of perspective and freedom to edit/disagree/agree comment without reservation. An analogy might be an ideal baseball umpire, who is resolutely neutral under all conditions. I see too much ground for reservation in this user's comments here in answer to questions and elsewhere to have the required faith in his neutrality. Wait a while and try again. ww (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral You seem like an excellent editor, and a guaranteed fantastic candidate for adminship later on. However I agree with Tan. I don't see quite enough experience in administrative areas to trust you're completely knowledgeable in the areas you intend to work in. I may wind up supporting before this ends, and most likely will not wind up opposing. iMatthew ^talk at 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral I'm a little on the uneasy side seeing you become an admin right now, although you have too many strengths for me to oppose. It seems like you can be a little harsh towards IPs among other things. I'm glad you are outright honest; that is what I like to see in people. Actually, that is a part of what I think makes a good person. Maybe when you gain a bit more experience and build a reputation, I'll support. Airplaneman ^talk 04:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral per above, for now. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral per views on IPs, but don't want to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral We haven't interacted (I checked!), but I'm worried about your slightly bipolar editing and interactions- the "IP thing" may or may not be an issue, coming and going may or may not be an issue, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting in another 3-6 months' time. Moving to oppose. tedder (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Despite my agreement with many of your views your upfront style of presenting them leads me to believe you will adhere to some of them religiously and this (particularly not blocking for BLP issues) is why I can't support.  GARDEN  11:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral. Unfortunately, a number of your stated positions run irreconcilably counter to fundamental policies, such as your stance on anonymous editing. Therefore I cannot support at this time. Valley2city^‽ 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral. Would've supported, but the candidate's anti-stub notes leave me unable to. Wizardman 22:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral due to compelling arguments from both sides. One two three... 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral, view on stubs and IP editors leave me unable to support, but I do not want to oppose without stronger negatives. --Taelus (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC) (Moving to oppose.) --Taelus (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Neutral due to some of the positions taken on your user page. Not comfortable with some of the stands you've taken, but not convinced on how that would affect day-to-day work as an admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral  I appreciate the editor's honesty, and their contributions to the encyclopedia. I am not going to oppose, but feel that admins should not be performing their duties on an insecure wireless connection. Your behavior issues from previous years seem to have been resolved. I trust your pledge to follow consensus, which will trump your differences with Wikipedia policy. Come back in a few months with increased experience and an ISP, and I will support. --StaniStani  18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's my hope that I'll have both ;) Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral - you are a good editor, and adminship should be no big deal - but biting newbies and new contributions is a growing problem on the project. +sj+ 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral I have no problems with your userpage positions, however extreme; in fact I agree with several of them. None of these positions should impact your functioning as an administrator, as admins should leave their personal prejudices behind when judging consensus and policy, but I just don't feel that you have enough experience here for me to say with confidence that you will be unbiased in your actions. Come back after six more months of active editing and a spotless record and I'll be proud to support you. ThemFromSpace 01:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral Seems to have a somewhat weak grasp of copyright law for someone who wants to work with questionable files. Project image policy is one thing, but ultimately it's grounded in, and a consequence of, copyright laws. The position on IP editors is a major red flag for me as well, most of this encyclopedia is written by casual editors. Gigs (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Neutral Tan said it very well. I really don't have a problem with the user page essay -- I disagree with a lot of it, but that doesn't make it a non-starter. I just don't see a lot of work that shows a grasp of policy (or lack thereof), so I really don't have much of a way to judge. I'd love to see some CSD work, some hand-holding of new editors who are having trouble (very easy to find a bucketload of those at NPP); anything that shows grasp of areas where the tools will be used, and the ability to communicate well with the type of editors tool usage will affect the most.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Neutral I haven't done enough homework to either support or oppose. However, my initial reaction to nosleep's comments on IP was negative. I'm aware of the study showing how much of WP comes from IP(even while not convinced it is as definitive as it appears to be). But I've also spent too much time lately untangling what IPs deliver less positively, (and I'm quite aware that I'm spending a small fraction of what others do), so I'm sympathetic to a policy discussion about how to rethink IPs. After thinking about what nosleep had to say, I'd love to have nosleep in the discussion, I think it would help reach some better solutions.--SPhilbrickT 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Neutral I am uncomfortable with some of Nosleep's views, especially on stubs. However, I do not know the user well enough to judge if this would lead to misuse of the tools.--Res2216firestar 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Neutral - I am torn here. User:Nosleep technically meets most of my standards, in particular - lots of edits including bicycle articles, AfD work, and Barnstars. Also, I'd like to have more diversity of LGBT folk as admins. However, per above discussion, diffs, and statements, I am not sure about her judgment to make blocks, protection, deletions, etc. On the whole, I would not oppose for just that - as everyone here knows, I've learned a lot "on the job." Maybe some more experience will help, so she should not be discouraged and should try again. Best of luck to her! Bearian (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Neutral. I have concerns about her views on IPs and deletionism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Neutral for now. I would encourage "keeping up the good work" and trying again in a few months. Plastikspork (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2009 (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.