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

Izzy007[edit]

(23/24/9); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 21:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy007 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing on Wikipedia for over a year now, and have over 3,000 edits. I have tryed to increase my use of edit summaries lately, since my last failed RfA. I have also been participating in the deletion process. I, like everyone have made several mistakes, all of which can be view on my talk page. I have tried to be the best editior that I can be here. Izzy007 Talk 20:07, 25 May 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: Over the last few months I have taken an interest in the deletion process, mainly AfD. I have also tagged several new articles with speedy deletion tags and notified the users who created the articles. Mainly, I would like to participate in the deletion process. I have been participating in AfD's lately, and have really started to take an understanding to the entire process.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions have been to different music related articles (instruments, albums, artists, etc.). I feel that I really edit by what my hobbies are, as I am very interested in music. I also try to revert as much vandalism as I can find. I try to patrol new pages whenever I get a chance and mark any articles which shouldn't be on Wikipedia such as vandalism, spam, or personal attacks, with a speedy deletion tag. Those are my best contributions.


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: Luckily, I have not been involved in any editing conflicts throughout my time on Wikipedia. When I first started editing on Wikipedia, I messed up a few times, which can be view on my talk page. When other users told me, it did cause me stress thinking that I had messed up big time, however I did finally come out of my shell and realized that everyone makes mistakes every now and then. I usually dealt with this stress by just stepping away from my computer for a few minutes and calming down, and then talking to the user to see what I did wrong ('Mass Welcomes' on my talk page shows this). I feel that if I was ever in an editing conflict I would do the same thing, calm down, and then talk to the user and try to work it out.

Optional Questions from Legoktm

4. Will you add yourself to CAT:AOR? Explain
A: Yes, I would add myself there. I feel that if I am not using the tools for the right reasons, I should have to give up my admin privileges. I think that an established user should be able to say something and let other users know what I am doing wrong.
5. Do you feel that the "optional" questions being asked on RFAs are really optional? Explain.
A: No, I do not feel like these questions are "optional". I feel that these questions really should be answered by the user so that the people who support or oppose their adminship can get to know what the possible admin stands for and see if they think that the user would make a good admin.

Optional questions from TravisTX

6. When patrolling speedy deletion nominations, I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. Has each article been tagged correctly? If not, please explain how you would handle it. (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)
a. Sam Jones
A: This article is tagged as patent nonsense while, if I am correct, it should be tagged as ((db-bio)), because the article is about a real person, but is not notable. I would re-tag it with the correct tag. I would also go to the user's talkpage and replace the incorrect notification with a correct one.
b. Rob smith
A: This article is also tagged incorrectly, it is an attack article. It should have the ((db-attack)) tag on it. I would also re-tag this article. I would also go to the user's talkpage and replace the incorrect notification with a correct one.
c. Aliens on earth
A: I feel that this article is tagged correctly (as patent nonsense).
Followup Please quote the portion of WP:NONSENSE pertinent to this case.
"Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever."
While I agree that the writing is somewhat confusing, it does not qualify as patent nonsense. Note that the Not to be confused with... section specifically exempts:
  • Poorly written content that can be improved
  • Incompetent and/or immature material
  • Text translated or written by someone who is not a native English speaker
This article could fall into either of these categories. —Travistalk 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very subtle point; it is pretty nonsensical to me even if the words are (mostly) readable. An analysis of this article reveals the following: 2 paragraphs on alien life, including a mention of ET, a fictional character created here on earth (as far as we know), 1 about the hydrossphere (sic), 3 about earthquakes, and a final paragraph about dinosaurs, which admittedly appeared in the first paragraph also, but...the connection is tenuous at best. So, while it represents bad writing, I am not sure by what grounds this article might be improved. Is it really an article about aliens (real or fictional), the hydrosphere, earthquakes (modern or prehistoric), or dinosaurs? Are you suggesting that some other CSD criterion is a better fit (perhaps WP:CSD#A1), or perhaps that it is really not a candidate for WP:CSD at all?  Frank  |  talk  18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the article meets none of the CSD, and should be PRODed instead. —Travistalk 19:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete that as patent nonsense. In fact I was moving my pointer onto the delete button, until I glanced upwards and saw it was in userspace! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from RyRy5

7. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A: I would first warn the editors by placing a warning on the IPs talk page. If they keep vandalizing Wikipedia, I believe that they should be blocked, expecially if the account is ONLY used for vandalism. If this is not possible, it might be a good idea to semi-protect the article.
8. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A: If the admin account starts vandalizing, I would first warn the user of their vandalism. If the vandalism continues after several warnings, like all users, the admin account should be blocked. Just because it is an admin account, I don't believe that it should recieve any special treatment.

Questions from The Transhumanist:

Q9: Why do you believe you would make a good admin?
A: I believe that I would make a good admin because I have had experience, good and bad, and that I have learned from my mistakes. I also believe that I would be a good admin because I really think I could help Wikipedia, whether it involves blocking vandal accounts, editing mistakes on protected pages, or just deleting stuff like personal attack pages. I also believe that my experiences on wikipedia will help me become a good administrator.
Q10: What are your wikiphilosophies?
A: There are many "philosophies" that I agree with on this page. Communalism is one that I agree on. I believe that no article is "owned" or "authored" by anyone. Each article is an effort of the Wikipedia community and should be that way. Moderate immediatism is also another one that I agree with, I am not a fan of bad grammar and try to fix it or revert it whenever I find it. I also believe that major edits should be formulated in a sandbox, as to not mess up the articles. When the major edit is good, it could be moved to the article.

I highly disagree with Article raters, it doesn't matter if it is a featured article or a stub. If something is vandalized it should be reverted as soon as possible.

Q11: What's Wikipedia's biggest problem, and what do you intend to do about it?
A: I believe that Wikipedia's main problem is that a lot of people do not believe in it's accuracy due to everybody being able to edit it. I believe that the only way to solve this problem is checking for vandalism often and also adding reliable sources to evry article. That way the information could quickly be varified.
Q12: A user emails you that another user (under a pseudonym) stated in a reverted edit on her user page that she intends to commit suicide. You check the edit, and it's there - she wrote it, then immediately reverted it. Then there are no more edits after that from her, period. What would you do?
A: This is definitely the hardest question that I have recieved so far. First I would try to contact the user through e-mail. If that doesn't work, I wouldn't really be sure what to do. Possibly contact local authorities. This is one of those situations that I believe that you really wouldn't know how to deal with it until it happens.
How would you contact the local authorities in her area?
The only way I could think of doing this would be to look up the number to the local police department.
How would you determine where she lives? Her IP isn't displayed on Wikipedia, because she operated under a user account (aka, a pseudonym). The Transhumanist 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Optional question from Filll
13. Please answer two of the eight AGF Challenge 2 exercises found here. Directions are here. Post a link to your answers here so that people can peruse them.

How long is yours? - I think that Wikipedia should keep the length at 75 minutes. This is referenced on several other sites, while the one editor "claims" that he has one that is 51 minutes in length. While it may not be fair, Wikipedia must choose the correct way to go about things, in this case, references. Amazon.com would be the reference in this case, because the site can be referenced. The editor can not be referenced, due to him just "claiming" that his is 51. No one should be allowed to add false, unreferenced material to Wikipedia. It does not belong in the encyclopedia if it can not be referenced. I do not believe it is a violation of WP:IAR to require a source for this editor's claim of 51 minutes, as it may not even be true. Wikipedia editors should spend as much time needed to either prove this or find a reference for it.

No original research! - I analyze this situation as a threat towards AppleButtEr. RunOff has threatened the user by threatening to block AppleButtEr, which isn't right. I agree that the best idea would be to convert the numbers into percentages, as this would not not be against WP:OR as long as it is referenced. I don't think that this would violation of WP:SYNTH. ApplebuttEr should report this admin.

COMMENT: We've been down this road before and the AGF Challenge questions were not well received here at RfA. As the answers have already been answered, I would ask people to be mindful of past experiences here at RfA with these questions... which have more traps than an Indiana Jones movie.Balloonman (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC) NOTE: These questions are being discussed on the WT:RFA page[reply]


Optional question from davidwr
Note: Questions 14 and 15 were added 3 days into the process, on 18:02, 30 May 2008.
14) Do you want to be an administrator primarily so you can use the admin tools? If so, what would you be using them for now that you can't because you do not have access to them? What tools open to all users are you already familiar with, e.g. AWB, Rollback, etc. Do you regularly engage in custodian-type tasks like recent-change patrol, new-article-patrol, etc.? Your answers may prompt follow-on questions by me and others.

Yes, the tools are a major part of being an admin. I would use these tools to help Wikipedia, such as the article deletion tool. I would like to become more active in the deletion process, as stated above. I would also use these tools to block vandals, and, if needed, protect pages. I'm not familiar with many tools that are open to all users, as 99% of my edits are manual.


15) Do you want to be an administrator primarily so you can participate in administrative forums like the mailing list and the IRC channels? If so, what similar Wikipedia forums do you already participate in, e.g. IRC, the english mailing list, Wikipedia: discussion forums, etc.? If there are logs of your participation, please post them. Your answers may prompt follow-on questions by me and others.

No, I currently do not participate in any administrative forums, but it is something that I would like to look into.

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Izzy007 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

I have to say i agree. While Support/Oppose is about neck-and-neck, 75% upwards is normally required for a successful nomination. I'm afraid i cant see this getting through. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the argument is over the right for him to see it through. I think the main reasoning is 1) pending a massive influx of attention the candidate is unlikely to be successful and 2)Since new oppose/support votes have waned considerably this is unlikely to happen. Ironholds (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support. You seem like a good editor to me. You've been here over a year, and you've learned from your early mistakes. Your talk page has stayed relatively clean in the last few months. I don't see any problems ini Afd either, and after looking through Wisdom's diffs, I found that you "had it right" several times. I had no problem with your "rationales" as many times the rationales that you've given ended up being what consensus showed to be correct. (and not always delete either -- you !voted keep too, and articles were deleted). Glad to support, good luck! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral support You have had your issues and mistakes, but it appears that you've learned from them. Everybody makes mistakes, but from what I can tell you've shown generally good contributions (although I havn't looked past a few hundred). Some of those AfD diffs make concern me just slightly, but the majority of the time your !votes are perfectly legitimate and correct. You seem to have a good balance of edits, with roughly half of them in the mainspace. More Wikipedia edits would never hurt, as I see you only have a couple hundred. I noticed, however, that you seem to dissipear from editing for several days without notice, so as an admin I recommend you either keep a steady stream of edits, or add an away notice to your userpage. Good luck, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Like Keeper said, most of your Afd work (as shown by Wisdom) seems to be spot-on. Considering adminship is no big deal, I can't think of a legitimate reason to oppose. Except, of course, the fact that you listen to The Who. But, like I said, legitamate.--Koji†Dude (C) 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This Comment is semi-directed at Keeper as well. I don't normally respond to support comments, but I just wanted to clarify something. With regards to the diffs I provided (and others that are similar, but did not reveal), the problem isn't with the outcome of the deletion debate, or whether or not the candidate's !vote in the AfD was correct. The bottom line is this, AfDs are discussions not votes, so most of the time the importance lies in what you say and how you say it. A user who works almost exclusively in AfD (and indicates that they wish to concentrate in this area as an admin) should should exhibit exemplary judgment. While comments such as "Who cares?" and "per the above" and "seems notable/non-notable" may ultimately match the consensus, it does not demonstrate the necessary grasp of policy. It also undermines the importance of AfD. Arriving late to a discussion is not an excuse. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I agree with you 100% when you say that it is a discussion, and not votes. I am just trying to speak my opinion on the article in AfD. I will admit that the "Who cares?" could've been stated a little better, sorry! Izzy007 Talk 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support I believe that you've learned from your mistakes, and I don't think that you'll misuse the tools. The low amount of Wikipedia-space and user-talk edits is a little concerning, but I don't think that it will affect you as an admin. — Wenli (reply here) 00:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support while I feel a more concerted effort resulting in a GA at least would have been helpful, I see no actual deal-breakers suggesting the candidate would be a net negative. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. I don't see any major reasons I shouldn't support you, and adminship really is no big deal.   jj137 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My personal opinion on this contributor is that, from what I see, he is somewhat of a deletionist - to me, that's fully acceptable, so long as he follows the guidelines outlined at WP:CONSENSUS. Also, other than that, I don't personally see a lot of reason to oppose this contributor, who seems perfectly trustworthy and experienced. Valtoras (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, no reason to believe that this user would maliciously abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. Weak Support -- The user seems to have done some great article space work and there is no reason to believe the user would abuse the tools. Good luck. --Cameron (T|C) 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support due to no negative interations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - You seem to be doing good, and I'm sure you'll be better prepared for your next RfA, just get some more experience. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Appears to be a qualified editor who would do a fine job here. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Seems to be a good addition as far as I can tell. Per above, good luck. Teh Rote (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, reasons to oppose are overblown and do not indicate user would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral Support One must evaluate two things in an RFA (in my opinion), would admin rights assist the user in his/her duties and can the user be trusted, Ive seen enough not to indicate otherwise -- Prom3th3an (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Very weak support: I can see no evidence that you will deliberately misuse the tools, but I recommend reading up on policy before you use them (should they be granted to you)...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support to spite all the opposers. Screw them. Opposers, I DARE YOU to remove this vote. GO AHEAD AND TRY. MessedRocker (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, You're a very prideful editor and you are on your way up to your highest performance! WikiZorrosign 16:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, Nothing wrong with self-noms :-) Prima Facist (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note:This editor has no other edits aside from supporting this RFA.
    Other edits are coming, bear with me. Prima Facist (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has been indefinitely blocked.
  20. Weak Support I do not believe that this user would misuse or abuse the tools, but if you pass, you should probably try to get an experienced admin to be your mentor. J.delanoygabsanalyse 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. To counter nonsensical opposes. naerii - talk 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about you actually judge the candidate instead of making a useless support? Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At this stage, support is essentially useless. 86.147.110.112 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concede that this RfA is not going to pass, but there is no reason to disregard the candidate or the process by taking a sweeping swipe at users who have provided good faith opposes. It doesn't help the situation. The support was intended to prove a point. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Totally!-- Barkjon  17:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Quixotically, I offer this candidate moral support.--Bedivere (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose - You've done some good things here, but perusing your special contributions at WP:AFD, your rationales for keep or delete are typically thin, tenuous and weak. The same goes for just general project space contributions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm sorry, but these reasons show little in the way of thought or policy knowledge. You also seem to post your !vote in a drive by manner. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those diffs are indeed concerning, but I don't see anything wrong with saying "Per above" or "Per User:Example", as it is just a way of showing your opinion without rambling on redundantly to what previous participants have stated. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without making it clear precisely what you agree with in an editor's statement, it is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To agree with Julian, I try to make my argument as clear as possible if I am one of the first editiors to comment of the AfD. But, usually, I'm not one of the first and what I would have said has already been said. I will, however, try to work on this a little, thanks for letting me know! Izzy007 Talk 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not see this comment when I formulated a response. Izzy and Julian, please see my comment in the support section. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment, that whole deletion discussions to avoid page is somewhat limiting to editors. You see, it basically encompasses every deletion arguement there's ever been in some way or another. Valtoras (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a guideline or official policy, it is an essay. Please remember this. However, I do indeed agree with Wisdom and I am opposing as thus. I will quite happily write it as 'per Wisdom89', thank you very much. asenine say what? 09:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose While I believe you to be a good potential candidate, I just don't think that it is a good time now. After reviewing all of the differences that Wisdom89 provided, I concur with him and agree that they show that you do not have a good enough understanding of the policies and guidelines that all administrators need to know in order to do the job right. Another thing that is not very good is the fact that you don't combat vandalism. If you don't combat vandalism, then there is no need for the protection tool or the block tool. I would also like to see more edits to other adminly areas (like WP:MFD, or the talk page of your favorite policy pages, because it looks like the only admin-related Wikipedia namespace page that you edit is the WP:AFD page. Razorflame 21:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose. Some of the diffs Wisdom89 found were concerning, especially the first one. Another thing that concerns me is your lack of communication with other editors. You only have 40 edits to User Talk this year, most of which were templates. Good communication is a very important trait in an administrator. I don't mind you having a focus at AFD, in fact, having a focus is a good thing, but I'd like to see a little more experience there. One minor point, no pun intended, is that you don't ever mark your edits as minor, such as removing an underscore, and adding a period. You have a lot of excellent mainspace experience, which is a super big plus in my book and you have begun using edit summaries, so you're definitely close. As an interesting side note, you and I both created our accounts in the same month, so we're both "Class of December 2006" or whatever it would be called. Useight (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Very deletion-heavy editor, no work on article improvement. Rather than so much "Yeah, go ahead and delete it", I'd like to see some "Well, we should really keep this, this is how it can be improved". Celarnor Talk to me 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Still lacking enough experience since last RFA, not sure user is experienced enough in policy to properly implement tools available as admin. Perhaps a bit more time, and an adoption by an experienced admin may help. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. STRONG Oppose In three of the past five months he has made fewer than 50 contributions per month. That means that only in two months this has has he made more than 100 edits. These are the same months that we are reviewing to see if he's made a significant improvement since his past RfA which Snowed? Almost all of his edits to the Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk space are on music related Wikiprojects---and even that isn't too extensive. He's made a total of 29 edits on his own User Talk space, and the next person to whom he has talked the most is at 6. Since January his TOTAL number of comments on User Talk (including his own) is less than 50! Which means that I got to review ALL of them... the only ones which weren't templates are an apology for putting a tag on an innocent person's talk page a message whose total content is "thanks" another mistake apology another apology message a response to a helpme template follow-up on helpme. In other words, his total non-template user talk amounts to 6 edits---three of which are apologies for templating/warning people wrongly. During the same time period, he has made fewer than fifty edits to the general talk space. Most of those have been in the past two weeks where he was simply tagging articles with a wikiproject tag. How about contributions to wikipedia talk? He's made a total of 3 contributions to Wikipedia talk since January---and all of those are to announce a new task force he set up. So how about the Wikipedia space? there he has almost 100 edits since January. About 20 of those are on his RfA's and 15 on his task force. The remainder are on AfDs... so that's about 50 AFD's he's contributed to since January. Of those 50 or so AFD's Wisdom found how many that were "per above/nom?" There is zero indication of policy knowledge, zero indication of collaboration, zero evidence that he can work well with other. I can't see any reason to say that this candidate has improved much since his last RfA was snowed... about the only difference that I see is that we would be citing WP:NOTNOW instead of SNOW.Balloonman (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me if this isn't relevant, but consider: Which is worse? Finding apology posts, thus indicating mistakes were made? Or not finding apology posts? I know it's only an aspect of the whole, but that's something to contemplate for a moment. - Vianello (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The apology notes are fine, but they are indicators of a few things. First, he has made relatively few edit to require 3 KNOWN mistakes. How many more errors are out there, that are unknown mistakes? I expect errors from people who tag a lot of articles, but he has a lot for as few as he's tagged. Generally, you would expect to see somebody apologizing after 100+ tags, not 3 apologies for about 35 tags. That's a lot for as little work as was done---huge warning bell that candidate may be a little careless or jump the gun. Second, 3 of 6 non-template messages are apologies for errors. The fact remains that since January 2008, he has only made 6 non-template messages on talk spaces (his own or others.) SIX in 5 months. This MIGHT be overlooked if he had a track record of working with others elsewhere, but he doesn't. Sorry, but my strong oppose still stands.Balloonman (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, low level of edits to the Wikipedia namespace (and others) indicates likely lack of policy knowledge (and general experience). Stifle (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose - Per Wisdom89. asenine say what? 09:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak oppose - I hate doing this, as you've done some stellar article building. I was going to repel Balloonman's comment about the talkpage participation, as your edit count would indicate you do what a lot of users do & reply to comments on your own talkpage, but that is not the case. I would love to support, but apparant inexperience in the Wikipedia-space & a so far minimal interaction with other users means I can't support yet. Just work on these pointers and you should be ready. Try again in a few months. With the very best of wishes, Lradrama 10:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I do not believe that you yet have the required experience to take on this role. However, if you keep working at it, improve your level of participation in the Wikipedia: namespace, and demonstrate better understanding of policy and protocol, you may just pass an RfA in a few months time. For now, however, I recommend withdrawal, as this RfA has little to no chance of success. Best of luck, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. You've made some nice article contributions but, as per my usual opinion, article building does not necessarily make a good admin. Your contributions to the Wikipedia: namespace seem to be mostly made up of drive-by !votes to AfDs with minimal thought or discussion, I just don't see much evidence of real understanding of policy, particularly considering you stated AfD as a particular area of admin interest. More thoughtful contributions to AfD and some other aspects of the project namespace and I'll happily support in a future RfA! ~ mazca talk 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per poor answers to the questions- particularly, you do not seem to understand what 'patent nonsense' is, you may want to reread that. Your answer to question seven bugs me a little- maybe I'm just not reading what you intended to say, but it seems to me like your knowledge of the blocking policy is pretty weak. Also, question 8 gives the impression you would send template warning messages to an experienced user, something I cannot support. Low discussion rates (not template messages) combined with low recent editing rates are also a cause for concern. Apologies if it seems I am just listing reasons to oppose you- I am trying to offer constructive criticism. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, after all this time, you're still making implicit personal attacks on users with no substantive basis? --Rory096 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this goes any further, I would like to point out this excellent essay: User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On Kurt and RfA —Travistalk 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That everyone disagrees with him isn't a valid reason to say people can't do it publicly. --Rory096 00:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that arguing against his opinion is, well, pointless. Kurt, like the rest of us, is entitled to his opinion. —Travistalk 01:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I missed something, RfA is still, technically at least, a discussion. Opposing views, therefore, are allowed to be expressed. --Rory096 01:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you get a headache digging that deep for something to take offense to, Rory? I'm just curious... --Badger Drink (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Digging that deep? It was an oppose on an RfA I was commenting on, it's hardly something I searched for hours to find. If anyone's digging deep to find something to take offense to it's the people who scrutinize every edit a candidate's ever taken to give them an excuse to oppose. --Rory096 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The deep digging I refer to is the neural massaging that I assume is required to turn Kurt's statement into a offense-causing personal attack. With enough neural massaging, this dude seems like a prophet - a pretty good example of how people seem skilled at finding whatever sort of implicit meaning they're looking for in any given statement. --Badger Drink (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose - While I don’t think that the candidate would abuse the tools, I would like to see a bit more experience in admin-related areas before supporting. —Travistalk 00:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Due to inexperience and poor skills in deletion related pages. I'm also concerned with the candidate's view regarding CSD's. I suggest an improvement deletion skills and contributions to the other XfD's after this RfA.--Lenticel (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - Inexperienced. 3000 edits, yes, but for an admin candidate that isn't anything special, especially when you see that only 1400-odd individual pages have actually been edited. I'm also quite worried about the answers to the optional questions; most of the comments and "what i'd do as an admin" seems to be CSD/AFD based; a bit narrow. Admins should diversify, not focus too much on a particular section. AFD reasoning also seems a bit weak; not something you really want from someone who, if made an admin, would be closing the discussion as well as commenting. From question seven your knowledge of blocking policy also seems a bit iffy, so i'm afraid i'll have to go for oppose. Sorry if i sound too damning; you've made some excellent contributions. My advice would be to read through the comments here and institute any suggested changes, similar to what you did with your first nomination. Then give it some time before you apply again. It's probably best to wait till you're nominated by someone else (that's what i'm planning to do) since if there is another editor who has an NPOV view of my contributions and finds them worthy enough for me to be admin-material, it's less likely to be shot down in flames. Again, sorry if i sound damning. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, per Balloonman who presents a well versed and coherent argument. I'd also like to point out that I closed the first RfA Izzy had in February and since that time I don't see reasonable improvement to an administrator standard. Rudget (Help?) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose: "I believe that Wikipedia's main problem is that a lot of people do not believe in it's accuracy due to everybody being able to edit it." He has four spelling and grammar errors in his nominating paragraph, too. My reason is basic: I can never support an admin candidate who lacks a sound command of the English language.  RGTraynor  17:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I'm glad you weren't around during my rfa ;-) Balloonman (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt. Typos happen, but anyone in a position of authority on Wikipedia has to be skilled at using the language. This isn't Myspace, it isn't a bulletin board, it isn't a chatroom; it's an encyclopedia.  RGTraynor  18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Sorry about the typos. I take typing and grammar very seriously, I am very sorry about the typos. I guess I should have proofread it a few more times! Izzy007 Talk 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as any other problem, if you're not taking pains to proofread (or get right in the first place) statements with which you're trying to impress people enough to give you the mop, why would we assume you'd be any more careful over routine admin tasks?  RGTraynor  19:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC
    Perhaps because adminship is no big deal? (At least that's what everyone keeps telling me.) --Rory096 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - I see little to no improvement from his previous RfA and that shows a lack of willingness to listen to the community and change appropriately which is something I look for in a candidate. Also per Ballonman. Tiptoety talk 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Tiptoety. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  02:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong oppose My own check agrees with Balloonman's very clear synopsis. I'm sorry Izzy but you are simply not even close to ready at this stage.--VS talk 06:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose with reluctance. Clearly has the potential to be an admin, but not yet ready.--Poetlister (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak oppose. I just don't see any reason to think this person is ready to be an admin. Doczilla STOMP! 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - You have made definite positive contributions to the project. I'd like to see a little more experience, though. For example, these four new articles don't seem to me to be what we'd expect an admin to be creating: [10] [11] [12] [13] In order to be a good admin, I think you need to have a good grasp of what makes a good article and what sources are appropriate (and not). I'm not saying they are bad articles or bad topics to have an article about, but I do think that some editors might tag them due to lack of reliable sources, or in the case of the Stella and the Fender Amps, lack of any sources at all. It seems a little puzzling that you'd want to spend time in AfD and yet you're creating articles that might be tagged pretty quickly for other issues, or even end up in AfD themselves. (These are not automatic candidates for deletion, in my opinion...just not what we'd expect an admin to create.) I'd say stick around and try again in a bit.  Frank  |  talk  02:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I can see the points raised by both camps, and neither have been able to sway my own indecision arising from my review (good dedicated application on geetah related subjects, worrying number of copyvio warnings). I look forward to re-appraising your application in a few months time, when the good should outweigh the old worries. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral( with weak oppose inclination) - Your arguments for AFD is definitely very weak and personally I feel that you are not mature enough to have the final say in closing AFDs. Definitely needs lots of experience both on admin related tasks and article improvements. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This editor is right at the borderline of my standards. Try again soon. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Avoiding-the-pileon neutral. Wouldn't misuse the tools, rather would not know how and when to use them. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I delayed my decision on this one, but I still am going neutral. I think that in 5 months or so, you will have enough experience to make a great admin. In about two months, I'd file a request at WP:ADCO. Happy editing, Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Not right now. Your intentions are well-placed, but I just don't feel comfortable supporting. As I believe that you might be on the right track, I am not opposing. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Like InDeBiz1, I think this is a case of Not right now. My comment is not an oppose. I think your willingness to help is good, but that you could consider taking on board some of the concerns expressed in the various views given here, act on them, and come back with more experience in a few months time. Showing that you have listened and learned will be a point very much in your favour, and I'm sure you will do better. During this period, always have in your mind "Have my actions benefited wikipedia?" and refer to the various guidelines and policies to help you decide when in doubt, because they give some standard kinds of behaviour that normally will benefit wikipedia if they are folllowed (but there may be exceptions to this in certain specific circumstances). Make sure you are always open to learning, and show evidence that you have, and I think you will succeed. Good luck in the future.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Right attitude, enthusiasm can't be faulted, but as yet, a little short of experience in mainspace. If this nom were a little further down the line, difficult to oppose, but as yet, sorry, not quite ready. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 31 May 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