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

Coren[edit]

Ended (21/18/2); No consensus to promote. --Deskana (banana) 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren (talk · contribs) - I'd like to offer myself for the mop once more. I withdrew my previous request when it became apparent that the consensus was that I needed more experience and to correct a few failings, which I think I have.

My biggest flaw was, and probably still is, that I can sometimes be a bit too short with other editors. I think I can fairly say I've gotten pretty good at keeping my cool, and while I don't think I've ever been uncivil, I'm now much better at not biting and presuming intent. I'm no more perfect than anyone else, but I think my record shows I've gotten much better.

— Coren (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: My strong point and focus will always be quality control; I'll keep doing new page patrol and XfD, of course, and lend a hand wherever a backlog beckons. I've gotten some practice (non-admin) closing AfDs, and I've been keeping a close eye on the various noticeboards to get a good feel on how the rules are applied in practice and what the community feels are the "right" way to handle various incidents.
I have a particular dislikehatred of spam, and will always remain vigilant to keep spammers away from the 'pedia and sweep up the... droppings... they leave behind.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Strangely enough, my deletion nominations. While there is the obvious directly positive effect of keeping some of the spam and vandalism off, it often happens that a well placed prod or speedy spurs editing a sub-par article into a good encyclopedia page. Unlike many, I don't see deletions as an adversarial process, but as a collaborative one. I'm always willing to give a good faith editor a hand into fixing up an article to make a csd or prod I placed moot; and I've likewise never hesitated to change my !vote on an XfD as the article improves— even if it's one I nominated.
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: I've actually never gotten into an editing dispute that wasn't solved with a quick exchange of short notes. What conflicts I've gotten into were usually initiated by deletion nominations. I used to not realize how personally some editors could take a prod or speedy tag, and would react to angered reactions with defensiveness. Now, if another editor comes out aggressively, I will point him or her towards the relevant guidelines and policies and simply walk (click?) away.
Probably the best example I can think of is how I handled the (non-)deletion of Brahim Yadel. While the original editor quickly became extremely aggressive, I've successfully managed to steer the dispute back into civility, and helped him find the right things to include in the article to stave off deletion. In the end, the article became sourced enough, and the keep arguments strong enough, that it survived the AfD and came out stronger than when it got in.
4. Obligatory "How do you interpret WP:IAR?" question.
A: I've probably one of the most restricted interpretations of WP:IAR: I read it as "Ignore the letter of the rules when they prevent applying the spirit of the rules." I don't think policy and guidelines arrived by long (and sometimes arduous) discussion to consensus should be ignored lightly. I suppose it's possible to find an example where actually ignoring a rule really helped make a better encyclopedia, but I think that would normally be extraordinarily rare.
I tend to be instantly suspicious of invocations of IAR. If a rule should be ignored because it prevents doing the Right Thing in a particular case, then the right thing might be to revisit the rule itself— after all, consensus changes with time and what may have been seen as anathema two years ago might be viewed differently today.
I will listen to someone using IAR in a discussion, but the onus will lie entirely on him or her to demonstrate that by "IAR" they don't simply mean "Yeah, but my article is different/nicer/an exception".

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
Hm. That ended up harder than it seemed. Most of the candidates I saw seemed spot on, but DJ-Kicks stood out. It describes a fairly large collection of CDs featuring a number of notable artists. It has a fairly large history with numerous contributors, none of which are in obvious conflict of interest. It's a little advertise-y, but the style tag covers that adequately. G11 requires not only that the article be blatant spam, but that it would need to be "fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", which doesn't seem to be the case. I expect that article would even survive an AfD; the speedy isn't appropriate (and was de-tagged by another editor once before I did).
I concur; the article could easily be fixed with the style cleanup and a few refs demonstrating notable critical response in the music press, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.
As of today, there are plenty of inverted cases available, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gellert Grindelwald (the fact that the last book of the Harry Potter series has just been published has created a rash of articles, and the predictable flood of AfD nominations). Those articles are textbook examples of vast defenses almost entirely based on WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, an "keep"s tend to ignore the legitimate concerns about WP:IINFO, WP:PLOT or even WP:OR which, as one of the pillars, is critical.
At this moment, I'm failing to find an article with a majority of unfounded deletes, but I'll keep looking back in time and update this later. I'm not very surprised— it's much more likely for readers/editors of an article to be fans/supportive of the topic than for "random" editors passing by AfD, and people with a strong dislike for the topic are less likely to stumble on the AfD template on the article and follow it to the discussion.
I do remember AfDs that ended in delete that I tought shouldn't have because the topic was distateful to a large number of editors, or which were so contentious that the "discussion" quickly devolved to a barrage of poor deletes, but none that I can clearly see in the recent past. Those are always touchy and I don't envy the closing admins.
(note: there actually is a recent example I can think of, but I tought it not appropriate to bring up here since (a) I was involved in the discussion and (b) it did go trhough a DrV).
That's plenty sufficient, actually; no need to look for another example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Coren before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Moral support for swimming in the shark pool. [1] But you should trust that seasoned editors can handle a lion pit [2] and some more mainspace edits would't harm. --Tikiwont 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - good editor, seems experienced enough IMO. The diffs provided by Pedro don't particularly worry me; Coren was right to apologise for accidentally templating an established user, but I understand why he tagged the article in its original form for A7. And the second diff - admonishing a newbie not to sign articles - looks like a valid comment, and doesn't seem particularly uncivil to me. Further, I don't agree with the premise that extensive article-writing is needed for adminship; not everyone has the expertise or inclination to contribute masses of new content, and maintenance work is just as valuable for the encyclopedia. (We've had this discussion enough times at WT:RFA, so I won't go into it further). WaltonOne 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. The diffs provided in opposition below don't bother me either, there's nothing in there to indicate Coren is untrustworthy or doesn't know policy. I can also find nothing to suggest he hasn't improved since the prior nomination. Contributions, particularly to the mainspace, may be thin by some standards but is sufficient for determining the candidate's capabilities in my book. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I don't understand the oppositions. The differences provided aren't that big of a deal IMO and this user has a good number of edits as well as experience. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The editor seems both nice and responsible, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be given the extra tools. Pax:Vobiscum 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak actual / strong moral support, changed from neutral as I just couldn't let Pedro's insufficient rationale go un-cancelled-out. Although I do somewhat agree with Chrislk02 and Husond, I do not see any serious deal-breakers. —AldeBaer 16:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think I'm beginning to see a recurring theme here. :-) I'll put my money where my mouth is right now and go check the stubs to see if there are a few I can meaningfully flesh out. If nothing else, this RfA will have done more than waste a few electrons. — Coren (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support not seeing a significant reason for the opposition. Perspicacite 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Per no big deal. ~ Wikihermit 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. What's the point of mainspace contributions in a RfA? Admins are just the technical side of things, mainspace is nothing to do with it! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, yes. T Rex | talk 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I simply refuse to let RfAs fail because of lack of mainspace work. OK, I can't literally refuse, but the best I can do is support them. Giggy UCP 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Despite not being the most active editor in the world, demonstrates clear understanding of deletion policy (see my two questions), and otherwise seems to know what's expected and how to go about it, judging from the other answers and replies. I'm not concerned much by the allegations of hastiness - that is a trait that other admins will rein in quickly enough if it arises, and the response to the WP:IAR question suggests that this editor well-respects WP:PROCESS. PS: Not all editors are by nature exopedians, and WP needs plenty of metapedians for what Coren called "quality control", something more and more important as more and more spammers, COI-pushing self-aggrandizers, vandals, NFT-violating kids, etc., show up every single day the more popular WP gets. PPS: Recent edit counts of 333 to 1170 per month are evidentiary of a good (though not obsessive ;-) activity level, being around and at least occasionally participating since 1993 2003 demonstrates long-term viability, and the stats "number of unique pages 2027 / total 3016" are a ratio demonstrative of policing and cleanup work, which are needed just as much as article creation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1993? Surely you mean 2003!  :-) — Coren (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed! Glad I didn't put 1983... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support SMcCandlish said it very well. CitiCat ♫ 03:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I feel that this user can be trusted with the additional tools. A good editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I feel the editor is good looking at the track through no interaction.Harlowraman 10:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. This user shows an understanding of administrative procedures, notwithstanding the comments below. JodyB yak, yak, yak 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Coren seems ready to become an administrator. Captain panda 19:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Definitely, seems like a fine candidateDeliciously Saucy 21:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Everyone should be an administrator. A.Z. 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone. ~ Wikihermit 03:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support as we could use a few more WikiOgres like Coren as admins. Bearian 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. El_C 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I feel you are getting closer to being ready, however feel you need a little bit more mainspace experience and main talk space. (I.E., collaborative work on an article). While you have been a registered editor for quite a while, the majority of your edits have been in the past few months with a majority being in the user talk space. You have contributed to the wp and wpt space but i think a little more experience in those areas could not hurt as well. Overall, I would give it another month or 2 and i feel you would be ready. Feel free to seek me out for an editor review when the time comes and you feel ready. If I feel you are ready I may be willing to nominate you. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, again, sorry. You've been improving, that is for certain. But I'm not convinced that you're ready to become an administrator mostly because you still have a rather low participation in the mainspace. Misplacing this RfA on this page also didn't look good. Keep up the good work and try again in a few months please.--Húsönd 14:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. I got that right the first time.  :-) By the time I noticed, someone else had already fixed it. — Coren (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, guess who... :-) Anyway, I hope that you don't feel discouraged if this RfA fails. You just need to improve a little bit more (IMO) and I'm sure that a new RfA in a few months will be most successful. Just keep striding and don't forget the mainspace.--Húsönd 14:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I intend to let this one go all the way through, even if only to collect criticism for review. I think I'm ready, but if there is a consensus that I'm not it's important that I know why so I can address it. I don't think I'll ever rank very high in mainspace edits, mind you— the topics where I hold enough knowledge to feel comfortable editing are also the ones with the better coverage already so I rarely feel I can contribute that much... and since english isn't my native language, copy editing is iffy (I fear introducing errors rather than fix them).
    I did try my hand a bit with [3], with good results I think, so I'll be doing a bit more. — Coren (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Really sorry. You are doing some great work, reports to WP:AIV, discussion work and vandal reverting. However you are just too hasty at times. Husond didn't mention it but here where you tagged an article of his for speedy and then when you found out he was a seasoned and experienced editor backed down. Whether the account is a year or a day old makes no difference - you should have checked further before tagging. Again here you tagged an article that although short was clearly referenced and asserted notability so I can't see why Speedy Deletion applied. Finally this is a touch too bitey and particularly when you note the comment directly above it, applied at the same time. Like I say, a lot of your work is excellent, so don't be discouraged at all, but I just personally can't support giving you some extra buttons at the moment, particularly the delete one. Best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  14:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I didn't back down. [4]. I did apologise for leaving a template on a seasoned editor's talk page rather than a short personal note. I doubt Hussond needed to be told how to place a hangon after all.  :-) But I stood by my A7 because, as it was, the article made no claim to notability. — Coren (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per you own diff, you stated "But you are a regular, so I think I can trust you to work on the article and not just abandon it in this state." So I can only read it that you will apply speedy to newbies, but not seasoned editors. Sorry, that's just my interpretation but it still demonstrates you were too hasty, which is my point of concern. Also can you please put a # in front of indented comments as it blows out the numbering otherwise. Ta!Pedro |  Chat  14:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also looked at the PTDI example you gave and, frankly, I don't understand it. The revision I tagged had no assertion of notability that I can see, and did read like a simple ad for a driving school (which is why I tagged it G11). Can you clarify why you chose that example? — Coren (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, I honestly do not see much validity in your rationale. Tagging that article was somewhat justifiable, and so was apologising to Husond. Most of all, I do not see anything bitey in this comment at all. Personally, I regard a flawed reasoning as even worse than a weak reasoning like Kurt Weber's running gag. —AldeBaer 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to do this, but I will expand my reasoning. I believe the bitey comment was just that. The accused editor just left his signature on an article not a talk page. Even mentioning WP:OWN is out of line - there was no way it implied that at all - it's just a common mistake. Look at the diff and the previous editors comment that was far more faithful. If you were a newbie how would you feel for making that slip up? It's a small matter. The following (all this month) are not so small. [5] placed the wrong tag and then sorted it anyway - article still stands. [6] spam tag was wrong - very contested and recommended to AFD by third party - article still stands. [7] candidate agreed he was wrong to tag - article still stands. [8] edited an article he wanted speedy to fix the refs! Article still stands. [9] per above - candidate said he would leave article alone as it was by an established editor (which should make no difference) Article still stands. [10] article tagged twice by candidate and then edited it to add a stub tag - Article still stands. In one month the candidate has made six poor errors requesting a speedy delete (although granted many correct calls as well). I cannot support giving the delete button to someone with that record at this time. As above, the work is great - the candidate is just too hasty to be trusted at this time. Pedro |  Chat  19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, now I'm confused. [11] was a copyvio. The copied text was removed along with the CSD (since, obviously, it wasn't a copyvio anymore!) In fact, all of the diffs you provide are obviously correct when placed then removed once the problems with the articles have been fixed (sometimes by myself). This is a Good Thing! (Well, [12] is a bit more borderline. I didn't fight the removal of the CSD or bring it to AfD since I supposed that some people might find that person notable enough). — Coren (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [13] again, where you admit you tagged wrongly. I know you have commented that CSD is just a candidate and not a finality (per above). The point is simple. You tagged six articles this month alone incorrectly - which is about four and a half too many. As an admin you would have a delete button and I see nothing that mitigates that you would not have used it in my examples above - unilaterally and to the distress of the article creators. Coren as above I respect the hard work you are doing, your conversations and your anti-vandal work. I just do not trust you with the delete button at this time You are just too hasty IMHO. I'm sorry, but the support is also mounting so should you get the buttons just use them wisely, and with consideration. Best. Pedro |  Chat  20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say I was wrong, I said the article was not CSDable anymore. Because it has been fixed. But yes, I understand why you might feel I'm a bit fast on the deletion— this at least needs not worry you. I'm a strong proponent of deleting only tagged articles (tagged by someone else) even for admins (and even went so far as to propose this as a guideline some time ago). You need not fear me going on deletion rampages. I do take this seriously, and I hope you'll be able to see this for yourself if I get the mop. Let's make sure this doesn't devolve from discussion to argument and leave it at "agree to disagree". Okay? — Coren (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedro, what would you do if you saw an IP or new account leave a sig on an article page? Would you just remove it, and not politely inform them (as Coren did) that articles are not to be signed? WP:SIG btw says the following about signatures on articles: "Edits to articles should not be signed, as signatures on Wikipedia are not intended to indicate ownership or authorship of any Wikipedia article." Out of line? -- You say it's a small matter, but you include it in your rationale nevertheless. —AldeBaer 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    AldeBaer I would do this [14] as opposed to this [15]. It was bitey and failed to assume the faith that the editor had just followed instructions to sign things wihtout understanding where to sign. The candidate implied that the editor did it out of a sense of ownership. Pedro |  Chat  20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if that's what you're reading into it. I'd say Coren tried to explain why we do not use sigs on articles, which is far better than just saying "articles should not be signed!" —AldeBaer 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Double edit-conflict Oppose Too little activity with this account; the obvious errors are pointed out above, so work on eliminating those and participating more in the main space as well as vandal fighting. (aeropagitica) 14:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ignore the above oppose, this user has a habit of repeatedly opposing self noms because they are self noms, he doesn't even take the time to review users so please ignore this. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not in favor of tagging every self-nom as an oppose, but do you have evidence that this user does not review the nominated users? Darkspots 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prima facie" expresses just that, if I understand it correctly: It's not worth bothering to review a candidate if he or she self-nominated. —AldeBaer 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, I see. Thanks for the answer. In that case, I would add my agreement that, when it is easily possible to find out more about users, opposing them on this ground alone seems unfair. One should do at least the minimum of research or not participate in RfAs. Darkspots 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. As Chris points out, you may have been around a long time, but you've only been active for a few months. I'd personally like to see some sustained activity, and perhaps a little expansion of your activities in the directions mentioned by Chris. Don't be discouraged, though, as you certainly have the makings of a good administrator. Carom 22:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Husond, Chris and Pedro, general experience concerns. Daniel 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, per (aeropagitica). Nat Tang ta | co | em 05:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Pedro. Evidence of questionable speedy tagging suggests that more time actively editing is needed. Xoloz 14:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per much of above. I would also like to see sustained activity, additional mainspace edits, and additional experience outside of AfD and RfA. Lara♥Love 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Mainly due to lack of experience and encyclopaedic contributions. --Bryson 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Mainly because of varied edits over the months. Administrators have to be consistent with their powers. Onnaghar (Talk) 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose - You seem to be getting to know wiki policy more, but your edit count is still low. Come back in a few months, and I will support. Politics rule 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Just not enough overall experience...yet. Jmlk17 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Concerns raised particularly by Pedro make me reluctant to trust with the delete button at this time. With more active editing experience am sure this concern can be addressed. Davewild 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Over half of Coren's edits are templated, bot-like notifications to user_talk pages [16]. —freak(talk) 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, of course they are. I always try to warn users when I CSD an article; and that edit (the CSD) goes away with the article; so that all that is left is the warning! That pattern is exactly what you'd expect and demand of someone who is doing new page patrol. — Coren (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't expect and demand specific patterns, nor share the calculated desire to promote more "cookie cutter" admins. What I do expect is for something to be left over after the multitude of ineffectual boilerplate warnings is disregarded. You can say "this article might not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, using TW!!" because it isn't what you'd expand and demand of a new article, but if you look back at them you'll see that many of them are doing rather well [17], and others are decent stubs [18] even despite your repetitive edit-warring and button-mashing. —freak(talk) 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose — Misunderstands deletion policy.[19] Matthew 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Makes comments on medical issues that are outright wrong (eg. saying that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) "exists in order to define "normal functioning" from a behavioral perspective"). Idiotic comment. Also has an aggressive manner. Skopp (Talk) 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Voting in an RfA is not a tool to punish users who are on the opposite side from you in a content dispute. You've been around here long enough that you should know better. If you actually have something to say about his conduct, that's fine, but this doesn't appear to be the case. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

(Changed to support) There are enough moral supports, and enough "moral opposes". Chrislk02 and Husond said it best: Get some more experience, esp. in the main space, and try again in about 2 months (in case this doesn't succeed). Good luck. —AldeBaer 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral I think this is an excellent editor and I don't think that mainspace edits are what make an administrator. Still, a lot of issues brought up by the opposers suggest to me a little bit too much inexperience still. Trusilver 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral (with encouragement) I came across Coren only last week, and noted his contribs page for potential RfA consideration, if further review did not reveal gaps or shortcomings. I still feel this is at some time likely to be the case, but the experience issue isn't quite there for me either. This RfA also suggests that communal feeling is not yet sufficiently strong, and RfA is to a large extent, a consensus by the community on its "comfort level". At this point the communal voice is only around 50 - 55% on a not-insignificant ~ 50 responses. Evidently the track record is not yet quite reassuring enough. That said, on the plus side, most "oppose" views are about things that time and experience will surely cure.

    As a constructive suggestion, I'd ideally like to see maybe 3 or so more months involvement (April is quite recent to have begun serious editing), including broadening of experience at different aspects of the admin's role, in project space, RFC, 3O, DR, or other areas where policy based editing must be evidenced, and ideally, some articles which have more than "just a few edits on each", showing involved editorial work on specific articles or projects. These matter in my view for RfA, since users will expect administrators to make good editorial suggestions and clearly applied policy-based judgements related to many varied circumstances; a sense of limits and boundaries, and skill, all develop with breadth of experience. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (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.
Category