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

Redrose64[edit]

Final (89/5/10). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

It is my pleasure to present Redrose64 (talk · contribs), a highly experienced and knowledgeable editor who has finally acquiesced to stand for adminship after being pestered by several editors for more than a year.

Redrose's first edit was in May 2009 and since then has amassed an amazing 41,000 edits. His contributions are varied and cover many parts of the project, including:

This last area is where my path first crossed with Redrose and I noticed him providing helpful assistance on complex templates such as ((WPBM)) and the like. It is this area where I anticipate the extra tools being of most use to Redrose, as I am sure he will make himself useful editing high risk templates and interface pages.

Please support this valuable and trustworthy editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Well balanced, technical, content and community asset to the project, will be a greater asset with the tools - Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nom --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are many rights granted to the admin, but I do not expect to need all of them. It would be useful to have the ability to edit protected pages, since I often participate in discussions on Template talk: pages. I might see a quick fix for the problem, sandbox and test my change, but at present I then need to mark the discussion with ((editprotected)). I can also see that I might have the need to protect pages (even to block users), to be used in cases like this.
I have participated in several WP:XFDs (but cannot call myself a major participant), and if granted the admin right, intend to assist in the closure of some; I would also process WP:CSDs and expired WP:PRODs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: One of my sins is that of modesty. My Wikipedia activity is more broad than long: as stated above I have over 41000 edits, but these were to over 19,125 different pages, an average of just 2.18 edits per page (according to X!'s Edit Counter). The breadth of this reflects a desire for consistency and/or accuracy: for example, if I see that some railway stations are in Category:Former Great Western Railway stations but others which could be are not, I'll check that the former are in the correct cat (fixing where necessary), and then hunt down and categorise as many as possible of the latter. There are also the administrative cats: I recently cleared all article-space pages out of Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters - there were well over 1500, I got it down to zero, but it's creeping up again.
But there are pages where my contributions dominate the page; I'm particularly pleased with NBR 224 and 420 Classes, which I created and had it appear as a main-page DYK (with a triple hook); and then got it to GA-class with just one edit (a dab) by another user. I have created an article which is now FA-class, but Iridescent (talk · contribs) put in most of the work on that. Conversely, somebody else created Britannia railway station but most of that article is my work, and it got a main-page DYK.
I give assistance where possible; as mentioned above there are the WikiProject and Template discussion pages, and I do what I can at WP:VPT. I sometimes welcome new users, some of whom are pleased with my help; but there are occasional failures. Some users, aware that I have their talk pages watched, post questions there and it's often me that answers the q.
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: There have been conflicts, but for those not in the recent past, my memory of just who was involved is fuzzy; but I expect that some or more of the RFA reviewers have a tool by which these can be found. I'll comment on specifics if requested to do so.
I think that the most recent incidents are at WT:GM#Disrespectful and several [sic] threads on Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer; in the latter case I have been tempted to call WP:POINT but didn't. If things get too hot, I typically just walk away - maybe stay on WP but edit some totally different area, maybe I go and watch TV for a bit. Unless it's something I really care about, I'll probably unwatch the page too.
Additional question from Monty845
4. As you express an intent to work with Speedy Deletion nominations, would you mind trying to find an article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted that does not qualify under WP:CSD and explain why?
A: User:Codyscudder doesn't qualify - A7 applies only to pages in article space, this is in user space. Similarly User:Georgiasouthernlynn/test3 - in this case the ((db-a7)) was placed by the page creator, who should probably have used ((db-u1)). The 20 or so actual articles presently in the cat would all seem to qualify; the most borderline is Clyde Boats but I'd tend to be swayed toward "delete" by SarekOfVulcan's comment on its talk page.
Additional question from Keepscases
5. Do you believe prisoners in maximum-security prisons should be permitted to edit Wikipedia? Why or why not?
A: Here at Wikipedia, we respect anonymity. Very few Wikipedians know my real name; I claim to be a 47-year-old unemployed computer programmer in Didcot, but that could all be a front. I might be a $250,000 a year banker in Shanghai, a streetwise hoodlum in NYC or Dolly Parton's hairdresser. I might be in a maximum-security jail right now. Since we don't know who most editors really are, nor what they do in real life, we're not in a position to judge them except by their editing activities. Some very intelligent people spent time inside. It's not just prisoners who might be restricted in their editing: I have had employers which had internet policies that made it a disciplinary matter to make use of the internet for any purpose not directly relevant to your day-to-day duties. Thus, the question of whether prisoners are permitted full access to edit Wikipedia, limited access, read-only access or none at all is a matter for the prison authorities, not us.
Additional question from SarekOfVulcan
6. Ok, pretend you just found Clyde Boats, and I hadn't tagged it yet. Tell us what you do with it, if anything.
A: It looks like the basis of something quite good. It's certainly not promotional, since the company is defunct. The "Further reading" section shows a book, and it's possible that the boatbuilder in question got a pretty decent write-up in that book. I might assume that the article creator drew material from it, and decided to list it as a reference but hadn't read or understood either WP:CITE or WP:FURTHER. I don't have the book concerned, so I'd apply WP:AGF and add a ((no footnotes)) and possibly drop a line on the creator's talk page - something like this or this. I could also search for a relevant WikiProject and pop their banner (in this case ((WikiProject Transport|maritime=yes))) on the talk page, in the hope that somebody knowledgeable would have some source materials.
Additional question from WFCforLife
7. How would you respond to a situation where policy was, in your opinion, irreconcilably at odds with common sense?
A: Nothing is irreconcilable. We have a large number of policy and guideline documents (too many for any one individual to learn by heart), which are usually collaborative efforts, even if originally or primarily the work of one person; over a period of time, some form of consensus is reached, which won't necessarily satisfy 100% of users. Every single one of these docs has a discussion page - or the potential for creating such page - where problems may be raised. So, we discuss the issue, because WP:CCC. Even MOS isn't set in stone. To see a worked example of how I have attempted to deal with cases like this, see Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer, already mentioned under Q3 above.
Additional question from Drmies
8. Given the conversation, below, about your interest in AfD (and other deletion mechanisms), perhaps you'd give us some idea about how you would close some random discussions--I plucked a couple, randomly, from the list marked for rescue at WP:ARS. Consider one or more of the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rally Squirrel (brand new, so it'll be here for a few more days), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americanism (ideology) (possibly too tricky for a quick answer here), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Stricchiola (a disputed and relisted BLP), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman W. Walker (a can of worms waiting to be opened, perhaps). Or pick another one you like--but pick an interesting one so we get an idea of how you'd weigh arguments and make decisions.
A: A difficult question. I hope not to be expected to be faced with cases like these immediately, and would probably leave them for others to close; in the meantime, I would close something more clear cut. It would surely be better for the project for me to be reluctant, than to delete something only to have it sent straight to WP:DRV.
I may be ducking the issue here; if it were a condition that I should select one to close, I would feel that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americanism (ideology) should be closed as merge, but not in its entirety. The first paragraph can be merged to something else; however, the question then is, where should it be merged to? The ((merge)) at the top of the article suggests Americentrism, but the linked discussion on the talk page suggests American nationalism. On the whole I'd merge to American nationalism. The second paragraph is just one sentence, and this is little more than the second entry on the dab page Americanism, so the loss of that shouldn't be a problem.
Additional question from Sp33dyphil
9. In your first question, you answered that you planned to delete articles that have been PRODed. If a PROD tag that had been removed by an IP was reinstated by a user with 10,000+ edits, and it has been seven days since the reinstatement, during which one more user gave it another PROD, what would you do?
A: I am assuming that you refer to a normal WP:PROD, and not to a WP:BLPPROD. A PROD, once removed by anybody regardless of whether they were logged in or not, counts as a contested PROD, and the article may not be re-prodded (the edit count doesn't enter into it). The ((Proposed deletion/dated)) should be removed again, and the person who replaced it should be advised why this was done, also that they are still free to take the article to WP:AFD.
Additional question from Tom Morris
10. As an administrator, you may be asked to handle a situation in any of a wide number of areas related to the site's management and in response to a wide variety of potential types of editing behaviour. Are there any such areas of Wikipedia maintenance and administration that you have tried and then decided are not to your taste? If so, why?
A: I've been holding off from this one because I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer. I've been invited to intervene in a few cases (some of which may be found at User talk:Redrose64/requests), some of which I declined; and have sometimes taken actions that have been criticised, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#User:Siouxsherat. When, on two separate occasions (here and here) I was asked if I wished to become an admin, one of the main reasons for declining was the expected abuse from those who oppose my judgment. I suppose you'd call it some sort of cowardice.
Additional question from Alpha Quadrant
11. This is a tough decision. I would really like to support, but I am a bit concerned about your interest in closing AfDs, without much experience in the area. Could you please comment in any 10 new AfD debates? (meaning that, apart from the nom statement, no one has commented yet.)
A:
Additional question from Memorykey12
12. I read that you were asked by several editors to become a candidate. Could you please tell me who some of those editors were? I will be able to support you once I know who they are.
A: Most of them are indicated by posts on my talk page, the relevant threads are Future admin? and Why aren't you an admin??. There is one other, who emailed me off-wiki so the suggestion is not on public display, but my reply was on-wiki, and is currently at User talk:Wifione#Me, an admin? Possibly... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ozob
13. An article is up for deletion and you are about to close the discussion. The article was written by a sockpuppet of a banned user obsessed with promoting his unusual scientific theory. In several past deletion discussions, this article was deleted for lack of notability. However, since those discussions, the banned user has managed to get his theory cited in the mainstream scientific literature. The article now includes references to these citations. Participants in the AfD discussion have investigated these citations and have found that in every case the theory is mentioned only in passing, and only by little-known authors in little-known journals. However, even though every citation is of poor quality, the quantity of citations is large. The majority of editors vote for deletion on the grounds that the theory still lacks notability. A minority of respected editors argue in good faith that the theory has achieved notability. How do you close the discussion? If you cannot close the discussion on the basis of the description above, what additional information would you need?
A: The key word here is "banned". It would mainly depend on what proportion of the article was written by non-banned editors. Your implication in the second sentence suggests that there is little or none: in which case, an AFD isn't even necessary, and WP:CSD#G5 applies (see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting).

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Redrose64 is knowledgeable and clear-headed about technical matters; he'll make a good admin. Ucucha (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Asset to project. Agathoclea (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Great candidate. AD 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Excellent editing history, I had to dig down VERY deep to find something even slightly resembling something that maybe could have turned into an edit war. They seem to always remain civil and level headed and has managed to stay out of drama and politics in a way that editors with 40k+ edits very rarely do. I WOULD like to see a little bit more experience in some admin-related projectspace work, but that's almost totally irrelevant, definitely nothing to make me think that this user will not make an outstanding mop-holder. Good luck. Trusilver 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Redrose64 seems to have a straightforward use of the tools in mind, and in my encounters with (him?) I've seen nothing to be concerned about. Mind you, that's not saying much if you believe everything you hear. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    MF, you're not too old to start learning to use Singular they. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. I just hate it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it is easier to just say "this user" to bypass any gender questions --rogerd (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Great editing history, highly knowledgable about policies and content, always impressive at project discussions, no concerns. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Strong support Don't see any reason why not. --John (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Amended due to great answer to Q5. --John (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - A calm editor and not only can put forward reasoned arguments for a point of view in discussions, but also constructively considers points of view from others. --Stewart (talk | edits) 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Ning-ning (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Per my opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The perfect candidate. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support In brief: a knowledgeable and helpful user. HurricaneFan25 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I can't tell anyone how much Redrose has helped many WikiProjects. I've known Redrose for over a year and I was surprised what sysop tools could do to make a editor a better one. The tools will help people make them a better user, it isn't only for other purposes. I was surprised the Resrose wasn't already an admin, but now I (and everyone else) will see a possibility. I doubt that any corruption would occur in this case. Good luck, Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Unreferenced article creations are a pet peeve of mine, and I did find a couple of them among Redrose64's earlier article creations. On the other hand, other article creations – especially later ones – are referenced extremely well, and the candidate has created almost a hundred of them, so obviously no slouch there. I do share the concerns about light participation in the deletion processes – I think more involvement as a participant would be advisable prior to diving into closing them, although the comments the candidate has made so far at AfD are quite sensible. Those concerns notwithstanding, this editor seems very intelligent, hard-working and good-natured, and is unlikely to run around breaking things. I'm especially impressed with the answers to questions 5 and 7. 28bytes (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, no reason to think they'll abuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – Redrose is an excellent editor; giving him the mop will help benefit the encyclopedia. —mc10 (t/c) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support The candidate's honesty and modesty (affirming Saul Alinksy's maxim that it is impossible to read all the rules) benefit the project even more than the enthusiasm for Dr. Who and British railroads. It is time for the (red)rose to be in the fisted glove, and the eagle to fly with the dove.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Like what I see. Oppose does not concern me. Also a nod for being willing to endure the hellweek and BS of RFA week.PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support. Redrose64 is a great editor. However I am concerned by his intention to close XfDs, an area where he has little experience. On the other hand, Wikipedia would benefit if he had access to some of the other tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per Malleus Fatuorum. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's gotta be a first! Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support He is a trustful user, so he can be a trustful admin. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Knowledgable in the areas in which they plan to use the tools, and willing to help and work with others. First Light (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Can't see a reason not to. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, very knowledgeable in many very technical areas, like templates, CSS, etc. Has always been extremely helpful with fixing many of the most highly transcluded templates. I have never known this editor to act unreasonable or hot-headed. I have no concerns, and feel as though he/she would be even more helpful with the additional tools. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, Good luck! —stay (sic)! 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support evidence from logs and deleted entries indicate this is a sensible contributor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Sets an admirable example just by getting on and doing his stuff. If he says he could do with the extras, that's good enough for me. Plutonium27 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  31. Support - Sounds like a good guy. Spidey665 01:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Very good answer to Q5. That's not how 99% of Wikipedians would have answered it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - After a quick look through Redrose64's contributions, I was quite impressed. Though he does not have a lot of experience in the area of XfD's (an area in which he has professed interest), I believe he is familiar with the process. At this time, there is absolutely no reason to believe Redrose64 will abuse the tools. This is, of course, the most important question I must ask myself in a RfA.— Oli OR Pyfan! 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 110% Support, Redrose64 is one of my talk page stalkers, and has often provided words of support when editors have made less-than-good-faith comments on my talk page. I've collaborated with him on a few articles and have always found him ready to help, advise or assist in the furtherance of improvment of the project. The extra tools will prove to be of benefit here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Give the man a mop! --Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Very thorough answers, especially to question 5. -- Luke (Talk) 14:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support If there's a good reason for the candidate not to have the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Good answers to the questions and a strong record overall. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Redrose64's significant contributions to wikipedia, combined with his willing to help other editors and having a clear understanding of many policies, makes it impossible for me to say anything other than support. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Redrose64's long term benefits to the project, in multiple areas, far outweigh any lack of experience in others. MarnetteD | Talk 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, fully. -- Ϫ 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. The candidate has never said that he or she is going to close the whole day's AfD log, every day. Question 1 makes it clear. Question 8 re-inforces it. The answers to the questions generally demonstrate competence. A brief scan of contributions fails to reveal that the candidate is either a complete idiot or a complete wanker. Happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. While I'm a bit concerned by the opposers and neutrals, we do need more active administrators, and Redrose qualifies Secret account 21:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support So far so good. Keep it up. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Confident they won't abuse tools. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I am tempted to oppose this user based on a perceived prejudice against roses of alternative colours, but I would need substantial evidence to support such a hypothetical concern. In the absence of such evidence, I shall assume good faith and support this request. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support - Redrose64 would be a wonderful asset to Wikipedia as an admin. His technical strengths and willingness to help others are outstanding qualities that would help the community immensely! The only thing else I can say is that he better have a great sense of humor! (see above comment) ... I can also tell he is well-liked, since this is my 3rd try to add my support to this section without getting an edit conflict message!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - An excellent candidate that I fully support. Redrose is a considerate and thoughtful volunteer that is always willing to help others. This is a very helpful quality in administators as new users often look to them for help. Redrose also has a great deal of technical expertise regarding the project and is very helpful in WP:VPT as noted above. The candidate has shown a history of studying and learning our policies before moving in to an area, so I have no concerns about inexperience in any areas of the project as I know Redrose will learn something fully before doing it. I would like to note that it appears the nominators above may have forgotten to add their official !votes in this section, so their support is not shown in the RfA report. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC) striking note as my concerns have been addressed - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - I come across Redrose regularly and I've been really sitting on the fence here. I did my research as soon as the RfA was transcluded. The candidate does not meet my criteria but the high edit count in this case is indicative of precision and good content work; the 95 clean creations convince me that they are already well versed in policy, even if activity in those policies is somewhat low to demonstrate that knowledge. Their excellent answers to questions, including the unusual ones, prove a high level of integrity and trustworthiness for candidate who will not make many errors when their tools are granted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Contributions are great and answers to all the questions are brilliant. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Answers to questions seem honest and show a willingness to learn and modify his behavior if necessary. Appears conscientious about studying policy and increasing his knowledge before moving to new areas. Good technical knowledge and admirable content work for a relatively newbie. Manny may (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support as co-nom, naturally. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  54. Support Looks ok to me. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Just stay away from deleting anything until you spend more time working with that specific process. Since this isn't your intended area of focus, I have no concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Stephen 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Seems like a good candidate. I'm not worried about deletion activity, because I'm confident that Redrose will review the facts (and policies) before actually deleting. I hadn't deleted anything when I became an admin, either, to be honest. I'm more interested in the requisite level of cluefulness than in a certain number of successful speedy tags or whatnot. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support seems very clueful about WP's policies despite having not participated in much AfDs and the like. Trust is all you need. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per Kudpung. Nev1 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. +1 – iridescent 2 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support per MF, Hydrox, Kudpung, Vaibhav, Ultra and WP:NETPOS. Swarm 20:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I believe that others' concern about experience with deletion is misplaced. Judging from this user's responses to questions (mine and others), Redrose64 is fully aware of deletion policy. In addition, this user seems calm and capable of doing admin work impartially. Ozob (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. While I could see myself neutral per the valid considerations below, this is a perfect example where the nomination and above endorsements are sufficient proof that support is a better inclination. My76Strat (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. While dealing with a sockpuppet, I found myself wishing Redrose64 was an admin so the situation could be dealt with more expeditiously. I seem to keep running across the users good work. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - despite the fact that the candidate's nominator disgracefully refactored my commentary before discussion was complete (and from which I have a concern that Redrose64 has made an unwise move in accepting a nomination from the type of person who thinks they are fit to be judge and jury). My previous support rationale remains - oppposers have made some good points but not enough to sway me from it being a net positive to support. As was pointed out to me it is intelectually dishonest to be in any other position than support. Pedro :  Chat  06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I invited Pedro to retract part of a comment which attacked another editor who participated in this discussion. RfA is already a highly fuelled environment and comments like this have no place here. Only when he declined to do so, did I redact it myself. I hope other editors would have taken the same action as me in this situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that redacting the statement was an extreme move (and I apologize if this sounds harsh). Pedro almost always speaks his mind out and I have never seen him commenting in bad faith. Those who've been around Pedro know that he doesn't invest time in smoothing out the corners as may be expected by others - but that way of communicating also allows one to trust Pedro; to know that he's one who speaks his mind out. I admit, unlike Pedro, I'm one who fluffs up my communication and reads an answer at least a couple of times to ensure that there's no slip between the cup and the lip. Pedro isn't like that - and that's how it is. I guess one should respect that. Wifione Message 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Rjwilmsi 11:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Obvious support Our project needs a regular supply of administrators like Redrose. The sincerity with which Redrose trawls (in a positive sense) across pages, improving any and every issue in his area of competence, is what attracted me to analyse Redrose's contributions over the past year - and subsequently to ask whether he'd ever thought of adminship. If it were not for the fact that Redrose already had Martin and Rich - two well experienced editors who're excellent judges of prospective administrators - as his nominators, I would have necessarily stood up to co-nom Redrose. I appreciate the points raised by the opposing !voters too and at the same time am extremely confident that Redrose is not one who'd let them/us down; especially given Redrose's credible answers. As I mentioned, this is an obvious support from me. Wifione Message 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I like the answers given to the questions, and feel that caution will be exercised in unfamiliar areas. Peridon (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - fully meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support No problems here. WayneSlam 20:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Seems capable, ok...Modernist (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support; competent. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per Malleus and Ironholds --Guerillero | My Talk 05:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, an excellent candidate. All the best. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Clean block log, no indication of assholery. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. I trust the candidate not to overreach, so I'm not concerned about the lack of deletion-related experience. Overall, there's plenty of experience, and plenty of evidence of good judgment, so I don't see any reason to be worried about that. And I think the questions to the candidate are over-doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support I am very happy to support editors who have a long history of good behavior and encouragement of other users while they do work which I consider extremely important and extremely boring. If being an admin will help you keep doing what you are doing then godspeed and may you always enjoy what you do. Your answers to how you will use admin tools and your courteous talkpage histories make me feel safe in supporting you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Good answer on Q5 and that's how you won my support. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. The questions above and my interactions show that Redrose64 is a sane and thoughtful editor. I have every expectation that he will properly use the admin rights. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support one of those names that I've seen around the place being useful for quite some time now, and I think that granting Redrose64 a few extra buttons will assist the project. BencherliteTalk 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Looking through edits and the answers above I see no reason to think Redrose will be anything other than a positive with the extra buttons. GB fan 19:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support - Seems fine. Neutralitytalk 00:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - As an active participant at Articles for Deletion, I take SnottyWong's opposition seriously, and do understand SW's point. However, I am very impressed with Redrose64's level-headed and thoughtful responses during this entire process. In my opinion, AfD is important and I see experience there as a non-adminstrative participant to be a useful prerequisite to an administrator pitching in to close debates. However, AfD is neither rocket science nor brain surgery, and any editor with a calm demeanor and a willingness to study policy, guidelines and established consensus can play a useful role there. As I peer into my crystal ball, I predict that Redrose64 will soon be an administrator. I invite this new administrator to join in 10, 15 or 20 AfD debates (you pick the number, Redrose64), and then to start close other debates per consensus. I look forward to your AfD recommendations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support- No worries; good luck. Dru of Id (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I hesitated here, but on balance, I think the benefits Redrose can bring to the project far outweigh the concerns of the opposers. Redrose has displayed great commitment to the project, and is highly competent in dealing with the template namespace, and has always impressed me wherever I've seen him. Thus, I would lose no sleep over giving him the admin bit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Candidate's answer to Q1 indicates an intention to close AfD's, as well as respond to CSD's and PROD's. I've searched through the candidate's contributions and I find evidence of participation in only 7 AfD's, speedy tagging of only 8 pages (5 images, 2 templates, and 1 redirect; no actual articles in mainspace), and I can't find any evidence of any PROD activity (although it's entirely possible that I didn't look hard enough). There isn't evidence of enough exposure to these areas to understand the nuances, and I'm not comfortable endorsing such an inexperienced candidate to make final decisions about the permanent deletion of articles. If this is an area of interest for you, then spend some time participating in these areas in a significant way. I would have no issue supporting a future RfA if more time was put into these areas between now and then. —SW— gab 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, admins are not required to use all the tools; nor are they required to take part in all of the areas in which they have expressed an interest. If the community feel that my lack of deletion experience is a negative factor, then I have no objection to being requested not to carry out any actual deletion, pending further experience. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Access to the delete button is a big part of adminship in my opinion, and I hesitate to support candidates who have little or no experience with deletion processes — even when they don't specifically state in their RfA that they want to close AfD's and respond to CSD's and PROD's. For candidates who do express an intention to participate in deletion, it's even more important. Adminship is all or nothing, you can promise that you won't close AfD's but that promise is not binding in any way, and you are free to change your mind at any point after you get the bit. I would still like to see some significant participation in the deletion process before I'd feel comfortable supporting. —SW— prattle 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How could it ever be possible to prove you have experience with a tool you don't have access to? Like the block tool for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of the block tool, you can look to substitutes, such as valid reports to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI and WP:ANEW. Monty845 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You may look at whatever you like, but you're looking at the wrong things. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Requests for a sysop to do a thing seem like a reasonable proxy for how the editor would do that thing as a sysop. I'm hoping SW simply misspoke with the phrase "such little experience making final decisions about the permanent deletion of articles", but the point remains that experience with the process might be a good indicator. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can see how that statement quoted above could be taken the wrong way, but I think I made it clear that my primary concern is that the candidate has virtually no demonstrated experience with the processes by which articles are deleted on Wikipedia. There is much experience to be gained participating as a non-admin which can be applied to the deletion tasks that admins perform. Editors who have never voted at an AfD shouldn't be closing AfD's, and editors who have never tagged an article for speedy deletion shouldn't be speedy deleting articles. This seems like a pretty basic concept to me, and it is a reasoning that is routinely applied at RfA; I'm not sure why others are having trouble comprehending it. —SW— chat 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be said, and with ample justification, that a fresh eye on these deeply flawed processes is a good thing. In particular I would trust RedRose more than a random admin on deletion decisions, since I believe he would look at the facts and policy in every case, rather than being trigger happy or vote counting which often seems to happen now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Fresh eyes are all well and good, but in order for fresh eyes to be useful they need to at least have a basic familiarity with the long-established norms and context of the situation at which they are looking. If you're building a nuclear bomb, it wouldn't be wise to invite a professional violinist in as a pair of fresh eyes to tweak the bomb design. I'm not suggesting that the candidate is completely clueless when it comes to deletion, as some of their answers above indicate some knowledge; but without some minimal amount of actual participation in the process, there necessarily is a large void in their experience. Editors who lack a large portion of experience with deletion should not be hitting the delete button. —SW— chatter 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regretful Oppose - I greatly appreciate your work in articles, however I have to agree with Snottywong here; you need a little more practice in deletion topics before you can say you intend to work in them. If you altered your response to Q1, I would consider revoking this, but for now, I am still a little too concerned. smithers - talk 17:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Seems like a good editor, but I have a few concerns. For a candidate who has said that they will work in CSDs, AfDs and PRODs, I would like to see more experience in those areas as a regular contributor. I was also concerned by the answers to Q4 and Q6. In Q4, he says that he would delete Clyde Boats, yet in Q6 he says that it is promising and could be rescued and expanded. I am concerned that he would choose to delete a page which he would not normally tag for deletion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The circumstances were different. In Q4, the article had already been tagged ((db-corp)) and a note placed on its talk page. In Q6, Sarek asked me to assume that the article hadn't been so tagged. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Opppose no, the standard is the same. If you wouldn't have tagged it in the first place because you think it improvable, you shouldn't delete it if someone else has tagged it. Your role is not to rubber-stamp the tagger-speedy deletion is not a mechanical process. I would suggest coming back after giving us a few months of experience at deletion process. I might not have opposed if you had said you were not interested in participating in this field of admin activity--nobody can know everything. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC). I'm moving to Neutral because I'm not totally comfortable with opposing on the basis of an originally minor part of the application. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As DGG said, there should be no difference between how you deal with tagged and untagged articles. This would normally cause me to vote neutral; however, the fact that you have said you intend to process CSDs and PRODs makes me wary, thus the oppose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose per SW's comments above and DGG's (and yes, I know he moved to neutral). I'm actually more than a bit worried about the Q4/Q6 thing and your response to ItsZippy is troubling. Either it meets the speedy criteria in or it doesn't. A7 is tricky, and reasonable people might disagree. But the standard doesn't change based on the existence of a tag. It seems really likely this will pass. If so, I strongly urge you to participate in the deletion process for a while before using the tools in that area. On the off chance you don't pass, I'd certainly be willing to support you in a couple of months if you participated more in deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to netural. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per SnottyWong. — Kudu ~I/O~ 14:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose More experience of the deletion and blocking processes needed. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How is an editor supposed to get experience of the blocking process without access to the banhammer? Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he meant "blocking" as in areas like WP:AIV. HurricaneFan25 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What does AIV have to do with blocking? Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    AIV is, basically, for reporting users who vandalize. Period. HurricaneFan25 23:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not been my experience. Period. So I repeat, what has AIV got to do with blocking? Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope the nominee knows what AIV has got to do with blocking. Epbr123 (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope that's more than you do. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the irritating things about AIV is the large number of incorrect or invalid reports. AIV, apparently, is also for editors who carry grudges, for editors with ownership issues, for editors who don't know that IPs can be dynamic, for editors who think that incorrect edits made in good faith are vandalism, etc. The nominee does not strike me as trigger-happy, and that's a good sign. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, having access to the banhammer means that one doesn't need to worry about AIV. One can just step in and block the vandal there and then . Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in agreement with Drmies. AIV is a dumping ground for requests to block editors for every reason under the sun, many of them including some kind of argument that boils down to "because he disagreed with me". An editor who has never had experience with AIV before becoming an admin should be wary of it after becoming an admin. You can't take every report at face value... even from long time editors, unfortunately. Trusilver 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't there a bot that tracks users use of AIV, so we can see how Redrose64 has been using AIV? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there is a bot that does assessments of them, but here is a list of edits to AIV by Redrose64. Monty845 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there we have it for all curious. Three edits to AIV. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Opppose not too keen on this [1], this [2] and especially this [3]. Can't see the need in your case. Leaky Caldron 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the problem you have with those diffs? Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator and the co-nom who by that time had forgotten that they also have to !vote. Not really a problem. Agathoclea (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hands up, failure on my part to spot that. It was the one to Wifi that drew it to my attention but I would not have opposed if I had not seen the other 2. Can someone who knows what they are doing please remove my !vote. Leaky Caldron 21:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented oppose per request Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that in the abovementioned posts I did not suggest which way the !vote should be cast. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You specifically poked your nominators and one editor who offered to nominate, it's not hard to guess where they would put their name. Not a deal-breaker at this point, but certainly unwise IMO. Amalthea 07:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess one should also weigh in Redrose's honesty in being transparent about communicating on the talk page. Of course, I would've loved to be the co-nominator; and am extremely pleased that Redrose did accept to run for this killing adminship process. Wifione Message 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per above. Concerns with experience in the administrative areas the candinate has expressed interest in. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Move to neutral -FASTILY (TALK) 03:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
(moved to support) Neutral for now. The experience level in areas they intend to work in (i.e. AfD, CSD, RPP) looks very light. Swarm 20:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Seems like a great contributor, they clearly have good intentions, and a good reason to want to be able to edit protected. However my concerns about the candidate's level of experience when it comes to Speedy Deletion, an area they declare an intent to work with, prevent me from supporting at this time. Monty845 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I admit that I haven't read every single one of this candidate's 41,000 edits, but out of a random sample, I can't seem to find any substantial contributions this candidate has made to controversial or difficult topic areas, to dispute resolution, or even much to article talk pages, which makes it really quite hard for me to judge his temperament and suitability. The edits all seem to be relatively small and uncontroversial. I've got no reason not to trust this candidate, but because admins have tenure and it's really quite hard to get rid of a bad one, I feel as if I have to require positive evidence of trustworthiness, and not just a lack of recent mistakes, before I can support.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But isn't that the perfect stategy for RfA? Don't get involved in any article or any area that might lead to conflict? Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA does tend to work like that, sometimes--having had conflicts works against you, and not having had conflicts also works against you. S Marshall, I won't dispute your factual findings, but I'd say that the user doesn't seem to want the tools to get involved in controversial or difficult areas. From my limited experience, Redrose appears to be a very good gnome and more--that they're not an ANI regular or a Digwuren follower or an editor of caste-related articles, I don't hold that against them. We can't all be Sitush! Drmies (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per Snottywong. User does seem a bit weak in deletion areas. However, overall a great user, so I won't oppose over this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral candidate has very little experience of the article deletion process: only a handful of speedy deletion tags (the only mainspace page tagged, Comet Awards, was a redirect), 7 AfD comments, and the only PROD participation I can see is removing a PROD that was incorrectly reinstated and endorsing the PROD of Iwade Railway Station which was added by someone else. There is also some participation in the processes regarding non-article namespaces such as CFD and TFD. Now that's not necessarily a problem, and there are occasional administrators who never delete articles, but the candidate clearly stated that they wanted to handle article deletion in their question answers. If this RfA does pass then I strongly recommend that Redrose64 get more experience of the article deletion process by participating in AfD discussions or by doing new page patrol before deleting any articles and the fact that they've agreed to do this above is the reason I'm not opposing. Hut 8.5 16:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The endorsement of the PROD for Iwade Railway Station was entirely correct. There never has been a station by that name. The nearest station to Iwade is Swale Halt. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. My point wasn't that the endorsement was wrong but that this one article is the sum total of their PROD experience, which doesn't indicate that they have the skills necessary to manage the PROD process. Hut 8.5 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never been a deletionist. I certainly recall endorsing the PROD on the alleged station at Iwade - I remember consulting a pile of railway timetables (old and current), and maps from various dates, finally stating that it was a WP:HOAX. I don't remember ever PRODding an article; I seem to recall contesting one or maybe two by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) (but couldn't say which articles these were); and I'm pretty sure that I've advised somebody that they can't reinstate a ((proposed deletion/dated)) which has been removed (I don't think that it was one which I had removed myself) and suggested AFD to them. The last time I tagged something for speedy delete was as part of this discussion, but I'm sure that there have been others. I may not have been active at AFD much (although I've certainly contributed); but you should also find my name on several TFDs and CFDs, one or two FFDs and at least two MFDs. That I am not entirely ignorant of the XFD process is demonstrated here.
    All in all, if granted the mop, I don't intend to change tack and zap everything in sight. My intent is to ease the load on those who are regulars in these areas by closing the cases where consensus is clear. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A frequent way for admin candidates to gain experience here is to ease our load by making a few non-admin closures of the obvious--you don't have to be an admin to make even a delete closures--an admin will follow through with the actual deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, according to WP:NAC, a non-admin can NOT close a delete-consensus discussion; only an uncontested or speedy keep, merge or redirect, or a housekeeping closure (e.g. discussion opened in the wrong place). I've fouled that line myself before, which is why it rang a bell when I read your comment. That said, leafing through the "Closing Today" page and hunting for clear "keep" closes isn't a waste of time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep closes don't need to be uncontested, only clear. Also, I have seen non-admins close discussions with results that clearly require admin action, and then had an admin carry it out.(Deletion discussions and even a ban) However I think it is wise that the guideline does not encourage everyone to do so. It is a delicate balance between the ideal of admins being nothing more then editors with extra buttons, and the reality that most editors should probably leave closing of discussions to admins. Monty845 03:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NAC is an essay. WP:NACD seems to have acquired the statement "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome." in a classic example of instruciton drift. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Neutral per Snottywong and King of Hearts. Your work overall is great, so I'm not going to oppose. Buggie111 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I've moving this from "Oppose" . It's fairly clear the candidate needs considerable more experience with deletion before engaging in it, but I'm not totally comfortable with opposing on the basis of an originally minor part of the application DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral After rethinking this I have to say I think you will likely be a good admin. Just leave deletion-related stuff alone until you spend some more time there... Hobit (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - I will not downright oppose as I have no reason for doing that, and I have had good experiences with this user in the past, but I shall not outright support either, because, like others, I have reviewed the deletion-related contributions of this user and thought it best to wait just a little while before the admin tools are let loose on them. If it wasn't for this, I would have supported. But best of luck anyway, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral I've been watching this RFA for a while now. I really think the candidate will be a good admin but I do share the concerns above that the candidate simply lacks sufficient contributions in the areas they wish to work in (i. e. deletion) to actually be able to judge how they would use that "power" as an admin. Like DGG, I'm not comfortable opposing someone for not having contributions in a certain area (opposing is for when there are contributions that allow me to think that the candidate will not do a good job) but on the other hand, I lack the "data" to justify supporting the candidate. If this does succeed, which it looks like at this point, I would recommend taking the advice above of slowly easing into the area of deletion; if at all possible, you should probably ask someone experienced in that area to review your first deletions. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would indeed be my intention. Plastikspork's deleted tons of pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. Concerns with experience in the administrative areas candinate has expressed interest in. After you've been promoted, take things slowly and act only when you're certain action needs to be taken. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:00, 12 October 2011 (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