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

E2eamon[edit]

Final (30/19/3); ended 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Nomination[edit]

E2eamon (talk · contribs) – I do a fair amount of NPP, and lately I have noticed that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion frequently shows a backlog. Even for the most blatantly obvious CSD candidates (i.e. “This is a test page...test...test...ajkl;” (G2) or “Joe is a cool boy” (A7)), it can take well over an hour before an admin has a chance to delete it. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable. We need more admins working on this. Thus, I decided to run for adminship in hopes that I could help with this (and other areas too). For those who want the numbers: I have over 10,000 edits, including over 500 deleted edits. I have numerous DYK’s (both nominations and creations) as well as one GA (Disi Water Conveyance Project). I also was an early member at the begining of the WP:Wiki Guides project. I do have rollback, autopatrolled and reviewer permissions. E♴(talk) 18:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I am withdrawing this RfA. --E♴(talk) 14:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: As stated above, I intend to help with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I have also noticed an occasional backlog at WP:AIV, and would like to help out there as well. A good number of my edits have been anti-vandalism and CSD tagging, and so I feel confident that, with caution, I would be able to work at AIV and CSD successfully. I also contribute a lot at WP:MfD, and might perform the occasional close there. I have done a fair amount of T:DYK work- mostly reviews and nominations (although I have filled up the prep areas a few times) and would be willing to help if there was ever a need for more administrators there.

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

A: I am most proud of my work on the article Disi Water Conveyance Project, which I created, got on the main page in a DYK, and, with the help of other users, made it a GA. I knew nothing about the subject when I started (got it off the requested articles list), and so it was a real learning experience for me. That said, my best contributions are probably my anti-vandalism work, which does account for a large portion of my edits. There is nothing more satisfying than knowing that I have prevented the insertion of vandalism across thousands of Wikipedia pages.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: As I said above, I do contribute a lot to MfD. This, of course, means that I often find myself in disagreements with other users in the discussion. However, I always remain calm and focus on the issue at hand (should the page be deleted) and do not let disagreements with a user in one discussion prevent me from fully supporting their viewpoint in another. Working to remove vandalism has resulted in my userpage being vandalised many times, as well as personal attacks from vandals. Those, however, I do not take seriously and they cause me no stress.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the editor(s) reported)?

A: Well, there is the obvious misuse of the AIV board (for example, someone reports a user who has not vandalized at all, perhaps because of a conflict or other tension between users, or simply to disrupt the process). Other than that, in the majority of cases vandals need to be warned (four times is best), and so if a vandal was reported but there were no warnings or an insufficient number of warnings, I would not block them. (That is not to say that accounts can never be blocked without warnings). --E♴(talk) 19:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Quoting from the blocking policy: "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."

In other words, if a user is upset about something and would perhaps be better off not editing for a few days, that is not enough to justify a block. (Unless it is a self-requested block). However, if that editor is being disruptive (i.e. continuing to edit war against consensus, posting personal attacks, etc.), then a block may be appropriate. --E♴(talk) 19:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

6. Give a few examples of how CSD A7 is often improperly applied. What do you think is the most misunderstood part to A7? What is the key to correctly applying A7?

A: A7 is often improperly applied to articles where there does exist a credible claim of significance or importance. I have also seen it applied in situations where G10 or G3 might be more appropriate. The "key" to correctly applying A7 is making sure that the article does not make a credible claim of significance or importance. As the claim must be credible, it must be something that is not vandalism (Joe is famous for being evil!) or impossible (Joe is famous for being the man who can teleport!). It also may not be a statement of opinion (Joe is famous because I think he is good looking). Then, it must claim to be significant or important. This does not mean that it must be significant, but it must claim to be. It does not need to be referenced. If such a claim is present, A7 cannot be applied. --E♴(talk) 21:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Identify a strength and a weakness of our current BLP policy.

A: Well, I personally consider the WP:BLPPROD to be the best part of the BLP policy. BLP's without sources should not be tolerated, and the BLPPROD makes it much easier to keep all our BLP's sourced. A weakness would be the limited extent to which the policy extends to groups of people. --E♴(talk) 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Σ

8. When searching for CSD candidates you find this. If the article about him didn't already exist, what do you do?

A: Well, I would check the sources. Usually G3 or G10 candidates wouldn't have that many sources, so I would definitely treat this with caution and perhaps search for a few additional sources if clarification was needed. I would find that the subject did exist and did play a role in the killing of 6 million Jews. Thus, I would remove the G10 tag. However, I would tag the article as having POV issues as it states that "everyone hates him" which is not entirely true. --E♴(talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Can you put a credible reason to oppose yourself here, and also a credible countarargument to the oppose?

A: Oppose: The candidate's edit history seems sporadic, as some months have very few edits and others have a large amount. They have a lot of automated edits and have not spent enough time writing articles.

Counter-argument: The fluctuations in my edit history are due largely to the fact that I leave the country often, sometimes for up to a month. I don't believe it will hinder me as an administrator in any way. While I do have a lot of automated edits, they are in the areas I intend to work in (CSD and AIV) and are thus good experience. I have not done a huge amount of article work, but I believe I have done enough to be familiar with the process and the issues that article contributers commonly face. --E♴(talk) 04:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Throwaway85

10. Could you expand on your answer to #6? What, to you, differentiates a legitimate A7 candidate from an illegitimate one? What do you feel is the threshold of claimed notability beyond which an article should no longer be CSD'd, and instead prodded or taken to AfD?

A: I'll try and clarify a little. In my experience, most legitimate A7 candidates fall into two categories. The first is that the author doesn't realize we have a notability policy. They may think that anyone can have a Wikipedia article about themselves. (I thought so a few years ago, myself). So, the article might look something like "Joe attends Harvard University. His hobbies include singing, cooking, and chess." It is a legitimate attempt at creating an article, but the author doesn't understand that they have to show importance at all. If they did, they might write something like "Joe is an accomplished singer who attends Harvard University. He has won numerous national competitions including _____ and _____. His other hobbies are cooking and chess." That would not be a legitimate A7 candidate because the author has at least tried to show notability. If the singing competitions themselves were not notable, the article might warrant a prod or an AfD. The other category of A7 candidates are articles where the author does appear to know we have a notability policy and makes ridiculous claims in an attempt to avoid getting deleted. For example, "Joe is a singer who attends Harvard University. Most of the students agree that his greatness exceeds all singers in the past. He will be the most famous man in the world after he releases his first album." That is also an A7 candidate because it's claim is not credible. The "threshold" must be determined on a case by case basis, but if there is doubt, the article should be prodded or sent to AfD. I hope this clarifies.--E♴(talk) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. If you were to encounter a CSD:A7 tag on this article, which has been CSD'd per A7 before, how would you close it?

A Well, It most certainly should not be deleted as an A7. The article claims they were nominated for "Album of the Year" and "Best group or duo" in the Detroit rap awards. That alone is enough to make A7 non-applicable, as it is a credible claim of importance. However, I am not sure that they meet the notability guidelines at WP:BAND, and there are some serious sourcing issues. The band's own website is referenced, along with facebook. There are also a large number of yahoo links referenced which my browser warns me are full of malware. I think AfD would be the most appropriate for this article. --E♴(talk) 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from TCO

12. Which article did you add most referenced content to in the second half of 2010? Please describe the extent and type of work done.

A: In that specific timeframe, I wrote 1973 shooting in South Jamaica, Queens. I wrote the article using mostly newspapers as sources. --E♴(talk) 17:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

13. Please examine the comparison between the "histories" published by the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA) and the WP article Socialist Party of America. Do you agree that much of the recent history in the WP article was essentially based on the SPUSA's literature, and that this "history" is not consistent with the New York Times? Considering WP:Copyright_violation, COI, Reliable, as you wish, state what if any action should be taken by the community or by its vanguard administrators!

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A:This is a very difficult question to answer, and coming late into the situation with very little prior knowledge of the subject of the article, I would not normally feel comfortable offering an opinion on the situation. However, I will say that the evidence presented in the Plagiarism section shows, if nothing else, that the article does rely strongly on the SPUSA's published history. That is a problem, as anything published by the SPUSA does, obviously, have a conflict of interest for the purposes of this article. The whole history section appears to have too few in-line citations. Thus, I think that section needs to be at least partially re-written, with an increased focus on sourcing and less reliance on the SPUSA history. The old version may need to be revision-deleted. Beyond that, I would not feel comfortable offering a recommendation with the limited knowledge I have of the situation. --E♴(talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the plagiarism was due to 4 edits by User:Peter G Werner in 2006. I haven't seen similar paraphrasing or POV problems in other edits around that time, so I'd like to think it was an isolated edit.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

• Links for E2eamon: E2eamon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for E2eamon can be found here.

---

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

Discussion[edit]

• Editing stats posted to talk by Logan. Baseball Watcher 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Support - Seems to be a clueful article contributor and a good anti-vandal patroller. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. I had a look at contribs; it's hard wading through a large pile of automated stuff (maybe somebody wiser than me can analyse the stats of NPP and CSD and so on) but I found nothing bad, but there were random little bits of helpfulness like this. Random sample of talkpage history looked like reasonable communication without snarkiness. The graph shows lots of user talk edits but that goes with the antivandal work, it's not a sign of myspace-iness. I think E2eamon is competent, hardworking, and would put the tools to good use. bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I checked back through February and only found two actually inappropriate speedy tags: one was a mistaken G3 tagging of a page that had been vandalized and the other was this overly-hasty A1 tag [1]. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I remember that G3. There is no excuse for it, and I accept complete responsibility. That said, I was using Igloo at the time. Igloo shows and allows you to revert vandalism, and it also shows questionable new pages. That page showed up as a new page in Igloo (or at least I thought it did) and so I nominated if for CSD. That was overly hasty, and I now make an effort to double-check the edit history and make sure that the article doesn't have any real history that it could be reverted too. As for the A1 (I don't remember it), I again accept responsibility. I have lately tried to wait at least 10 minutes after creation (with no edits) before considering A1 or A3. --E♴(talk) 19:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I know, we all make mistakes. Out of a couple hundred CSDs, that's not bad. I have no doubt that somebody could scan my contributions and pick up a dozen plus declined/inappropriate speedy tags out of my 2000+ tags. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support. CSD work requires particular care. E2eamon's work is as good as anyone can reasonably expect. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support per users above, good luck - TBloemink (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - user is very competent. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Seems experienced with the relevant admin areas, and they could certainly use more attention. Good luck! Monty₈₄₅ 20:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I see no problems. James500 (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support User meets my criteria. Swarm ^X 21:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support, no problems here. Active vandal fighter, experienced enough and seems to know what they're doing in the admin areas they intend to take part in. Jafeluv (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Trustworthy and adminship is no big deal. Egg Centric 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Looks like someone who would use the tools well, and can admit the few times a mistake has been made. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 22:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support No cause for concern is evident. causa sui (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support This user already demonstrates a strong knowledge of admin-related functions. And to be honest, had sold me from the first words of their RfA. CSD is an area that is always backlogged and is always in need of motivated and knowledgeable admins to keep the nearly permanent backlog under control. Excellent vandal-whacking skill with consistent good judgment. Also has shown a level head and is not afraid to admit when they have made a mistake, something that is an absolute necessity in an admin candidate. I'm very hard pressed to find anything about this individual that makes me think they will be anything other than an exemplary admin. Trusilver 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Go for it! I don't see a problem and I think you'll make a fine admin editor. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support You definitely seem to have what it takes to be an administrator from the looks of it. Good luck! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. We could always use more help at C:SD. Seems clueful and diligent. ceranthor 04:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, an overall good candidate. Great work with the NPP, and no problems with XfD work either. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - Good answers. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - Issue a new mop to this fella! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Moved to neutral per concerns in Oppose section. - There is a lack of content creations, and a high automated edit count - but after investigating their interactions over the last few months I've found a clueful, helpful and above all useful editor. Cannot see any reason they should not have the bit Worm^TT · (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support Is trusted in the areas he wants to do, particularly in the vandalism department, where he received three barnstars. He should be glad of the praise given to him there. Also a good content contributor, even though he made just 1 good article, it still shows that he understands the Wikipedia guidelines. Minima© (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Article writing, I like :) No concerns here. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 15:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support A bit worried about the preponderance of automated edits, but I like your clueful answers to my questions. Best of luck with the RfA. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Might actually go for the three vote trifecta here. I'm deeply concerned about the issues Sandy Georgia has brought up. If I don't see them addressed, I'll have to !oppose. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Yep, good and well clued-up contributor, and good answers - collegial temperament looks great too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I'm going to have to re-examine this in the light of the issues raised in the Oppose section -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22. I don't see why not. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - I disagree that CSD has a problem with backlogs, I work on clearing out that log every now and then and it's usually not that high, in fact I've helped keep it at 0 these past couple of days. But another admin helping is welcome regardless. I wish that I saw more participation with dispute areas, especially in Wikipedia space (like noticeboards) but that's not a big concern. I see plenty of general experience, no problems, and more than enough article editing experience to satisfy me. -- Atama頭 00:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - Now and again I do some CSD work, an area I think is highly challenging to do correctly and fairly. In my view it is a highly important 'first check' to prevent a flood of time-consuming work from further straining community time. I appreciate willingnesss by the candidate to labor in the murky Wiki-basement with a mop, and the crucial "collegial temperment" (Per Boing! above) is a big plus. In short, giving this editor a bundle of tools is an excellent idea. Best wishes, Jusdafax 06:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support We need more admins and I don't see any reason to oppose. --Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support The user has a high level of automated edits, but that doesn't matter to me. Not everyone has to be a great content creator. What does matter to me is the fact that you are very knowledgable in the area you wish to work in, you seem clueful, and you're not afraid to admit your mistakes. Adminship is not a big deal, and I see no reason to believe that you will abuse the tools. Why not? MJ94 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. fr33kman 05:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Useful, diligent and helpful editor. Thanks for your great contributions! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. concerns expressed by the neutral comments below and talk page discussion are enough for me to oppose. -Atmoz (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose I certainly appreciate the excellent work that Eamon has done with NPP and PERISCOP is pretty darn cool, but I think he has a ways to go in understanding some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For an example, Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists (reversion as of last edit by Eamon) seems of dubious notability: the article does not explain why this service is noteworthy beyond it's existence. The only independent sources for the article are two short blurbs that note that the service exists. The article includes directory type information in violation of WP:NOT. There is also a direct quote from a source that was not marked as a quote. This article makes me nervous about his ability to do good DYK review work and to respond to the requests for advice from novice editors that invariably come with the mop. --Danger (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't disagree with your assessment of the article as of that edit, but one thing to keep in mind is that edit was from early April 2010. E2eamon had only been actively editing Wikipedia for about 2 months at that point. There has been more than a year and thousands of edits since then. I'd venture that almost any admin candidate will have some poor edits when starting Wikipedia, I sure did. -- Atama頭 00:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough point. However, he does have it linked from his userpage. It seems like when, say, he realized that phone numbers were inappropriate for Wikipedia that he would have gone back and deleted the phone number from the article in his display. --Danger (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   And you have a good point too. If nothing else, having an article linked on his user page as a demonstration of his accomplishments, which he hasn't improved in more than a year (despite the need for it) might show a lack of attention to article improvement. -- Atama頭 04:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose - not enough broad experience for me and in such situations I am unable to support the users reason to require the tools as - " the backlog " - If you contribute and gaining experience in the areas you want to work in with the tools I would be open to supporting in another six months. Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Experience more, please. Your answer was fine in terms of responding to the question. And the short DYK does show that you can format cites and the like (good). I'm not concerned with the year-ago GA or feeling that you have to fix every article from a while ago that you were ever involved with. That said, I basically echo the opposes above. More content creation needed. Also, I'm not an expert on these things, but I got a little the impression that you were light on policy and state of things even in "mop world" (the backlog that is not a backlog). Come back in six months please and I will likely support. (and usually I ask for twelve, so it's not bad.)TCO (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I respect your opinion, and I am not trying to change it. However, I feel I should address both you and Atama in terms of weather or not a "backlog" exists for CSD. As you are no doubt aware, the CSD category requires 50 or more articles to report a backlog. As I am writing this, it contains 39 articles. 39 out of 50 means it is 78% of the way to backlog- and that is just right now. I checked a few random articles in the category as well. Crm for bank was nominated at 11:33 UTC today. It is currently 17:53, meaning that it has been over 6 hours. Gent Treadly was nominated at 15:41- over 2 hours ago. Musicians Aid Society was nominated over 3 hours ago. Thus, there may not be a technical backlog at all times, but should pages really be in the CSD category for over 6 hours? --E♴(talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   It depends. Copyright violations and attack pages, or any other page that is potentially damaging to Wikipedia shouldn't be around for hours (and they rarely are, I don't often delete attack pages, for example, because by the time I see one and try to delete it, somebody else already has). A page that's simply spam or has no content or is about a Pokemon collector's club in the author's basement can sit around for a bit before someone deletes it, it's not a problem. Again, I'm not saying it's not worth monitoring the CSD backlog (I do it often these days), or that help isn't welcome. I still support your candidacy and would gladly accept your help, as I'm sure others would too, and I think you'd do a great job. But the CSD backlog isn't in an urgent state very often. -- Atama頭 18:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose No way. Inexperience and inconsistent editor. Amateur in all respects. Probably another kid who won't provide much to the project, but since we don't do an age check to make sure that admins have some modicum of maturity, I'm stuck with guessing based on what I read. A 12 year old at best. Will end up being another useless admin who will hang out in the drama forums like ANI passing out arbitrary blocks based on who whines the loudest. Grow up, get a spine, ask for the tools again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Marlin, would you care to provide evidence with your abrasive and personal criticism? Danger (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I wonder what you think you're achieving with this comment. I understand that you're upset about something, but from what you wrote here, it's impossible to make it out. Please take a step back and think about what's really bothering you -- whether it's this editor in particular, or something more broad -- and what the best way to remedy it is before you let bad conduct like this become your outlet. --causa sui (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow. That's an... interesting rationale. Perhaps this isn't the venue you'd like to be raising your concerns in? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Per usual, I ignore all comments that follow mine. About a six year tradition. But have fun patting each other on the back. Always amusing to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose, blatant plagiarism. "I have numerous DYK’s (both nominations and creations) as well as one GA (Disi Water Conveyance Project)." So, let's look at some of the article work upon which you base your candidacy, as that evidences how well you understand Wikipedia policies.
   1. DYK Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists is blatantly plagiarized from here; I didn't check other sources-- that one was the most obvious.
   2. DYK 1973 shooting in South Jamaica, Queens is plagiarized from here at least, I didn't check others.
   3. Albert Saloman is sourced to http://www.scienceheroes.com-- what makes that a reliable source?
   4. GA Disi Water Conveyance Project, source says, "Water generation wells will be dug at a depth of 600-700 metres, while the piezometer wells will be dug at a depth of 400 metres, according to DIWACO officials, who expect the wells to generate water for a minimum of 50 years." Article says: "The wells producing water will be drilled 600–700 m (2,000–2,300 ft) deep while the piezometers will be drilled to a depth of 400 m (1,300 ft). The plan is to pump the piezometer wells for 25 years, according to the project leader."

   I didn't check any further-- that's too much already, and I hope you will work with the copyvio people to clean up your articles. Some of the most blatant plagiarism is older, but you should have cleaned it up. I cannot trust someone with the tools who doesn't understand the most fundamental aspects of the Project, but advances an RFA candidacy based on plagiarized content. I am, once again, disappointed in the number of editors supporting without apparently reviewing content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I figured you'd say something. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   How 'bout you do the work next time, so I can say, "per OrangeMarlin"? Additionally, I don't know how someone who has only one article with more than 30 edits, and less than 2% of his/her edits to article talk pages can begin to understand the kind of conflict and issues that occur in broader editing which may require admin intervention. I don't see enough engagement, including conflict, for the candidate to understand tool use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I previously noted a paraphrase on this RfA's talk page. I also fixed some sourcing errors.

   SandyGeorgia or Fetchcomms or other heroes, would you please look at the plagiarism noted on the talk page for the Socialist Party of America, which was mentioned above in question #13? Is there a tool to detect when such plagiarism occured?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I might take a look at the plagiarism concerns tomorrow or when I have time, but to answer your question, there are some tools available, e.g., Earwig's tool and User:CorenSearchBot/manual. However, they are not near perfect and will likely only catch the more blatant violations—nothing detected by CSB, for example. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks! RE: Plagiarism: I had previously rewritten the article in the last days, after I came across the slander "democratic centralism" and identified the plagiarism.

   COI: At least one of whose frequent contributors is a national officer for SPUSA. Another contributor is a long time SPUSA activist, by self-identification. I don't believe that such intelligent people could miss that their article plagiarized their organization's delusional/promotional literature. I templated the national officer about COI on SPUSA and SPUSA-Florida. I had expected better from an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   An old page should be checked, specifically compared with the "history" published by the SPUSA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As noted above, the plagiarism was done in 4 edits by one person, who did some good work on other articles on related subject at that time, so maybe this was an isolated problem.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no clue where to put the indents, so I'll just answer SG here. Sorry, but I've got work to do on articles, and you are so much better than I in digging this stuff up. Hah. But seriously, this editor reminded me of the previous RfA where we both commented (can't remember the name, and definitely too lazy to look it up). Too few edits. And obvious maturity issues...plagiarism is one of the biggest indicators of a lack of experience. Besides, I'm not as nice as you.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose - vandalism from February 2010. 17 months since vandalizing means you're a valued user, but it doesn't mean I'm ready to give you the keys to the kingdom. Also, this upload from April obviously does not meet our non-free content criteria. And, of course, SandyGeorgia's writeup is reason in and of itself to oppose. --B (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Special:Undelete? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   " " That was basically it, plus a header, horizontal rule, and extra line breaks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Now, THAT (reading deleted vandalism) is a reason to want to be an administrator! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Too recent vandalism, shortage of experience writing quality articles, and plagiarism. Just write 2-3 decent articles without plagiarism and come back in 6 months, please.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose Plagiarism is a severe deal-breaker. Not only should he not be an admin, he should be indefinitely blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Please re-read WP:BLOCK. Blocking is reserved for severe, repeat infringers of copyright, not the accidental close paraphrasing of an attributed source. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose On the basis of the evidence above I'm concerned about the ability of the nominee to be a good editor, let alone an Administrator. I might have opposed on the basis of the answer to Q4 alone, it certainly would put me off supporting the candidate - we block to avoid vandalism, and if there's an editor spotted in the middle (so to speak) of a spree of current vandalism we don't need to wait until he has enough warnings to at least give him a short block. Perhaps he hadn't read our blocking policy. But that's by the way, the other reasons to oppose are more important. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sorry, per the plagiarism, experience and maturity concerns discussed above. The issues highlighted are, as Dougweller says, a big deal for any editor, regardless of whether or not having access to the tools is a big deal. EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose due to limited experience in admin-related areas, the issues discussed on the talk page of this RfA, recent vandalism and the amount of "per user X" !votes in XfDs. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Plagiarism, vandalism, a lack of understanding of image use policy, and the answers to the questions are, at best, mediocre. Courcelles 12:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Strong oppose. I can't put my finger on it, but I know your name from somewhere and the impression you've left is one of an editor who lacks a practical understanding of policy. Reciting it in an RfA is well and good, but understanding it, implementing it and enforcing it is quite different. If you can't hold yourself and your own contributions (cf. Sandy at #6, B at #7) to those standards, how can you possibly hold others to them? If this was my RfA, I would have withdrawn it as soon as the plagiarism was revealed. The vandalism was a while ago, and I'd normally overlook something that far back, but you haven't yet demonstrated that you've significantly matured from that point. If I were to consider supporting a future RfA, it certainly wouldn't be this side of Christmas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    NB - the candidate hasn't edited in 18 hours, when they last edited the RfA looked like this. Plagiarism concerns were minor at the time. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair point, stricken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose The concerns about plagiarism, vandalism, and maturity level expressed above are sufficient enough that adminship should not be granted to this user. I'm inclined to believe that this user's focus has been more on obtaining administrator rights than on building Wikipedia. Users with such an attitude tend to make poor admins. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Courcelles puts it well. 28bytes (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Even without the plagiarism issues, CSD is well taken care of (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose. Per plagiarism and vandalism concerns raised above. --EdwardZhao (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose I was initially going to support, but then SandyGeorgia started digging, and then Courcelles put the final nail in the coffin. Plagiarizing is not how we build an encyclopedia here. I would recommend to the candidate a dignified withdrawal at this point as this RFA is sinking faster than the Titanic.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

Hm, I'm sort of leaning support right now, but I would like to see more involvement in article talkspace and project talkspace. I also would like to see less "per user X" at deletion discussions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluating ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to oppose. Leaning to support, now, becaue there is work to be done, and the candidate has a good head on the shoulders. However, more experience in writing articles would be desirable. The first and still one of the most sustained efforts, Real Medicine Foundation, relied entirely on the organization's own material rather than secondary sources, which raises concerns about WP:Reliable. Since the applicant left editing the article, more promotional material has been added, apparently lifting material directly from the organization's website, because the WP article uses "we" to describe the foundation! Fetchcom, who soars ever higher in my appreciation, has removed the copy-right violation, btw.04:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's hard to keep track of all the articles that one has written, but I understand your opinion entirely. ceranthor 04:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is it?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted! :) The candidate's more recent articles appear to be better (but one needs more reliable high quality sources, at least to be worthy of the GA status, for which which the candidate applied prematurely). Two are discussed on this RfA's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to switch to !support, but the lack of content creation is worrisome. Most of your edits appear to be from Huggle or the like. I'd like to see your answers to my questions. If you seem clueful I'd be happy to change my !vote. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC) switch to !support Throwaway85 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per Q4, which conveys a rather soft attitude towards blatant vandals. It's not enough for me to oppose, but not enough for me to comfortably support, either. –MuZemike 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per MuZemike. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moved here due to plagiarism and NFC concerns (less so because of the vandalism due to it's age, but it is an extra nail). Whilst you are what I look for in an administrator, the concerns raised in other areas are valid and worrying. I'd call this a moral support as you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, and if you spend time working on articles and learn a bit more about how much work needs to go into them, you should make a fine administrator in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2011 (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.