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

Final: (56/29/11); ended 11:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wadester16 (talk · contribs) – I'm currently a rollbacker looking to gain access to the mop to become more efficient to Wikipedia as a whole. While I'm aware of my chances with my edit count and this being a self-nom, I'm hopeful users can investigate me fully to see that I am a respected user with wide interests and a quality edit history that can be trusted with the tools, should I be given them. WP is an important hobby of mine and I look forward to bringing it to continuously higher levels (admittedly, with the mop or not). I thank all users in advance and happy !voting! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Naturally, I accept my self nomination. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:19, 10 February 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: I've obviously made it successfully to this today without admin tools, though I find myself in need of these tools more and more often. Why? Essentially so I can be as efficient and beneficial to the project as possible. On the short, I will do whatever is needed of me as an admin. More specifically, I will likely become active in WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:AFD. Because I've come to enjoy patrolling recent edits, I would definitely take part in page protection and blocking negatively contributing users. These are tools I've wished I had during my patrols. I can't predict the future and many of these places are not accessible to me without the mop access pass. Who knows where I may end up? I like to wander and experience new things on WP. Without fail I learn or see something new on Wikipedia every day hour continuously; in fact it's unending. I will end up contributing positively to something, that I can guarantee.

Update I guess I never thought to mention my experience with images on this question. I have a pretty good knowledge of copyright policy and have uploaded a number of logos, county seals, and school seals (see all of my uploads; I've uploaded quite a few copyrighted images which are currently used fairly). I also have done a lot of transferring of my images (CC3.0) over to Commons (almost done!) and will continue doing that in the future with other CC and PD images. Having the tools will let me delete the moved images from WP; I will also delete other images reasonably requested for deletion. In addition, I thought it was a given that an admin would take part in page protection requests. Since it's apparently not a given, I have now made it more explicit (i.e. I will protect pages based on requests!). In all honesty, I will likely be more active in those areas mentioned in this update than those originally mentioned in my original answer mainly because I've already done stuff in those areas; I just never thought to explicitly mention it here, which seems to have been a mistake on my part. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: My best contributions are, without a doubt, my image contributions (especially my featured and valued pictures), the creation of WikiProject Capital District, and my work on articles related to school districts in New York (especially Brunswick Central School District, which is a B-class article where I'm still the only major contributor). I'm also proud of more recent new page and recent changes patrolling and my work for WikiProject Grammar and WikiProject Citation Cleanup. As my userpage states, I'm a stickler for grammar and referencing, so I do a lot of work there. I spend a good amount of time at FPC and VPC and I'm a bit of a "watchdog" for many articles in or relating to New York's Capital District (my home area).

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: Yes, (in respect of full disclosure) there are two notable conflicts I ran into, both of which were based on issues of respect. The first was at 2008 Mumbai Attacks (talk page) in which one user openly mocked another very constructive user, who I defended (I was actively taking part in a rename discussion at the time, it's not like I was just passing by); the user posted an image of a flying pig, with a quote from the other user as a caption (unfortunately, the image has been removed, so you don't see it exactly the way I did that day). While we left on not-so-great terms, I eventually ended up working well on a rewrite of the introduction with the user. The other situation was when I was essentially mocked for efforts made in creating a WikiProject. I was admittedly unaware of a standardization behind stubs (had never dealt with them in a technical sense before), and a stub I created was put up for deletion. Again, it wasn't the deletion proposal that irked me, it was the lack of respect. Judge as you might, but I think I dealt with the situations reasonably.

Based on these experiences (and life, really) I am very much an agent of compromise, but I am completely against open disrespect between users. Humor and sarcasm definitely have their places here, but not during heated discussions. I consider myself level-headed and always apologize if I've made a mistake; indeed there's no point in not doing so since everything you do is chronicled.

Not-so-optional question from Wadester16

4. Why do you want the mop, and what's with the self-nom?

A: I interact with a good number of users on a regular basis, but it's in niche locations and I don't really come in much contact with sysops and RfA regulars that would get to know me well enough to feel comfortable in nominating me for this. I know that to some users a self-nom looks like an ego boost, but here it really is not (I definitely believe in WP:NBD). My main goal is to be more efficient for the sake of the project: delete pages myself, initiate necessary blocks, protect pages, etc. I'm a trusted member of the community and have a few over 3,500 edits (with >90% edit summary overall). My edit count is a bit low compared to most other admins at their RfA time, but they are all quality edits (okay, so I spent some of those on my recent userpage overhaul, but I think you get the picture :-) ). I was recently given rollback rights (only recently because I had wrongly assumed getting rollback required a process similar to going thru an RfA) and have been using it successfully on my recent page patrols. I enjoy helping others and IRL I always enjoy introducing newbies and absolutely plan on doing much more of that on WP in the future (whether this RfA passes or not). In addition, I have no socks (I enjoy going through life barefoot), I have never vandalized (okay, this was a newbie mistake - but not vandalism!), I have no skeletons, and I have a good attitude on Wikipedia. I think most of all, if I'm trusted with the mop, I pledge that 1) I will not break the wiki and 2) I will be an unquestionable net positive to this project. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hipocrite

5. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you address it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help address it?

A: I haven't been in a long running dispute, as I've indicated above. While I could go and grab an example from closed RfAs, I feel it's unfair for me to judge any user involved in a closed situation. I will say, though, that in general, if I come across a situation (which I have yet to just pass by on my travels), I would probably be one to come out and remind the involved users to play nice. Should things heat up, I would continue to respond to the users, ignoring any lashing at me and giving it my all to get the two to compromise. Should they not, a dispute resolution is obviously in order (depending on the severity, upwards of a formal mediation). As an admin, I would most likely be somebody a user would approach as a third opinion, and as state above, I would strongly emphasize a compromise and work my way to dispute resolution if necessary. And yes, blocking would be an option, but an extreme last resort. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update While I haven't experienced too many disputes on WP, I'll point out (just to make the point; I hadn't planned on saying this previously) that IRL, I'm on a school board. This means I've been elected by the people of a public school district to represent them on what are sometimes called the most drama-ridden legislative bodies in United States government (hmm... sounds familiar). I'll assume you trust me when I tell you that I've been involved in some pretty heated and dramatic debates, to say the least (especially with budget seaon coming up). And these are in person; I don't have the luxury to sit and think about what I'm going to write:everything comes off my tongue in real time. I think based on this professional experience, I can be trusted to deal well with disputes here on WP.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (and one of my own) They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: I took this one first (yes, the easiest) because Tuesdays are a bit rough for me. Will get back to the others in due course. But anyways, in a perfect world, I'd like to see a special sort of protection for featured content so it can stay featured (i.e. limited or no IP accessibility). If it's already some of WP's best work, then it can't (assumedly) get that much better and future editing should be limited to trusted users, especially those that copy edit and source! A bit extreme I admit, but again, it's a perfect-world scenario. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A: I'm not so sure I would make the executive decision to block any user indefinitely (even if I have the power). If I felt a user deserved an indefinite block, I would block the user for a length of time prudent for an ArbCom outcome. Then I would bring it straight to ArbCom. I fully support community consensus and admit that there may be things I miss when blocking some one (i.e. they may not really deserve an indefinite ban for some odd reason I could have missed.). I think it's better to be safe than sorry: 1) I'd rather not indefinitely block someone and 2) I'd rather the community agree with me on the decision rather than find out I made some grave mistake. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A: Well, as stated in the policy, I would take any vote from a new user or apparent vandal (i.e. supposed sock/meatpuppet) with a very large (possibly boulder-sized) grain of salt. Speaking more personally, I'd prefer to end a discussion on no consensus rather than a delete (assuming the situation warrants it). The article can always be proposed for deletion again in the future. If the article contains obviously libelous, copyvio, or other policy-opposing content, it shouldn't be a hard decision. If I'm in a bind, I would of course ask for a second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) opinion. And in this situation, I don't think there's much difference (in a technical respect) between a no consensus and keep, but maybe I'm misinterpreting..? Oh, and I'd investigate the supposed sockpuppet as well.~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A: I would like to see 6—8 opinions on AfD with at least a 2:1 ratio to keep or delete. Granted this is pushing it and in the event there are very compelling arguments either for or against, I will take them at a different weight (per common sense, but more importantly, per WP:ILIKE). RfD and CfD seem to be less popular so two or three reasonable arguments will weigh well with me. Should there be equal number of S and O !votes, each of which make a compelling argument, I'd have to call the situation unresolved due to no consensus. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: I will limit my answer to this: I am a graduate student in an engineering field. I know my limits. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A: *GAH! Internal moral conflict!* I enjoy keeping the place tidy and clean, which requires some deletion of course. But I also like to see articles on even semi-notable things, especially things of local importance and notability, as it allows one to learn more about the history and culture of their home turf; this is something I feel strongly about. On the other hand, if an article easily meets the criteria of a speedy delete, I will have to follow the policies and nix it. I am merely mortal, admittedly make mistakes, and am subject to internal conflict like anybody else. A second opinion can never hurt... in any situation at all. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Optional question from User:I'm Spartacus!

12. I don't know what your concern was about your edit count, while it is on the low side, it is still above most people's minimums... but it's not from the edit count that this question comes, but rather your areas of activity. I am having trouble identifying places where you have participated in policy discussion or shown knowledge related to policies/ procedures. Can you point me to some places where you demonstrate policy knowledge? Or have helped shape/form policy?

A: I haven't openly taken part in helping shape policy. I will cite policy when necessary (I always like having proof/evidence for an argument... maybe that's where my obsession for references comes from) and the best examples of that are within the two conflicts I mentioned above. Also, most of my commentary is sprinkled with references to policy as minor proof, which is exhibited in a few answers here. Sorry if that's not more fulfilling... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Optional question from User:Doncram

13. In what sense can you describe that your creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Capital District is a success, and in what ways, if any, can it be regarded as not a success? (Disclosure: I noted and somewhat challenged the creation of that WikiProject in lieu of forming a Task Force of another project (after the wikiproject was opened, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Capital District), have been one of relatively few participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Capital District, and have conversed with Wadester16 also somewhat about the naming of article "Capital District" at Talk:Capital District.) doncram (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I expected this question :-). I will sound a bit like a broken record here, if you've read the threads on this WikiProject, but here goes: Doncram suggested a proposal of this WikiProject after it had been created and I obliged. This was a bit of a pet project between myself and another user from the area. Both of us are dedicated to CD-related content and were both irked with tagging articles as being part of WP:WikiProject Hudson Valley when in reality they weren't really part of that project's scope by current vernacular definitions. So we created the project. At the time of proposal, we had five members and a very blatant warning (two, in fact) that the project was very much under construction. Since then, the project has been greatly upgraded and we currently have nine members, four of which are respected sysops on the en:wiki. Most of the debate came down to name changes and overlapping with WikiProject Hudson Valley. The proposal has been supported by five of our members, three of which (again) are respect admins. It's also important to note that some of our members are major contributors to WPHV and support this project, seeming not to be bothered by the name or the apparent geographical overlap. I would also point out two more important points:

• per this guideline, there is no requirement for a WikiProject proposal and any user is free to make one should they want to invest the time (and should they have support of other users, assumedly); and

• when WPHV was the same age as WPCD is currently, it had one third the number of members and is now a thriving project.

I would say overall that the project is a success to the extent that a project on a small geographical area can be. I've made references to my interests in niche areas, and this is a prime example. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q's from flaminglawyer

14. In your own words, no copy-pasting: What's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, give a real-life analogy between the two.

A. A block is a preventative measure taken by an admin (though most times requested by a regular user) to limit the access of a vandalizing or in some way disruptive user. Blocks can range in time from hours to being indefinite depending on the expertise and experience of the admin, and the actions by the user leading to the block. A block stops a user from editing Wikipedia entirely. A ban is a GF prohibition to editing that is initiated by higher level users, consensus among the community, or an outcome of an ArbCom (per here). A ban can affect a user's ability to edit across all of WP or just across certain topics and can either be temporary or permanent. An indefinite block is essentially a permanent ban. A ban can be physically enforced by a block. Blocks are usually used for vandals while bans are typically used on users who have a reputation on the site (and can be trusted to respect the ban).

Real life analogy: A space alien is doing 1.5c on an interstellar trip to the Andromeda galaxy and is pulled over by a space cop for breaking the speed limit (which, of course, is c). The space officer requests the alien to take a breathalizer and blows a 3.25 (these aliens can really booze!). He gets 17 galactic points on his license, which puts him over the limit causing his license to be revoked for 6 interstellar months (this includes temporary removal of an implanted device that, without, does not allow him to start any ship in the fleet). This is a block. After regaining the right to travel through interstellar space, he borrows his brother's ship and hits a womp rat upon landing on a planet in Centaurus A. Womp rats, it turns out, are his brother's favorite animal. As a result, his brother has told him he can't use the ship anymore. But he still has a key and is trusted not to use the ship. Should he ever use the ship again, he will be caught due to the homing beacon hidden in the glove compartment (yes, space ships have glove compartments!). This is a ban. The end; that was fun! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15. Question from User:Goodmorningworld

15. Do you agree that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL have become way overused by passive-aggressive editors who use them as shields to hide behind while baiting, poking and annoying editors minding their own business, or as magic wands to conjure fictional violations out of thin air, often with the collusion of allied admins, yes or no? If yes, what do you propose to do about it, should you become an admin?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: I can only answer this from personal experience; I'm not sure of the feeling on this as a whole on WP. But I have used these (or at least WP:CIVIL) in statements made in disputes, but only when I think it was warranted and the truth. I personally haven't overused the policies and never plan to, but it's a nice thing to start with to get an aggravating user's attention. I think everything on WP essentially boils down to WP:DICK, but I have noticed that this is somewhat going out of style, even though it's so clear and to the point.

Now even if these are overused, where is the harm in this? If a user is overusing these policy references (indeed misusing would probably be a better word because I don't think one can overuse them if it's legitimate) they will ultimately get an earful about it, especially if the disagreement goes to dispute resolution or ArbCom. The third opinion will most likely make mention of the abuse of citing these policies.

Also, what would be the solution to this problem? You can't just get rid of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL on those grounds (or any in my mind) since these are really part of the basis of the community that is Wikipedia. It seems this is an annoying, but wholly necessary evil. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Keepscases

16. Have you participated in the RfA process before now? Why or why not? If you have, please share an opinion or two regarding the process.

A: I have never !voted in an RfA before though I do stop by regularly to watch from the sidelines. Most RfAs I see have obvious outcomes and a !vote from me wouldn't make much difference (i.e. >90% support or an obvious WP:NOTNOW). Plus I think !voting here requires you to do a thorough background check of the candidates and this process, when done correctly, takes a lot of time. I could be using that time to do other edits that I find more enjoyable, thereby keeping me here longer and producing a greater net benefit for the project; plus there are already many dedicated users here who enjoy doing this and putting the time into the research so not having me isn't a huge loss. I may throw in a couple !votes in the future, but I'm unsure for now. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update I just placed my first RfA vote over here and do plan on voting in RfAs where the tally is close (like this one!). I've put together criteria as well. It takes a while, but it's kind of fun and eye-opening. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not-so-optional question from Wadester16

17. As an extension of many previous questions, how will you act should you end up being trusted with the mop?

A. As with life, self-confidence comes with experience and practice, as well has soft feet to begin with (walking on egg shells is always so much fun!). With respect to all the admin tools, I will step lightly initially and always inquire about the right call from other experienced sysops before making a controversial move. I will lurk around many admin areas (something I'm already doing) to get a good feel for the area, take part in !votes, read logs, etc to get a better idea of how to perform my duties. In addition, I've done significant reading at WP:NAS already and will continue to do so to get as much knowledge as possible before I use a tool. Should I be given the tools, this will be a learning experience, but I will not maliciously abuse or misuse the tools. The learning process will be essential and I will start slowly. Hopefully my past performance on WP can enlist your trust! Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Tim Vickers

18. What do you see as your worst mistake on Wikipedia so far and what did you learn from making this mistake?

A: I'm trying to make an effort to not sound like #42, but I had to do some deep digging. I've had some non-notable additions to the encyclopedia (these would come close to violating WP:NPOV as well) such as this, this, but these were really early on. I went on a mission at one point to place long reference lists in scrollable sections (until I was informed of MOS:SCROLL). For example, this and this. And like I said, I'm not trying to sound like I don't make mistakes, but most of my mistakes have been innocent policy-breakers, in which cases I learned the policy afterwards. For example, after learning the scroll policy, I started removing them (here and here). Generally speaking, I'm pretty careful about my edits and I almost always preview first.

My first article was based on a local country club (where I worked at the time). It was deleted. I don't remember the details, but based on the warnings I got, it seems I must have tried to remove the tag. I don't have access to the deleted page currently, but I'd still argue notability and usefulness (especially since there were already mentions of the subject elsewhere on Wikipedia and I linked them. I think at the time I was too intimidated to respond (plus I knew no policy so didn't know what to argue anyway). This was in May 2007 though, more than a year and a half ago, and well before I became an active user.

Of late, I've found that the rollback button is positioned a little close to the user talk button on a diff page for my taste. This has led to a few unwanted rollbacks ([1] [2] [3]), which I just end up undoing. Why was I trying to contact users if I didn't plan on reverting? I've begun welcoming new users, including thanking them for the constructive edit I found at recent changes. My strategy is to look for edits by IP users who have red talk page links (i.e. nobody's said "Hi!" yet) that have made changes of ±30 bytes or so. These are the edits many recent page patrollers ignore (possibly as being too minor?). If it's a positive edit, I welcome and thank them. If they vandalize, I revert and warn. It offers a friendly invitation to many users to edit constructively. Based on my strategy, I see many more positive edits than negative ones. To add another mistake, just today I got this message (they were my photos which were upgraded to an FPC nom) and that will never happen again (I did search for archives, but they weren't blatantly obvious to me).

Based on some of the opposes below, I admit errors made with some speedy deletes, but these are learned from of course, especially in a forum like this (I wish editor review was so thorough actually). Hopefully my welcoming of new users outweighs any negative affects of mistaken speedy deletes.

I welcome any other obvious mistakes to be pointed out so this discussion may be as thorough as possible. I'm sorry this seems to be lacking; I'm not trying to make myself out to be a deity, I'm just having trouble thinking of or finding more significant examples. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from KP Botany

19. What activity do you intend to do at AN/I? What do you see as needing another administrator at AN/I? I personally think AN/I has too many administrators, while other boards, less public maybe, too few, such as WP:BLP. What do you think of Wikipedia having popular places for administrators to work and boring places, what can you do about that?

• Links for Wadester16: Wadester16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wadester16 before commenting.

• Oops, just noticed someone used WannabeKate for the edit tool ... it was off by about 1000, because this editor does a lot with images, none of which WannabeKate was counting. I've posted the corrected editcount from X!'s tool on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I prefer WikiChecker, but that could be just because it's so pretty. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm rather disappointed at this RfA. Wadester16 has been editing constructively for several months, yet everybody is worried about arbitrary time limits. We're trying to decide whether we can trust him not to blow up the wiki, folks, not to decide whether he's the perfect Wikipedian. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern and disappointment Julian, but I think that's a rather large oversimplification. Yes, it's partly about trust, but let's face it, not even a rogue administrator with malevolent intentions can "blow up the Wiki", or cause that much havoc. I think it's fair to assume that nearly all those commenting here have the best of intentions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't really seem to be the case. Inexperience is the significant issue. Some clearly feel it's too much of a problem, others don't. But how many people are really saying "Needs to have been active for at least 10 million seconds"? There are legit reasons to at least be concerned about Wadestar not having enough experience, both in intending to work in areas with little experience making it difficult to evaluate the candidate, and in a some bad speedy deletion work. It's not arbitrary at all. WilyD 22:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but even so, what happened to NBD? Has the candidate done anything to suggest that he'll abuse the tools? Meh, I'm just ranting here, nevermind me... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess experience is just another way of gauging trust. It may seem that time spent on wikipedia is unimportant but how else does one gauge whether an editor will go off the deep end or not? A bit like getting married. :-) (I agree with you though that this user seems unlikely to go nuts and I'll move to support as soon as I get the kids to bed.) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Possibly it made a difference that almost all of the opposition came when the edit count showed ~2700 non-deleted contributions instead of ~3700. I considered leaving messages on the opposers' talk pages, but I was afraid it would come across as asking them to change their vote. Given that they thought it was 2700 and (depending how you count it) 4.5 months of serious editing, I don't think opposing is out of line with expectations at RFA, Julian. Are you saying there's going to be a downside if he fails? He's getting good advice and lots of support, he seems to be taking it well, and he's probably a shoe-in in 3 months if he takes the advice; I don't really see the harm whether he succeeds or fails. I supported, but I was really on the fence. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I don't mean that editcount and number of months settles the question; I'm just saying that the opposition doesn't seem that off-base to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea that you must expect a candidate to abuse admin tools to oppose is not in principle supported by everyone, and in practice supported by no one. I'll oppose any candidate who I think is likely to misuse the tools through ignorance or maliciousness. Notably, messing up speedy deletions causes big problems with biting newbies (and this is currently a big problem - look at the decline of new editors and so forth). Rather than "Will they abuse the tools or not?" a lot of us ask "Will giving them admin tools make them more of an asset to the project?" Inexperienced candidates sometimes just need more experience before they can be expected to perform well at some tasks. WilyD 12:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Moral Weak Support. You haven't done anything wrong; you work with vandalim reverting edits but you have a few big issues that will probably prevent this from getting too far. First of all, you have less then 2,000 edits in the mainspace, which everybody looks for. Secondly, you have a problem like me; you work too much on your userspace. A big chunk of your edits are to a userpage or subpage. Finally, when you revert vandalism, you mark the edit as minor, which is not good; vandalism is a big deal. That may get some people the wrong idea (like me...thanks for letting me know rollbacking is minor editing). Good luck on this though; work hard with vandalism and what you said and do this again in a little while. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 06:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • FWIW, rollbacking always labels an edit as minor and I use my user space as a sandbox for all my articles before going live. I'd send you to an example, but I always request their deletion when I'm done. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     • Actually, I haven't worked on this in a while (and am unsure if I'll even bring it live), but here's a small example. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wadester is correct in marking vandalism reverts as minor, Wikipedia:VANDAL#How_to_respond_to_vandalism. Matt (Talk) 07:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for that... switched to weak support... mainly per my criteria.

2. Support, I don't see a reason not to give him the tools. Wizardman 06:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Are we running out of mops? Per Wisdom89, even if Wade blocks only one vandal, and never touches his tools again, he's a net positive, because I see little or no likelihood of abuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
5. Appears to have clue, a level head and maturity in bucketloads. Although this request isn't likely to pass due to editcountitis I wish you the best of luck.  GARDEN  09:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak support Changing from neutral per: Featured content, edit summaries that demonstrate cluefullness, user page and sub-pages that demonstrate good overall cluefullness, participation in: wikiprojects including co-founding one, DYN, featured-content discussions, use of cleanup templates, article assessments, and more. Weak per: Relatively low time in service, relatively low contributions to adminish areas, in particularly low to nonexistent participation in areas he wants to work in. Would force to neutral but for the overall cluefullness demonstrated elsewhere - I fully expect he will on his own educate himself before using the tools. Forgiven or ignored: Early problems with newbie-mistakes. Minor things done early on I would do differently like not call the 2nd version of File:IBeam2ndMomArea1.jpg a new version - I would've uploaded it as a different image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support — Jake Wartenberg 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cautious net positive type support Positives - clueful, sane user page, clearly dedicated (particularly noting your image work) some CSD work that looked all good, pleasent user page, very good answers to the questions - particularly your own Q4. Negatives - 350 or so edits to your user page (yes you explained above, but that really is a lot) - and 670 overal User: edits!), only moderate experience in the areas you mentioned in Q1. Likely to deliberatley damage the wiki? No. Likely to inadvertently damage the wiki? Pretty unlikely given your cautious approach = support. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Off-topic discussion moved to talk. Pedro :  Chat  16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support - I've interacted with Wadester16 in the past, and from what I've seen, he's a very friendly and clueful user. Should do just fine with the tools. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Also per good answers to the questions. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support Is a net positive to the project, support.--Giants27 TC 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support. I really like the overall attitude, the intents expressed in the nom, and the balance between vandal fighting and content building. Over 1,000 edits = enough experience in my book, and you've been lurking around the wiki long enough to have clue. Hermione1980 15:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per Pedro. While I would recommend a more thorough review of the related policies, I get the sense that the candidate will not block or delete outside of policy. Dlohcierekim 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops. To oppose. did not see the declined speedy oppose. Dlohcierekim 17:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12. Support I looked mostly at the image related contributions and I consider creating images for use in the project as valuable as text additions. Seems to have solid knowledge in this area and I see good opportunities for admin work here evaluating images and making good choices for tagging, educating uploaders and deletions when needed. I did look at the CSD tagging that was refused and I would only see a problem if the feedback for why was ignored - this is just basic learning. I am impressed with the maturity shown and the good attitude towards the project. Wadester16 is a good solid contributor and I see no reason to mistrust him with the admin tools. --NrDg 17:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Clue levels are not in doubt - won't break the Wiki. I trust the user enough to think that if they encounter a situation which they are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with that they will approach another admin for assistance. Net positive. — neuro^(talk) 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Cluefulness and non-insanity are way more important than edit count. I trust this user to learn the admin tools and use them responsibly. FlyingToaster 18:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per Pedro and FlyingToaster. No-one's perfect as an admin right from the off (or even after a year, ahem...) but having reviewed some (not all) contributions, I see nothing fatal and I think that this user will do well. Take it steady, lurk and observe when you need to, ask for help if you're not sure and you'll get there. Good luck. Bencherlite^Talk 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Despite having a less-than-desirable edit count, Wadester has demonstrated honesty and confidence in his self-nom, which are two positive factors one would hope for when looking for potential administrators. He appears to have a relatively good understanding of policy, and even if he won't necessarily have the most admin actions in his log, I can still say I trust Wadester will do what he said he will. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support fr33kman -s- 01:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I don't see any problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - I like what I see, both in contributions and in answers and interaction in this RfA. I think some of the discussion about CSD is a bit blown out of proportion for my taste, but that doesn't mean I don't have at least some concern. I am confident that Wadester16 will be more sensitive to the community standards on this policy, and therefore I have no problem supporting - because that's the only issue I see anyway.  Frank  |  talk  01:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Looks great. Good luck! Ray (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Clue+Civil+Competence+Clarity+Content. That's enough C's for me. Also, per Frank, above, well said. Keeper | 76 03:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Kennedy ^(talk) 11:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Weak support. TLDR summary: I think the voters above have searched the contribs and thought carefully, and I can support their conclusions. The candidate averaged only 5 edits a month before August; I've reviewed the contribs for August and most of September, and they show someone who was sincere but knew very little about Wikipedia (this, for instance), so we're really talking about a candidate with 4.5 month's experience here, the way we generally count things at RfA. When I supported Frank in July, I said: "Damage is done, of course, by giving what is perceived as a thumbs-down by the "establishment" to 19 out of 20 candidates who apply before 6 months of consistent editing", but the RfA community has matured since July, and I don't think that damage will be done if this RfA fails. The supporters and most of the opposition are making it clear that we like this candidate but that we have suggestions for things he should learn, for his benefit and for the benefit of the people who will be affected by his actions. This candidate started off as an exopedian, but the candidate's wikiproject experience shows on-wiki social interactions that nicely balance the exopedianism. The implication I draw from the voters above is that the candidate seems to be on the right track, and it's not worth the extra stress to him or the extra time it will take us to go through all this again just to increase the odds that we're getting it right. I'm concerned that accepting people before six months of solid activity is going to eventually create a race among prospective candidates to see how fast they can get accepted, and if that starts happening, I would support either a 6-month minimum requirement before running ... or (and this could still happen in this RfA), we could oppose candidates who we think are running too soon, and use the opportunity to give them friendly and helpful feedback, which would have the effect of setting standards as a community rather than passing the buck to admin coaches and other individuals, at the cost of extra work at RfA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Really good answer. Keepscases (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Was going to oppose because of too much common sense and not enough drama. Then realized that was a good thing. Not used to seeing that — threw me off. --Tombstone (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - Overall experience is on the low side, but it's enough. You know what you're talking about, you stay cool under pressure, and you've made a good contribution to the overall quality of Wikipedia. I haven't run into any items of specific concern on a review of your contribs, and your questions answers are generally excellent. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Very positive experiences with this user. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Believe this editor approaches the task of admin with the proper attitude, and if they have a few hiccups, will fix them. I see much benefit and little chance of harm or drama. --StaniStani  20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, good luck ¬.¬ Majorly talk 20:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Would do fine from what I can see. I assume that this RfA will fail given the current standards but I sure hope that if and when he re-applies down the road, he won't get the ol' "too soon since last RfA". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Suppoer Seems to have a Clue and would be a net positive. Good look! Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Net positive, has a clue, won't break the wiki: Why not? Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I was going to oppose, as I thought this was your 16th RfA, which would not be good. Haha. But net positive. iMatthew // talk // 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to neutral. Is a net positive in a way, but just see my neutral below. iMatthew // talk // 21:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33. Support Insufficient reasons to bar user from adminhood. Why not? --Carbon Rodney 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - no reason to believe this editor would abuse the tools. I agree with the notes of caution below re speedy deletions - please be careful with these as incorrect deletion of a new editor's article will quickly sour their Wikipedia involvement (yes, yes, I sound like User:I'm Spartacus!). If in doubt don't do it, is usually a good motto. Edit count is a little low but I like the effort you put into the new Wikiproject, and your collaborative approach with other editors. Good luck with the nomination. Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - net positive. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I believe that this user will be a net positive to the project, clearly this editor is not the clear-cut, 'fit the RfA mould', and I commend the user for submitting themselves anyway. They have started their own wikiproject, submitted content and now want to help in a new area. WP:WTHN? Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Great answers to questions, especially to #4 and #5: the fact that Wadester16 has not been in many disputes does not mean he avoids them, it could indicate that he actually talks to people and resolves issues before they even become disputes. That brings me to my next reason, which is that he has no edits to ANI: I see that as a plus rather than a minus: he shows he spends more time working on articles that participating on the drama boards. As for experience, Wadester16 seems knowledgeable enough, and eager to learn: as long as he takes it slowly, and asks others for help, he'll be fine. Good luck. Acalamari 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Avruch ^T 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support as candidate has never been blocked and is a featured picture contributor. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but that hardly indicates that a user has sufficient understanding of the key admin functions--blocking, protecting, and deleting to have those capabilities. Dlohcierekim 16:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

40. Support changed from Oppose. I've been looking over this user's contributions for days now and I've decided that he is just too good to pass up for adminship. Trusilver 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support seems to have a good attitude, shouldn't make too many mistakes and will learn from them. Guest9999 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Weak support - per K50 Dude (talk · contribs) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Strong support. I like what I see so far. We need more editors like this dude who know all about the importance of image contributions. Give him the tools already. Caden S (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support, I think he is mature enough to work within his limits at first, and intelligent enough to extend his limits over time. Net positive. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Can't see the editor doing off-the-wall things and I'm sure he'll use the tools wisely and carefully. Per WP:NBD, a user who seems reasonably trustworthy should have the tools. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 02:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support From his answers, seems like he would make a good admin. Has heart in the right place. Also, I would discount the argument that he has less than 2000 mainspace edits, as it appears from his edit history that he contributes carefully, rather than editing and re-editing the same entry several times over. This is a good thing, but it tends to bias the number of edits downwards. LK (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Weak support from my neutral. The candidate wanted me to ask another question or something to get me over to support. I then reviewed this RfA and realized that he's handled everything well (or, at least, not horribly), his answers to the Q's are reasonably reasonable, and he doesn't really have anything glaringly saying "Oppose my RfA!" about him... So I'm switching to a weak support. Not a full one: I wouldn't have nommed him, but I have no problems with him having the tools. flaminglawyer 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Weak Support (moved from Neutral). I was going Neutral on this one, but then I saw Wadester's own comments at his RFA criteria - "I do not vote neutral. If I feel you're right on the cusp between oppose and support and you seem like you can be trusted with the tools, end up being a net positive, and there's no huge negative in your past, a neutral will be a support." And frankly, he's right. I'm not hugely enthusiastic about this candidate, but on the other hand there are no major problems with him either; on that basis, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and support. Two comments I would make to him, though, are: (i) be very careful with speedy deletions - the criteria are narrowly defined for a good reason; and (ii), you don't need to spend so much time welcoming IP users - it's nice, yes, but it's not really how I'd like to see admins spending their time, as it doesn't add much value to the encyclopaedia. Apart from that, good luck. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Strong support I have worked with Wadester on many occasions, I have found Wad to be much much more level-headed than myself, insightful, and always willing to lend a helping hand. There are a few admins (very few I hope and I'm sure not any that are reading this) who think their job is to "yell" at editors who make mistakes or at the minimum state that the editor did something wrong without then giving any constructive suggestions on how to do things the right way. Wadester would be the type of admin (like all those reading this of course) who are helpful in teaching newbies the ropes in a friendly welcoming way. I have seen Wad be concise and clear in responding to mistakes by other editors.Camelbinky (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support I've had good experiences with the candidate, mostly at FPC. Spencer^T♦C 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - net positive. Simon^KSK 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support - No reason not to. --Dylan620 _{Hark unto me · Ping me} @ 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Since I'm usually convinced by the opposers, but this time I'm not, I think I'll express my support. Dekimasuよ! 00:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support - Wandering Courier (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Weak Support Net Positive . I dont reallly see a reason to oppose -- Tinu Cherian - 05:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose for now. I need to take a further look, but here's what I get from what I've seen so far. In A1 you say you would work at AIV, ANI, and AFD. I see that you have zero edits to both AIV and ANI, and you have ten edits to XFD (two to AFD and eight to SFD). Something makes me want to support, though; I will keep looking through your work. Useight (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak Oppose. I can't in good conscience support this request because you made the cardinal mistake (based on my own personal criteria) of flatly stating you will work in areas you have little to no experience in. However, my oppose is weak because you seem to be well-intentioned and level-headed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • This is indeed a very good and valid point. I openly admit I have little to no experience in those areas, but I feel (personally, at least) that these are areas that a sysop has an obligation (for lack of a better word?) to learn and take part in (if not just to work on backlog). Maybe expectation is a better word than obligation; and again, this is just my personal feeling. Either way, my intention is not to mislead any reviewers, it is to say that I will likely take part in these areas in the future. Everyone is new to a WP area at some point :-). Thanks, ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   • Many editors, including myself, want to see some form of demonstrated interest in areas you want to work in. Sure, mere mortals can't delete or block, but we can post at ANI, participate in XFDs/speedy-patrol/prod-patrol, and participate in policy/guidelines-related discussions. Editing in these areas over time can demonstrate that we have at least some knowledge of admin-related policy, something that's also important to many editors including myself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   #Oppose leaning neutral Changed to support. per Useight. I have no problem at all with primarily anti-vandalism admins, sometimes it seems that I fall into that category myself. However, I would like to see a little bit of work reporting to WP:AIV before even considering giving you the mop. Oh, what the hell. Trusilver 08:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. One, two, three speedy deletion nominations in his last 500 edits have been declined, at least. This only streaches back a week. Admins need to be competant in areas they work, especially, especially speedy deletion. WilyD 14:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   3÷500=0.6%. I'm only human :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Last 500 edits, not last 500 noms. That goes back to 3rd Fev., during which time you have ~25 successful db's, of which only a few are not either author request or transwiki'd to commons. (This A7This A1, which is not an A1 to boot, though possibly G11 or G12 (In fairness, the second was deleted as A1, though it's obviously about an Austrian foreign policy journal - not sure what happened there). WilyD 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough, but note that we regular users can't see those links (The action you have requested is limited to Administrators.). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Imho, although both were deleted, they were both incorrect: The first was about a band which claimed to have won a notable prize, i.e. Red Horse Muziklaban. That alone is sufficient to indicate notability. The second was clearly about an journal, tagging it was just blatantly wrong. An article which includes the sentence "Austrian falgship foreign policy journal" can never, under no logical interpretation of A1, be without context. I userfied both articles for the purposes of this RFA here: User:SoWhy/RFA/3rd Degree (band) and User:SoWhy/RFA/Europäische Rundschau. Regards SoWhy 10:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   #1 on its face met A7's criteria but the next editor did the right thing and improved the article, then removed the tag. #2 was a school and should not have been A7'd. #3 is on the fringe of an assertion of importance: He co-founded a $280M internet company that got bought out by Amazon. Without knowing if Amazon buys companies like candy or if they are highly selective, it's hard to know if this qualifies as an assertion of importance. Had I been reviewing it, I probably would have either let it stand as a speedy or sent it to AFD "just to be safe." This assumes I could not improve the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   1 is pretty ambigious. Realistically, one probably needs to investigate Calida Healthcare a bit to decide whether being the chair is an assertion of importance or not. However, even out article Cadila Healthcare would've given away that this was probably an assertion of importance. 3 is possibly also the same - needs more investigation. But "needs more investigation" should be a red flag that speedy deletion is not the answer. Working C:CSD, you regularly come across nominations like that that need more investigation - you might investigate, then PROD or AFD, or dig up a few refs and expand the article a bit. But if you see something that needs more investigation and label it for speedy deletion, you're doing it wrong. WilyD 15:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Non-worldwide-famous companies are one area where A7 can be easily misapplied. If I say I'm the founder of Davidwr Studios, and you've never heard of it, you'll probably A7 it without a second look, nevermind that it's an award-winning major player in North Elbonia. My hunch is when the editor created the article, he didn't realize many people would've never heard of the firm and would've thought it was "just another medical firm" i.e. not an assertion of importance. This discussion is getting out of the scope of RFA. If you see other editors making similar mistakes, please open a discussion on WT:CSD to caution A7 taggers and A7-tagged-deleting admins to at least Google the company/person/website/whatever before tagging or deleting it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure this is terribly out of scope. Here I'm suggesting he mishandled several articles with respect to the criteria for speedy deletion, based upon some intepretation of the policy. Now, if my interpretation of the policy is bad, then my oppose should be given less weight than if it's good, nay? So is it reasonable to expect newpage patrollers/CSDing admins to investigate what may or may not be assertions of importance, or not? One might suggest that we require new article writers to make a very explicit assertion of importance - I'd disagree - newpage patrollers and CSDing admins should know policy and apply it sensibly, while new editors can't be expected to write articles specifically to not being db'd. But others might disagree. WilyD 15:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose for now I see an eager and level-headed editor, but WilyD (again) digged out some mistakes with CSD that I was going to mention as well. I really think there is not enough work to judge you by, seeing that you got your rollback just a week ago. I'd suggest you wait another 2-3 months... Regards SoWhy 15:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose, a little light on overall experience, particularly in the project namespace. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (move to neutral)Not ready yet wonderful user who just needs more experience with the tool related policies. Remember, if there is an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, it's better to PROD tag than CSD. Because of many new users' inexperience and the wide range of possible subjects-- global in fact, it is sometimes better to Google search than to assume that an article that does not do a good job of asserting significance is not actually about a notable subject. I look forward to next time, when I expect to support. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose Apologies, but I swore to !vote based on my optional Q, and you failed to answer it to my satisfaction. I asked you to pick a specific conflict and discuss how you might resolve it, and you gave a stock answer that is supposed to work for any conflict (but, by the way, dosen't.) Hipocrite (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • I respect your reasoning and admit my answer was not to the extent that I know you had wished. In response, I've added an update to the question that I implore you to read. Should that still not satisfy you, I can fully understand; I just wanted to give it another shot. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose The nominated asserted that creating a WikiProject was one of his major accomplishments. In optional Q 13 i asked about that, and the nominated went into arguments defending the merits of having the wikiproject rather than answering the question in my view. I disagree with the nominated's judgment in several matters, which is okay, but I think it would have been appropriate for the nominated to acknowledge something there, and to show some capacity to appreciate a balance. For example, it could have been acknowledged there have been little or no substantive discussion within the wikiproject about content of any articles or other content-related matters yet, and I think it is inappropriate to claim the wikiproject as a positive accomplishment. In fact, the nominated's edit count in mainspace and in wikipedia space is run up by the creation of the wikiproject's pages and tagging a few hundred articles, all merely overhead which does not directly contribute to the wikipedia. I think more experience would be appropriate. doncram (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Out of curiosity: If WPCD were ignored, what would your full reasoning be? You're harping on only one of my major contributions and only offer "more experience would be appropriate" at the end of your comments, almost as if it is an afterthought. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I chose to keep my explanation simple, but i would still oppose for other reasons, relating to your relative lack of experience in any wikiproject and otherwise. I don't mind your disagreeing with me about what should be the name of one article or a wikiproject, but you have shown me no ability to resolve a conflict, and some inability to work with others. Also you appear to over-rate the importance of administrators, as in your claims of success for WPCD having 3 administrators among its 5 or so nominal members, and as in your premature, in my view, seeking to become an administrator so soon here, too. In your lauding the administrator members of WPCD, I don't know if you were aware that was somewhat insulting to me, personally, a non-administrator who could well help in WPCD wikiproject more than any of those 3 are likely to, but you are unaware of what i could do and I think you are unaware of what WikiProjects can do. I think it likely that you would brush aside other potential help in favor of your less-informed judgment in other matters, too. Thus, overall, while i think you are a fine regular contributor to wikipedia, I think it would be somewhat costly to others to clean up as you made mistakes on the job, as an over-eager administrator, if you were given the mop now. doncram (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for expanding on that. I was concerned by the combination that your only argument was based on a disagreement between us and that this is only your second time !voting in an RfA. And I think it's fair to AGF that I didn't mean to insult anyone when referencing the admins in the group (because I definitely didn't - never thought of that interpretation). By definition, an admin is a respected member of the community (hence RfA) and I wanted to make obvious that WPCD isn't just a random group of noobs rampaging around on article talk pages. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A wise man once opined that if another article were never again created or expanded, Wikipedia would remain an invaluable contribution to the betterment of the world. If it weren't for vandalism reverts, it would be ruined in a few weeks. I believe you undervalue the efforts of those of us who focus on protecting what others create. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   struck above per below. Apologies, I misunderstood. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 01:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see how Dlch's comment responds to anything i said or meant. I meant that Wadester16's edit count in mainspace is higher than it would be, because he has added his Wikiproject tag to the talk-pages of mainspace articles, and it is my opinion that does not count as building, it is overhead. doncram (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd advise not to ignore my Mainspace edits though. Edits done on WPCD and in the tagging process will be found under "Wikipedia" and "Talk", respectively. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. There have been lots of good candidates that have violated my pledge to not !vote at RFA. However this is an RFA I think you really need feedback at, so... here goes... You do some good work around the FPC and VPC areas, but you need more work in admin areas. You state on your userpage that you've been here since summer 2008. Normally I wouldn't care but since you have (from Wisdom's oppose) very little edits to any areas where admins work (AIV, AFD) I can't support. I'd support you in a couple of months. Ceran^→//forge 21:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   "Come back soon"? It's a little early to say he's not going to pass. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not what I meant, must be clearer. Fine then, modified. But please don't badger, Julian. It's not in anyone's best interests, especially no Wadester. There was a discussion on whether badgering ruins RFAs... Ceran^→//forge 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Err, that's not really badgering. Also, IIRC, the discussion wasn't about how badgering ruins RfA; rather, what ruins RfA is when every response is perceived as badgering. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Not enough experience in the areas he wishes to work in per Q1. Artichoker^[talk] 23:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose. Not enough experience, yet. Jonathunder (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose Good editor, but with insufficient experience for the admin tools at present. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong Oppose for two reasons: first the Speedy tagging-- someone running for admin should know at least that on cannot tag a school article for speedy as non-notable. As relative newcomers who do not realize do so tag about one a day, he is still among that group, and not qualified to do speedy deletions. The other tags discussed were equivocal. Dubiously notable articles do not go to speedy ever. They go to prod or afd. Those whose non-notability is certain are for speedy. We have quite enough XfD mistakes already without added an admin who still does not know the basics. The role of an admin reviewing speedies is to weed out the incorrect speedies, not to add to them.

    Additionally, in the follow up question on this, Q11, he does not seem aware that the rule is that admins "may" delete articles if they meet the speedy criteria, not that they '"must", and that WP:CSD goes on to say "Deletion is not required (italics in the original) if a page meets these criteria. Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate." . I think, on balance, that he simply does not yet know the policies under which articles are deleted.

    Second, as a different matter entirely, with respect to Q7, the place to discuss proposed indefinite blocks is AN/I, not with the arbitrators. They have quite enough to handle, and, in fact, I doubt very much if they would accept such cases. He does not even seem to be certain he would have the power to do so! I am almost all active admins have made indefinite blocks for vandalism, without thinking it necessary to consult anyone at all, but of course if it were a regular editor or anything less unambiguous we ask our fellow admins, either first or immediately afterwards. But not arb com, unless the matter cannot otherwise be resolved. There have been 21 indefinite block today already, by a dozen different admins, with only one or two of them having required discussion. All of them , at least in my opinion, good and necessary blocks.

    In summary, he does not yet know the basic rules about the basic tasks of an administrator, and he would do too much damage if he learned about them while he was "wandering around trying and experiencing new things", (to quote from his ans. to Q1.) DGG (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose per the poor speedy tagging and lack of experience in areas you've stated you'd work at. Rami R 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose The points explained above, especially by SoWhy, can indeed not be ignored. Sorry. — Aitias // discussion 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose The arguments by DGG and SoWhy got my attention. There's not need to rush to be an administrador when you don't have enough experience. --J.Mundo (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose - Much too soon. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. RMHED. 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you protesting RfA, or what? You've voted oppose (with no rationale) on nearly every candidate I've seen you vote on. Hermione1980 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet more utter bollocks. RMHED. 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This subject keeps coming up. If we suspect there's something fishy going on with a voter, should we say so? That seems to go against AGF, to me, and harm the atmosphere at RFA more than any harm that could be done by a rationale-less vote. Don't we have RfCU, MEDCAB, ANI and ArbCom to handle questions of trolling and topic bans? Of course, they're generally going to want more evidence than this. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (in a mild voice) Everyone is entitled to a !vote, support or oppose. Better not to go off on a crusade against a single !voter. Less drama, more content, better encyclopedia. (end statement in a mild voice.) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regent, your editsummary was addressed to me ... I hope that didn't come across as "Let's head to ArbCom!". I haven't seen anything at RFA that I think ArbCom would be interested in (yet!) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Me neither (believe it or not). — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose The points brought up by SoWhy are very valid and convincing. Wikipediarules2221 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose I just can't see a reason to support. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? Not one? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not to say that I see a reason to necessarily oppose. But if I could find one strong reason I might go neutral. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose for now. Some problems with understanding areas you wish to work in. Some speedy problems. 4-6 months from now I suspect I'd support. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose per answer to question 9; XFD is not a vote count - if it were, anyone could do it without controversy - and if we wait for a certain number of attendees then it will be more backlogged with this admin than if we left it to the other admins to close them out. And, this is where this candidate wants to help out... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose Inexperienced, with real editing only starting up in October 2008. Shows no maturity to be an admin. It appears that it's just another editor who wants the admin tools with no idea of what it is to volunteer around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per bad speedies raised by WilyD. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Candidate hasn't engaged in sufficient judgement-displaying activities to make me confident enough to support, and the poor speedies means I feel I must oppose. Daniel (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. weak Oppose - I don't question the good intentions, but I'm not convinced that the user has a grasp of the "big picture". Seems eager to get the tools just to try them out. I suspect this user will be a good admin one day, but have to fall into the "not now" group. A little more wiki-seasoning please. — Ched (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose not enough experience in areas he intends to work in. Parler Vous (edits) 17:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose. Not yet. The CSD issues pointed out by WillyD and SoWhy are disconcerting. I would rather see editors err on the side of caution and AfD something like that. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose. Good potential, not enough experience. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose per Wily, DGG & others. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - Good editor, but you have very few contributions to the areas that you want to work in as in admin. If this RfA isn't successful, consider increasing your edits (a couple of edits each day) to adminy areas like WP:HD, WP:UAA, WP:CHU, WP:AFD, WP:AN, WP:ANI, correct WP:CSD tagging etc., then try again in a few months. Matt (Talk) 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral for now hoping to support when I dig deeper. Your effective time-in-service, dating back only about 5-6 months, and low-ish edit counts are on the very low end of what I would normally consider barring extraordinary circumstances. It's enough to get me to dig though. On a cursory glance of this talk page, I'm not seeing a whole lot in adminish areas. I hope when I dig through your edit history I see at least a couple of AFD or other XFD edits, an Admin noticeboard edit or two, and/or other edits in adminish areas. I realize you don't particularly want the mop for these purposes, but you should at least have a general "feel for the lay of the land" when it comes to this stuff. I'll get back to you later, hopefully with a support but don't be surprised if it's a "close, but not yet." If it's the latter please try again in 3-6 months and use the intervening months to address the issues raised by me and others. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 11:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Changing to weak support see above. 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Moved to neutral Candidate is right on the cusp. So close. Too close for an oppose. 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

   Neutral Too good for an oppose, yet not good enough for a support... He doesn't satisfy my definition of an admin, yet he doesn't 100% fail it either... Fits right into this category. flaminglawyer 03:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to weak support. flaminglawyer 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Further explanation: Complete lack of RfA participation, too many Star Wars/alien references in answer to Q14 (that's minor, but still upsetting). That's not a very good reason to switch from support, so I'll switch to Neutral slightly leaning support. flaminglawyer 00:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   And per Jclemens. Except I still might not be able to support "without reservations." flaminglawyer 00:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply to Flaming Lawyer: Ironically, the Star Wars answers indicated a sense of humor. Administrating anything involves stress, and a sense of humor combined with the intellectual maturity this person already exhibits is a good thing to have attitude-wise. If I were "oppose leaning neutral" or "neutral leaning support" and I was already -><-this close to changing my mind, it might be that one last thing that got me over the hump. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You seem to have a sense of humor. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Eh... a sense of humor is always good, but the comment in question is simply... over the top. I'm OK with an occasional "You can do it, Luke: Just use the force," but this is too detailed to be overly humourous (to my tastes, anyway). It's like when somebody makes a Power Rangers joke, when you know that they've never watched the show in their life ("<in a very sarcastic tone> That's cooler than the Red Megazoid Squad!"), and then somebody else says "Dude, you're retarded. There's only one Megazoid, and he's blue." flaminglawyer 06:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   But I only made one explicit Star Wars reference. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, you got me there :) flaminglawyer 06:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   So is there anything I can do to nudge you over the edge to supportland? Another question, examples? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral If you're not willing to block indefinitely without ArbCom instructions, I don't know that you really have the temperment and self-confidence needed to use the mop. Your app has several things to commend it, but I'd rather you spent three months working successfully in some more of the admin areas and then I'd be able to support without reservations. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral Sorry I am going to stay neutral per Jclemens. America69 (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral Leaning Towards Support I feel similiar to Flaminglawyer. Answer to Q 15 was good. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Might I be able to sway you with more examples or answers to more questions? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral for now - looks mostly good, but the candidate's CSD contributions give me reason to pause. However, Wadester hasn't said CSD is one of the areas he'll be involved in, so... neutral it is. Robofish (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Moving to Support. Robofish (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Looks good to me but I don't like the answer to question 6. The notion that FAs should only be edited by trusted users because they can't get much better is bothersome (an FA is far from perfect, we should try not to fix articles in stone, and should be open to ip editors who are, after all, the 'editor farm' for wikipedia) and I think that reflects the lack of substantive content work. But, no particular reason to oppose either. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you see my answer to #6 having an overall effect on my performance as a possible admin or is this just an ideological difference? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see where ideology comes in. I just think that your faith in FAs (and lack of faith in IPs) arises from the paucity of substantive content work and that is a cause for concern. Nothing that more content work won't fix and please note that this is not an oppose !vote. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 16:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral I can't find much evidence of article work, plus strong arguments on both sides. iMatthew // talk // 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Over 40% of my edits are on articles, I've started six articles (4 DYKs), I completely rewrote and sourced United States Capitol Visitor Center and Jefferson Memorial, and I do a lot of citation and copyedit work. I'm not intending to start an argument, I just wanted to make that clear. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for the reply! I've struck that out. iMatthew // talk // 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. This RfA is a tough one. I do not think you have enough experience in administrative actions for me to support you, but I will not oppose you because I think you are smart enough to use the tools effectively and safely. Despite my neutral stance, best of luck to you! Malinaccier (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. I am going to try not to vote oppose for good faith candidates who are nearly there anymore. Per Malinaccier. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral, leaning to Oppose - I appreciate candidate replying to my question. The answer was not to my liking; in my opinion candidate misses the gravity of the problem and is mistaken about the utility of existing remedies. However, candidate does deserve credit for taking the time to write out a thoughtful response instead of simply dropping in some boilerplate verbiage. On the plus side, candidate is not a mouthbreathing wannabe Abu Ghraib guard, nor a ritalin-addled videogamer, and has actually lived long enough to attain the age of majority. On the minus side, I do not have enough of an idea regarding candidate's outlook and personality, or candidate's track record mediating disputes with a view towards supporting good-faith editors over passive-aggressive obstructionists, Wikilawyers, drama mongers, haters, bigots, and single-purpose accounts. Until I see such evidence, I am unable to support.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't this say more about your stringent criteria than about the candidate's qualifications? SomeMost of us (myself included), including admins (myself included) are here to build and maintain an encyclopedia; Wadester16 appears to be in this category. Lack of involvement with drama seems to me a pretty clear indication of being a good-faith editor, which implies to me a tendency to support them over the others. Essentially, I'm asserting that Wadester16 isn't WP:ROUGE and the rest will follow naturally. That's the kind of admin we need more of. (And kudos to you as well for providing a detailed rationale, especially here in the neutral section.)  Frank  |  talk  20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that response Frank. And I as well appreciate a well thought out and thorough response here in the neutral section. I'd also like to say that I'm thankful for not being grouped with Abu Ghraib guards; makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, Acalamari (Support #37) says it well. I haven't been in many disputes because I typically don't let them escalate. The examples in question #3 are my most extreme cases and they aren't nearly as bad as most. Consider this (and its twin) and this as examples of how I typically try to cool a situation or approach a situation in a respectful manner. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm with Frank. I for one don't get involved in all that drama stuff either. And I certainly don't see much value in the question. Perhaps I don't see the gravity of the problem. And having reviewed the answer, I agree with it pretty well. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not averse to continuing the discussion, but should part of this thread, starting with Frank's response, be moved to the associated Talk page? Unsure about the protocol, so please advise.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I finally got around to reviewing the discussion at Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks that Wadester16 referenced. Here, he is part of a spirited discussion among good-faith editors who are getting in digs at each other, and W16 is no exception.

    [begin quotation]I think it's about time the two of you (and I don't mean Kensplanet!) have some sit-down time with WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, WP:NPA, and especially WP:DBAD since you obviously could use the help. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [end quotation][reply]

    SeeWP:WIKISPEAK about the silliness of addressing editors in ALLCAPS BLUE.

    [begin quotation] I don't think anything I said warrants a WP:OWN reference. I just ask that a user be respected for 1) being a constructive user and 2) being a constructive user with expertise in the subject at hand. I said nothing about him being given more credence (is a re-read in order?), only that he be respected, period. While I'm aware that the image posted above is not your doing, you do reference it (and its preceding text) openly. There were also no accusations (especially false ones..?), only the suggestion that you read up on some basic WP guidelines since most of your comments on this page (oh, so many...) reek of superciliousness and sarcasm. Can't wait to finally "chillax"... ~ Wadester16 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [end quotation][reply]

    Two posts by W16 quoted in their entirety. Nothing terrible, and note that the editors on the opposing side of the argument were likewise giving him a hard time. Subsequently, once the excitement from recent events died down, the article moved into calmer seas, and editors became much more reasonable.

    What I want to see in admin candidates is that they actually confront, not editors who like them are good people, only a little over-excited, but the kind of editor that is sneaky, tendentious, bigoted, hateful (but polite about it), in short: bad-faith editors. It takes guts and stamina and piss and vinegar to confront these individuals and fight them to a conclusion. Perhaps W16 will grow into an editor who does these things, and then I will support gladly for administrator.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Several of the replies to Goodmorningworld's comment of 19:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC) were reformatted by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) on 16:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC) to keep from breaking the #-numbering system. See the immediate prior edit to see how the authors intended it to look.[reply]

    Are you saying you think I'm a bad-faith editor? :-( And how do you not consider my actions on this a confrontation? I wasn't even defending myself, but another good-faith editor. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayyy… OK, my fault for not expressing myself clearly. What I meant was, both you and the "other side" – cerejota and Brewcrewer – are good folks (emphatically NOT "bad-faith editors" – did not see any on that thread), and after some scuffling between you and them, you all got back to collegial editing. *sigh* This really should have gone to the Talk page of your RfA, but thanks anyway to davidwr for taking the time to reformat.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. Neutral - good faith user who would mean well to the tools of an administrator, however, his lack of experience with the areas he wants to work in trouble me.--TRUCO 19:18, 16 February 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.