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


AdjustShift[edit]

Final (61/5/4); Closed by Rlevse at 20:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

AdjustShift (talk · contribs) – Hello all. I've been a user of Wikipedia since August 2008. I'm applying for adminship because I believe I'll be able to serve WP better with the extra buttons. If the community grants me the tools, I will use them for the betterment of WP. In advance, I would like to thank the community for any input and I will endeavor to use it to ameliorate my contributions to WP. AdjustShift (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: If granted adminship, I would initially be working on WP:AIV. I'll analyze reports at WP:AIV, and warn or block vandals. I've got around 70 edits to AIV, and most of them have resulted in a block. Because of my experience at AIV, I can analyze reports better. New editors can occasionally make unhelpful, but well-intended edits. In such cases, I'll not block them.
I'll work at WP:AN and WP:ANI. I'll analyze the reports presented by editors, and try to resolve problems. I believe admins who participate at ANI should be able to calm the situation rather than inflame it.
I'll close AFDs. As a new admin, I'll not close contentious AFDs. I believe one needs more experience as an admin to close contentious AfDs and DRVs.
I would also like to expand my focus into areas such as investigating sockpuppetry.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've contributed to a number of articles related to International Relations, politics and history. I collaborated with Kresock on a number of bios of the American Civil War generals and we brought four bios of the Civil War generals to B-Class: Robert Alexander Cameron, Charles Thomas Campbell, George Henry Chapman, and Robert Alexander Cameron. I've written/expanded 29 DYK articles. Some of my DYK articles include Baseball Before We Knew It, Louis Réard, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Egypt), Petrus Johannes Waardenburg, Marc Feldmann, Science and technology in Mexico, and Roy Franklin Nichols. I also started List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, which was brought to FL by Scorpion0422. I played a part to meliorate the list.
I've participated in vandal-fighting. I've about 70 edits to AIV, and most of them have resulted in a block. I've also participated at AN and ANI.
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 been in some conflicts in the past. List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates was promoted to FL. I started the list, and I felt that I should have been notified about the FL nomination. I started the FLRC, and asked the list to be delisted as a featured list immediately. It was my blunder. I should have been more collaborative. In the end, I found the input of Dabomb87 useful. I learned that one should be more collaborative and work with fellow editors to get desired results. In February 2009, I made a blunder by nominating a list for FL without consulting its primary contributor. I apologized to Abraham, B.S. and he accepted my apology.[1] I have made some minor mistakes here and there, but I believe I have learned from them. In the end, it is important to keep your head cool. To avoid needless conflicts, one has to keep a cool head, remain civil, and communicate effectively with fellow editors.
Additional Question from Pedro
4. What are your thoughts on using Internet Relay Chat as a method of discussing actions that will or will not be taken on Wikipedia? What, if any, are the advantages or disadvantages?
A. I strongly believe that whatever happens on wiki should stay on wiki. I'll never use Internet Relay Chat to talk with any WP editors. Personally, I will not advocate the use of IRC as a method of discussing actions that will or will not be taken on WP.
Additional Question from Looie496
5. A major focus of your contribs is September 11 attacks and several related articles. Do you not consider your work there among your best contributions?
A. September 11 attacks was already a good article before I started editing. Some of my edits to the 9/11 article are minor edits. It would be unethical for me to take credit for it. Aude, MONGO, and Tom harrison are the main contributors.
Additional questions from Letsdrinktea
6. A user applies for rollback. They have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring, but you side with him and you don't think it would be a problem. Would you grant or deny their request?
A. I'll never side with a user who has a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. People who engage in disruptive behavior shouldn't be given rollback rights. WP editors should treat each other as colleagues, rather than friends or enemies. If someone I know engages in disruptive editing/edit warring, as a colleague, I'll ask him to stop his disruptive behavior.
Additonal question from  Marlith (Talk) 
7. What would you like to see Wikipedia grow into in a year?
A. I would like to see WP becoming a more reliable source of information. We have articles ranging from popular culture to academic disciplines. I would like to see an improvement in the coverage of history-related and International Relations-related articles.
Additional questions from Jennavecia
8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.
A: There is obviously a problem with the current BLP situation. English Wikipedia is a top website. When people search something on Google, they will get a Wikipedia reference near the top of the page. The information we publish about living individuals can affect their lives. False information about living individuals can damage their lives. Thus it is important for us to publish accurate information about living people. Because of the open nature of en-wiki, it is possible for people to add false or negative information about famous people they don't like. The bios of famous people (such as Brad Pitt) are patrolled by many editors and false or negative information added to these bios will be quickly reverted. But, the bios of lesser famous people (such as Greta Van Susteren) are poorly patrolled. It is possible for people to add false or negative information on the bios of lesser famous people and it can stick around for hours or even days. These things also damage the credibility of en-wiki. I strongly believe that we should do something to protect the bios of living people.
8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?
1. Flagged revisions
2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions
3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)
A: I like the idea of Flagged revisions. I don't think it will harm the IP editors or new users. They can get permission from the regulars. Some have said it is not compatible with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but we ban/block disruptive editors. The current BLP situation is problematic. People can add false and negative information about people they don't like. People's real lives are important. Accurate bios of living people will enhance the credibility of WP. I supported the idea of the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposed trial. I believe it can reduce the number of BLP violations. Although I think we should use semi-protection more for the bios of living people, I don't think we should semi-protect all bios of living people. Some IPs and new editors do make positive contributions to the bios of living people.
Optional questions from Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)
9. What is the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, please, no cut-and-pasting.
A. A block is a way of technically preventing editors from damaging and disrupting WP. It is preventative, not punitive. An editor can be blocked for breaking 3RR, vandalism, etc. A ban is a formal removal of an editor's right to edit all or part of WP. It is a social construct and a banned editor must not edit WP, until the ban is lifted. An editor can get banned by the WP community, the Arbitration Committee, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Jimbo Wales. An indef block is not banning. It may or may not be permanent. It can evolve into a ban if no admin is willing to unblock the editor.
10. This is normally Xeno's RfA question, but I like it, too. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A. In this case, I was the one who blocked the IP. So, I shouldn't be assessing the unblock request. I will wait for another admin to look at the unblock request. Having said that, I don't think the IP should be unblocked. The editor vandalized the article several times, despite repeated warnings. Even after the block, the editor doesn't seem to learn anything. One week is not a very long time, so if another admin consults me, I would advise him not to unblock or reduce the block length.
Optional series from Protonk (talk). I should stress these are optional. I promise not to base my vote on a decision to not answer any one of them or to delay answering any of them.
11 What areas, aside from those mentioned in Q1, do you intend to work on? Do you find any particular admin area daunting? Do you find any particular area dreadfully boring?
A: I've mentioned administrative work I would like to take part in Q1. After gaining some experience as an admin, I would like to work on page protection. I don't find any particular admin area daunting or dreadfully boring.
12 Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests and you see an ((Edit protected)) request to make a change to a protected template. Both the template and the change are relatively technical and you don't 100% understand what the change will do. Despite this, the change has a great deal of support on the talk page from knowledgeable editors who don't have the admin bit. Ignoring the possibility of asking a more technically competent admin for help or punting the request, what would it take for you to make the change? How many editors would have to sign on to it? What sort of explanation could you be given to convince you that the change was benign?
A: I'll not be patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. I'll work on page protection only after gaining some experience. As an admin, I'll not do anything that I don't properly understand.
13 Moving off the above, let's take the opposite scenario. Let's say you are patrolling the same category and find a change which you understand and agree with but which has less than unanimous support from people on the talk page. Is committing an edit to a protected page based on a request different from just editing a page? Why or why not? Template, image and help pages tend to have relatively low participation, so how much opposition represents no consensus? How much support represents a quorum?
A: I'll not be patrolling the category that you mentioned above.
14 What is your preference when dealing with an edit war, blocking editors or protecting the page (or door number three, if you so desire)?
A: I'll block vandals. I've little sympathy for vandals. I've submitted reports at AIV. I've seen some vandals vandalizing pages even after level 4 warning. I'll not wait that long. I will not block established editors, unless there is a clear abuse. Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, and I don't believe blocking an established user will reduce the likelihood of future problems. In fact, we may lose a valuable user because of the block. So, an established user should be blocked only when there is a clear abuse (such as personal attacks or harassment). An established editor should also be blocked if the WP community supports a block against the editor. If the crowd is divided, the editor shouldn't be blocked. Editor A contributes positively from January 2009 to November 2009. In December 2009, he loses his head and makes some uncivil remarks here and there. I'll block the editor if and only if there is a consensus at ANI to block him. I oppose the "bold" actions by admins. I believe that admins should be carrying out what the WP community says with regard to WP policy.
15 Last one, I promise. When you are watching AIV, what do you do with requests which are not blatant vandalism?
A: Thanks for this one! I'll be working on ANI, so this is an important question for me. I've seen several reports at ANI which are not blatant vandalism. There are several types of unconstructive edits which are not blatant vandalism. Some edits of newbies are unhelpful. Sometimes people add incorrect information unintentionally. These are not vandalism. But, I've seen editors using ((uw-vandalism1)) or ((uw-vandalism2)) to warn new editors or IPs, when they should have used ((uw-test1)) or ((uw-test2)). In these cases, I'll politely tell the new editor or the IP that their edits were unhelpful or use ((uw-test1)).

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

16a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and ((underconstruction)), and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?
A: I'll do research on whether the company is notable or not. If the article doesn't meet our notability standard, I'll delete it (CSD#A3 or CSD#A7). If the article meets our standard, I'll decline the speedy deletion request. I'll give some time for the editor to develop the article.
16b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?
A: Not really.
16c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?
A: Editor 2 has removed it twice. If Editor 1 re-adds it, technically he has not broken 3RR. In this case, both editors are engaging in an edit war. I would ask them to start a discussion in the talkpage. If Editor 1 or Editor 2 continues to revert without any discussion, I may consider blocking the editor. The best thing for both the editor will be to discuss the problem on the talkpage and reach a consensus. If another editor comes and reverts without any discussion, I'll ask the third editor to talk before reverting. If the edit war doesn't end, I may temporarily protect the page, and ask editors to discuss on the talkpage to reach a consensus.
16d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?
A: In both cases, consensus is reached by analyzing the arguments presents by editor and their merits. In case of the AFD debates, one has to present sound reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article should be kept or deleted. The AFD debate is not a vote. After the debate, the article is either kept, deleted, merged, or redirected. When there is no consensus to delete the article, it should generally default to keep. Note: Sometimes, no consensus can default to delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie.
In case of article writing, it is more difficult to weigh arguments. In non-controversial articles (such as bios of Civil War generals), it is easier to reach a consensus, but in controversial articles (such as 9/11), it is not easy to reach a consensus. In controversial articles, emotions run high. People even create socks to support their POV. In such cases, some votes have to be dismissed when determining consensus.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. No reason why not. :) Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 20:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support — Jake Wartenberg 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Looks like he can be trusted. GT5162 (我的对话页) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Giants27 T/C 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Nothing I can see. America69 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Erik9 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support While your answer to the first question is a little cookie-cutter-ish, I don't see anything in your contributions or talk page history that concerns me. Good luck! faithless (speak) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good, balanced editor who will do well with the tools from what I can see. Eight months is plenty long in my opinion. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No reason to oppose. Good work, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support All's well with your contributions. Sure, you don't post a hundred times a day, but the quality of your work is stellar. ThemFromSpace 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I randomly spotchecked some of your edits (particularly articles created), and all I can say is, wow! RayTalk 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Wizardman 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support high activity in admin related fields like AIV and ANI. Also comes with mainspace contribs. Yay!  Marlith (Talk)  03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support- a lot of good work in article writing, and in admin related areas, makes me very confident that you'll be a good admin. Reyk YO! 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. This is an obvious one. AdjustShift will be an excellent administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Article work is exemplary. I'm very impressed with their multiple DYKs, along with the numerous other article contributions. Vandal work seems OK, but does not base their contribs on it. I have confidence that AdjustShift will be a good admin. Xclamation point 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Too many administrators, currently :) No seriously, I'm very impressed by your article building, would love to see some more vandal fighting but that being said, an asset to the community. Cheers! -Senseless!... says you, says me 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Not enough administrators currently. And a good user, too. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good answers to questions —LetsdrinkTea 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Trustworthy, head appears to be screwed on the correct way. Nick (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Will handle the tools well. Timmeh! 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Looks good to me. hmwithτ 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Hell yes, good contributor, has clue, good temperament. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. With pleasure, and thanks for responding to my Q4. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - good article work and a calm, rational approach to some controversial topics. Looks fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has no block, but what the candidate does have is over 25 Did You Know credits, which shows that candidate has avoided serious conflict while contributing to our project. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I can't believe you've been here the same amount of time as me; I always thought you had been around forever! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Good article and WP work + good answers = good admin. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, can't think of any reason not and can't understand this ongoing and repetitive idea that there are too many admins. It makes it sound like an exclusive club which I've always been led to believe it is not. --candle•wicke 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Candidate has a grasp on the BLP problem. لennavecia 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Vandal-fighter with a good record of content contribution (29 DYKs!). That's basically an ideal admin candidate. Cool3 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good experiences with the candidate, consider him/her/it to be trustworthy and mopworthy. FlyingToaster 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Answers to questions show a significant amount of clue. GlassCobra 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I've known AdjustShift since his newbiehood in Wikipedia, and to be honest I was surprised to see this RfA so soon. However, he's obviously learned a lot during the 7 months being here, as evidenced by his answers (I agree with GlassCobra). Sensible editor, no reason to think that he'd misuse the mop. Best, Jamie☆S93 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Skilled editor, will do a good admin. - Darwinek (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Has a good understanding of most of the WP, and i see no alarms. --GedUK  08:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; no good reason to oppose; we need more admins with sports/pop culture knowledge. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support On balance. I would have preferred more full answers to my questions, but I did emphasize that they were optional. My advice to the candidate is to explore other areas of the admin bit because you will be asked to take some action regarding them at some point. Hell, you may find yourself focusing on them. I figured (and so did most of the ppl voting) that I would focus on AfD and avoid CSD and AIV (since I had very few edits there prior to becoming an admin). As it turns out, that's not really the case. I have closed less than 100 (i think) AfDs but I have made thousands of CSD decisions and blocked scores of ppl at AIV. Working well there has required that I pick up on different norms and procedures and I would have fared better had I been more open to the prospect of doing so prior to getting the bit. The RFPP questions were an attempt to engage you in a specific question on page protection without just asking you to quote WP:PROTECT. I had hoped that the answers there would shed some light on where you fit on the "consensus vs. the right answer" spectrum (because not everyone is on the same place) and what goes on in your head when you undertake an action by proxy. You will probably never be asked to edit the spam or abuse filters or asked to process the DYK queue, but I can predict with almost 100% certainty that someone is going to ask you to protect a page or make an edit to a protected page. Just be sure that you aren't closing off paths for yourself. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input. I'll focus on page protection. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Seems alright. — Σxplicit 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Seen you around, you'll do fine. I like your strong response (and stance) regarding optional question #4 above. Keeper | 76 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support shouldn't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support—not likely to abuse the tools. — Deckiller 04:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Yep, has the sense to take it slowly and become familiar with policy before diving in. Good answers (esp Q4!) EyeSerenetalk 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support No problems here. Good luck!--Michael (Talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I have only seen good things from AdjustShift. Acalamari 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Some concerns raised in Oppose sound weak, so I support the candidate per AGF and his fair answers.--Caspian blue 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  60. Support - I am slightly concerned at the use of superlatives such as "never" in contexts that might not be appropriate, but on the other hand, I like the last part of your answer to Q12: "As an admin, I'll not do anything that I don't properly understand." Please stick to that - if only all contributors to Wikipedia (editors and admins alike) felt this way! I see an editor who will continue to be an asset.  Frank  |  talk  16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Great user, might as well support. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. Also user has been here less than a year. DougsTech (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: But how is that a reason to oppose? More admins would add more opinions to the discussion, thus, adding a greater range of points of view to discussions. In addition, this user has shown great devotion to helping out the project, with many many edits in a short range of time. I myself have been here for two and a half years and still feel that this user can do an exellent job.  Marlith (Talk)  03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just ignore him LetsdrinkTea 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, LDT; all others please read this before adding any further discussion.--It's me...Sallicio! 03:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And let's not forget this, which applies equally well.  Frank  |  talk  23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: Unfortunately I have to oppose for lack of experience. South Bay (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the RfA you meant to add this to? (striking comment - South Bay's original comment cited WP:NOTNOW) FlyingToaster 10:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Lack of experience all over. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    changed after all to neutral, see below Oppose on the basis of Q9 Q16. Unaware of the problems of beginning contributors. The willingness to ignore an "underconstruction" template on a new article is not a good idea--many ujses come here under the assumption they can build an article very graduallly--and, if you let them, they often do. The willingness to delete articles before people have a chance to work on them is not constructive. DGG (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC). (revised in italics DGG (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Can you link to what you are talking about DGG? I don't see this ignoring an under construction template in the response to Q9. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, Q16. DGG (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, less than 10k edits, has not been a registered editor for even a year yet, and far too inactive in that time with seeming heavy decline in participation rather than the increase one might expect for one wanting administrative rights. Just not enough experience at all. Seems to have good potential as the candidate understands some basic Wiki guidelines and policies, but still does not fully grasp the relevant ones, such as the incorrect statement that an AfD can only close as keep or delete. No consensus (which is not the same as keep), merge, and redirect are all also possibles (as is userfy, on some occasions). I'd recommend candidate first be an active editor for at least a year, and being sure this is the place for them, as such sever declines in edits usually indicate one is getting ready to leave, not increase their dedication. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Collectonian, I don't think one needs 10k edits to become an admin. When I was new, I was involved in vandal fighting. That's why I had more edits. Please note that I've started and developed a number of articles in January, February, and March. In those three months, 9 articles started and developed by me appeared on DYK. If I were to simply fight vandalism, I would have got 10k edits by now. In 2009, my edits has slightly declined because of RL commitments. It will increase. Thanks for pointing out my error. I've corrected it. I didn't say "No consensus" = "Keep". What I said was, when there is no consensus to delete the article, it should generally default to keep. I've also pointed to the AFD where no consensus was defaulted to delete. As a Wikipedian, I'm flexible. If you've any suggestions for me, you can drop me a note on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not thing one does, but I do. I believe potential administrators should be heavily active in the project, in both article creation/editing/improving AND vandalism fighting, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I found multiple answers to questions troubling. Sorry, but these are key issues and give insight into if you would make an effective admin or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral, Leaning Support Although you have done lots of great for Wikipedia, I feel you would be more qualified with more experience in other areas. -download | sign! 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a bit more specific please, Download? I am a little confused by what you found missing in the candidate. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Having registered this account only 8 months ago, I feel it could do with more experience. Looking at AdjustShift's talk page, I also see minimal activity but good collaboration. After seeing a few answers to questions, I'd be glad to change to support. -download | sign! 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: It certainly isn't enough to bring me to oppose, but I think the answers to the questions are very weak. Maedin\talk 12:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think my answers are very weak. Can you point out my weak answers? I'll try to meliorate my answers. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can drop me a note on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Maedin\talk 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I think your answers are rather weak, also, as Maedin says, particularly in areas where aggressive attitudes toward new editors are concerned, as in DGG's concern above. I won't go with "oppose" as you at least said you're look it up first, but why not give a new editor time and assistance in writing an article, time to show notability, and assistance as a welcome to wikipedia. Other answers are not particularly well-thought out; imo, this is probably just due to lack of experience. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral changed from oppose. Though the approach to new editors is a concern, I agree with KP that you will probably learn from experience, but not confident enough to support. DGG (talk) 06:19, 11 April 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.
Category