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

Ibaranoff24[edit]

Final (24/25/14); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs) - I won't pretend to be the most qualified candidate for adminship, but I'm a fairly good editor, I've been on here for two years and have made over 15000 edits, if that's any importance. I've also been commended for my "valued contibutions to the Films WikiProject". Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (Self-nominated. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry I spotted this self-nomination only after a negative (5) and neutral (4) pile-on had already begun. I second the nomination. Please consider me Ibaranoff24's nominator. I've gone over his contributions carefully, and I'm impressed. He's had a great deal of experience in the good articles and featured article candidates departments and has had plenty of exposure to Wikipedia's content policies and quality standards. He has improved steadily in how he handles others since he started editing here, and his past six months of contribs show that he gets along with others well. I believe he would not abuse the admin tools, and feel confident that we can trust him with them. He stated what he would use them for (in answer to question #1), and I think that's a good idea. Wikipedia could use additional competent editors on its protected pages and with page moving. I'm sure he'll expand his use of the tools beyond those activities carefully. The only reservation I have is that he has filled in only about half his edit summaries. Edit summaries help others understand what you are doing more easily, and are pretty important (admins need to set a good example for others to follow). But if Ibaranoff24 were to pledge that he will fill-in edit summaries from now on, I would take his word for it. The Transhumanist 00:57, 24 December 2007 (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: My main reason for applying here is that I've found myself at ends with attempting to make needed edits when I do not have the ability to do so - for instance, fixing major errors on protected templates, or moving articles to their correct names when that article name is already being used as a redirect, etc. I need something. And if you don't think that adminship isn't what I'm looking for, can you point me towards the right area to sign up for? Otherwise, voice your support or opposition to my request. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Film and music articles, based on knowledge of subjects discussed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A (CONT'D): I have had five successful featured article nominations, two in the field of music-related topics and three in the field of film-related topics. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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: None of any real importance. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Optional Questions from Nat

4. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?
A: An administrator has the option to lift a block if they feel that the user/IP should be given another chance. Outright banning a user/IP is an option taken if the editor has no hope of reform. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
5. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: Place a message on their talk page, suggesting that they keep a cool head, and if they persist, briefly block the user. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
6. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: Non-free portraits should not be used if a free substitute can be provided. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
7. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Yes. I value the opinions of other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
8. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: One should contribute to the best of their own judgment without resorting to excess. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Optional Questions from The Transhumanist 08:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9. What do you like about Wikipedia?
A: It's informative, and often very trustworthy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
10. What are the names of the articles you brought to featured article status?
A: Body Count (album), Coonskin (film), Fritz the Cat (film), Freak Out!, The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)
11. What are your wiki-goals?
A: Expand and improve articles on subjects to which I am most knowledgeable. That's basically it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
12. In light of the opinions expressed on this page, has your attitude toward edit summaries changed? If so, what is your attitude now?
A: Honestly, I see it as a bit of a chore, but I'll try my best to include them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
13. Under what circumstances would you Ignore all rules?
A: I've mostly been able to keep articles at high quality working with the rules. I can't really think of any instances where I've had to ignore a rule in order to improve an article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
14. A POV pusher, someone who keeps changing an article to express his particular viewpoint, keeps coming back to a page and editing it in different ways to favor his stance even though the consensus has perpetually been against him. He's careful not to violate 3RR, but he never gives up. What would you do?
A: Give him a warning. Block him if necessary. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
15. You come across an article of a person with 10 non-free images of that person on the page. What would you do? Why?
A: Put a note on the article's talk page saying that the number of images should be cut down. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
16. Right after you've become an admin, you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Immediately after this, 5 people who opposed you in your RfA ask for your recall. What would you do?
A: Ignore it. Things usually pan out. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
17. What conflicts have you been in? What did you do? What would you do differently now?
A: I was once accused of uploading an altered/fake image. Since then, I've included links to the websites where I got any image I've uploaded to avoid such accusations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
18. Why were you blocked? Why shouldn't we be worried that you won't do that kind of thing again?
A: I was briefly blocked during an argument over spoiler warnings. I agreed not to continue, and was quickly unblocked. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
19. Why should we trust you with the admin tools?
A: I can make improvements on issues that I have noticed, but other administrators might not have that have not been pointed out to them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
20. Assuming you are an admin, if another admin came to you and asked you to help clear a backlog, what would you do?
A: Look over it and see what I could do. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
21. What is your wiki-philosophy? How will that affect your actions as an admin?
A: I don't have one. See "goals". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
22. Imagine the Wikipedia of the future. What do you see?
A: More featured articles. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
23. What is your opinion of the RfA process? Should it be improved? How would you improve it?
A: No complaints. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ibaranoff24 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Apparently they are, but everyon answers them.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation where a user strangely advocates performing cut-and-past moves. Please don't.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • You don't need to be an admin to create redirects. Just click on the name you were directed from, copy and paste the real content into there, then create a redirect from the former aticle title. Other than that, you just crave power. Dlae│here 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was trying to explain.. see if I input David Batista, I get redirected to 'Dave Bautista' - if I click on the link where it says "Redirected from David Batista" (just under the article name), I get taken to a page with an arrow pointing to 'Dave Bautista'. Just edit the dab on the page, or grab the content from Dave Bautista, place it on David Bautista, then replace the content on Dave Bautista with the redirect coding (#REDIRECT [[David Bautista]]). Adminship is not what you should look for in this case, but to ask for help on the appropriate pages, be it the help desk or a [good] administator's (or some other helpful user's) talkpage. Dlae│here 15:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, doing cut-and-paste moves like this is a pretty good way to get yourself blocked for disruption if you make a habit of it - they take forever to fix. — iridescent 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they don't. As for getting yourself blocked, well that's just standard for conflicts, such as 3RR. Dlae│here 16:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please move this away from the RFA? Regards, Rt. 16:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a last comment, ignore this thread. See Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators and related pages. –Pomte 17:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent editor, underappreciated like most, and I'm glad he's on Wikipedia's side, but there hasn't been a lot of experience at AfD. Good luck to him anyway. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Support[edit]
  1. Support. I have seen this candidate around frequently, way back when I used to participate in WP:FAC. I believe that this candidate is more than qualified and that the precision work he or she is used to in Featured Article work - which the candidate has extensive experience in - ensures that the candidate can be trusted to stay within the areas they state they will specialize in. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 18:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support I see no reason why this user's adminship would be a negative thing for the project. I am not incredibly impressed with his work but just because an editor is not super duper extra perfect is no reason to deny him the mop. -Icewedge (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - see my comments as add-on nom above. - The Transhumanist 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Ibaranoff24 has a specific need for the tools - doing occasional administrative tasks as he encounters them whilst editing. I acknowledge, as many of those who oppose have acknowledged, that he is lacking in experience with some areas of encyclopaedia administration, but I think that he will be able to learn as he goes, I do not think that he will abuse the tools, and I do not think that he will go rouge. I thus support Ibaranoff24's request for adminship. --Iamunknown 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Iamunknown sums it up for me, we have lots of admins who know all about twinkle but how many have worked properly to produce featured articles? We need admins with a range of skills, we can't expect everyone to know everything. I'm sure he'd work on what he knows and learn more as he needs to. He's already proven himself a good Wikipedian, chastising him for not using edit summaries enough or not citing a source for everything he writes is all very well but many people make it as admins who barely write articles or add anything which needs a source at all. That said Transhumanist is right and he should pledge to use edit summaries in the future. Nick mallory (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. So, to summarise, we already have lots of crap admins, so one more won't make any difference? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think that was what Nick was trying to say. While, in a perfect world, all admins would be perfect in all areas, the fact is that we are a volunteer project. Different admins work in different areas, and you can't expect everyone to have vast experience in every area of potential admin work. Nick was, I think, pointing out that some people are good admins without having done a lot of article-building or sourcing; a detailed knowledge of sourcing is not a necessary pre-requisite for adminship (though it is certainly a desirable characteristic). WaltonOne 15:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Walton. Nick mallory (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - 5 Featured Article noms speaks loads - this is a great 'pedia builder and apart from some shortish answers above I see nothing to suggest his being an admin will be a net negative. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support - Initially, I was leaning towards oppose due to some of the lack of detail in the candidate's answers above, and concerns below, but at the same time, I see a lot of potential to be a fantastic administratior. True, not all good editors make good sysops, but 15,000 edits over 2 years and the fact that he has 5 featured article nominations makes me believe that he will truly work to improve our encyclopedia from a content standpoint, which is just as important (if not moreso) than maintainence, vandal fighting, and whatnot (and I'm sure with time he might gain some understanding in these areas.) Mr Senseless (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I don't place too much stock in evaluating RfAs based on edit summary usage or brevity in answers to questions. You are clearly an experienced and knowledgeable editor. The only question we really need to ask at RfA is whether giving you the tools is going to help or hurt the project, and I think the answer here is obvious. Dylan (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Can be trusted with the tools. I'm sure he will start giving more edit summaries from now on. Epbr123 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Excellent article work. Trustworthy. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I support Ibaranoff24. I think he will not abuse the tools. Here, we have some smart admins who abuse their power. For example, I have seen admins blocking established users in the name of the 3RR. Even a established user who is about 1-2 month old, may not know about 3RR. In fact, I realized that the 3RR also applies in AfD just about a month ago. We need admins who don't abuse their power. I believe that Ibaranoff24 will not abuse the tools. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Has made some excellent edits during his time. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per RyanGerbil and Nick mallory. WaltonOne 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Good article building, keeping cool throughout this RfA, and answering a ridiculous amount of questions makes me support. Acalamari 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, excellent answers to a stupid number of questions. Majorly (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Short concise answers to many stupid questions, which is probably more then I would have done. Prodego talk 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Change to Weak Support, on "I can't see anything wrong" grounds, in light of the multiple question answers. I don't think TTH is unreasonable in asking so many questions in this case, given that so little information was given by the candidate initially. — iridescent 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Changed to Support. Originally, was neutral because of short answers to original questions, but after taking all the time to answer all of those, I must say that this editor has thought everything through. (Thanks for notifying me TTH) Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support because he answered all the questions with a level head. I think it was inappropriate for TTH to pose so many questions (Even given the limited earlier responses - a talk page post should've sufficed, and TTH did that as well) but I'm pleased to see that TTH is contacting neutral voters and asking them to re-evaluate. Avruchtalk 00:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. support Certainly an original approach to answering the questions, but he was right every time. a longer essays wouldnt have said it any better. TTH was right to ask the questions, of course, and I would have said support without it. if this should fail, just try again a little later. We need admins like you. DGG (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Ibaranoff24 appears to be well-intentioned and to be familiar with how things work; he is unlikely to act inappropriately. Chris.B (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, clear and concise answers to the questions, great article writer. His weak edit summary usage is a minor issue only. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per Casliber and DGG. I see absolutely no evidence in his contributions that he'd be in any way problematic. Actually a little bit disappointed in the opposes (and not just Kurt and Malleus). Yeah, look at his answers to the questions, but look at his contributions to the project too. Maybe even ask yourself if you've made as valuable of contributions as he has. --JayHenry (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support due to his handling of the utterly ridiculous amount of questions. Wizardman 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per the answers to questions not doing anything for me and per Soxred's neutral. Jack?! 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't think your ready for adminship. First, you need to provide a little bit more detailed answers to demonstrate that you have an interest in becoming an admin. Second, I didn't see much contributions to things such as WP:AIV in your edit summary. I feel that those things are necessary to become an admin, and not so much the article writing (that's merely my opinion though). Lastly, a small detail, but an important one nonetheless, I feel that your edit summary usage is way too low. All users should explain the reasons why they made the actions they did in their summaries. Consider going into your preferences and checking the box that sets a reminder for edit summaries. No hard feelings, I just feel that you're almost ready, but not quite there. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Icestorm815. Answers to questions don't prove a sufficient knowledge of policies. Rt. 21:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You Fail per above. 74.62.155.45 (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IP's can't comment. --Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They can comment, but cannot vote. the_undertow talk 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Sorry, but the answers to your questions don't really make clear how you would use the tools. Maybe more experience in AfD would be good as well and possibly more edit summary usage. Otherwise, you're almost there. Cheers, --Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Poor edit summary usage and one-line answers to questions. Sorry.   jj137 ♠ 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're assuming he's hungry for power because he nominated himself? You're assuming he has a bad motive. You're assuming he's asking for adminship in bad faith. That violates WP:AGF, and is totally inappropriate. You are entitled to vote any way you want, but your reason sucks. The Transhumanist 12:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let it go, it's just Kurt. No one cares about his cut-and-paste opposes but him.--Atlan (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume too much. And If I was Kurt I would find the "It's only Kurt" comment to be insulting. Actually I, for one, agree with Kurt's opposition to self-nominations, for exactly the same reason that he does. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are easily insulted. Anyway, my point with "it's just Kurt" was that Kurt uses this rationale on all self noms and there's really no need to get worked up about it every single time.--Atlan (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ...as if we should expect anything different from Mr. “I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger.” Bah, humbug! —Travistalk 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... I view "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger." as prima facie evidence of someone who can't get himself adminship with a self-nom. Dreamafter Talk 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You will notice that that was over two years ago, and I only began categorically opposing self-noms about six months ago. Heaven forbid someone might change his mind over the course of a year and a half or so. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an unneeded bad-faith jibe which should be stricken, Dreamafter. Daniel 01:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant it only as a joke. I am truly sorry if it offended anyone, especially you, Daniel, and you Kurt. Dreamafter \*/ 01:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to think carefully about your "jokes" in future, because that didn't look to to me like a "joke" at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurt's entitled to his oppose and his reasoning, there's no point having this heated discussion about it every time. Nick mallory (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite. He's got his knee-jerk universal response, which takes all of four seconds of thought for each candidate, and that's the way it goes. Possibly someone could explain to me what makes this more objectionable than anyone else's four second flat, knee-jerk hobby horse (not enough edit summaries! not active enough in AN/I! not enough interest in XfD! not enough mainspace/talkspace contribs! answers to the questions too wordy! answers to the questions not wordy enough!).  RGTraynor  08:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too would be interested in an explanation.  :) --Iamunknown 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the perennial debate - I think I'll take this opportunity to give my thoughts on the issue. First of all, Mr Weber is entitled to vote however he wishes on an RfA, provided that he is acting in good faith and can back up his opinion with a rationale, which he has done. Other editors will read his rationale and judge it, and if they believe it to be a meritorious argument, it will influence their vote; if they believe it to be specious, then it will not influence their vote. This is part of how a democratic process works; different arguments are presented to the electorate, who then weigh up the arguments and vote according to their individual judgment.
    However, the argument itself (regarding self-noms), although backed up with sound reasoning, is essentially wrong IMO. Yes, in an ideal world, positions of power would be filled only by those who did not seek power, but accepted it for the good of the community. However, the real world shows that such people are few and far between. Power cannot be restricted to those who do not desire it (as many are wholly unsuited to it), so we must accept that some people will seek power and receive it. In the real world, we hold this in check via democracy and constitutionalism; no individual, however noble his intentions, may accumulate too much personal power. On Wikipedia, exactly the same principle applies. Not everyone wants to be an admin, and some people, even long-term editors, are not suited to the responsibility of adminship. It would be ideal if all admins were like Cincinnatus, and reluctantly accepted power which was thrust upon them; however, we are a volunteer project and the supply of such people is not endless. So we must accept that some people will seek the "power" of adminship and will receive it; and we must hold this process in check, not by rejecting all self-noms, but by ensuring that the power wielded by admins is limited (as indeed it is) and that admins are held to account by the community (which is the area in which, IMO, we need to improve). WaltonOne 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Sampling the nom's contributions to the mainspace, I do not find enough sourcing of the information put forward - much of the editing appears to be based on personal knowledge of the subjects. If I missed consistent sourcing by the nom, please provide us with a handful, or two handfuls, of articles showing the opposite, so I can re-consider. Thank you. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, he has something like three featured articles. He's added lots of references to Wikipedia. 24.64.165.129 (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose You're lacking in communication skills, and I believe communication is a vital part of Wikipedia. Also, your edit summary usage is less than ideal. Please consider addressing these and other concerns. Thanks! Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I was working on other things and too busy to respond. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  10. Oppose. Answer to my question about edit summaries demonstrates that this editor is not ready yet. Ibaranoff, please read the comments made by another editor after your answer to my question below. Unschool (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, as per Kurt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per all above (except Kurt), communication and lack of participation in process and policy fora appear to be major issues. Answers to questions are extremely weak, to boot. --Coredesat 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Your article work is great, but the lack of strong answers to the questions are worrying. Also, the lack edit summary usage with the reason: "Because I often don't need them" [1] - is a concern. You should know (Transhumanist explained this below that comment) that they're for other contributors use aswell. I'm sorry but I cannot support at this time. ScarianCall me Pat 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, for several reasons. I'm bothered about both the lack of edit summaries and the lack of understanding that they are to help other editors. The all-too-brief answers to the above questions led me to this editor's talk page, where I'm not seeing good communication. (The minute you pick up the mop, there will be a need to communicate, especially to people who don't understand or who disagree with whatever action taken, no matter how uncontroversial). And the block for edit warring is also a (minor) concern. Granted, it was over six months ago, which is what makes it minor to me, but it amplifies my concerns about communication. Perhaps after a few months work on communication? --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Per icestorm, and his answer to question 4. RuneWiki777 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Fabrictramp. Pretty much says it all there. -Djsasso (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose not suitable, per above. miranda 06:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, regretfully. Too many concerns have been expressed above for me to support this request. I suggest working on the points expressed by the contributors to this discussion, and trying again after you have some more experience under your belt. Anthøny 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per everything. Changed to oppose. Dreamafter \*/ 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose The answers you gave aren't good enough, also per icestorm. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak answers, especially Q16. east.718 at 23:43, December 28, 2007
  22. Oppose: Changed from neutral. The answers you provided were very weak and vague at best, and some of your attitudes concern me. With answers to the edit summary issue being, "...I see it as a bit of a chore..." and generalizations to administrator issues, I don't see a pressing need for the RFA to pass at the moment. Not without some serious improvements. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - sorry, you haven't convinced me that you are ready to be an admin yet. I thought the answers to Q12 and Q16 were not very convincing. EJF (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per answer to Q16. Corvus cornixtalk 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose I have good faith in you, but the brief answers to the questions do not convince me. Reywas92Talk 03:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Even though you have quite good edits, 25% edit summary usage and not as specific as could be on answering questions bumps my decision to Neutral. Soxred93 has a boring sig 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral While the questions are optional, if you're going to give one-liner answers you need to sell yourself in the essay. While there's nothing in your edit history I can see to oppose on, the combination of the lack of answers and the edit summary usage don't give me enough to support on. If you expand the answers and/or statement, I could be swung to support on this one. — iridescent 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I agree with the above, so I can't support, but I won't oppose this. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Pretty weak answers to questions, and edit summary usage. Jmlk17 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest perhaps trying a coach. Jmlk17 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, not the most convincing answers to the questions, and as above, weak edit summary usage. Admins need to be able to communicate well, and I'm not sure you can do that. I second the suggestion of finding a coach, because otherwise you seem a pretty solid editor. Lankiveil (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Neutral. Per the oppose section. Won't oppose you for that, however. Think it through a little more next time, sorry. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Good editor, but poor edit summaries and answers to questions 2 and 3 are a concern. I can't decide whether to support or oppose. But I will support if you improve your edit summaries. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral to avoid pile-on the oppose. I would suggest nomination withdrawal per SNOW. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty of time left. We should wait to see his answers to the questions. The Transhumanist 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, (change to Oppose, per answer to question) with a question. Why is your use of edit summaries so low? Unschool (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment — Because I often don't need them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - but they aren't just for you. They are a courtesy for other users. So we don't have to delve into each of your contribs to see what you've done. Ironically, blank edit summaries make it especially difficult to evaluate a candidate for adminship. I for one would feel better if you pledged above (under my nom) that you will fill in edit summaries from now on, and then started doing so immediately. Admins especially, are expected to fill them in. One of the main things candidates are judged on at RfAs is admin-like behavior. That includes participation in and closing XfDs, reverting and reporting vandalism, resolving disputes and maintaining composure at all times, filling in edit summaries, etc. And everything you do at your RfA - you are being critiqued as if you were already an acting admin. RfA's are kind of a test, complete with a trap or two, because if you accept the nomination (and it is transcluded) before you've answered the questions, you may be opposed for not answering them. That type of thing should really be explained in the nomination instructions, but even so an admin already knows this stuff, and so some may assume that if you are ready for adminship, you should know this stuff too. People can change their votes, and might do so if you convince them in your answers to the optional questions above that you understand Wikipedia and know what it takes to be an admin. Good luck. The Transhumanist 13:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I suspect this editor could do just fine as an administrator. However he likely needs a little polishing to pass muster here. Could I suggest you take a month or two, delve deeply into the Administrator functions; begin to use edit summaries always and monitor AfD to learn the usual conventions here. I'd be happy to support then. We do appreciate your good edits so far and your desire to help more. -JodyB talk 13:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Pretty much poer JodyB: well on the way there, good editor; start taking more part in the policy-based parts of Wikipedia, polish up those answers to the "optional" questions, more usage of edit summaries, and next time... BLACKKITE 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I see some good edits, but for me to support, I prefer to see an edit summary usage of 100% on major edits. I would also be more convinced if there were more edits to administrative areas. I see a good job on requested moves, and the moves in general. You don't however, convince me that you have enough knowledge of policy and guidelines just yet. If you dazzle me with the answers to the optional questions, I may still switch to support, though I don't think it would be bad for you to postpone the request for the tools for a while, untill you are a little deeper entreched in the Wikipedia community. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral User appears to be afraid of any major communication, as shown in usage of edit summaries and just in the question responses (or lack thereof). The quality of edits is not particularly negative, but the lack of communication pushes this into a neutral vote. PeteShanosky 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment I appreciate TTH's dedication to making sure the vote is conducted properly, and I respect his additional questions and talk page messages to notify those of the update. Regardless, my vote stands. For whatever reason, I just can't seem to get around it. PeteShanosky 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral, leaning towards oppose Good user, but a low use of edit summaries and short answers to not inspire confidence. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - The edits summaries, to be short. Otherwise, a very good user.Mitch32contribs 00:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: Outside of the edit summary issue, which is quite important to other editors, there are not as many WP-namespace edits as I would like to see. Most are related to GA, FA or AFD nominations, whereas an admin needs variety throughout preferably. The edits you have made thus far are not overly negative but I don't think that you are prepped yet for adminship. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose. See above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I'm not too convinced of his competence, but he still seems to be a good editor, though. Maybe later. Changed vote to opposeS♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 00:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral leaning towards Oppose - seems like a good faith editor, but the concerns raised trouble me. Jauerback (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral. Sorry, concerns raised by others lead me to ask you to come back in two months' time. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Answer to Q3 and especially Q4 concern me. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2007 (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