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

Frank[edit]

Final: (59/11/4); ended 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank (talk · contribs) - I offer myself to the community for evaluation for adminship. I've reached no milestone recently in terms of quantity of edits or time, my birthday was months ago, and the moon is not full. In short, now is as good a time as any. My time on Wikipedia has been stimulating and rewarding, and I would like the opportunity to be of more help to the project with additional tools. I'm constantly impressed with the breadth and depth of the contributors - named and anonymous - to this project, and I like to think that I've been a valuable part of that and have more to offer. I've never been blocked, I've never been involved in any wikidrama, and I don't have any latent frustration or hostility built up, either on- or off-wiki. I have opinions on most of the topics that come up in RfAs (and elsewhere) and I usually express them; I will continue to do so whether the community sees fit to grant the mop or not. I've participated in anti-vandalism, disambiguation, general editing and cleanup, RfA, CSD nominations, and AfD. There are certainly places I haven't hung around, but I've found the places that suit me so far, and I don't feel the need to try to be all things in one package.

I look forward to the evaluation and comments of the community. Thanks in advance for your constructive comments - regardless of which category they are in.  Frank  |  talk  22:36, 25 June 2008 (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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly by continuing what I have been doing with vandal-fighting, working at AIV as needed, and on recent changes patrol. Having the extra tools will, of course, enable me to deal with some stuff immediately rather than reporting. But, more to the point, the mop would enable me to help with backlog. I am not as interested in being able to "do it myself NOW" as I am in being able to help.
I am a strong believer in consensus, and I've really been surprised that people don't express anti-vandalism procedures in those terms (at least not that I've seen). Here's what I mean: let's choose the middle-schooler who's bored in class and wants to talk about his buddy named Nick or Chris by telling us how cool or not cool he is right here on Wikipedia. Obviously a revert and warning are in order. But digging through other contributions from the same user often leads to more mischief. It's quite possible to follow a single vandal for 10 minutes, warn them 4 times, and then block them. However, I think that isn't really consensus-based - even if it gets the job done. I would rather see three or four different editors warn a user and then have another one do the blocking, because that validates the opinions of each of the editors involved, rather than presenting the appearance of stalking. (I suspect this will bring questions like "is there ever a reason for an immediate block?" to which of course, I answer "definitely yes" and I've seen such behavior. It usually involves profanity, usually is repeatedly copy/pasted to create or replace a page with a large continuous phrase, and it's usually directed at a person. Those are not the majority of vandalism cases I see, however.) Back to my scenario: blocking a user at an earlier stage may be more effective in the short term, because the vandalism stops sooner. On the other hand, I think it has the potential to be viewed in the same way the not-to-be-used cooldown block would be viewed, and actually serve to inflame the vandal. Simplified: if somebody tells you you're being rude, you might well ignore it because you disagree, but if four different people tell you in a relatively short time, I think there's more likelihood that you'll pay attention. That's consensus, and it may be slower, but I think it's more effective in many cases.
Additional comment/clarification - I am not suggesting that there be any separate discussion or consensus-building before deciding to block a vandal; that would slow things down considerably and entirely change the nature of vandalism and vandal-fighting on Wikipedia. I think that having four or five different editors warn/block shows a form of consensus, and avoids the appearance of a block looking personal when the same editor warns four times and then blocks. Having said that, I do realize there's no question that blocking often needs to happen, and many times very quickly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd love to be able to point to a featured article, a DYK, or something I created, but I'm not yet in that league, and may never be, which is OK with me. I have created a few articles, and while I am satisfied with the work I put into them, the fact is they are not especially important articles and they've not generated additional interest, so I would say I prefer to contribute to content that people actually read. With that in mind, I guess I have to say I was pleased when Myron Cope was rated a good article, especially since it was just in the normal course of editing. I think I've done some good work on David Paterson, New Orleans, and William F. Buckley, all of which you'll see on my list of top edits, so there's nothing illuminating in this part of the answer. Shedd Aquarium interested me and I think I contributed greatly to that one, and learned a few editing tricks (such as use of the ((convert)) template). Here's a diff from right before I saw it to its current version (not all intervening edits are mine). The article isn't "done" - what article is? - but I think it's much improved.
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 have no interest in conflict of any kind - editing or otherwise. I am the parent of four teenagers, so I know a little about drama and conflict, and all I can say is, it takes two to tango, and I don't like being one of the two. Being "right" isn't always good enough; the point is to make sure the encyclopedia avoids disruption and challenges to its legitimacy. Therefore, I don't aim to be "right" but rather to do what's best to keep things moving along. To be specific about my own conflict experience, nothing stands out in my mind as noteworthy; certainly I've had a couple of revert situations here and there, such as with Frank Lorenzo, but nothing that approaches 3RR and nothing I've lost a moment's sleep over. (It may be that some eagle-eyed editor comes up with a diff I'll have to answer for; I'm totally OK with that and I'll respond accordingly. I don't claim to be perfect - but I'm not going to get bent out of shape over some edits, and I don't want to cause others to feel my behavior has caused them stress either.)
Additional comment/clarification - I've seen the attacks - some very personal - that administrators get when they delete pages or block users, and that doesn't qualify as stress to me. As I said, I have four teenagers. When a decision is made - especially by community consensus - it's made.


Additional questions from Bigvinu:
4. How do you plan to intervene within an edit conflict or even worse a war when you don't have any experience of ever being caught in an edit conflcit?
A: I don't think it's fair to say I've never been in an edit conflict. My answer (above) was that "nothing stands out in my mind as noteworthy", which isn't the same thing. There was certainly this which came close to being a WP:3RR, but which I handled by monitoring and being patient. Surely nobody expects one editor to save the encyclopedia, nor one newly-minted admin to always know all the answers. If that situation had escalated further, my next step would have been to request intervention. There's also this bit which I alluded to at Frank Lorenzo, where carefully researched info is periodically deleted in favor of statements that clearly violate WP:NPOV. My response is not personal, it's not (and wouldn't be with the sysop tools) punitive - it is simply to focus on the content.
There is plenty of information about what to do in most situations, and there are easily a dozen editors whose opinions I respect and could readily solicit if need be. (I won't name them because I'm not into canvassing.) The essence of adminship is not being perfect - it's knowing what to do. Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing; sometimes it's blocking a user who is clearly being abusive of the encyclopedia, sometimes it's protecting a page if too many users are abusing it, and...sometimes it's asking for help.
5. You say you'd like to "continue doing" what you're doing. So, how will being an Admin result a change?
A: I thought I covered this above, but the two areas where I feel I can make a more immediate, positive contribution are in WP:CSD and WP:AIV. I run across newly created pages all the time that just scream for someone to terminate with extreme prejudice. I'm talking about pages about some middle-schooler's [imagined] sex habits, blatant vandalism, trolling pages that show up when an editor nominates a page for either WP:CSD or WP:AFD...clear-cut cases that don't need any decision-making. If I can eliminate them on the spot, it helps the encyclopedia. I know admins already do this, because I've seen pages where the only thing I can do is nominate for CSD and they do on rare occasion disappear under my edit. Too often, however, they remain for 10 minutes...30 minutes...too long. Regarding WP:AIV, there seems to be less of a delay, but again - once a vandal is confirmed, the quicker action is taken, the better.
6. And Finally, Do you have experience in AfDs?
A: Of course; please feel free to search here, among my other edits in the Wikipedia name space. I think you'll find that I am either very early (not piling on for show) or I show up on the AfDs that are on a day that is almost completely closed (last 5 or 10 for that day remaining open). Further, I think you'll find that I generally express real opinions based on real research, rather than "per <some other editor's entry>". Occasionally, I've nominated a few articles for deletion myself.


Optional question from Keepscases (KojiDude, please do not take it upon yourself to monitor the questions others choose to ask, thank you)
7. Your username is an adjective. If you needed to select a different adjective for your name, what would it be? Why? (Consider whether someone already has an account with that name to be irrelevant.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepscases (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Interesting question. Realizing that there's no single perfect answer to this question, I'll go with "tenacious". I believe that a thing worth doing is worth doing well, and that knowledge is a good thing. I think that "tenacious" describes how I have approached many things in the course of my life. I work hard, I expect success - despite how this RfA appears at the moment ;-) - and I don't expect things to be handed to me. (And, as a side note, although my username is an adjective, it also happens to be my given name, and it was my grandfather's and his father's as well.)
Optional questions from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
8. Say three editors are edit warring over the content of an article. What would you do to ensure that it stops?
A: There's plenty of information about what to do in this case, including Edit war, Three-revert rule, and Resolving disputes. (Third opinion, which I've used before, wouldn't apply to your question because you specified three editors, and because presumably this is about three other editors, not including myself.) Now that I've given you some links, the answer is "it depends." Most likely, I'd start with a note to each of the editors in question on their talk pages, along with a note about the topic under consideration on the talk page of the article itself. The notes would focus on the fact that content is what we're all about, and CIVILITY, with a request to resolve the dispute through CONSENSUS. The responses to those talk page notes would probably dictate further actions. I've seen admins request the help of other admins in contentious situations, either as a means of balancing or as a means of educating themselves as to appropriate actions to take, and I'd certainly do the same when warranted. I could certainly revert a change myself, with a note in the edit summary to discuss on the talk page, and an HTML comment could be added into the page, such as on Jimbo's page or Bill Gates, indicating that the issue is being watched closely. Next step would probably be to protect the page. And sometimes - you just gotta block some users, no doubt about it. My main approach - here in this RfA and in my entire editing history - is about the content, not the editor, and that's how it has to be for this project to remain successful. (On a related note, I think the macabre approach some users take to hearing that a famous person is sick and wanting to put every last detail in an article is unseemly at best. My approach is to stick to the content and make sure it's verifiable.)
9. When should a cool-down block be used?
A: This is a trick question, right?
Correct. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
10. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
10a. ...an editor to be blocked?
A: Generally, an editor who has been warned several times for vandalizing a page can (and should) be blocked. The definition of "several times" varies among editors; I've seen twice before a block, and on anonymous IPs, where some give the benefit of the doubt, I've seen several "final warnings" before a user is actually blocked (usually school IPs, recognizing the possibility that different people are actually responsible from day to day or even edit to edit). Other reasons for blocking include (not a complete list): making personal attacks, creating nonsense pages, and adding unreferenced controversial information about living people in violation of WP:BLP.
10b. ...a page to be protected?
A: If there is a repeated pattern of vandalism which is not related to a single user or just a few identifiable users, page protection may be in order. It's preferable to block users who are being disruptive so that regular editing of a page by real contributors can continue. One page in particular that I've seen that really needed protection was Rolf Harris (here), which was being vandalized mercilessly. I hesitate to think it's over, but I do think the protection helped because it's no longer protected and the vandalism is greatly reduced. The teeny-boppers lose interest and go elsewhere. (Unfortunately, they probably just go to a different article.) I've also seen pre-emptive page protection in response to a late-night TV host explicitly suggesting users go alter articles.
10c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?
A: There are, of course, several reasons for this, and the specific tagging of pages is a subject of some debate among editors. I don't tag a page for CSD unless I'm almost positive it's really going to be deleted, and I think I have a pretty good track record with that. The candidates I most often tag are attack pages, pure nonsense, personal essays, blatant advertising, or subjects which are non-notable. I don't just tag because I haven't heard of somebody - I will try to find info before I make that call. (Yes, I've tagged one or two articles for speedy deletion which remain as articles today, such as Dvira Ovadia. In my defense, it really looked like a CSD A3 when it was created, consisting solely of a link to the subject's web site.) I pay close attention to the results of my CSD noms in order to gauge how others evaluate them - that's why I believe my track record is pretty good, and it's also how I know some were not actually deleted.
10d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
A: I think IAR exists to be a wiki-equivalent of the real-world "every rule has an exception...even this one." It recognizes the reality that there are some things which are a judgment call and not absolute.
11. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
A: (First let me say that while I've heard of DRV, I have spent zero time on it so I'm not going to pretend to have any special knowledge that applies to that specific area.)
In general, though, consensus is determined by evaluation of discussion surrounding a topic. It is a process that recognizes that there are judgment calls to be made around here. In the case of XfD (and really my own experience is largely AfD), consensus is generally decided when there is enough meaningful input to either a) decide firmly one way or the other, or b) decide there is no consensus and react accordingly. In the former case, such as Otis Moss III, it was pretty clear, both before and after the rewrite, that the consensus was to keep this article. In the latter case, sometimes the answer is to relist the AfD to generate more discussion (two "keeps" out of two entries are nice but don't necessarily indicate consensus). And sometimes, such as List of Roman Emperors from modern Serbia, careful evaluation of the discussion is required and will take time. In that case, the admin seemed to read the entire discussion, and with the thought that some content may be lost, noted that the information is largely contained elsewhere anyway. No new information was presented by the closing admin, which makes sense; we don't want to have an admin come along, ignore the discussion, and do something based on whim.
In the case of a talk page discussion, it's a bit trickier but probably even more important, because articles are the primary public face of Wikipedia, and discussions about content affect how the project is seen. Determining consensus (and I'm going to interpret your question to mean "build" consensus rather than just evaluating if it exists) involves a discussion among interested editors, and if there is serious contention, a series of proposed rewrites that editors can agree on. Ultimately, the stability of the encyclopedia is what is important, and hounding someone until they give in doesn't mean consensus has been reached. The ideal goal is to find something that everyone can agree not to delete - which is not to say they all agree 100% with the content, but that they can agree - as a whole - that it represents the consensus of the discussion.
12. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
A: Well, my first answer is that "it depends". I'd go take a look, but for specific action (if any), I'd have to evaluate the situation. My answer to question 8, above, probably covers this pretty well, except that you're referring to two editors instead of three. However, the editor alerting me to the situation might well be "involved", so to speak, so I wouldn't want to presume anything without looking over the situation. And, I could always invite them for tea.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support I can't say i have reviewed all of your edits but 3700 is plenty for an admin and having reviewed a dozen of your AFD contributions I'd say that the ones I looked at were all on the button. Your opinion was in all bar one case on the winning side - both delete and keep. Lots of early votes too so no worries about following the herd. My only concern is that even the most routine action can lead to strife and angst and your answersd suggest a conflict aversion on your part. Just remember if you get the tools that no means no unless you can see you screwed up. But having 4 teenagers (you have my sympathy} you probably already know that. Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Struck per clarification - except for the sympathy for having 4 teenagers - you still have that. Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks fine; I had four months under my belt when I was sysopped and the worst thing I did was delete the Main Page... ;-) Maxim(talk) 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Seems fine, I trust him. Good AIV work, no serious screw-ups in sight... also, if I remember correctly, I've had nothing but positive interactions with Frank. He's a good guy.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I actually bothered reading the statement & answers for once and was very impressed. Exactly the kind of person we should be promoting. Naerii 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of absolutely nothing. But I do see an intelligent, sincere and capable candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally hate the word "lol," but I seriously laughed out loud. Little bit of RFA humor, there! :D L'Aqùatique[review] 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I like your style, dude. Good luck- L'Aqùatique[review] 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No reason not to support. A productive user. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Looks like a fine editor. I have to say Ecoleetage put it best here to!! =) America69 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. In my thoughts, you have enough experience so that is not an issue. I was at first worried about your lowish projectspace count, but seeing varied experience at WP:AFD and WP:AIV has relieved my worries. I can also see from the questions that you appear to be a smart guy who will pick things up quickly. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Answers are fine although maybe Frank is selling himself a bit short in his answer to Q2. Looks to me to be a sensible editor who seems to understand what we're about, so I'll make an exception just this once to my brand new RfA standard of 12000 manual edits, never used Huggle ever, 2 FAs, and 12 months of continuous experience. Being an admin isn't rocket science. A few months of experience is plenty for anyone clueful to be able to master the basics of mopping. Since Frank seems clueful enough he'll be able to pick things up quick enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per good arguments and sound interpretation of policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule of Two, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUCKUP, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WayForward Technologies, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Wiatt, as well as for receiving a barnstar and for never having been blocked. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tentative support; I like the attitude displayed in the self-nom and answers (although we disagree about vandals and warnings). I freely admit that I've spent 0.0 seconds looking at previous contrib history, and I will do so soon; but I wanted to "park" in the support section to do my small part to try to discourage any possible early withdrawal due to the early percentages. Calm, rational people with 3-4 thousand edits, a few months experience, and a demonstrated ability and willingness to learn will do fine as admins; it isn't rocket science. Frankly, I've got no problem with controversy-avoiding admins; I think we have quite a surplus of controversy-seeking admins, and they can be found easily enough if one is needed. If Frank wants to delete a couple of pages that need deleting, block a vandal or two, and occasionally send someone a copy of a deleted article so they can work on it some more, and that's all, I say: "Thanks, Frank." --barneca (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    30-5 is much better than 12-6. Confirming my support after a review of your contribs; admin-ish experience is a bit light, but that's made up for by a relatively high level of clue, and ability to acknowledge your own errors without getting overly excited (the logo thing below). Go slow at first and all will be well. --barneca (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Of course. Al Tally talk 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. SupportAny/All of my concerns have been met professionally and clearly. Thanks for that. I'm sure you'd make a great admin! Bigvinu (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I balked just a bit regarding your experience, but then I read your AfDs. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I see no evidence of trust issues here, and the answers to the questions are excellent. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 02:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per above. See no reason to oppose. Dlohcierekim 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Additionally, I strongly agree with the candidate's observation that it's better when three or four different editors warn a vandal, and another does the blocking, because it shows Wikipedia:Consensus in action. — Athaenara ✉ 03:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Length of time on the 'pedia be damned. User shows insight, maturity, and the experience necessary for adminship. I definitely trust him with the tools, per his level head (#74). Also, he has my name which somehow makes him an even better candidate. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support You've sufficient experience, and plently enough clue to be a good admin. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 05:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Unlike I usually do, I haven't really looked through your contributions, so my reasoning presented here probably isn't as valid as usual. I'm supporting you because I've seen nothing brought up that suggests you will abuse the tools, or don't have a grasp on the policies you'll be working with as an admin, and you seemingly have a need for the tools. Also, nothing brought up thus far suggests you have a bad attitude. The lack of experience is a minor issue, but not enough for me not to support this user.--SJP (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support The more grown ups around here the better. Nick mallory (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support ditto. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, didn't recognise the name (but do under the old name) - will be fine. Neıl 龱 12:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Good attitude, no serious flaws. CitiCat ♫ 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support My personal preference would be to require 6 months of solid activity before someone can come to RfA, because I think transparency and easy-to-follow guidelines promote calmness and clarity. Damage is done, of course, by giving what is perceived as a thumbs-down by the "establishment" to 19 out of 20 candidates who apply before 6 months of consistent editing; this damage is not IMO offset by the benefit to us or to the candidate for the one in 20 that can justify getting the mop with less experience. However, none of this is Frank's fault, and I'm quite happy with his AfD experience. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support 3 months experience is not much, but I see no other reason to not support. LittleMountain5 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - net positive. Ali'i is correct about the Sscolorlogo lg.gif image (now fixed), however overall I think he'll be ok. PhilKnight (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak Support I think you could use a little more experience, but you seem trustworthy. Thank you for your thoughtful answer to my question. Keepscases (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support changed from neutral. Answers and justifications are in plain English with liberal amounts of common sense. My concerns have been allayed. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. support. After a look through your contribs (and I've seen you around as well), I've determined that you easily meet my criteria. Good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Responsible editor, no sign whatsoever he'll abuse the admin tools. As for the "only x months" argument, people should keep in mind how easy an admin's job is. Of course, it is reassuring to see candidates who've shown they know just about every minute detail of every policy. However most problems with admins are not due to lack of knowledge of policies, but lack of respect for them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I see no evidence that the editor would abuse the tools. We need more syops and he appears ready to contrib heavily to our many backlogs/needs.--Finalnight (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No problems that I can see. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support You are a great vandalism reverter and are awesome at removing links to disambiguation pages! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 14:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support I don't usually like to give more weight to my own vote by adding such superfluous adjectives as strong or very strong or whatever else seems to be the standard these days but I couldn't immediately think of a more appropriate way to express my opinion that this candidate has demonstrated a level of maturity that's both very rare to come by as well as deeply reassuring of the project's future prosperity with people like Frank pushing the buttons. No offence to anyone to whom this may be directed but I feel that everyone who used an argument of low edit count or hasn't been around long enough to oppose has not thouroughly read the candidate's consistently thoughtful answers. I would never, ever trade maturity, responsibility and thoughtful cool-headedness in a RfA candidate for a high edit count, never. The letter of the law of policies and guidelines can be learned by anyone but, in my opinion, it is people like Frank who exemplify the somewhat rare breed of administrator who can truly understand and apply the policy in its intended spirit of the law. I have no doubt in my mind that, given enough time and candidate's continued contribution to the project, Frank will be a no-brainer for RfB one day. Good luck, you truly deserve the mop. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I think I came into contact with Frank for the first time about two/three weeks ago. We had a discussion within a discussion, so to speak, and it demonstrated alot about his overall standing here. That was enough to support, but then I came across another one, two reasons, plus the magnus opum of all comments I've seen from a newly established editor. Very impressed with candidate. Rudget (logs) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Would have been sooner, but I got my wisdom teeth out yesterday...(ouch!) Seen him a lot and have no reservations. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak support. Bwrs (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, a great user. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Opposes don't really worry me, and you have made some quality edits.  Asenine  08:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. Weak / tentative support - the lack of experience is worrying, but there is definately something about your approach to this RfA and the answers to the questions that make me want to give you a try. Please go to the new admin school though, and practise, practise, practise! Lradrama 20:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per parentage of four teenagers; will be able to relate to majority of contributors just fine, with necessary authority if required. Oh, and appears unlikely to run amok with mop.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support -- A good user who appears to be more than qualified for the mop. --SharkfaceT/C 05:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I'm a little disappointed in those opposing because of the candidate's edit count; it's plainly evident this guy's got clue. Very thorough answers to the questions that show a high amount of policy knowledge. I especially liked the answers regarding the questions on blocking policy; the candidate clearly knows that blocking is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. High-speed vandals, especially page blankers, need to be blocked on sight, not after they've accumulated four warnings. I'm not worried about the Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif slipup, especially now that it's been fixed. Adminship does indeed require lots of knowledge, but it is most definitely a learn-on-the-job position as well. All in all, this user very obviously demonstrates to me that they have both the Wikipedia and life experience to handle the stress and extra flak that comes with being an admin, and I feel confident that he will do fine with the extra buttons. (An aside to the candidate: DRV is a pretty interesting place -- drop by if you have a few moments sometime) Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 16:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support (edit conflict in the support section!) Frank will only grow further as an admin and while I hope he keeps learning through more article building, he already has a strong overall understanding of Wikipedia and going by my interactions with him, can easily be trusted with the tools. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, doesn't look rouge ;-). —paranomiahappy harry's high club 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Frank is reliable and sensible. I'm not convinced that he's going to use the tools a lot, but he certainly won't misuse them. Axl (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  53. Support - questions I was examining satisfied my criteria. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I have only seen good things from this user. Acalamari 16:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Adminship is about knowing policy and having the judgment and mindset necessary to make proper decisions. I believe that you demonstrate this, especially in regards to your attitude, and therefore I believe you'll make a good administrator. Oren0 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support -- per Oren0! --Cameron* 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Your answers to questions and comments to users linked above show high levels of clue and intelligence. These are important for an admin to have, since they lead to generally being useful. You also appear to be a well-spoke, civil, and clearheaded editor, all of which we need in admins (not to mention always just needing admins). You'll do great work as an admin most of the time, and when you don't you'll make sure any messes you made get cleaned up. I don't think we can ask for much more. As a side note, I hope I don't see you around WP:DRV too often except when you want to be there. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support—Has been activley participating in the areas that he wants to admin, with good quality. Regarding experience, I think he's shown that he has enough experience with the areas he will engage in admin activity. Livitup (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: I view self-noms as indicative of someone eager to help improve the encyclopedia.  RGTraynor  20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I don't think that you have enough experience for the job. Sorry. --Kaaveh (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to you opposing this users Rfa, but will you please explain your reasoning? Explaining your reasoning in some detail will help us reach a conclusion on whether or not we should support this person. Thanks for your time:-)--SJP (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Only four months of consistent contributions, not enough for me to support. RMHED (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my oppose, after a more indepth look at your contributions, especially AfD's I can't really justify my oppose. RMHED (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Sorry – 2-1/2 months experience – less than 3,000 edits – and three what was your previous USER: Name? I noticed on your talk page a reference as shown here [1] and wonder why it is not mentioned in this Rfa? Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given then this was a rename so all the contribs have moved as well as the redirect remaining at the old name, I kind of feel the question about the rename might be a bit of a red herring. Spartaz Humbug! 23:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Truthfully, it was not meant that way. When I express an opinion on a candidate, I personally look at their discussion page to get a feel of how they interact with other editors. As this is probably the most important aspect of any candidate, in my opinion, for an administrator position. In the past, I have seen editors change user names for a multitude of reasons. Most for very good – legitimate reasons and some for not. In that I am not an administrator, and do not have access to all the information available, I posed question as part of my opinion, rather than a statement. Thank you for answering the question. Concerning my opinion, it still stands, concerning time and experience. ShoesssS Talk 23:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I changed my username to achieve some privacy, not realizing at the time that the usurpation would be part of the record. There was no ulterior motive, and I've left the redirect; I really have nothing to hide and no interaction to disown. I invite you to look at my contributions to the encyclopedia, which, after all, is what we're all here for. I have way more than 2 1/2 months at this, even if you only look at my recent dedicated contributions.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Kurt always does this - no need to jump on him - he is entitled to his opinion - even if many people disagree with him. Spartaz Humbug! 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not absolutely necessary to add a disclaimer either. People are just as entitled to their opinions of Kurt's oppose vote as Kurt is entitled to his opinion of self-nomination. In short, it's not any more necessary to defend him than it is to attack him. —  scetoaux (T|C) 04:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (Now support, above) Frank, I generally like your approach, and if you'll allow me to cut a few corners here (by not reading your contribs in-depth) and be a good sport about it, I'd request that you come back to RfA in about two months. I get a sense that what's going on here is generally considered "not enough" according to current RfA standards and practices...no serious editing until sometime in February or March, not much going on on your talk page, nothing big and shiny to point to. (Do you archive your talk page? It's helpful, especially in an RfA.) Still, I get the sense that you're learning fast and that you would be very useful as an admin. Does anyone think that at the rate Frank is going, 2 months would be "too soon"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reminder; I just started archiving my talk page and I have edited it to reflect that. Only one archive page so far, but you're welcome to poke around. I would respectfully suggest that Wikipedia is about articles, not editor talk pages...there's plenty in my edit history to look through.  Frank  |  talk  00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'll give it another look tomorrow. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was going to support, but in the very little image work you have done, you have violated copyright. Image:Sscolorlogo lg.gif which you uploaded as public domain less than a month ago is a copyright violation. The Smart Start website states, "The Smart Start logos below can be used with permission from the The North Carolina Partnership for Children, Inc., or local partnerships. Feel free to use our logos to provide a link from your site to ours, but please do not modify this logo; use only the digital art provided via this web site." (emphasis original)[2] And their copyright policy on images reads, "Images: All images hosted on www.ncsmartstart.org are either the property of the The N.C. Partnership for the Children, Inc. or used with permission. Use of these images by other groups or individuals is prohibited without written permission. If you would like to use an image from this site, please email your request to ..." [3] I cannot support someone as an administrator who does not follow the copyright policy. If for some reason I am misjudging the situation, I will gladly reconsider. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suspected somebody might come up with something I'd have to answer for (see #3 above). You're right, of course, and while I don't like to think of myself as a "violator", it seems the shoe fits in this case. I missed the restriction at the top of the page, focusing instead on the numerous logos available for download at the site - basically I didn't investigate enough. It would appear that requesting permission is the correct course of action now. I'm glad to start on the process, or perhaps an editor who is experienced with these situations can take the lead and keep me involved? Images are not my strong point. As to whether you are misjudging, well, I leave that up to you, but I ask that you and others consider that this can be fixed relatively easily, I'll take the lead in order to be able to keep the image in the article, and that it is not part of some pattern of ignoring copyright considerations - merely an honest oversight...and a learning experience.  Frank  |  talk  15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. I appreciate your dirty, dirty violator face fessin' up. ;-) But seriously, I understand the want to help the encyclopedia sometimes leads us to do things hastily. I think you'll make a decent administrator, and use those tools wisely, but please be more careful next time. It's good that we can all learn from our mistakes. Since there is nothing to indicate a pattern of willful violation, I will note my opposition is fairly weak, but I still oppose. If it had been long enough ago, I could forgive, but it was less than a month ago, and I cannot in good conscience support at this time. Good luck though. --Ali'i 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what made you think the logo was public domain when you uploaded it (and through a couple of edits after)? Avruch 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was because Smart Start was created by the state of North Carolina (even though it's technically a public-private partnership) and I was transferring the policy of the federal government regarding images it creates to the state, which of course was incorrect. The subsequent edits were attempts to get the image to look better at different sizes on the page...in truth it still doesn't look as good as I think it should, but I guess that is secondary to this discussion.  Frank  |  talk  16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully, can I ask if you have personally reviewed the wikipedia space contributions? My initial concern was limited experience but when I read through a selection of their actual contribs I was very impressed by how much policy knowledge they demonstrated. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I am satisfied with my "vote". Stifle (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reluctant oppose - too green. Barely 3000 edits. The issue with the logo above illustrates exactly why I tend to oppose RFA's for candidates with low edit count - administrator skills are learned over time. I consider not understanding image policies like the one above to be a pretty big flaw - not to mention that even then you didn't get the tag right. But that's OK - we all make mistakes - come back after another 2000-3000 edits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose User says in Q1 that blocking vandals after 4 warnings isn't consensus based. Obviously if a vandal accumulates 4 warnings and carries on he's a liability and any user in their right mind will support, so no need for discussion. And if we have a discussion about it by the end of the discussion the vandal will have stopped after. If user takes heed of this comment and addresses these concerns I will be happy to strike this oppose.--Serviam (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification - In the candidate's Q1, I believe he is referring to a single user placing four warnings himself, and that there is no consensus when there is only one person doing the warning. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - That is correct; I [hopefully] clarified above, at Q1.  Frank  |  talk  12:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, but I'm sure that were you to put it up for discussion the vandal would still be bocked anyway.--Serviam (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - only five months of activity is not enough for me to support for adamin --T-rex 20:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose would like to see more main edits and broader experience. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, although Frank gives every indication of having the ideal characteristics for the mop, e.g., cool, mature judgment and a good ability to express himself, more experience is needed at this point. The old saying, "the more you learn, the more you realize how much you don't yet know" is instructive, because there is just a fairly steep learning curve in the first year on Wikipedia to become truly familiar with all of the intricacies of which an admin. is expected to have a working knowledge. The issue with misuse of a copyrighted image is a case in point and tips the scale for me. An admin must be knowledgeable about image PD, copyright tagging, NFCC, etc. JGHowes talk - 03:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose per only 5 months of editing and the copyright image issue. I would not have opposed if it were only one of these issues, but the combination does demonstrate a lack of needed experience. Rami R 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose. 5 months is a bit short, and the copyright issue worries me as well. Give it some time and learn the ropes. Should this request succeed, please keep the concerns in mind and proceed carefully (as I'm sure you will). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral Would like to support but I find the short span of consistent contributions troubling. Also not sure how much the editor knows about the role of an admin. I'll wait for more Q/A. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC) changing to support. Adam McCormick (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like you have a good and extensive contribution list, but if you've never been in an edit conflict, how will you be able to intervene as an admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
For future reference, here is Help:Edit conflict. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral About 2/3 of edits mainspace, but not enough activity.--LAAFan 03:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very close per my standards, but not quite there. I will not oppose. Good luck! Bearian (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Per inexperience as mentioned above. I believe you are doing well though, and would be happy to support in a few more months. - Shudde talk 04:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Almost there - over 3,000 edits, over 300 in Wiki-space, rollback, but somewhat limited experience; does not quite meet my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2008 (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