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

Mastrchf91[edit]

Final: (23/18/3); ended 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) - I'd like to nominate Mastrchf91 for adminship. Although he joined us in December 2006, he really got going at about December 2007. From that time to now, some five months later, he's had more than 3000 edits, many having to do with the improvement of articles about The Office. In fact, he is an triple crown winner, with 2 featured lists, 3 GAs, and 2 DYKs to his credit. From my experience with him, detailed here, I believe he is also knowledgeable and mature enough to receive the tools and use them well.

A final comment that deals with this RFA: I've lately seen a trend in which people oppose an RFA candidate solely because they believe or participate in something they don't like or approve of (e.g. admin coaching). First of all, this does not demonstrate anything about the merit of the candidate, it is opposing just to make a point. Moreover, it does not give any constructive criticism to the candidate for them to improve on; it only teaches them they have to kiss up to you in order to get your support. I expect everyone to be courteous. The last two RFAs I started saw flames and disruption, and I do not want the same to happen in this RFA. bibliomaniac15 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I feel honored to be nominated, and I accept. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:39, 14 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: As stated in my nomination, I have a great deal of work associated with creating and building the articles pertaining to The Office, particularly the United States version. My focus is primarily based upon article writing, with a secondary basis in vandalism work. If given the tools, I don't expect this to change dramatically, but I would focus more of my time in the areas of WP:AIV and WP:CSD. Having the tools would assist my efforts, where instead of having to pass a chore to another admin, I could accomplish the task myself.
If given the tools, though, I don't know of any area where I wouldn't assist as long as I have the proper expertise in the subject. I feel that being granted adminship gives the user an obligation to learn all areas, and I feel that one of the first areas that I would begin to contribute in, aside from the areas I've already stated, would be with DYKs. In just the last few weeks, I've become intrigued and interested in the work of DYKs, and while I can't say that I have much knowledge or experience of the process, a greater amount of upcoming free time will surely give me an opportunity to learn about the process, giving me another area in which I could help the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: As I stated before, my primary area of focus is article creating and writing. My contributions to The Office have certainly been my best contributions to the project. A few months ago, I ran across Wikipedia:Wikiproject The Office (US), which at the time was inactive. Realizing the benefit that could come to the Office articles by having an active main focus point, I activated the project, and since then have been significantly contributing to the articles under its focus. I have authored two featured lists, The Office (U.S. season 3) and The Office (U.S. season 1), and three good articles, Pilot (The Office), Diversity Day, and most recently Branch Wars, all since the reactivation of the project.
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: My earliest conflict occurred very early in my Wikipedia career, in the spring of 2007, with User:Montco, when the majority of my work was focused on vandal fighting. Montco had deleted a large amount of text, giving the edit summary "rv copyvio". I, being an eager Wikipedian, saw the large red number in the recent changes log, and a rather un-descriptive edit summary, grew suspicious, and eventually reverted it, which led to a small discussion between the two of us. I eventually discovered that while the copyvio wasn't a blatant copyvio, it only differed from an original work by only a few minor points. The discussion eventually ended, and the experience gave me a rather harsh but worthwhile lesson on two things, to always assume good faith from those who work with the project, and to always double check sources before not only reverting something, but taking any action.
Lately, I have encountered a bit of stress with the FAR on The Office (U.S. TV series). While myself and a number of other users put in a good amount of work to keep the article at Featured status, it seemed that every time we were in sight of the finish line, its passing of FAR, another large issue would pop up that would prevent its passing. Although the FAR failed, I realized that although the article was no longer an FA, the review had benefited the article greatly, which helped to halt the stress.

Optional questions from CycloneNimrod

3. Over your time here at Wikipedia, what is the most important lesson you've learnt?
  • A: Most likely that opposing actions can almost always be handled by calm and friendly discussion. Everyone's always heard the age old "Talk it out" saying, but in Wikipedia, where tempers can flare at the drop of a hat, it has truly become apparent to me that most differences, all if all users involved act in a calm and disciplined manner, can be handled through discussion and compromise. I believe that the majority of users are here to better the project, and while there are those who are here with the intent to attempt to "possess" articles, if those involved in a dispute are from the former, any dispute can be solved which will eventually result in the benefit of the project.
4. Can you tell me what procedures you would follow if user Fengin354673 requested that you:
  • 4a. Need to block a certain user?
  • A: I'd first check to make sure that the reporting user wasn't involved in a personal dispute with the other user, and was attempting to get the other user blocked because of the dispute. As long as this wasn't the case, I'd make sure that the user warranted the block through measures that weren't part of a dispute. If the user had been a new user and disruptive, but hadn't been warned, I wouldn't block, but instead welcome the user. If the disruption persisted, I would make sure that the user had appropriately received warnings and a final warning, and I would then block the user for a short amount of time.
  • 4b. Requested you to protect an article that is linked to the main page?
  • A: In this situation, I would make sure that there was an large amount of disruption from a large amount of users on the page to warrant a protection. If there was, I would install a semi-protection for a short duration to try to stop the disruption.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A- The big point here would be communication. I would establish communication will all parties, including the blocking admin, whom I would notify of the communication I was pursuing with the editors in the dispute. If ArbCom rejected the case, I would attempt to, after having established communication, get the parties to form a compromise that would be for the good of the project.
6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A-Most likely the process that deals with promotion of Good Articles. As of now, one user has the ability to pass or fail an article, and I've seen many cases where, because of the standards of one user, articles that shouldn't have been passed have been, and articles that should have been passed haven't been. To change it, I would go about promotions as it is done in Featured Content, where multiple users review and post suggestions for the article, through a group effort either passing or failing the article. By doing this, I think that the average GA would be of a higher quality than it is now.
7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- In cases such as extreme threats, or very extreme and prolonged vandalism following multiple blocks.
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- In this situation, I wouldn't focus on the number of voters that express their opinion, but on the weight and merit of the votes. If those those who voted in "Keep" had expressed concrete notability of the subject over a greater number of "Delete" voters whose points weren't as strong as the "Keep" voters, I would most likely keep. In the second situation, my rationale would most likely stay the same.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A-Not truly. As long as a consensus has been gained in favor of either "Keep" or "Delete" in any XfD, I don't believe any specific number could be applied to closing the discussion.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A-If I felt that at any time stress was affecting my ability to keep a level-head, I would simply step away from the computer. Only when I was at ease would I step back to the computer and deal with whatever issue was at hand.
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A The best statement for this would be to simply help the community. I could go into more detail, but I feel that this would be the best statement that I could make on the subject.
12. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A-I would treat them like any other editor that used sockpuppets. No matter how well-known or liked in the community that they were, the use of a sock puppet would instantly make them lose all credibility with me. If not already reported, I would report them at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, giving the evidence that proves of what they've done.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mastrchf91 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator. bibliomaniac15 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. naerii - talk 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Had a look through all user talk contributions, lots of anti-vandalism and welcoming of new users. Good article editor. Why not :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Oh yes, finally not a " anti vandalism-only" candidate. Tiptoety talk 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Liked the level-headed response to 4a. Not only not likely to abuse the tools, understands the importance of educating new users by welcoming them before laying on warnings and blocks. Reviewed talk pages and found the ability to admit mistakes and apologize while offering help. Did not find any incivility or responses to alarming behavior. Would have preferred more substantial edits and admin related edits, but I have the sense user will proceed with sense and caution. Dlohcierekim 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have read through the opposes, and your article building and potential CSD monitering brings this to a support. Lack of Wikispace contribs is fine, sine many users around here forget this place this is an encyclopedia for crying out loud. As Tiptoey said, finally we don't have an anti-vandalism only candidate. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak support - Per WP:WTHN. asenine say what? 07:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is what no big deal is all about. Looks like a solid candidate, and appears to have enough experience to deal with the tools. Regards, EJF (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak support. The oppose section has a few points, but I believe that after ADCO you will do fine as an admin. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I see nothing that would lead me to believe the user would abuse the tools. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support per intelligent argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Redfield. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. After reading the oppose section regarding your "communication" or "lack of", and now having seen you clearly, concisely, civilly respond to the concerns, I have no worries about your communication abilities. Happy to support a solid Wikipedian, good article contribs (great actually), obvious dedication, and a solid nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, don't see any larger problems going through his contribs. The low talk space edits thing seems like another (hopefully soon) passing fad. Talk pages are only ever a means to an end, not a goal on themselves. The point is to improve the encyclopedia, and if he can do it without talking about every change he makes and doesn't feel the need to draw attention to himself, good for him. When he's actually needed to discuss something, he has. What more do you expect? - Bobet 20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support; although Mastrchf may not be well-versed in all areas of administrator work, from reading the answers to his questions, I would trust that he would properly research the relevant policies before taking action. Additionally, he seems level headed and very open to communication - even if there is not lots of evidence for detailed communication that he has undertaken, he seems to see its importance, and I think that if there were occasions where indepth discussion was needed, he would not hesitate to undertake it. -- Natalya 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I have talked with Mastrchf91 and he has been a great user overall. He helps out a lot with WP:WPTO, is a great vandal fighter, and is very kind and civil. I think Mastrchf91 would make a great administrator. RedThunder 21:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, obviously a fine contributor, no history of abuse or reason to believe that they'd misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Support per Lankiveil - a simple and sufficient reasoning. Vishnava (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak Support - since the user is running on the editer ticket i originally had reservation that his article building wasnt strong enough, however looking at his sandboxs i see that he has done enough to just about turn me. Good luck . Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 06:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. I have had nothing but good experiences with him since he decided to revive WikiProject The Office. He's taken a leadership role that belies his editing history, and communicated quite well during the recent FARC on The Office. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support And I loathe The Office! Seriously, the answers are very impressive and well-stated. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I really can't see any reason to oppose other than arguments based upon the distribution or quantity of your edits, and I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose; furthermore, all of the questions were answered excellently. Good luck! CrazyChemGuy (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Obviously over-qualified for Wikipedia's janitorial work. Would be a waste of a great editor. The mop would merely detract from this editor's efforts in article space. Why water that down? Mastrchf91, keep up the good work, and I hope never to see you in here again.  ;) The Transhumanist 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose You look like you'll be a fantastic candidate in a few months. After looking through your Talk and User talk contributions, I noticed that almost all of them are either automated or repetitive, so there's just not enough material for me to feel confident supporting you at this time. I need to see more direct interaction with other users before I'll feel comfortable. Keep up the good work and I'll be happy to support you when I feel there's enough here to justify it. --CapitalR (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I've reviewed the entirety of your talk contributions. I cannot find more than a handful of actual edits relating to some conversation, most of them are just templating. Not to be overly nitpicky, but the goof false new message bar at the top of your talk page shows how little back and forth conversation you are involved with... since it is identical to a real new message bar, it will probably repeatedly "goof" people who come to discuss something with you. Virtually harmless, but a little immature, none-the-less. Talk contributions are very important to an admin, and for me to support, I need to see more constructive activity in this area so I know how you will interact with others. Otherwise, you seem to be a solid contributor, good amount of work in AfD, etc. As capitalR says, come back in a few months after there is more substance... mainly, engage other users in talk. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not overly nit-picky at all. I have a bit of a "goofy" personality when it comes to little jokes of that nature, and while I may think it's harmless, I can certainly see why someone might find it annoying. It's been removed. Mastrchf (t/c) 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Oppose - Complete lack of conversation that does not involve automation of some sort. Scripts are fine, but when relied upon as much as this, I can't at all get a feel for how you communicate. Your communication is just very stilted. You also have little participation in admin-related areas. There is also some mild misunderstandings at AIV: [1]. IPs are not vandalism only accounts. [2]. Reasoning is iffy. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "The big point here would be communication..." - Does this not show that the candidate is not scared of communicating with people before making action? Sure, he uses a lot of automation in welcoming and warning, but i've seen from your contributions, Wisdom, that you also use Twinkle? Automation is not necessarily a sure sign of the candidate lacking in verbal communication. Besides, I can see a fair few diffs that weren't automated: [3] [4] [5] etc. etc. As long as he is willing to communicate more, I really don't see much of a problem. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    CN, communication does seem to be the prevalent issue within the opposition camp, but, mine is not limited to this alone. Also, allow me to clarify. Yes, I do use Twinkle, quite often actually, and I've never condemned others for using it. In fact, I've gone out of my way (usually at WT:RFA, and recently I might add) to recommend it, as it can be exceedingly useful in the hands of a patient editor. However, when I made reference to "automation", I did not just mean the candidate's use of Twinkle. In fact, it appears as though most of their communication (which is scant to begin with) is repetitious and perfunctory. Scripts play a role in this, but, combing through the candidate's user talk contributions, I see a tone of automation, script and non-script. Also, the candidate's article talk is pretty weak. Lastly, I just don't see the project space experience. Now, this can be compensated by other attributes, but the communication and diffs I provided leave me uncomfortable. I hope that clarifies my position for you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does indeed. Thanks for your clear clarification of the issue :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per above comments about automated edits and the low conversation examples. Your most editted article is The Office (U.S. TV series), to which you've only editted the talk page 4 times. Your most-editted wikipedia-sapce article (which only has 29 edits) is Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US). That talk page only has 2 edits (one of your grand total 4 for wiki-talk). Also, the most times you've editted a single talk page is seven. Now, it's perfectly OK to not want to talk to people much, if that's what tickles your fancy, but you have to realize that most of an Admin's job involves talking to people. People will look to you for advice, answers to questions, and to settle disputes (not to mention the numerous "Why'd you delete my article?!" and "You protected the wrong version!" complaints). Most users (especially new users) hold Admins in very high-standing, and expect kind-of-alot from them. I don't doubt that you're a worthy candidate, but you have to show that you can converse with people on a steady level before you get promoted (or, at least before you get my support).--Koji†Dude (C) 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more for all responses for dealing with lack of talk than this particular one. I perfectly respect your opinion, and I understand that talking is key in admin duties, but I would ask that you judge on the quality of my communication, not on the amount, or lack thereof. It's not that I've chosen to not engage in frequent communication, as almost all communication that has been directed my way was responded to in a quick and civil manner. Perhaps it's the work I pursue, or perhaps it's that the situations that I have been in have for some reason not merited a large amount of conversation. Either way, it's obvious I haven't had a large amount of conversing, but not because I choose not to or have a personality which is accustomed to solidarity. I have engaged in communication, and I'd ask you to measure me upon the communication that I have engaged in, not the lack of. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like most of the talk page edits are automated edits, reverting vandalism, or ranking articles (based on the last 100 or so). Yeah, Quality rules over Quantity, but only to a certain extent (IMO, at least).--Koji†Dude (C) 02:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose I liked your answers, I really did. But then I was surprised by your lack of meaningful contributions. First there is user talk space. You've only made 15 edits on your own talk space and that is the user talk where you've made the most contributions. There are two other users where you've made more than 10 contributions. Besides those 3 pages, there is not a single talk page (whether User, Wikipedia, Mainspace, or Template) where you've made more than 7 edits. This tells me that you don't discuss issues with people and have little to no experience developing consensus. It also shows that your understanding of policies and guidelines is strictly up to your interpretation---you've not discussed them to ensure that your position is consistant with the broader wiki community. Your contributions to Wikipedia space is almost non-existant as well. There are only five pages where you've made more than 10 edits---3 of them are related to The Office. As a vandal fighter, I would expect more edits to AIV than 17. Second, most of your user talk space seems to be centered around the Office Newsletter and sending out a confirmation request. Or it is automated via twinkle. I saw very little that was personalized. Third, and this really is kind of minor, while I liked the participation in CfD's (its nice to see a change from AfD) I saw a lot of "Per nom" !votes---which actually caused me to laugh when I read this! I want to see how you react and interact with others before I give you the tools.Balloonman (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Balloonman. Your statements above are promising, but I looked over your last 500 contributions and didn't see enough variety in the subjects to make me believe that you have enough experience across genres of articles to effectively use the admin tools, at this time. I'd be happy to support you in the future, should this RfA fail, if you show a broader range of subject coverage. Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose -- I'd much rather this user stick to improving what truly matters about Wikipedia (the articles) instead of getting caught up in the ever-growing bureaucracy. Yes, I am well aware of what arguments should be avoided. That being said, I've seen too many good article writers turn into mere janitors when given the mop. And while I understand that the likelihood of such an extreme transition is unlikely with this candidate, I feel that this user should stick with what they're good with. Based on both my own personal convictions and the diffs provided by above oppose users, I feel that if this user were to gain the mop, Wikipedia would probably lose an effective and prolific contributor and gain a possibly inexperienced admin. --SharkfaceT/C 04:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would like to clarify further before I get crucified by the comments that are sure to follow. While my oppose seems to rest mainly on ideological grounds, I would like to note that, judging by the candidate's talk page and the diffs provided above, this user doesn't spend much time bogged down in the day-to-day morass that is the administration of Wikipedia. Regardless of my silly lamenting for the loss of article writers, I do not feel he/she is ready for the adminship. Now I'm off to add the Wikibonked tag to my talk page. --SharkfaceT/C 04:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ever growing bureaucracy? With all due respect, Sharkface, the number of admins has stayed about the same over the last couple of years, while the number of registered users and articles have grown amazingly. The backlogs a CSD and WP:AFD suggest we need more admins wielding more mops than ever. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sharkface, as I've stated, adminship wouldn't limit my article writing in any way. I originally came to Wikipedia to write articles, and being granted adminship wouldn't restrict my ability to continue in article writing. I wouldn't want it to, and I wouldn't let it to. Admin chores would be addressed through extra time spent on here. And I'm a he, by the way :D. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose-- per Wisdom, I really would like to support you but you need to communicate to become an admin. Although, you do have email enabled which is positive...--Cameron (t|p|c) 09:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Not enough Wikipeida space edits. 1/3 of his edits are automated.--Dacium (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I would really like to vote support for you at some point but I can't do it just yet. You're on the right track and you just need to build up more of what the community needs to see in order to gauge you as a potential administrator, not just an editor. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose — Answers to questions are trite, meaningless, Obama-esque non-answers. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, do we really need the political commentary? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's entitled to his own opinions and beliefs just as you are. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose. This editor does excellent mainspace work, not too much reliance on Twinkle, I like that. You fight vandalism, I like that. But, the problem here is not enough communication. At first glance, you've made 667 edits on user talk pages (which isn't bad at all), but I took a close look at them after reading the other comments about your communicativeness (if that's a word). Of those 667, 255 were via Twinkle, 24 were via Friendly, 172 were adding a welcome template (copy and paste), 86 were delivering a newsletter (copy and paste), 30 were confirming wikiproject membership (copy and paste), and 14 were to your own talk page. That leaves only 86 meaningful, template-free, comments to other users. Your Wikipedia talk edits are almost non-existent. Everything else is great, you just don't talk enough with other editors, and I think it's very important that an admin be prone to discuss things. Useight (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Your lack of communication is bothering me too. J Milburn (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose candidate is an editor, therefore can't support. Al Tally (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote striken out. The user is parody of User:Kmweber; WP:POINT troll. Icewedge (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unstricken. Has the right to oppose for reasons contrary to popular opinion. 'crats will assess oppose appropriately.Balloonman (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken per [thisBalloonman (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. The candidate needs some more experience with communicating and collaborating. Additional article-building experience would also help. Keep up uht good work. Majoreditor (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must ask, what amount of article work would you deem sufficient? Mastrchf (t/c) 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, although weakly. Again, the user seems happiest writing articles, and long may he continue. There is nothing wrong with his contributions in this respect. But there is nothing in his answers that convinces me he really truly wants or needs to be an admin. Given that an admin's job is basically a mixture of drudgery and lengthy policy discussions, I can't see him enjoying it much. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. So you're saying that he/she shouldn't become an admin because you don't think he/she'd be happy as an admin? It's not whether he/she needs the tools, it's whether him/her having the tools would benefit Wikipedia. (Gender-neutrality used to not offend). :) Thank you. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Not enough admin work (XfD, etc.). Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Lacks experience in admin related fields e.g. AFD etc. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral - I cannot formulate a decision at the moment. We need more article building admins, but at the same time, you have little experience in admin-areas. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak oppose. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral - Opposes make good arguments, but voting "oppose" as well seems a bit too harsh.--Bedford 06:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Oppose would be too harsh for this User. He is relatively inexperienced ( Same reasoning as his :) ) inspite of being active since 2006 ( just 3K edits since 12/06). Most of the articles are in the comfort zone of The Office (U.S. TV series).. That is not a bad thing.. My personal suggestion is to get your hands on variety of articles more.. If you want to help in DYK , I suggest to start helping the DYK admins by verifying source / length for suggestions , help them to post on Next Update Page... Anyways Best of luck. I will support you on this page -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 06:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - No concerns about misuse of tools but other things concern me. The user had a period of inactivity and has only been editing seriously since december 2007. Seems like a good article editer and we really need admins that actually DO something around here (that was a joke admins so keep those mops away from me ;-)). That said there doesnt seem to be a project that you have dominated, the article that you have most edited only counts for 57 edits (mainspace) i believe. I would suggest coming back in a few months with a GA article (that you are the creater of) and i will happily support. Best wishes for your RfA. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see in my contributions log, many of my edits include a large amount of change, as I frequently hit the preview button multiple times. My largest edited article may only be 57 edits, but that is most definitely not only 57 changes. I employ multiple sandboxes, and usually make the changes there when I'm completely reworking an article. I'd also like to point out that I have been a major contributer to a GA article, three of them actually. Mastrchf (t/c) 05:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to weak support, indeed your high sandbox usage has just about tipped me in favour of supporting. Ill add to the support list accordingly. Good luck. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 06:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Unlikely to abuse the mop, so I cannot oppose, but there is not enough evidence to say the candidate can be trusted with the buttons. Somebody mentioned "comfort zone" above, and I concur that a little more exposure to a wider variety of encyclopedia tasks will be of great benefit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:46, 18 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