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

RegistryKey[edit]

Final (21/34/10); ended 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC) RegistryKey(RegEdit) 02:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination[edit]

RegistryKey (talk · contribs) – Today I have the pleasure of presenting to the community User:RegistryKey. In today's RfA environment you may at first glance see that this is a second nom and immediately be biased, or see the "1 year and 10 months old, with 4,130 edits" and want to jump to the conclusion that he is not experienced enough, but don't drink that Kool-Aid! Closing in on two years is more than enough time to learn our policies and the 4000+ edits RegistryKey has racked up are all in the right areas. This editor is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia (he's identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, 'nuff said!). Let's take a look at some of his userboxes. An active vandal-fighter, with an impressive CSD log to show for it. Also active in a major WikiProject: Freemasonry. RegistryKey self-identifies as a volunteer Firefighter, and a Major in the U.S. Civil Air Patrol! Well, this certainly testifies to him being of sound judgment and good character in my opinion. I know most of you have your strict criteria as to what makes a good admin but as for me, I want someone who wants to do the job, and that I'm confident will do it well, and perhaps more importantly, will do it often! RegistryKey is is a mature and intelligent editor that wants to help. This is why I think RegistryKey should be given the tools. -- œ™ 01:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: 'I accept this nomination, thank you for your confidence in me. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 02:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)'[reply]
I withdraw this RfA I've certainly learned a lot, among other things that, frankly the RfA process is broken in places as others have said. Additionally I have confirmed my previous suspicions that I am indeed a WP:WikiElf. I simply do not have the persuasion to create content as easy as others may have - WP:NEIA. Does this mean I will never become an admin? I do not know, and yes I know it's not the end-all, be-all, I simply am looking for more ways to enable myself to be able to contribute. That said, as others have said, WP:NOTQUITEYET it would seem, and I will refer back to this record regularly and aim to improve myself in my problem areas if able. (And of course this mini-rant will likely come up under the microscope next time, but every now and then one needs to let their feelings out.) RegistryKey(RegEdit) 01:56, 9 August 2016 (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: I intend to continue my work in counter-vandalism, and also plan to help continue with clearing out backlogs in places such as AFC, XFD, ANI, etc. Some may see my CSD log as a rapid-fire gamut of BITEyness, but I feel that a quick redirection when a user is still new to Wikipedia, along with some friendly guidance on how to get the most out of this wonderful community, can go a long way towards both encouraging them to stay and contribute, and also helps to ensure that our content remains true to the pillars and values of Wikipedia. Additionally through personal experience I know all too well, I understand how being stuck in a sea of bureaucracy and procedure can lead to a feeling of both anxiety and helplessness from a customer service point of view, and if I can contribute to helping with processing requests all the more through adminship, then so much the better.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I feel that my best contributions are my work with the Account Creation team, whereby I help users take that extra step out of the sea of anonymity and into the community of Wikipedia editors, and also my work with Files For Upload, which regrettably I have been neglecting but aim to get back into. For one, I took initiative and added a template in the responses that applies to files associated to pages that have been speedy-deleted, since I had started to notice a trend with that. Additionally I helped the editor for a major university journal update their publication's cover, which I thought was rather neat in terms of networking. Finally, a rather humorous contribution came earlier today, whereby I was given the opportunity to calculate how much waste the human population would produce over 419 million years.
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: Admittedly I have, about a year and a half ago I was involved in a minor edit-war. In hindsight I realize I should have contacted the user after the revision dispute began to show itself in order to get more information from that editor as to why he did what he did, instead of me wanting to be so quick to proclaim, "Well I can't find it, so it must be wrong!" That is not the sign of someone who is contributing to the community, and I feel I have moved beyond that. Consensus is the soup of the day, and it is quite tasty once you try it.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from SSTflyer
4. You visit WP:UAA and see these usernames. What do you do?
A:
1. I would advise this user to read through WP:USERNAME with regards to similar names, since it is similar to Arcangela Paladini. Since the name is already there as created, that tells me that either it wasn't similar enough for the system to flag it, or the Account Creation Team already reviewed it and created it. Additionally I would encourage the user to put the ((distinguish)) template up, or inform them that usernames can be changed via request.
2. Nothing for now. I would monitor the user to see if any issues with the username arise, but at the same time I would assume good faith. Yes random string usernames can possibly be indicative of quick and dirty vandals, but that is just one piece of the bigger picture.
3. Nothing for now. The editor is simply expressing an interest and by offering the "user" distinction, this clears away the uncertainty with regards to shared use. Promotional edits advocating LibreOffice could possibly be an outcome, but that's an AIV matter, not a UAA matter, and again, AGF.
4. Obvious play on Master of Puppets but nothing inherently wrong with that. Again, could possibly become an AIV issue later on depending on edits. The bigger question though is does that name violate the misleading usernames rule with regards to bots or things inherently Wikipedia, since puppet could imply both a bot or a sockpuppet. I would discuss this with fellow admins to obtain consensus, in addition to checking the editor's contributions to see if there is a correlation.
5. This would require to watch the user for a bit. Are they claiming and making edits for a company called "Space Exploration Technologies"? If so, then it's an obvious promotional and shared account issue. If not, then I refer back to the third username, which in and of itself is simply expressing an interest.
Additional question from Chickadee46
5. Have you ever offered a WP:3rd opinion or helped on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard?
A: I have not. Whenever I have checked WP:3rd opinion, there has either been nothing listed, or things have already been worked by other editors. In a similar vein, with DRN, even when there have been active items up, the discussion is already well-established and nearing conclusion. Looking at it now, I do see one currently in progress, and I will likely review it and see what viewpoints I can offer.
Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
6. When, if ever, is it appropriate to block without a vandal having received all four templated warnings?
A: One instance I would have to say is when the vandalism is readily apparent and spread across multiple places or if it is one large massive vandalism edit where the intent to disrupt is readily apparent, such as a vandal introducing profanity-laden ranting statements, random insults, or political platforming. While ClueBot and anti-vandal editors will likely find it quick and the vandal would easily receive the four warnings, it is sad to say that there are users that simply are users who are not here to contribute.
7. While doing patrolling, you come across a situation on West Bank: Editor A, a newbie with a week's tenure and 75 edits, has changed every instance of "Israel" to "Occupied Palestine." Editor B, a stalwart with years of experience, reverts with the edit summary "RV anti-Israel POV-pusher." Editor A then repeats that first edit, and Editor B leaves them an aggressive note on their talk page threatening to have them "blocked faster than you imagine." What do you do?
A: Editor A I would, if not already done, welcome them to Wikipedia and encourage them to read information on consensus, NPOV, the Five Pillars, and what is considered vandalism. I would also invite them to the Teahouse so they can have a dialog with experienced editors. Based on the editor's time here, they likely are uninformed as to these things, as many users are when they first join. "Anyone can edit it?! Time to get the truth out!" It is up to us to further explain how Wikipedia works. Additionally I would warn them with regards to West Bank specifically and it being under ArbCom remedies prohibiting new editors from editing it. As to Editor B, I would remind that user of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL; all editors have the potential to be great editors, but they'll never get there if they get run off after encountering a hostile community. Additionally, a word of caution with regards to Editor B making blanket statements about having the other user blocked could be in order - Editor B should not be speaking with such certainly as to the actions an administrator might take. The scenario does not give a time-frame, so the WP:1RR rule imposed on the article cannot be readily applied to this situation, however to ensure consistency I would also remind Editor B of the status and remind them to check talk pages of articles with regards to edits that are not reverting clear-cut vandalism.
Additional question from Irondome
8. Please can you give the community some background into your preliminary research on the material available on WP advising candidates before submitting themselves to an RfA? Have you fully read and understood Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates as an example?
A: I have read and re-read this information repeatedly over the course of my time here at Wikipedia, especially after my first failed RfA which I agree, I was nowhere near ready for then. RfA is a process unto its own, some say it's broken, some say it works just fine, but regardless it places the candidate under the microscope of the community, and regardless of the outcome, it is a learning experience for the candidate, and that is how I intend to take this moving forward as well.
Additional question from Lord Roem
9. (Borrowing this question from John) You've come across an edit war on the Donald Trump article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of a 20-hour period. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in only twice (both used rollback and neither are admins). No talk page discussion has occurred, no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation?
A: For one, Donald Trump is currently under the WP:1RR by ArbCom, so given the scenario above, both editors are subject to discretionary enforcement after an initial warning. Bearing that in mind, I would caution both editors of this fact and invite them to discuss the matter with each other, or with myself as well in the hopes of obtaining source consensus. Additionally, given the nature of the edit war and the prominence of the article, I would remove their access to rollback and advise them of such, because they used it for what it is not designed for, and are likely aware of that fact. "Rollback is not a license."
Additional question from VarunFEB2003
10. How do you differentiate between policies and guidelines at wiki?
A: To me, policies are tried and true. They have been discussed among the community and a valid need for them has been established and they have been enacted. They govern the large-scale as well as the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. As for guidelines, to me that means that they come into play moreso when you run into those weird situations where policy is not clear on what to do, or the specific situation doesn't fit with it 100%. If a guideline can be applied to it, or at least referred to for reference, that can give the editor or admin insight on how best to proceed.
Additional question from Cameron11598
11. There is a user (Editor-A) who is considered a "prolific content contributor" to the project, however in the past they have had several Civility Issues and the editor in question has been brought to ANI many times for it . Each time the Editor-A has been brought to ANI they have been given a warning about civility, but never a block. The last ANI thread about the recurring civility issues from Editor-A was less than a month ago. You notice (no ANI thread opened) Editor-A has once again been extremely uncivil in edit summaries and talk page messages to a new editor (Editor-B) causing Editor-B to leave the project. What actions (if any) would you take to address the continued civility issue from Editor-A and to reassure Editor-B they are welcome on wikipedia?
A: I would caution Editor A to read WP:CIVIL and issue a final warning with regards to the editor's conduct so that a solid precedent can be set and the editor knows what is expected moving forward. Many times over a short amount of time vs many times over a more spread out period are two different creatures, and even then with negative actions if a net positive can come of it, so much the better. Perhaps the editor simply is going through personal issues whenever they've taken to uncivil conduct. Sometimes it is good to take a Wikibreak instead of letting Wikipedia be a negative emotions outlet. At the same time though, as mentioned on WP:CIVIL, "cool-down" blocks are not encouraged, there needs to be specific articulate Wikipedia-related conduct to justify an incivility block, hence the final warning to hopefully ensure the editor understands things moving forward. As to Editor B, hopefully they have notifications enabled, and so I would both leave a message on their talk page encouraging them to come talk to me, and email them the same. If I can show the editor that bad conduct from one editor is not indicative of the whole of Wikipedia then hopefully that editor will return to contribute.
Additional question from Ethanlu121
12. Editor A is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Five years later, Editor B joins, and has many good edits, creates many good articles, and does not engage in vandalism, or disrupting Wikipedia. Eventually, a CheckUser confirms that Editor B is a sockpuppet account of Editor A. What do you do?
A: While the WP:SOCK policy does state that sockpuppet accounts are to be blocked indefinitely, there is also the concept of WP:IAR when it benefits Wikipedia as a whole, which I feel in this scenario the editor would. I would advise the editor of this and appropriately tag the accounts in the spirit of full disclosure, however I would not block the account unless the editor later showed signs of old behavior.

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support. Looks fine to me. RegistryKey appears to be a clueful and competent editor, and there is no question that he is a net positive. We could use the perspective of someone who has experience but understands the feelings of newer users. Please look at his contributions, not arbitrary stats that show nothing personal about him. RfA is about the person, not how many points they've racked up. Quality, not quantity. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 02:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. As nom. -- Ϫ 02:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure, seems like a good candidate. Has spent some time on the project, understands deletion according to his CSD log, and plans to be active in admin-related areas. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support RegistryKey seems to know what they are doing. While content creation is important I don't think it is the end all be all if someone will be a good administrator. Their CSD log shows they understand the requirements for deletion. As does their AFD log (somewhere around 95% accurate when they vote). The only thing I'd be hesitant on is the amour of time on wikipedia but I have no qualms supporting them despite the lack of time here. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. WP:CLUEful. Has demonstrated a need for the tools, and the ability to use them wisely. Not concerned about the lack of content creation. A vandal who wants the tools to harm the project is not going to wait 1 year 10 months for them. SSTflyer 03:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The A7 usages on his CSD log are overwhelmingly redlinks, which is a very positive indicator of his experience. Looking through his user talk archives, in his interactions with other editors, he seems very helpful and civil. Overall, a net positive. Enterprisey (talk!) (formerly APerson) 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Babymissfortune 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, we need more admins, and everything I have seen here suggests that they would be a net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak support, there's no doubt this is an editor with a tentative need for the tools, who is likely a net positive and would act with the project's best interests at heart. I would have preferred to see some more experience (not just edits) but hey, I've seen enough to give them a go -- samtar talk or stalk 07:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral support. Means well and is unlikely to be a disaster. The rest can be learnt, but it's a steep learning curve—hence, moral support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I am convinced that RegistryKey can be trusted with adminship despite his relative inexperience. The possible risks of giving him the added toolset are outweighed by the likely benefits of having him as an administrator. Kurtis (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. RegistryKey 2 is as qualified as I was when I became admin back in 2007. Deryck C. 14:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Principled Support. I don't feel convinced that the candidate has demonstrated a need for the tools, especially right now coming off an extended period of relative inactivity, and I find the answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3 to be almost alarmingly unimpressive. However I choose not to treat RfA as a fault-finding mission, and do not find a reason why RegistryKey cannot be trusted with the tools. Support per RfA is broken and we need more admins. Snuge purveyor (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I agree with Biblio, it's the quality of his edits that count, not how many he has. I feel he has a good understanding of the rules and guidelines and is experienced enough to become an admin. Woodstop45 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I think this user has enough experience with what administrators need to know how to do. He asks questions where there is uncertainty, he interacts with the community in a civil manner, and he politely warns people who violate a policy. CLCStudent (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak support Pleaseingly bold nom and from sampling your contribs you look to be a skilled and civil editor. Only weak support due to Q10. Your answer would have been ok if the question had been on the difference between Policy and essays. But it was about policy & guidelines, and in practice guidelines often carry allmost the same weight as policy. At least they often do at XfD where you say you might like to work. Im sure you'd pick that up from experience though as you seem open minded, and if this passes you'll make a great admin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The candidate's contribution history is underwhelming at best, and their answer to Q10 is a little bizarre, but they seem extremely unlikely to cause any real issues as an admin. Adminship isn't an award for being the best editor (or wiki-philosopher). – Juliancolton | Talk 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. This should be the default position in any RFA unless there is a compelling reason to oppose.... and I am not seeing a compelling reason. Rather, it seems to me that the candidate will be cautious with the tools and ask questions when needed. Heck, there are areas of adminship that I don't venture into even after 6 years of being an admin. Being an expert in every area isn't a criterion. Quality of contributions, demeanor, and wisdom shown during a dispute are more important. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support (moved from neutral) per Biblio, HJ Mitchell, Amatulic. Still concerned about the dearth of experience at XFD and ANI, and would advise the candidate (if successful) not to do mopwork there until learning the ropes as a "regular" editor. But the answers (particularly to Q6, Q7, Q9 and Q11) are adequate, and convince me that he can be trusted not to do anything rash or drive off anyone who should be kept around. This is not supposed to be a big deal; a low likelihood of harm and a plausible case for being able to use some tools should be enough. FourViolas (talk)
  20. Support Per Biblio and Samtar. This user will be a net positive, and demonstrates a need for the tools. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Moral Support - Not much to put here, honestly. I don't think he'll go rogue, but...meh. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. I'm troubled by the answers to Q1, Q2, and Q3. Q1 is fine with vandal work, but an admin who wants to work in deletion should have significant experience in content creation; the nominator concedes that is not the case. I dislike the mention of ANI: An admin who wants to work the drama boards needs much more experience. The candidate is not giving me a focused request. Q2 is a misfire because it does not stay on point. The best work at Wikipedia cannot be redoing the cover of an outside journal. I don't want a wandering admin. Also, the best work is spitballing how many lightyears of poop mankind has created? Q3 is off the rails with "Consensus is the soup of the day." I do not get the sense that the candidate is taking this nomination seriously. I am not pleased with the stats, either: 819 article edits does not speak to content; 4200 edits with 2700 automated. I need to see something serious and solid to go for such a candidate, and the breezy answers do not cut it. Glrx (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So... what exactly do the candidate's self-identified best contributions have to do with how well they would use the sysop tools? You touch on some substantive issues such as their lack of experience in some areas throughout your comment (though of course without actually looking at their contributions to find examples that suggest you may be correct), but the rest isn't really relevant IMHO. And if they are so inexperienced, I assume you can find plenty of mistakes in what they have done right? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The 819 article-space edit count overstates things a bit. MusikAnimal's tool reports a mere 124 non-automated edits to mainspace, most of which are trivial. Rebbing 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't care about the premature first RfA, we all did stupid stuff when we started. I also don't care about the really bad nomination statement (although really? Being identified means little in that context, and no concrete facts beyond an edit count? Really? "Let's take a look at some of his userboxes."? Really?) But I do care that I haven't seen anything on the candidate's qualifications. Plus, what does that journal in Q2 have to do with Wikipedia? Why have there only been 250 edits in the last nine months? Why only ~124 non-automated edits to the mainspace? What do you believe qualifies you to be an administrator? What work here are you proud of? Why are you here? These are all things that should be answered in the nom or questions but haven't been. Nothing personal against you, RegistryKey. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only 4,000 edits for a vandal fighter (a role that really tends to inflate edit counts) is surprising. Overall, I'm not convinced that they have enough experience in areas outside of vandal fighting, and I'm not even convinced that they have enough to use the tools in vandal fighting. FWIW, anybody can identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, and even in the past some editors have and then been globally banned by WMF for stuff they did after that, so I don't put any stock in that. --Rschen7754 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The answers to the questions are just not enough. They say that they are going to work at AfC, well that doesn't require the admin tools. They say that they are going to work at XFD but they have very little experience in that area. They say they want to work at ANI, but their user stats show that they have only posted there 5 times. None of those makes me confident in their ability to work in the areas that they say they want to work in. Then there is actually the breakdown of edits. I am certainly not one of those people that require a GA/FA whatever to become an admin. But in the last eight months they have only 275 edits? And their greatest edit namespace is user talk. I really have to go with The ed17 on this one. What qualifies you to be an administrator? Why are you here? --Majora (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose: Not too confident in the candidate's willingness to read instructions given the first NOTNOW RfA, and almost no content work. I expect a minimum of at least some content creation in order to ensure that the candidate understands what policy is and is not, especially if the candidate plans to be a jack of all trades as an admin. I do not want to use quantitative measures in assessing the candidate, but 4,000 edits, and more importantly, mainly in units of 2 fighting vandals is very low to confidently support giving the candidate adminship for a lifetime. Almost no experience to the areas the candidate wishes to work in (e.g., only participated in 25 AfDs, few edits via AfC), and I also find the answer to Q2 highly unsatisfactory (an admin's best work should be more prodigious than determining the mass of all the feces generated by humanity given some arbitrary assumption. And what significance is updating the cover of J. of Some Univ. to Wikipedia?). I suggest that the candidate read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates at least twice. I am also unconvinced by the laxly-accorded support votes that cite mere good faith as the reason for supporting. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose: As mentioned above, you have very little content creation, while you seem like a good person, and i have nothing against you, I find that a very large amount of your edits, while a commendable amount at 3642, are mostly moving articles, reverting vandalism, which while commendable does not require nor give you the need for adminship. A lot of your edits are in talk space, you have also only created two pages, and again as likely put best by Majora, you show little experience in XFD, and again with ANI you have only posted 5 times. Iazyges (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Just an overall lack of experience has me concerned. Im impressed by the candidates CSD log, but only 4000 edits just isnt enough for me at this time to support. Im sorry, I do think you will be a good admin with time.--Church Talk 06:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Adminship is not merely about tools: administrators have substantial discretion in choosing how to interpret and enforce our rules. Since our product is the encyclopedia, I expect a candidate to demonstrate a thorough understanding of our content policies and a modest knowledge of our writing practices. Typically, this is shown by writing and improving articles, but it can also be exhibited through regular participation in talk page discussions that reflect the candidate's thinking. In this case, it appears the record is devoid of any such writing or participation.

    In addition to applying our policies, administrators are trusted to determine consensus in complicated, contentious discussions. The depth of the candidate's discussion comments appears to be relatively limited; the dozen AFD votes and nominations I reviewed—while correct—are simple votes in uncomplicated debates.

    Turning to the reasons advanced for promotion, none are persuasive. The candidate's needless identification of himself to the Wikimedia foundation shows, if anything, a tendency towards hat collecting, not an aptitude for adminship. His CSD log is probative of competence but, at a dozen nominations per month, is otherwise completely unremarkable. The fact that the candidate is a net positive and clearly not a vandal is insufficient to prove his requisite content, collaborative, and consensus-judging abilities. His stated reasons for needing administrative rights don't fare any better: AFC is free to anyone with 90 days' tenure and 500 edits, and the various drama boards and deletion processes were well-staffed the last time I checked. Moreover, I would expect a candidate wishing to help out in these areas to have regularly participated, yet RegistryKey has only voted in one AFD this year and, according to the tool, has never performed a close.

    To answer the objection that the "oppose" votes are swayed by arbitrary statistics: my vote is based on qualitative, not quantitative factors; with 4k edits, 22 months, and no blocks, the candidate's slash line is not the problem; what's lacking is anything on which to evaluate competency for the position.

    All that said, there is every indication that the candidate is a good and helpful editor. If he wishes to become more involved, there are plenty of areas in need of help that don't require any privileges: New pages patrol currently has a huge backlog and a dearth of meticulous, patient editors; AFC is not so hard up, but could always use a hand; requested moves is a good way to gain experience with discussions and the technicalities of article title policy; and AFD, while adequately staffed by capable closers, is suffering from a lack of studied participation. Best. Rebbing 11:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  9. Oppose; candidate is to inexperienced. A very small amount of non-automated article space contributions. To resolve editorial conflicts you need to understand what an editor is experiencing and the only way to understand is to work on articles yourself. I'd would say have a look at WP:NOTQUITEYET. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. As mentioned above, they have only 124 non-automated edits in mainspace. Very well, they have 51 edits to AIV (well done), but one who wishes to help out at AIV while having only 5 edits in that area does not convince. AfC does not require admin tools at all, so I'm not sure how they would use the mop in AfC. The lack of content creation (apart from 17 redirects) concerns me, as I prefer the closing admin at AfD to be more familiar with deletion criteria when closing. They identify as a vandal-fighter. Vandal-fighters tend to rack up high edit counts, yet the candidate has only 275 edits in the last calendar year, 109 of which have occurred in the last week. That, combined with the userbox on their userpage indicating their desire to become an administrator, seems to me emblematic of one concerned about hat-collecting. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 06:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - sorry but too inexperienced. GiantSnowman 06:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Too inexperienced. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose A lack of experience. Class455fan1 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose Sorry bud, but I don't think an administrator that is sometimes months inactive and then comes back for two months or so will really help. I haven't had any interactions with you, but you seem like a good guy. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Sorry, I don't believe that you have the experience required for admin privileges. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose: You are too inexperienced, sorry bud. KGirlTrucker81 talk what I'm been doing 12:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose No slight personally, but IMO (at this time) not experienced enough to be an admin.   Aloha27  talk  13:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose: Only two articles created, and one was deleted. Could be WP:NOTQUITEYET. —MRD2014 T C 13:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Barely any experience in AFD or ANI, Only 820 edits made to article mainspace (and 1,793 edits made to talkspace) in the 2/3 years of being here and last but not least they've only made 283 edits this year..... The activity here is extremely low and to be completely honest I'm not seeing any need for the tools at all especially when you've not actually cleared any backlogs, The CSD log is great however I'm not seeing any experience anywhere else except CSD, I'm not saying you should be on here 24hrs a day racking up 10k edits a month but what I am saying is you need to be here more than you currently are, I wish you all the best with this RFA (and for future ones if need be), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Oppose - Sorry, RegistryKey. You're a valuable user, and I hope this experience with RfA doesn't get you down. While I don't typically have specific requirements in terms of statistics, numbers, namespaces, etc. I agree with some of those above who are effectively saying WP:NOTQUITEYET. I'd read through some of the recent unsuccessful and successful-but-close RfAs to look at the things that come up. Remember that if you come back it'll be a different set of people next time, who might have different things to say than those participating here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Just nowhere near enough experience to be considered an admin, in my book. Work some more on some of the other projects around here and maybe this user can be reconsidered. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - I appreciate RegistryKey's enthusiasm and I really do hope this RfA doesn't turn them away from Wikipedia entirely. However, I think it is critically important for Admins to have some experience writing new content (which I have not seen from this editor) and 124 non-automated edits to article space is too few to gain a comprehensive understanding of the process of article-building. I do hope to see RegistryKey at RfA again in the future, but for now, it is too soon. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Kudpung's neutral and Davey2010's oppose. I'm afraid the candidate's judgment about whether he's ready to become an administrator hasn't improved since his first RfA. I also think the answer to Q10 is strange at best.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Regretful Oppose I have absolutely no doubt that the candidate is a good plus to the project, and has done some useful work, with an excellent attitude. But I must echo many of the points above, perhaps best put by Esquivalience and User:Rebbing. I am concerned that the candidate did not adequately prepare for another RfA in addition. A colleague can achieve enormous gains for the project without being an admin. I would suggest the candidate carries on the positive work and attitude already shown, and is not discouraged by the increasingly likely outcome of this RfA. I hope to see you around in the long term. Regards Irondome (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, also regretfully. I'm not the type of editor who looks at the raw numbers usually, but for a vandal fighter, there's some obvious concerns. Only 3,700 live edits is unusually low for an RfA, but I can overlook a lower count when edits are high quality participation in project areas, etc. For a vandal fighter, though, I need to see more than 1,000 edits over the past year. I don't think 1,000 vandal-fighting edits in the past year is sufficient to have the experience on community norms necessary to dive into areas like ANI, where this candidate states he wants to get involved. You can see this lack of experience in a few areas. Citing AfC as an administrative area, a lack of understanding of policies vs. guidelines in question 10, a lack of clear specialization in the project, etc. I don't care how long it takes to acquire the light polish necessary to become an admin, but I think it's clear that it hasn't been acquired by this editor yet. I also have some issues with the statement that the candidate has read and re-read the RFA advice continuously for their entire time on-site, which sounds like they see adminship as an end unto itself. That may or may not be true, but given the scrutiny admins are placed under, I worry when someone doesn't recognize how what they're saying may be perceived. You look like a great contributor, RegistryKey, and I hope you stick around after this. Please don't see this as a referendum on you as an editor. It's a referendum on whether you're ready for the type of extreme pressure and scrutiny that comes with wielding the mop. I'd much rather you gain some more experience and go into this eyes wide open than be given the mop this week, make some quick mistakes, and flame out. ~ Rob13Talk 21:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. This editor appears to have many qualities, but not to have sufficient experience and judgement for greater responsibility. I am perturbed by the move into mainspace of Scott Nute, an article with obvious and severe problems that make it quite unfit for an encyclopaedia, and believe that this shows a lack of discernment quite unacceptable in an admin. Sorry, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong oppose - The nomination rationale is atrocious. This was poorly thought-out, and the nominator really needed to do his homework. The user's real-life roles are irrelevant on-wiki, and I'd point out that Civil Air Patrol ranks are entirely training-based, not an indication of the equivalent in the armed forces. Given that the project cited as his area of activity is one I have been associated with for over a decade, the extent of RegistryKey's activity on WP:Freemasonry appears to be putting his name on the participants list - if he was ever really active, he hasn't been for over a year and a half (which is about when he joined). I went through his last few thousand edits trying to find activity on said project, and found that most of his edits are welcome notices to new users, and the occasional AIV report. That doesn't strike me as community participation that requires tools. As noted by others, the editor's activity level is low and sporadic, with no participation in "admin areas." I see no need for the tools, and no demonstration of the understanding required to use them. To back this up with data, the user tools show the most edits ever made to a mainspace page is 6, but 346 edits to the user's CSD log, and over 400 in their own userspace. That's over 9%, and most of the work is single, which I bet would be minor edits. Over half the user's edits were made in four distinct months. 11% of the editor's edits have been deleted. As a comparison, I'm at about 9%, and that's actively a result of trimming and editing in the course of COI and XfD over the course of 11 years (with one year of minimal activity). Pages I've edited have upwards of 50 edits on them sometimes. I'd expect to see an admin have a spread closer to mine than what we have here, because rather then bursts, there's consistency. MSJapan (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose - Whoever it was that nominated this candidate did an extremely poor job. I am troubled by his answer to Q10, which is nonsensical and confusing. Most of his edits aren't even on the mainspace, but are just talk-page welcomes and AIV reports. The account is rarely active. He has little experience in AfD and ANI, has only created two articles (one of which has been deleted), he is inexperienced, and he seems to have trouble understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Welcoming users and submitting AIV reports does not require Administrator tools. Ethanlu121 (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I'm sorry about this, because I rarely oppose at RFA, but I think this is a bit of a WP:NOTQUITEYET situation. As many others have mentioned, you've done next to no content work, and have less than 150 non-automated edits to mainspace. Now, I'm not exactly a content creator myself, but what I do think is that candidates should have done at least some basic content work. I don't insist on GA/FA/DYKs, but I do believe that you should have at least made a few, decent, well-sourced articles. See User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content for why. In addition to that, a little more experience at admin areas at WP:AFD or WP:NPP would be nice just to be able to evaluate the candidate's experience there. However, if, in the next 6 months or so, you do some content work, and you get more involved in admin areas, then I'd be happy to support you then. Omni Flames (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Not now. I don't see how the phrase "active vandal-fighter" and 4000 edits tallies. If it were 4000 a month, then that would be more in keeping with an active vandal-fighter Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. This was an auto-fail RfA a mile off; I'm not sure why the nominator (an admin) couldn't see that but they've been mostly inactive the past four years. In addition to all the problems listed by others above, I'm very concerned about the candidate's several very premature requests for adminship or nomination [1], [2], [3]. Something's very disturbingly off there. Frankly this lack of clue about Wikipedia, and this over-desire for adminship, has me ill-disposed to this candidate's ever being trusted with the mop. We're here for the joy of it, not to exercise power. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, although regretfully because RegistryKey 2 seems like a good editor. I just don't see the need for the tools. The candidate states the desire to work in AFD, but there is a relatively low amount of participation there. Also, I think a bit more content creation is needed. I'm not talking 20 FAs or anything, but at least something more, perhaps even being involved in peer reviews or FAC. Finally, the lack of edits this year is a bit distressing. -Pax Verbum 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - My examination of the candidate's history does not lead me to believe that they are qualified to be admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Not enough experience at all, plus above about repeated desire for adminship.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Placing myself here for now, leaning support. SSTflyer 02:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. SSTflyer 03:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not too confident in the candidate's willingness to read instructions given the first NOTNOW RfA, and almost no content work. I expect a minimum of at least some content creation, especially if the candidate plans to close AfDs outside of NAC. Moved to oppose. — Esquivalience (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral for the time being. Premature rfa #1 is a bit concerning, but am willing to overlook that based on comments of users who have worked directly with RegistryKey. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 03:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral – allowing the user time to respond to the new questions that have been posted. North America1000 13:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, pending RK's answers to the additional questions. GABgab 13:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers. I'm encouraged by the clueful CSD activity and answer to Q4, but concerned by Q1, Q2, mainspace non-automated edit count, and dearth of experience in stated target areas XFD and ANI. FourViolas (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Moved to support. FourViolas (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral – awaiting answers to queries, but am concerned as to the experience issue. Kierzek (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral –this leaves me in no doubt that the candidate did not read any advice pages or review any previous RfAs before deciding to go for it. The candidate is obviously a great guy and a mature person but there is a problem where common sense just does not realise that this RfA has very little chance of succeeding - and that's the flaw in the candidate's powers of judgment. I would love to be wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - I'd really like to support, because I see an editor who means well and is contributing to the project. But, WP:PROD on a 12-minute-old article and another under 3 hours seem too WP:BITEy even for an editor who owns up to it. (See the answer to Q1, which on re-reading didn't improve my position on this.) In addition, this WP:PROD is an example of a place where an admin-to-be would just take the correct action instead of nominating for WP:PROD; it didn't require admin rights to redirect. Yes, you could say "at least they weren't CSD", but...I'm not seeing the judgment I'd expect. On the positive side, a review of deleted contributions shows a whole lot of CSD tags that are, in fact, now red-linked pages; I didn't do an exhaustive analysis but those CSD tags do seem pretty good.  Frank  |  talk  17:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral Very few non-automated mainspace contributions, which of course should not inherently carry weight in an oppose (mine were maybe 90% at the time of my RfA), but this is more about having a track record to confidently evaluate an understanding of policies and guidelines. In that sense the mainspace and overall edit count really does matter, and I'm just not seeing enough here, especially overall recent activity as Davey2010 points out. Unrelated, I'd like to mention that as far as I know, anyone can identify themselves to the Foundation, and some newbie users have done this, as well as experienced users who later were banned — MusikAnimal talk 18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Another oppose at this point would not serve any further purpose. A lot of people talk about the relevance of article writing in relationship to becoming an admin. To me, it's clear. The project is an encyclopedia and its primary focus is content. I do not think it is appropriate or in the best interests of the project for editors to be administered by editors who have very little article writing experience. Not only does article writing implicate the need to understand our policies, but also how to properly apply them. Article writing will expose editors to everything from WP:GNG to WP:MOS. More importantly, it also creates an understanding by putting the administrator in the shoes of those whom they must interact and sometimes deeply affect. I recently went through a very long disagreement with another editor over civility and the insistence for strict adherence to the rules. Ultimately it did way more harm than good and I opted to concede the issue. As a result we were able to work together to get the article GA status and have discussed working together in the future. Being an admin can't always be about the policies and who wikilawyers them the best. Mkdwtalk 18:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I can't oppose here, as I think that the editor is a WP:NETPOS, but I'm really not sure. I may move my vote later. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC) Moved to Support ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral because an additional oppose would be piling on, but this is premature. Jonathunder (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral in the "I would like to support this candidate because he's a net positive, but he hasn't shown much accomplishment yet since his last RFA" kind of way. epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
  • I'm not sure why article creation is the ned all be all for so many people on this project to support an RFA. Yes article creation is an important part of Wikipedia, but article creation has little to do with the admin tools. Administrators are (not trying to offend any admins, crats or stewards here) glorified janitors. There is a reason the admin's representative image on this project is a mop. I understand some editors think that article creation is important so you know what should be deleted, but look at RegistryKey's AFD log and CSD log. Those show they have a strong grasp of the requirements for deletion (95% accurate on AFD is amazing.). If you are going to oppose, at least explain why you feel "article creation" is important more than the usual "its a major part of the project", so is counter vandalism work which RegistryKey is involved in. That is actually more required of an admin than content creation. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cameron11598: An encyclopedia is written by those who create and expand content, and the admins are the ones responsible for much of the maintenance of the content. Admins should at least have some experience in content creation, as it at least gives them perspective regarding the problems content editors face in expanding content. Just like we do not hire non-programmers to manage code, or we do not hire non-academics to a professorship, we do not appoint non-content editors to supervise content. And also note that while some supervisory positions are relatively minor (a professorship may only be at some relatively obscure university, for instance), Wikipedia is the most widely-used encyclopedia, so we should take candidate's suitability with at least some seriousness. — Esquivalience (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've known many managers of programmers who were never programmers themselves. Damned good managers, too. The professor analogy is inapt. You should compare a professor to a member of a university's staff who has some managerial responsibilities vis-a-vis professors. I won't go on because this is unfortunately a recurring factionalized theme at RfAs now. But, I ask you, is it fair for some editors to be paid for creating or editing articles and those who block them get zip? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some experience in content creation" ok fair enough. But if a candidate for RFA who is otherwise suitable (knows policy and how to apply it, a decent track record at AFD and CSD, participates in DRN, always keeps a cool head, often deescalates situations, a clean block log) should be disqualified solely because they didn't create an article of their own or bring one up to FA or GA status. To me thats just absurd. And on track with the the Professor analogy, often dimes VP of Administration or VP of student services at a college has never taught in a class room yet their positions allow them to supervise college and university professors. And along the programer line the military does it all the time, so do several fortune 500 companies. Personnel issues don't necessarily require experience in that particular field. And I think that concept translates well over to wikipedia. To me a more pressing concern is how do administrators enforce WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA which I think are grossly under enforced (particularly WP:CIVIL ). That should be the deciding factor not "content creation". There are plenty of good administrators on wikipedia who don't do a lot of content creation. I'm just saying yes content creation has a place but it shouldn't be the end all be all that it has become in RFAs. Especially with ridiculous requirements like "doesn't have 3 FA's and 10 GS's or 15 DYK's. I mean seriously? Thats just my view. We've lost out on a lot of contributors that would have been great administrators just because they don't have "significant content creation" or "too many semi-automated edits" (which you should expect from a vandal fighter) or "too many talk space edits" (again warnings from vandal fighters). There are at least 3 candidates for RFA that would be great administrators if we didn't put so much of an emphasis on "content creation". --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal requirement is not the often-exaggerated complaint (sometimes a straw man) of umpteenth GAs or whatnot, just something, even several paragraphs, that shows that an editor understands what it takes to edit content. A well-qualified candidate can have only one Start-class article and I will still give my full support. But admins have a direct influence over content, with wide discretion to rule content disputes. Admins' edits also have much more standing: see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione, where adminship was basically a de facto Secret Service protecting the edits of a sockpuppet and spammer for four years before ArbCom got around to it. I am not accusing the candidate of sockpuppetry, that was the extremest of all cases, but it shows influence admins have on what millions read daily. And although you're right in saying that admins have a maintenance role, what do they maintain? The integrity of the content, as well as the relations between editors who write the content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Nomic, so admins thus must understand the needs of content and content creators. — Esquivalience (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not about the candidate, refactored to talk page

@DatGuy: @KGirlTrucker81: please could either of you give me any ideas as to why you both posted one-line Oppose votes, both containing the phrase "sorry bud", within less than three hours of each other? I am sure it may have been a coincidence (perhaps the phrase "sorry bud" is seen very often in RfAs?), but could you offer any other explanations for it? thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPS1992 - DatGuy has probably read KGs comment and just used the phrase, If it helps I've started using phrase "sorry bud" and I'm sure I've used it in an RFA before so it's probably nothing sinister, just a big and harmless coincidence. –Davey2010Talk 22:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Davey2010:, that is slightly reassuring -- though I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed -- but I would like to hear from the editors themselves, or at least one of them. Re-typing (part of) the !vote of the editor almost immediately preceding you on an RfA does not seem to me like the best way of expressing a reasoned opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: could you also please point me to the RfA where you used the phrase "sorry bud" before, please? I am not so good at searching syntax. MPS1992 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "I see you also !voted the same way as the two editors being discussed" - If you're trying to accuse me of being a sock or whatever then please go to SPI and file a case - I even welcome you to do a CU check!, People use similar or the same phrases on here all the time it doesn't mean they're a sock or whatever, Nope because I have no idea what RFA it was on. –Davey2010Talk 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant only what I said. I am not sure why asking questions at an RfA should provoke such hostile responses. If you do find which RfA you used the phrase on -- you said you were "sure" about it -- please let me know. MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2016 (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