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

ISD[edit]

Final (7/30/4); Candidate withdrew ([1]). Ended 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

ISD (talk · contribs) – I submit here ISD as a candidate for adminship on the English Wikipedia. ISD first contributed to the project in February 2006, and in his over 16,000 edits he has helped to improve the project in a wide variety of areas. I encountered him as he helps to maintain both WP:COMEDY and Portal:Comedy. His impressive content work includes a Featured article (Truthiness), 3 Featured lists (List of QI episodes, Green Wing (series 1), and List of Peep Show episodes), in addition to 18 Good articles, and 45 DYKs. In addition to content work, ISD engages in community discussions, with over 2,500 contributions to talk pages. I think ISD would make a fine addition to the admin team, and present him here for consideration. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination from Irbisgreif: Having looked over and seen ISD's quality of work here on Wikipedia, I belive he deserves the mop. His frequent work with Featured and Good elements, as well as his DYK's, indicate that, given the ability to take a more active role in these programs, he would greatly benefit the encyclopædia. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: ISD (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Three-revert rule and edit warring violations, anti-vandalism, copyright problems and speedy deletion requests (mainly working with articles involving the media and especially comedy).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The list of QI episodes, which I expanded from a stub into a full list and eventually made it an FL; Truthiness, as it is my first (and so far only) FA; Green Wing as it was one of the first articles I contributed to and help to get it promoted to GA; Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year, which I created and plan to re-nominate for FL when a new book is published about it next month; and Bigipedia because of its relationship with Wikipedia. It has appeared on DYK?, is a current GA nomination, and I hope to get it promoted to FA in time for April Fools Day.
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: Yes, with the article about Alan Davies. I tried to include a news story at the time about Davies attack a tramp, but the story kept being removed by a user who I believe to be Davies and I banned him from the site, although an administrator stepped in to sort out everything in the end. See talk page on Alan Davies. I also do become stressed during FA and FL nominations, especially with unhelpful advice or when people do not support or oppose an article once I have made changes they requested
Additional optional questions from Zzuuzz
4. Hello ISD, and thank you for accepting the nomination for the role of janitor. Among other things you mentioned that you intend to work with speedy deletion, copyright violations and vandalism. Looking through your contributions I cannot identify any speedy deletion nominations, or any edit to AIV (except this some time ago), or any issuing of vandalism warnings. I also couldn't find any requests for page protection. Could you elaborate on your experience or knowledge of these administrative areas, or perhaps the extent of your intention to work on them. I was also wondering what you thought of this. Thanks.
A:

Questions from ArcAngel

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A block is not a punishment, a ban really is a punishment.
6. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A: A block intended solely to "cool down" an angry user.
7. What is your opinion on WP:3RR, do you believe that an attempt at communication should be made after the 2nd revert or the third?
A: I think that such a rule is useful in terms of editing and that an attempt at communication should be made at the second revert to sort out any problems quickly.
8. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: Anti-vandalism is the most important. It is key that articles on Wikipedia are free from vandalism and thus are accurate.

OPTIONAL Questions from NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk)

9. You mention stress in an answer above. How will you handle stressful situations in future? How likely are you to block (or 'topic ban') editors who cause you stress? How will you handle situations like editors who make false accusations against you? lots of questions here, don't answer all of mine, just the general drift: Adminship can be stressful, how will you deal with it?
A: I will handle stress the way I do now. I go away and come back after I've calmed down a little. There is no point tackling a situation when you might make the wrong move. I wouldn't ban someone who caused me stress - only if they did something that was wrong. I should explain the mian reason I get stressed is because I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome.
Question from JamieS93
10. I know I'm adding to the pile of questions, but User_talk:ISD/Archive_5 is concerning. Your talkpage, even within the last few months, has seen many image deletion notices. Apologies, I haven't done thorough research, but files like File:Mark_Steel_Walsall_Hippo.jpg (uploaded July '09, deleted per F11) shows a lack of basic knowledge in licensing/attribution and the like. Also, there are many notices about orphaned fair-use images. An explanation would be helpful, thanks.
A: Yes, I have had problems in the past. The image in question was free use and I had been given permission to use it on Wikipedia by the person who took it. The problem was proving to people that I had the proof. I had to go onto Wikimedia Commons, which I was not a member of at the time to sort it out and I never managed to resolve the issue. As a result, the image got deleted. Several images I have loaded are old ones which I loaded a long time ago when I knew little of the policies and got deleted because I never updated the info. To be honest, some of these images were not really needed in the articles.
Questions from FASTILY
11. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.
A: I believe a non-free should be used until a free image becomes available because it improves the quality of the article. Once a free image is available, the non-free image can be deleted.
12. A user uses their digital camera and takes a picture of a copyrighted Disney character, for instance, Ariel from The Little Mermaid and WALL-E from WALL-E as well as other such characters. The user then creates a collage from the images and uploads the collage to Wikipedia with the license tag ((pd-self)) (public domain). What is the problem with the situation and why is that an issue?
A: The problem is that all those images are copyrighted and therefore not free-use, therefore this image cannot be licenced in the public domain.
13. A user uploads various screenshots from a copyrighted video game, say, Halo 2. The user adds all of the images to the article, Halo 2, in an image gallery. Explain the problem with this situation and why it is a problem.
A: Screenshots from a game are no free-use and therefore they need to have the correct copyright. If too many images a loaded, Wikipedia might be in violation of copyright.
14. Would you ever block a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?
A: I don't recall so. I believe I did give notice in advance of the only person I have blocked.
Please see related follow-up question at question 15. Sarah 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Malinaccier and Rjanag
15. What do you mean when you say "I banned him from the site" in your answer to question three?
A. Yes I really should have saided "Blocked" rather than "Banned". I meant that I blocked him from editing because he kepted removing the information I had posted and the referenced I used. Different references were later found to reference the information where were viewed by an admin to be more reliable.
Follow up question from Sarah: Can you please explain how you, as a non-admin user, blocked another user? I find your references to blocking or banning users here and in your answers to questions 3 and 14 rather bizarre and alarming. Do you have another account that has admin rights on this website? thanks. Sarah 10:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Pedro
16. I find the "adornment" of your user page with dozens of (in may cases rather hardline viewpoint) user boxes both crass, concerning and in some cases contradictory. Do you think that it will be helpful for users requesting admin assistance to be greeted by such a barage of information about you as a person - as opposed to as an editor/administrator of Wikipedia? If so - why?. If not - what are you intending to do about it? Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Well, if it is a major problem I suppose I'll have to remove them, although I fail to see how expressing my views is a problem from becoming an admin.
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
17. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A:

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Like I said below, I have emailed ISD and requested that he come here to answer the questions above and below. I would reiterate that he has a good amount of good and featured-content experience, which tends to expose editors to other processes along the way as well. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several things in DYK work require one to be an admin and I was under the impression that this would be ISD's main area of work. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be, but he didn't mention it in question one. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support, as nom. :) Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as co-nom. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as non-nom. --Aqwis (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Provisional support; looks like this RfA has already become a madhouse and I see no compelling reason to deny this user adminship. I'll revist later on, however, since I have a feeling that there's something a bit off here. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Withdraw support, but not wishing to pile-on in the oppose section. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - those in opposition offer no compelling reason(s) to refuse this editor the tools. Crafty (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not sure yet what admin work he's good at, so this is weak support for now. I've opposed in part over "world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion" before ... but as his 200th userbox, next to "respect for religions"? He's a fan of comedy. Comedy in the Western World juxtaposes contradictory and out-of-place ideas, including quite a lot of jabs at religion. The assumption of bad faith is misplaced here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. You say you want to work in speedy deletion. Just going by the edit summaries of your deleted contribs, it looks like the last time you tagged a page for speedy deletion was about 2 years ago, is that right? Also, I'm concerned about Jamie's question, Q10. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers to questions this morning are pretty bad, and it looks like this RFA will fail. Still, I'm not concerned about your trustworthiness, dedication or civility. Moral support, I suppose. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support: A number of issues have been raised, but not enough to warrant "oppose" - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong Oppose "This user believes the world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion." And apparently has a blog called "The Bible Basher". And yet, has the audacity to have a different userbox stating he "respects the beliefs and religions of others." Yeah, I'm calling BS on that one. Users who think disrespectful userboxes are a good idea should not serve as administrators on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You have, I trust, stopped to consider the user's self-professed love of comedy? It might explain the boxes you are referring to. Just a thought, of course, as you're free to oppose if you wish to. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything funny about that userbox, nor do I believe it was placed there for comedic effect. Keepscases (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One man's comedy is another man's insult, I suppose. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but either is disrespectful and unbecoming for a candidate. If I were to go to a job interview and declare what sorts of people I think the world would be better off without, I wouldn't get the job. And I still maintain that it's absurd to think that the userbox is a joke. Keepscases (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Going up for a job? Probably not. But fortunately, editing Wikipedia isn't a job, and being an admin isn't a job. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Analogy is the core of cognition. Keepscases (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Keeps, dont take this as an insult but dont you think that this will cause some contraversy within this, it's just I remember your last comment similar to this and it descended into chaos. I think you have your right to oppose and I half agree with you in fact, but to be fair, you could (and probably should) of been more sensible and considerate in this oppose IMO. Regards. AtheWeatherman 21:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In my humble opinion, it would wind up being worse if I had been more vague. Keepscases (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that the two userboxes are contadictory; I too believe the world would be a better place without religion, but if you for some reason wish to follow a deistic religion, then I respect that choice and won't try to talk you out of it. I'm going to have to disagree with you here Keepscases, and say that it looks like you're veering dangerously close to opposing someone based purely on their personal beliefs. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Exactly my thoughts. There is actually nothing contradictory about those userboxes; in fact, together they present a more respectable message. JamieS93 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are contradictory, because one userbox talks about respect, and the other one is unnecessarily disrespectful. It's not about the user's beliefs, it's about how he thinks it's appropriate to advertise them and the manner in which he does. That said, I'm fairly certain I could demonstrate that there is not something fundamentally wrong with opposing someone based purely on his or her beliefs, but since that's not the case here, that can be a discussion for another day. Keepscases (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. One is clearly disrespectful, but then he comes back and claims to show respect.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keepcases sometimes opposes because people have a particular UBX. This is well known. All the talk above should have gone to the talk page. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a Christian, I very much disagree with ISD when he stated the "world would be a happier, safer and saner place without religion". But his point of view should not be the issue here. So far I have not seen anything that that would warrant an "oppose". God help Wikipedia if this candidate fails because the reasons stated so far. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the views the candidate has, it's about how that candidate chooses to express those views. This is a long running issue at RfA. Discussion of it is generally not useful in the RfA itself. You're welcome to take it elsewhere. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: user recently attempted to out a user who has not self-identified. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a serious charge - do you have evidence to back this up? Without it, this is WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See [2] -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you just bringing this up for the first time now? ISD was never blocked for this, and the edit was never oversighted, so I don't know if it was reported anywhere or determined to be an issue or not. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I discovered it and [3] when reading the user's talk page archive. If I am incorrect I will apologise and refactor if it is a personal attack. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like at the minimum an explanation from ISD is required here. Granted, the "outing" was a link to a DAB page, but given the lack of personal information from the contribs of the allegedly outed user, this issue needs to be addressed. There could be a perfectly valid explanation. Tan | 39 22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per User_talk:ISD/Archive_5, it appears the username is the exact same one used on the individual's Twitter account. Cirt (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be so, but that would make this a pretty classic case of outing, would it not? Tan | 39 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have emailed ISD and asked him to respond here with clarification about this. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (To Tan) Actually, ISD specifies the link in his next edit, [4]. Malinaccier (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tan's point is still valid. An explanation is in order. Majoreditor (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    just checking people know that it's about 1:30 am in the uk, so it might be some time before ISD answers. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC
    I would like to say that if I did something wrong, I apologise. However, I have not heard of this outing policy, and it was never my intention to cause any harass this user. I intend to read up about this ASAP. ISD (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive heard from 3 different sources in this month alone that disagreements on wiki sometimes escalate to folk being harassed in RL, sometimes even to physical assault or trying to make them unemployable. On the other hand having your real name known is generally not a problem. Possibly you know this person which is how you knew what real name to link to. Id otherwise like to support you and you seem honest so just on your word Id accept that you have reason to believe he wouldnt mind. Otherwise I cant support as outing is well out of order even when done innocently. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose provisionally, because if Zzuuzz is correct in Question 4 that ISD has done minimal work with CSD and anti-vandalism then I don't think he's really ready to be an administrator who works in those areas. Also, per the oppose above, unless it turns out that Senex Iracundus was OK with being added to the page. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Your content work has been stellar and you've been here for quite some time, but I don't think you have enough experience in areas relevant to the administrative tools. You have only participated in three AfDs since 2007, and you have only made one edit to AIV. Looking through your contributions, I can see that you haven't been involved in many discussions about policy and guidelines, which administrators are required to be well familiar with. You should try to participate more in these fields before requesting adminship. ThemFromSpace 02:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I'm concerned about both your lack of experience in admin areas and what appears to be a misunderstanding of policy. As mentioned, you have minimal experience in AfD and AIV, yet you say that you plan to work with deletions and vandal-fighting. I'm also concerned that you say in one of your responses that you "banned" an editor "from the site". Your use of the term ban indicates that you are either unfamiliar with Wikipedia banning policy or that you were careless in your answer. You've been a great contributor and will likely be a good admin once you have the right experience. Majoreditor (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose I'm not convinced the candidate has necessary policy knowledge and understanding to be granted access to admin tools. The answer to question 3 where he states he "banned [a user] from the site" sets off major alarm bells. I had a poke around his edits and his talk page archives are stuffed with image notices. I could overlook a lot of this if it were just old issues and there was a sign that he had since learned about and accepted Wikipedia's policies but that does not seem to be the case. File:DurhamFlag.gif which the candidate uploaded a month ago was deleted a couple of weeks ago as an F9 (an unambiguous copyright violation) and File:Mark_Steel_Walsall_Hippo.jpg uploaded a couple of months ago was deleted as F11 (no evidence of permission). Also, there's really limited user talk edits (the last 20 user talk edits go all the way back to April) and while I'm very happy he's not here to be a social butterfly, it's hard to get an idea of how he will deal with vandals and problematic users etc and to see that he understands and can apply the relevant policies and communicate them effectvely to such users. The candidate's answers above say that if he becomes an admin, he would work with "Three-revert rule and edit warring violations, anti-vandalism, copyright problems and speedy deletion requests", which are all areas that he appears to lack experience with and more so, at least with image copyright issues, his history appears to show that he really doesn't understand Wikipedia policy and I would be concerned about him acting as an administrator in these areas. ISD said he wants to work with CSD, so I had a look through his deleted edits log back to 2006, but I could only find two CSD nominations, an article in November 2007 and a category in July 2006, with the bulk of his deleted edits being his own articles, redirects and other edits that were deleted. I'm sorry to oppose someone well meaning who works on content but I'm just not comfortable that ISD has sufficient knowledge and experience in related areas and so I'm not able to support at this time. Sarah 05:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While the nominee says he wants to do anti-vandalism work, the most recent AIV report someone dug up (which is a year and a half old) is incorrect—see WP:VAND#NOT. While the co-nominator says ISD will work on DYK admin work, ISD doesn't seem to have any experience there—while he has contributed to many DYK articles, I have never seen him involved in discussions at WT:DYK or other maintenance sides of the project, even reviewing other DYKs. Overall, I'm getting the impression that the nominee is mainly a content editor, with little to no experience in administrative work. There's nothing wrong with being that kind of editor (indeed, content is the absolute most important thing here), but it means that I see no need for the tools. The nominee's communication also seems offputting, particularly in the answer to Q3: "I get annoyed when people don't do what I want" doesn't seem like a good attitude for an administrator, and the claim that "I banned him from the site" belies a serious misunderstanding of how bans work. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to super-strong oppose per incorrect answer to question 11 (non-free image use in BLPs) and horrible answer to questions 5 and 6. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per lack of experience in AIV and Sarah's concerns about images. While the content work is undoubtedly good, the fact that an image deleted for copyvio was created less than a month ago and the lack of edits to key admin areas such as AIV and RPP in areas which the candidate wants to work concerns me. I will revisit this later once many of the questions have been answered. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I can see very few questions answered in a satisfactory manner. ISD needs to spend more time reading the policies before answering, as particularly in the copyright area, and blocking there needs to be improved knowledge before answering or acting as an admin. There are only a few rights for users, but ISD should be aware of what they are. Though I actually like the collection of userboxes, the negative on the user page is the no barnstars request! There should be a barnstar for those that don't want them. perhaps a very small one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm sorry but I'm going to oppose. A reasonable, all though unexpansive answer to my question isn't a big issue for me - however Q14 makes me very nervous that you really don't understand the technical elements of a "block", your lack of knoweldge re: WP:OUTING also belies a general lack of policy knowledge in my opinion and the overall rush at a number of the questions also concerns me. I appreciate this was probably not what you wanted to see this morning, and the number of questions is extensive. I do however think every single question has been asked to tease out better understanding of your knowledge and attitude, and you have not really provided much clarity in many of your answers. Pedro :  Chat  09:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as you say, the questions are there to help us evaluate the user, not to harrass him. Surely it's better to pound a user with questions than to just oppose without giving the user a chance to explain themselves? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. My point is probably that there seems to be a trend to ask questions at RFA for no real purpose whereas here the questions have been extremly beneficial. I'm not sure what else to say to you Rjanag other than that I agree with you, and I haven't a clue what response you want from me. Please feel free to elucidate on my talk as opposed to this RFA if you wish to discuss further. Pedro :  Chat  16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm sorry but while a good faith editor doesn't have to know the policies, in order to use the tools in accordance with policy you have to have a good understanding of those policies. I hope this doesn't dishearten you, and I would be delighted to reconsider you if you come back after three months. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, a good faith user I'm sure, but the answers to the questions are quite poor and I just wouldn't feel comfortable giving you the tools at this time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  13. Oppose per lack of sufficient policy knowledge, as shown on this RfA. Tan | 39 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The answers to the questions make me seriously question whether you understand the policies. Also some answers don't seem to address the questions that are asked. As an example, your answer to Q6 only explains what you believe a cool down block is, not when it should be used and why. This makes me question your ability to communicate your decisions to other editors. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. (edit conflict)There are a lot of questions, and they all appeared out of the blue while you were most likely sleeping, so I can understand quick responses to a few of them, but yours go beyond hasty. Nearly every answer is a vague concept that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence - at best, it's hard not to feel like you're avoiding the (admittedly complex) issues in each one. A number of them are quite good and would be very helpful to you if you gave solid answers, but you missed that chance, instead giving what you did for 6 and 8. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for many of the reasons stated above regarding lack of policy knowledge. Somewhat in line with Sarah, I wouldn't mind mistakes if there was a clear indication that you were learning from them, but I just don't see that at the moment. I think we need all the admin help we can get, so I do want to encourage you to bone up on policy a bit, and then try for RfA again in a few months (I failed my first one, not a big deal). Hiberniantears (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose The answers to the questions (Arc Angels in particular) seem to underline my feeling of inexperience in admin related areas, and even with ISD's good heart, I think these issues (and other issues raised in the opposes) are pretty serious, and enough to make me oppose. Sorry. AtheWeatherman 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose strongly unfortunately, because of a lack of experience in the areas that you want to work in, and per Sarah, Pedro, Rjanag and others. You're clearly a good faith editor, but just the answers to the questions are very concerning. Q5, Q6 and Q11 are not correct, and show a major lack of knowledge in general areas of admin policy. And I agree that Q14 and Q15 are alarming; either the candidate is misreading the questions or possibly holds an alternate account. Disclosing details (if any) to a bureaucrat or functionary would be helpful. Anyway, issues like the question answers and images bring up strong concerns. Sorry, and best of luck with the rest of your editing. JamieS93 13:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My best guess at ISD's "block" comment is that he actually means "I got the editor blocked"—i.e., reported it to some admin. Unfortunately, the link that ISD has given to explain that interaction (Talk:Alan Davies) appears to say nothing about this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the person ISD is talking about is Notaperm. They were blocked after ISD submitted a report to AIV. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 16:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, good thought. That's likely what (and possibly who) the candidate was talking about. Struck a bit of my oppose, didn't mean to make an assumption there. JamieS93 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Many apologies, as you're quite a good editor as far as content goes, but your understanding of policy needs a bit of work. See especially Questions 5 and 6. Don't get discouraged, though - I look forward to supporting your next RFA in a few months, if and when. Best to you, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose due to non-familiarity with image policies, as evidenced by response to Q11. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Oppose Very poor knowledge of policy and poor answers to questions. PmlineditorTalk 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Fantastic editor, but I'm certain that he would make major mistakes as an administrator. Some very basic Wikipedia policy knowledge is missing, as evident in the answers to questions. It's possible that some of the garbled answers are due as much to poor communication skills as a lack of knowledge (either in the way ISD read the question or the way he answered it) but that is just as troubling, as it is key for an admin to be able to communicate clearly and helpfully to other editors. Perhaps with a lot of coaching ISD would be a suitable admin. Again, I do applaud him for his contributions to the encyclopedia outside of this RfA. -- Atama頭 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Answers to questions are rather weak, suggesting either an unfamiliarity with community norms/policies or answers made without adequate forethought. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong oppose - "I should explain the mian reason I get stressed is because I suffer from Asperger's Syndrome." -- I realise there are varying levels, but as someone with AS, I remind you that Wikipedia is a voluntary project. The reason that I (and others with similar conditions) receive different treatment in places such as schools is because they are compulsory. I do not believe the same the same leeway should carry over to a voluntary project, so if the statement was intended to ask for more leeway, then I outright disagree with the idea. The answers to the questions half of the time are wrong, like Q11, and half of the time completely miss what the question is asking, for example Q5, Q6, and Q7. I expect administrators to have communication skills, and the answers to the questions indicate otherwise. Sorry. — neuro(talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "However, I have not heard of this outing policy" <- instant nonstarter, just add water. — neuro(talk) 17:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Several concerning issues, notably the answers about "blocks", "bans" and "cool down blocks". Ian does not have a good understanding of these policies, yet he seems to be keen on anti-vandalism work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I'm a bit frustrated with the nominating editors. RfA is known to be an unpleasant experience. They really should have checked this candidate more carefully. Letting the candidate know what's expected at an RfA would have been the minimum. To the candidate: adminship is worthless, and means nothing. Sure, if you find that you need the tools then come back an re-appy. There are plenty of people who'll give you friendly advice. Please read the good things that people are saying about you - you appear to be trustworthy, etc. Kind regards. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, does not seem to understand policy well enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Neutral to Oppose I am switching to neutral because the concerns I listed below have not changed, and in fact, I am more worried now then I was yesterday. America69 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean "switching from" (little quibble)? :) JamieS93 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per answers to questions 3, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15. One or two off-base answers may be overlooked but not this many, and not answers that are explicitly incorrect. The answers to these questions show a clear lack of knowledge of community policy. One cannot enforce and advise others - the more important responsibility of an admin, in my opinion - regarding policy that one does not display clear understanding of, and that one does not display the ability to find the correct answers to. I have not examined article contributions; I understand they may be many and high-quality, and I hope that work will continue.  Frank  |  talk  19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose a fine editor, but you don't appear to be doing anything that would require admin tools at all - and the ones you say you'd want to use, you're not currently doing anything anywhere near them. I'm also deeply unnerved about not knowing about WP:OUTING, the repeated talk page concerns over image copyright, and your confusion over banning, blocking, and whether you've done them or merely asked someone else to. All that said, these can be solved - policies are simply looking for them and reading, confusion should be worked out at the same time, need for tools can be demonstrated by working more in areas where you get stopped by software (e.g. reviewing DYKs instead of just contributing, reporting CSDs and then wanting to action them). No reason why I wouldn't support in a few months. I would just note, I am quite unhappy about opposes based solely on a userbox - all Wikipedians have their biases, that one is hardly uncommon in Europe, and at least acknowledging it means everything's in the open. --Saalstin (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral pending answers to questions. ArcAngel (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to oppose.I really can't see any glaring reasons why ISD should not be an admin or misuse the tools, thus I cant oppose, but I see very little experience in the areas he wishes to go into, so I am not convinced of their knowledge in the areas mentioned in Q1, thus, I can't support either. I may change later pending the questions, but after good consideration and reviews, I think neutral is a fair place for me at the moment. Regards. AtheWeatherman 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    neutral at present. I'm gently concerned about how this candidate will handle stressful situations, but I'm sure the answer to my question will reassure me and move me to support. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)hanging to oppose[reply]
  2. Neutral, pending answers to Zzuuzz's questions. feydey (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - looked good to me, but, I simply cannot support due to severe ideological differences, but I don't want to oppose over them either.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, per Keepscases.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 22:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I can't support or oppose until ISD responds to opposition !vote 2. I have some deep concerns, and will wait for an explanation. America69 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the response to question 16 will weigh heavy with me. America69 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers to initial questions are a little weak; waiting to see answers to some of the later ones. Mr.Z-man 01:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Although I would usually support people with your history, some of the issues brought up in the opposes concern me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category