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

Falcon8765[edit]

Final (41/26/2); ended 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate.

Nomination[edit]

Falcon8765 (talk · contribs) – I've been active in contributing to the project for some time now in various areas of work (mostly anti-vandalism), and would like to continue my commitment. I often edit during the wee hours of the morning when there are few administrators available to block vandals and the like, with some reports on WP:AIV not being addressed for more than an hour while the person in question continues action. Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[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: Mostly anti-vandalism work as the latenight backlogs on WP:RPP and WP:AIV are unhelpful and are important to address. However, I would also like to delve into WP:CSD as I've reviewed many articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have done some limited content addition on articles like Tex Robertson, but mostly I'm proud of my vandal fighting. Having in the past before I started editing been extremely confused by erroneous vandalism, I like to think that I'm helping prevent such confusion in others as they seek the same information that Wikipedia has provided me. Additionally, my occasional new page patrolling and improvement gives me satisfaction. Elaboration: I don't have the printed resources available to me to do the in depth content creation that is much requested, and most of the subject matter that I'm passionate about is already extensively developed, so I do what I can to maintain it from the delirious hordes.
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 a couple of conflicts, but they don't really cause me any stress as they are just an inevitable part of the consensus building and editing process. I find that most people who are genuinely trying to improve an article are easily engageable. Elaboration: The manner in which I edit usually avoids controversy. I regularly deal with various upset editors on my talk page for various reasons. I deal with editing conflicts rationally and with a minimum of emotional investment (not to say that I don't lack empathy). Overall, I think of myself as pretty easy to get along with and strive to always remain civil.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
4. When would you block a user or IP who has not been warned with 4 warnings?
A: Usually not, except in cases of leaking nonpublic personal information, legal threats, and other severe disruption.Elaboration:I have seen editors blocked for other reasons, it's just not as common so I wasn't sure if it was the norm. I stand corrected. I've been re familiarized with the various other reasons that you'd block an account right off the bat, such as threats of personal harm, evading topic bans and the like. 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Additional optional question from Tommy2010
5. What do you make of WP:IAR? How do you see yourself applying it as a sysop?
A:I understand the spirit of the rule, but I likely wouldn't utilize it. So far I haven't come across any situations in which I'd need to use it. If I saw another editor making an obviously beneficial change that went against some guideline, I'd give it a second thought.Elaboration:As stated below, I understand the spirit behind the rule and the danger that a group of arbitrary wikilawyers could potentially do to the encyclopedia in the name of rule enforcement. In addition to harming quality, it provides an even more substantial barrier of entry than already exists to new users.
Additional optional question from wiooiw
6. A user (Tommy3020) vandalizes an obscure article and eventually you block it as a vandalism only account. The next day, you see a new user (Tommy3020 is back) editing the same article but with seemingly good faith edits. What action(s) would you take if any?
A:I'd report and/or block the user for sockpuppetry. Any good faith edit made by the new account would be tainted by association with the old one and require extra scrutiny. Though depending on the circumstances, if the editor offered a sincere unblock request on the original account, I wouldn't be adverse to giving them a second chance.
Additional optional question from Beeblebrox
7. You see an article nominated for speedy deletion as "lacking enough context to identify the subject." The entire article consists of the following: "Kerzbekal is town in Nimruz Province, Balochistan. It is very pretty and hot and has many good peoples." There are no links, no references, and the creation of the article was the user's first and only edit. What would you do?
A:Decline the speedy as there is enough context. I'd remove the second sentence and improve it as a stub after finding at least one reference as to the places existence. If no reference could be found, or it was a small non-notable part of a larger city or entity, I'd redirect/merge or prod it.
Additional optional question from wiooiw
8.What is your view on the current BLP policy? Do you think that it can be approved improved in any way? Why or why not.
A.It's a good policy that helps cut down on the high-profile incidents in the news with subjects of an article complaining that the article content isn't correct and the like, which occurs all too often. The BLP-prod system is helpful as well. Personally, I'm much more strict on BLP content addition than other pages for that very purpose.Elaboration:The policy is pretty sound in it's current state. I don't think there is anything I would change as it covers most if not all eventualities. BLPs do probably need to be examined more for libel and the like to avoid the aforementioned news headlines.
Additional optional question from User:Active Banana
9. Without having been in many "conflicts over editing" (per question #3), what other experiences regarding "conflict resolution" would you bring to the table as a Wikipedia administrator?
A.I don't tend to be overly emotional about arguments within the realm of the Internet and tend to look at things from a logical and rational perspective which can help cut through judgment clouded by emotionally contentious subjects. I view myself as an empiricist and try to come up with the solution to disputes that makes the most sense and attempts to balance arguments.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Longterm very active user, with a clean blocklog and diverse editing activity. Deleted contributions look OK (I've only checked the recent ones). ϢereSpielChequers 06:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Support 9630 edits in one month! Good grief. I have no doubt that Falcon8765 is a hardworking vandal-fighter... and to get this far with no blocks is a sign of a nice temperament, I think.bobrayner (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Support There's nothing wrong with having a small number of non-vandalism related edits. He deserves it. Nolelover 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Weaker Excellent vandal fighter. Tommy! [message] 11:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And your huggle.css page is very thorough, demonstrating a clear understanding of how to deal with new users in different situations. Tommy! [message] 12:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now weaker support... answers could be expanded. Tommy! [message] 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support per the user's anti-vandal experience. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Support Always like RfA Candidates who specialize in vandals. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Support Demonstrated in area for which tools requested. Appears to be a Huggler, so the lack of a long list of angry complaints like what I sometimes see tells me user has sufficient caution and takes care. The WP:AIV filings I saw looked good. Takes time to explain and discuss. Apologizes when wrong-- an admin who can admit mistakes is good. As per above above arguments as well. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support. I like the long term activeness, and vandal fighters are always useful. "Pepper" (Talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support. I was a bit hesitant at first, but I see no compelling reason to oppose. If WereSpielChequers says his speedy taggings are in order, that's good enough for me and I can't remember turning down one of his AIV reports in my 4 months as a fairly active admin at AIV, so it makes sense to cut out the middle man. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Support A great vandal-fighter, I would've liked to see more content since you'll have to make content related decisions, but you've earned it. ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 17:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. support looks like he could do good work. Bastique ☎ call me! 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - three years' experience as an editor, over 50,000 (!) edits, sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, Reviewer, great user page, WikiGnome, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support Been seen around. Well known vandal fighter. I hope people will concentrate on the fact that there are almost 10,000 non automated edits, rather than moan about the high amount of automated edits.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. Weakest possible support - Ultra-thin portfolio with respect to areas such as content creation, GA/FA collaboration, dispute resolution, consensus-building; however, what convinced me to vote in favor was the candidate's superb record as a vandal-fighter, >50,000 edits and long-term commitment to the project.--Hokeman (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Support No red flags, and the answer to my question shows that the user is not a rampant salivating deletionist just because he hasn't created enough articles to show that he "gets it™." For the record, I made up "Kerzbekal" but the Nimruz Province is a real place in Balochistan. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Vandal-fighters are always good to have. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 20:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Support. We're here to evaluate the candidate's ability to use the tools properly, not write articles. Duh... -FASTILY (TALK) 20:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Support Net benefit AIV/vandalism fighting just outstanding.But its borderline support, Id like to see some content building. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Support Sure. Inka 888 21:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Support - I see a productive, trustworthy, friendly wiki-gnome that would be that much more productive with the mop. There is also good content work if you care to look. Shadowjams (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adding on, I am a little dismayed by some of the answers to questions. I think they're being handled a little too cursorily. That's not enough for me to change my opinion, but the candidate should probably take note. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Support - I see you as a productive person who will be able to get the job done and get it done right. Joe Gazz84user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Strong support Great vandal-fighter, I see no reason to believe that he would break the Wiki. Opposes are unconvincing, as is usually the case with me in these kinds of RfA's... Frankly we need a Huggler as an admin, if only to prove that people like us can make perfectly fine admins. We will never know if we don't give it a shot... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  27. Why not? Content work is not a requirement to be a good admin, especially in the categories that the candidate wishes to work in. Connormah 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  28. Support Absolutely, my rationale being identical to Connormah's. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  29. Support. I hear the concerns in the oppose section, and I think there are some valid ones. However, your answers seem succinct and clueful to me, and I see no evil in your contributions. Also, it would be good to have a vandal fighting admin around in off hours.--Kubigula (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  30. Support. He says that he wants to focus on vandal-fighting, and he has plenty of experience there. As for content, it's not necessary to have an extensive experience in a field where one doesn't want to work. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  31. Weak support – user has sufficient experience, although I would have liked to see some more thorough answers to some of the questions, specifically Q4. I'm sure Falcon8765 has already learned a lot from the opposers' suggestions as well, so why not for a net positive? Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree, the answers leave something to be desired. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  32. Support Even with automation, 37,000 isn't half bad, and I thought the questions were answered fairly well. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  33. Admins don't need to have dabbled in dispute resolution, content discussion, article collaboration, or content creation. Plenty of admins find niches. Falcon is a hard worker who does not increase the drama. Kingturtle (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  34. Weak Support - must confess I am not thrilled about lack of content, but 14 months of solid editing and no huge flareups in what can be a confrontational area suggests you are able to keep your cool (which is a very good thing), so on the balance of evidence, I am prepared to give a trial with the mop. We have a check system (i.e. arbcom) for misuse of tools, which makes me more willing for you to have a go. Good luck :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  35. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  36. (edit conflict) Support - Excellent vandal fighter. I have also gone through his CSD work; while I would disagree slightly with a few of his taggings, overall they are a net positive. For those in opposition: Yes, most of his edits are reverting vandalism, but even a small fraction of 53,859 is a lot of content-building! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  37. Weak Support per the rational provided by Dlohcierekim (talk · contribs) above. However noting comments in oppose please take it steady - in particular if you do start becoming more active in areas outside your "niche". Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  38. Support - really valuable, longtime editor with good experience. Of course. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  39. Support I can't see this nominee doing any harm with the tools. MtD (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  40. Support. Think of this as moral support. I've seen you around and seen you doing good work. I feel bad at the extent of opposition, and I hope that you'll consider carefully the suggestions for improvement and come back to RfA again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  41. Weak Support: A minimalist editor who is not quite there yet. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose sorry to be the first one to oppose, but I see very little participation other than vandal fighting. The article he mentioned just barely passes the stub category. Also not impressed to the answers of the questions. Secret account 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. While I don't subscribe to the "must have 10 FAs" school at RFA, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. – iridescent 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You raise a valid point and I doubt you'll be the last to oppose on that basis. However, personally, I'd be more pissed off if there was nobody around to defend "my" articles from vandals adding shite or removing chunks of information and generally buggering up the article than I would if its AfD were close by a vandal fighter, for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but… The problem is, even a specialist admin (or a fairly inactive one) ends up making content decisions on some occasions, since one user's "vandalism" is another user's "removal of unsourced content" or "addition of new material". Until someone's put a lot of time into an article, I don't think it's really possibly for them to appreciate just how much work a good-quality Wikipedia article takes. Even the best users (admin and non-admin alike) occasionally lose their tempers when the article they've put a month of work into gets radically altered without discussion. Wikipedia has far too many vandal-fighting admins who see someone losing their temper, and start throwing warnings and blocks about. – iridescent 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All due respect Iridescent, but. Just sayin'. I probably don't meet your criteria either. That doesn't mean I don't have empathy for the article builders. And I even have empathy for the vandals. But empathy isn't really needed to say, "this isn't a content dispute, this person is clearly adding excrement to the 'pedia." Admins need to know the difference between vandalism and not vandalism. This candidate knows the difference (Just reread your comment about "I don't think it's really possibly for them to appreciate just how much work a good-quality Wikipedia article takes." Let's just say that's untrue in my case, and I do think of the hard work it takes every time I block someone trying to mess it up. And admins don't have to be vandal fighters to lose their tempers or abuse their powers. After reading through this candidate, I don't think he's the sort to do those things. Anyway, I expect others will cite your oppose, and I respect your judgment. I just wanted to counter your argument with another view. Dlohcierekim 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You don't need empathy to deal with the "lol poop!!!" vandalism. Most disruption isn't of that nature, though; it's people making biased edits, good faith unsourced additions, and blanking sections with which they disagree. When Editor A has spent two weeks working on something, and Editor B removes it because it doesn't meet their interpretation of policy, a lot of admins don't understand why Editor A might make a rude comment rather than calmly discussing the pros and cons of the content in question, and will immediately start plastering User talk:Editor A with big red triangles. As I say, I don't look for featured articles or 10,000 edits; I do look for evidence that the RFA candidate has some experience with disputes and with the content coalface (which is, after all, the sole purpose of this site), and in this case I'm not seeing it. (As I write this, this RFA is passing 13–2, so it's hardly like I'm torpedoing it.) – iridescent 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I do have some content creation work, though not much. See [1] for a typical example. Falcon8765 (TALK) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm totally in agreement with Iridescent, my concern when looking at admin candidates is whether or not I feel that they've engaged in enough content creation to have empathy towards other editors when making decisions. I haven't yet opposed, and I'm actually leaning toward support, but when I've opposed for lack of content creation I've done so for exactly that reason. I especially prefer to see someone who has engaged in content disputes before, because while admins don't "rule" on such disputes (or shouldn't), they do have to manage them from time to time. -- Atama頭 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Regarding content dispute experience, it's not that I have no experience in the area (see Talk:Exorcism/Archive_1#Exorcism_video), it just usually doesn't progress. Most of the time I try to engage an editor in discussion, I get no reply. Falcon8765 (TALK) 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose - Even a quick glance at your special contributions demonstrate an over-reliance on Huggle and other minimalist approaches. I see virtually no evidence of any dispute resolution, content discussion, article collaboration, or content creation. Sorry, but this is really off-putting. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Sorry, it pains me to oppose a candidate who is so dedicated and competent in relevant areas. But I think the track record of experience and competence is too narrow. I've gone back through the last two months of contributions. There is great work on anti-vandalism: reversions, AIV reports, RPP, etc. The new page patrolling is also good. But what I don't see is experience and skills working with other editors in difficult situations, in consensus-building, or with relevant content policies. I don't think article-writing should be a pre-requisite for adminship, but those other fields I just mentioned should. Because adminship is more than nailing IP vandals at AIV and hitting speedy deletions; even with those two mechanical tasks more judgment and communication skills are required of an admin than of a non-admin editor. It would not take much to change my mind - either evidence of good experience the matters I've mentioned that I've missed here, or future experience that would get my support in a future RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Mkativerata. Just wanted to say I agree with everything you've said, but don't you think that when vandals or new users post messages/concerns/inquiries to his talk page, his ability to handle it counts as more or less "collaboration" or at least demonstrate an ability to handle tough users, like an admin? Thanks, Tommy! [message] 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An ability to handle tough users, to some extent; collaboration, not so much.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose - I've been on the fence for awhile, I appreciate the attempt to reduce vandalism and that's a critical task for an administrator, but I have to oppose. Initially it was only the lack of activity outside of antivandalism work that put me off, although I'm convinced that you have enough article development experience to at least show competence there. What pushed me to oppose were the sparse answers to questions above. For someone who is essentially focused on protecting Wikipedia from troublemakers, the answer to question 4 was a huge disappointment and alone would cause me to oppose. Personal threats (of the non-legal kind), obvious sockpuppetry, breaking 3RR after being warned once, violating a topic ban or other sanction, there are numerous reasons to block a person before they received the usual 4 escalated warnings and I think that your answer demonstrates your lack of experience outside of the narrow focus of vandal-fighting, even in regards to other forms of disruption. The answer to the next question (IAR) is nearly as disappointing; I didn't understand IAR (I thought it was ridiculous) until I'd had a better understanding of Wikipedia in general and I consider it a very good indicator of a person's experience. The next question is also a problem; despite the sockpuppetry, the good-faith edits might indicate that the person isn't just a vandal, and so perhaps the original indef block could be overturned, it would be best to try to engage the editor before taking further action (they might also not know about block evasion and sockpuppetry rules). The answer to 7 was correct, I have no issues with that, but the answer to 8 was lacking substance (though there's not much I'd object to in what you said). Overall I see that you're lacking experience, and I don't have a problem with you in general but I think you'd benefit greatly from participation outside of the Huggle/Anti-Vandal/Recent Changes arena. (I apologize for the verbosity of my comment but my intent is to give advice because I really do think you have a lot of promise.) -- Atama頭 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose The answers to Q4 and Q5 are just so far off the mark that I have no choice. I've said this before on RFA's, but anyone who doesn't grasp the vital importance of IAR isn't ready for adminship. Four warnings is not an entitlement, either. I really would like to see more content creation from you before running again, though awards from those places aren't necessary. Courcelles 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have needed to explicitly invoke IAR only perhaps 3 times in 3 years (just relying on the fact that all policies and guidelines allow exceptions usually makes it unnecessary). Would you vote against someone like me on that basis alone? (as for the requirement of 4 warnings, I agree with your criticism of the candidate.) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a difference between someone who doesn't have to invoke IAR very often, and someone who thinks "but I likely wouldn't utilize it". IAR is always in the back of my mind, not to go on an administrative power trip, but as a way to help a nasty situation that isn't getting any better by following the letter of the rules. (I invoked it this morning, actually. And if it came right down to it, I'd make the case that the policies and guidelines allow exceptions is an expression of the spirit of IAR, we don't have to say those three letters when making a logical decision that suffers some incongruity with some guideline to be invoking IAR.) Courcelles 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose Largely per Iridescent, Wisdom and Atama. I see very little leeway in the terms of writing and you seem to simply come off as one of those vandal fighters that has Huggle and relies on it to make every one (actually "most of") your edits. I'm sorry but try coming back in a few months and do some work that does not require Huggle like writing. You don't need to promote anything but after-all, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary."--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 21:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose per Courcelles - that is troubling. --Rschen7754 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose. I would like to see more article writing, after all we all are here to build an encyclopedia. Diego Grez (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Oppose. Needs to edit content, have some disputes, get blocked once or twice, feel "admins are so unfair!" a couple of times, and generally understand the social dynamics of a wiki. Noloop (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Agree entirely with Atama. NW (Talk) 22:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment Not sure if it's appropriate to reply, but I feel the need to clarify. I stated above that I understood the spirit of WP:IAR, in that a modicum of so-called 'common sense' (not so common, but the basically the underlying principle) should be applied so that the project doesn't get bogged down and die because of an entrenched bureaucracy. I probably should have elaborated more to avoid a misunderstanding, but didn't want to just parrot Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means which any claim of understanding would emulate. I apologize thus for my succinctness. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose. I absolutely disagree with most of the "oppose" rationale here: I have no problem with an editor who only does vandal fighting also handle AIV backlogs; I don't want to discourage users who like vandal fighting from doing what they like. And this editor has done a tremendous amount of great work fighting vandals - as someone who doesn't really do a whole lot of vandal fighting I am extremely grateful to Falcon8765 and others who do that kind of work; the project would be much worse off without it. I think a critical component of fighting vandals is to distinguish between the "obvious vandals" and the misguided good-faith editors, and it is particularly important for admins to be able to make this distinction. An example of a mistake in this area, I think, is here - the edit in question was not vandalism. I think the goal with this kind of misguided but good-faith editor should be to educate and encourage; a barrage of warning templates and reverts without edit summaries (3, even in this case) is less helpful in these situations. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    CommentRelevant discussion User_talk:Falcon8765#Akahi_Nui. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose, mostly per Q4. Blatant vandals are not entitled to anything. Vandalism blocks are issued depending on the severity and frequency of said vandalism, which is within common sense and discretion. As far as Q5 is concerned, IAR comes down to exercising common sense and sound judgment; we need to have admins that can do that. You also don't seem to have much experience as far as handling disputes and conflicts is concerned; as an admin, I guarantee you will run into some, if not many. –MuZemike 23:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what I was going for in regards to the two. Tommy! [message] 01:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose I look for at least moderate content work, but I find little here. And although I may give exceptions to candidates, the answers are not impressive or very well thought-out. Atama really hits that point. —fetch·comms 02:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose Sure, plenty of admins find niches, and I definitely do not believe in editcountitits, but eighty-three percent automated edits out of a total of 50k does not leave enough manual edits in all other areas to make an objective assessment. His work is not diversified enough to demonstrate access to all areas with absolute confidence, and his take pages (perhaps I just hit the wrong archives) attract a rather high degree of possibly invited ruddiness - there must be an underlying cause why people should single out this editor as a target for incivility and excuses for using bad language. All this plus an unconvincing self-nom suggests that the candidate is not yet ready for the tools and can still do an excellent anti-vandal job without them.--Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6,800+ edits is not enough for you to evaluate them? How many edits must someone have before your non-editcountitis criteria is passed? Shadowjams (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    RE:" there must be an underlying cause why people should single out this editor as a target for incivility and excuses for using bad language" Pretty much any effective vandal fighter, admin or not, is going to have extra nastiness on their talk page. The underlying reason is usually that they are doing a good job and pissing off the vandals. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you can work up a category so we more easily identify these heroes? MtD (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Oppose Various grievances raised on user's talkpage archives - user appears to template rather than talk and makes mistakes, especially in regard to IP accounts, which generates a fair amount of heat. The impression given is that user doesn't give enough thought and consideration to their actions; something that is unwelcome in any user, and is potentially very problematic for an admin. A 6 month period spent in which the user got involved in some dispute resolution in order to gain some understanding of people's motivations and frustrations, and during which the user discussed matters with users rather than template, would be useful; and then I would be inclined to support. SilkTork *YES! 08:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Oppose reluctantly, and with moral support. I'm very much in favour of having admins whose focus is on vandalism, and this candidate has done a lot of good work. But I'd really like to see a little more personal discussion and interaction rather than just straight Huggle templating, particularly when a dispute occurs. I'm also a little troubled by some of the answers, particularly Q4, Q5 and Q6, which are areas in which a dedicated vandalism fighter should be able to demonstrate deeper understanding. (I especially disagree with Q6. My first instinct in such a case would be to engage with the editor - I've seen enough examples of people starting out vandalising and then turning around and becoming good contributors). I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. I have plenty of time for this candidate's work, but in the end find myself here. As adminship also involves the lifelong ability to make difficult blocks, call the outcome of heated discussions, and the ability to fully protect pages and templates, I would like to have seen some evidence of making or helping to shape difficult decisions, but have been unable to find any of note. The answers to questions 3-6 weren't fantastic. And although I welcome this attempt to remove a non-notable article, there is enough in the article to suggest that the living person could conceivably pass the GNG. That suggests to me that either the user is unfamiliar with how we handle unreferenced BLPs, or considers NSPORT to be an equivalent to the GNG, which are both grounds for an oppose from me. --WFC-- 11:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Pre-emptive follow-on: there is a good chance that the article I have cited is non-notable, but there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. --WFC-- 12:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - I didn't prod the page originally, but did endorse it if there was any confusion as to whether I prodded it to begin with. For an individual of questionable notability, a prod seems appropriate - especially when anyone can object. Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. Oppose reluctantly since Falcon8765 is clearly making a great contribution. But coming so soon after a load of high-content candidates, this user isn't yet ready for "making difficult blocks" and calling "the outcome of heated discussions" as WFCforLife puts it. Ironically, if we had the " vandal fighter" right, Falcon8765 would be the perfect candidate. - Pointillist (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Oppose - unfortunately, since I see some great work. However, answers to questions 3-6 concern me.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - I have indeed created an article, though it's only a stub from lack of available references at Norman Albert Mott.Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Oppose. Needs broader experience. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. Oppose Inexperience, timing of this run probably isn't a coincidence. Townlake (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment - Timing? I'm not sure I follow. I had been thinking about it for a while as seeing late night vandals go unpunished is frustrating. Falcon8765 (TALK) 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you honestly meant what you just typed, you don't get it. Admins don't wander around Wikipedia dishing out "punishment" to anyone, vandals included. Courcelles 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sighs. Blocked to prevent further disruption. I know you don't punish editors for their edits, my use of 'unpunished' in this case is just a shorter way to say that. Falcon8765 (TALK) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Oppose Per Iridescent's articulation of our commonly held philosophy of the necessity for content efforts in an administrator. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  24. Oppose I'd like to support a keen vandal fighter, and I certainly wouldn't oppose through lack of content creation if contributions in other areas were sufficient. However, I don't personally see much evidence of positive interaction and discussion rather than just automatic templating, particularly with anons. When considering automated edits, we often fail to make the right distinction here, I feel, counting Twinkle and Huggle similarly. The difference is that one can use Twinkle purely as an editing aid to open pages for you, and grab templates as and if you need them, whilst still maintaining a level of personal interaction. Huggle doesn't even require you to look at the user talk page or history (you can, but you don't have to) - and so it can encourage a robotic impersonal approach, and makes it easy to make mistakes quickly. I'd encourage more manual interaction with users you revert. I can certainly see this candidate being a good admin in future, and I think this slight shift in focus could help a lot.  Begoontalk 08:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  25. Oppose per questions 4 and 5. Appears too timid and afraid of conflict to use the tools wisely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  26. Oppose per SilkTork and large lack of article building. Vodello (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]

#:For now. The apparent lack of a record outside of vandal-fighting usually makes me reluctant to support, as adminship also involves the lifelong ability to make difficult blocks, call the outcome of heated discussions, and the ability to fully protect pages and templates. In short, I've seen nothing so far to suggest that you are used to making (or providing input into) difficult decisions. That said, you appear to be a prolific and polite editor, I'll take WSC's word for your deletion record being sound, and being fairly active in the midnight-6am UTC timeslot is a definite plus. I'll do some digging tomorrow before making my mind up. --WFC-- 10:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Moving to oppose --WFC-- 11:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) #:Mostly per WFC. I'm not comfortable with someone who is solely a vandal-fighter, though I do very much value that work. I'm waiting at least for answers to the optional questions before I make a decision (or I might stay neutral). -- Atama頭 16:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC) - Moved to oppose. -- Atama頭 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Neutral – I'd like to see a bit more diverse contributions besides just vandal fighting, although anti-vandalism is very useful. Also per WFC. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral Looks like you know what you want to do, but I would like to see a little more detail on Q7. Your answer to Q2 in particular doesn't satisfy me enough to support. A little more article building would be my expectation, like bringing a stub to GA status for example. Minimac (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[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