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

Rjd0060[edit]

Final (67/5/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 18:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) - I’d like to present Rjd0060 for your consideration. He’s been a member here since August 2007 and has amassed over 13000 edits. He had a previous RfA when he was very new here which failed, but since then, he’s made fantastic improvements in every single area. Article wise, he’s made some great contributions to a number of articles that focus on Big Brother topics. He does some great anti-vandalism work, and he always correctly revert, warns and reports to AIV. His reports are almost always accurate and his 200 contributions to AIV show he could really use the block button and has shown his ability to use it well. He’s a regular contributor to XfD discussions where his responses are always thoughtful and show an excellent understanding of article notability and inclusion criteria. I think he’d be great at closing these discussions with policy in mind. Rjd0060 is also a valuable contributor to the help desk showing a tendency to help out users who have problems here. I can also see some great contributions to requests for page protection and I think he’d use the protection button effectively and help out with the back logs that can build up there. He’s tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion, showing a full understanding of the speedy deletion criteria, he could certainly use the delete button to help clear out CAT:CSD which often gets backlogged. All in all, Rjd0060 is a great contributor who appears in numerous places throughout the project, I believe he would make a fine administrator, and I hope you guys agree. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination and thank Ryan Postlethwaite for it. Also, thank you all in advance for your comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would definitely continue my work on recent changes patrol. Other things I’d like to do are monitor requests for page protection, work on XFD backlogs, as well as anything that needs admin attention via the Admin backlog. While doing these things, of course I will continue doing the things I am already doing like maintaining articles, especially articles within the 2 WikiProjects that I am active in.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think all of my contributions benefit Wikipedia in some way or another. Whether I am assisting a new user, adding citations to an article, updating out of date information, reverting vandalism and reporting consistent vandalism to administrators, this all helps Wikipedia. But getting specific, I am most proud of my edits relating to Ice hockey and Big Brother (the 2 WikiProjects that I am active in). I enjoy writing about these things, and in all reality, that’s why we are all here…to write an encyclopedia.
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:This answer will be similar to the answer I gave at my last RfA. I do a lot of RCP, and communicating with users who vandalize is sometimes (a lot of times) going to cause conflicts. A lot of times they do not believe they are doing anything wrong. Whenever in a conflict, I feel it important to listen to the other side of the situation. I see a lot of conflicts result from misunderstandings or miscommunication between users. It is always important to try and understand other points of view.
I don’t get stressed out over these conflicts though. The worse they get, the more motivation I have to continue to try and resolve them. Wikipedia is just like any other work environment, and we’re all better off without the hostility and conflicts, but with so many users, with so many different points of view, they are bound to happen.


4. Can you point us to some of your article writing?--Docg 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Sure! As Ryan Postlethwaite pointed out above, most of the time I spend article writing goes to Big Brother (TV series) related articles, such as Big Brother 8 (U.S.), Big Brother: After Dark, and soon to be Big Brother 9 (U.S.), all of which I have spent a fair amount of time on.
I think it is also important to note that I've done a lot of work on templates, and I feel that most templates are very important to the articles context. Usually I find myself editing templates relating to the NHL. Per the wannabe kate, I've edited Template:Detroit Red Wings and Template:Montreal Canadiens the most (a few times to each one), but I do have over 100 template edits.
One more thing I'll point out, is that I've done some work cleaning up some NHL-related lists like here and here.
5 Can you point to one or two instances in which you had a non-trivial difference of opinion with another editor about the content of a page or template? I'm not looking for an argument or dispute, just a content disagreement that required substantial discussion to resolve. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: As evident from my contributions, I can be considered a wiki-gnome type of editor. Doing things like creating lists like (this, this, this and this), fixing templates (some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) , being active in discussions where article content changes are at play, and working on the appearance of articles (2 examples: [6], [7]), and other similar edits ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) is not likely to get you involved in many disputes. However, does making these types of contributions ‘’benefit’’ Wikipedia? – You bet they do, just in a different way that somebody who writes a Featured Article.
I’d like to mention that I understand the concerns below but I really enjoy contributing to the project in the way that I do. Doing these “wiki-gnome” tasks help improve the credibility of the encyclopedia. Without credibility, wikipedia wouldn’t be where it is today.
I’m not interested in being anybody’s manager here. That is not what adminship is all about. I accepted this nomination because the extra buttons will help me become a more effective contributor – doing the things that I already do, whether it is some sort of maintenance task, RCP, or something else.


6. Upon doing some cleaning in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, I noticed that you made this edit to the category. Do you anticipate on doing some clearing of this indefinitely-backlogged category? Acalamari 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes, I certainly do. This is one of several administrative maintenance tasks that I would like to take part in. I attempted to establish a specific speedy deletion criteria for this, but it was determined not necessary. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive121#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria proposal). At this point, pending the outcome of this RfA, I am interested to hear from User:MZMcBride and User:Misza13 regarding a toolserver request that was placed which would help clear this backlog. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rjd0060 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

I looked at it too. From what I can tell you put a db-bio on a page that was vandalised with a different "Andrew Nichols" (IOW, "replaced") than the notable Andrew Nichols that article was supposed to be about. A quick check through the history instead of a quick "db" would have meant you would have reverted instead of tagged. No biggie, though, it was caught and remedied appropriately. And a success rate of .998 is something you should be proud of! Keeper | 76 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure if you'd checked the history or not. The subject does not look terribly notable, and an admin did delete the thing. Sometimes, we get in a rush and forget to check the history. Anyone could make that misstep. And the tagged for deletion version was rubbish. Dlohcierekim 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for clarifying that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Follow-Up Comment: Well, I see everything that is going on below, and I thought I'd leave a note. Yes, I've made over 13000 edits to this encyclopedia. No, I haven't written any Featured Articles. Does that negate all of my other edits? I didn't think it did, but some people feel it does, and they are certainly entitled to state that opinion - Thats one of the joys of Wikipedia. So, not writing any FA's or GA's have allowed me to contribute to other areas of the project such as:

What do all of these numbers show? Precisely nothing, except for my dedication to this project. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the same old straw-man yet again. No-one is requiring FAs or GAs. Hell, I had none when I became an admin. All we wanted is some evidence of concrete content contributions. Indeed if you'd gone and edited a few articles and added a few sentences during this RfA, you'd probably have satisfied my extremely low threshold in this area. I'm getting a little frustrated that a reasonable demand that a few of your 13k edits over several months might actually have been to contribute a few sentences, or cleaned up an article's content, is continually misrepresented as an unreasonable demand that admins show evidence of high-end content work. That's patently not what is being said. So you are not addressing (or even listening to) the real concerns being expressed. This does not bode well for your ability to take constructive criticism as an admin.--Docg 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as nominator - best of luck! Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely!. There are a few names of editors that stand out in my mind that make me say "If they ever do an RfA, I'll chip in quickly. Rjd0060 is one of those editors, and he is a fantastic editor with lots of clue. He will do extrememly well with the mop and bucket. Keeper | 76 19:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. May as well support, whilst I'm under this name. Rudget. 19:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Support - I interact with this user often, and nothing he has ever done has proven to me he will abuse to mop. Has a core understanding of deletion policy and a good track record of dealing with vandals. While every user has had there "incidents" this user has handled them all with a calm demeanor of reasoning. Tiptoety talk 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Reviewed talk page and contribs. Looks good. My only possible quibble is the speedy deletion tagging of Andrew Nichols. Only one out of over 500+ is pretty impressive. Dlohcierekim 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Avruchtalk 21:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Are you kidding? Absolutely trustworthy. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes! NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason? –Pomte 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yeah, WP:HOCKEY member. Maxim(talk) 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Like Maxim said. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support knows what's what and who's whom. RMHED (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support worked with him in the past and he is great contributer to the project. -Djsasso (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support - I've seen this user around the Wiki and my interactions with him have been very favourable. I have absolutely no doubt that he will put the tools to good use and will continue to provide the strong and smooth contribution that he has always brought to this project. He is always civil, calm and productive and I have never seen him produce a bad edit. Definitely admin material. ScarianCall me Pat 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support great understanding of CSD, will make a good admin (and will help clean out CAT:CSD, as Ryan Postlethwaite pointed out).   jj137 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support user can be trusted with the tools. Cheers, LAX 22:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Can't say no to this one. :) GlassCobra 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - experienced and prolifically helpful user. The Transhumanist 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I've seen this user around somewhere, but don't remember exactly where – whatever happened, I do remember I appreciated his viewpoint and the way he put it across. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support from what I've seen at WP:HOCKEY, I have no reason to object. This nom should only serve to benefit the community as a whole. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Indeed good sir, indeed! Jmlk17 23:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support! Majorly (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say I agree with Gurch below, but I feel that his comments aren't significant enough for me to switch. Majorly (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :), lol. Tiptoety talk 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oh, this what he has talking about. Looks good. John Reaves 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Will make a fine admin. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Oppose Is already an admin, this RFA is disruptive. · AndonicO Hail! 00:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - very helpful and hardworking. Will make a fine admin. I especially liked his answer to #3, that it's important to understand other's pov when in conflict disputes. I've seen too often admins just looking on the surface, without "digging" deeper into disputes. This is very important to do, especially on the more controversial subjects where it is more complex in nature, with all the POV pushing and where it can become heated, and when even the best editors can become unhindged and frustrated. ←Gee♥Alice 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - all encounters have shown a competent, civil user. Guest9999 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Comes from Ryan Postlethwaite. Can't fudge with that. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Oh aye, definitely - no problems at all here, great editor with grasp on policy. BLACKKITE 01:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A great candidate. VanTucky 01:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolutely. Also, ITYWOA.... --jonny-mt 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonny: Does that mean I Thought You Were One Already? We're trying to decipher it. ☺ Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be the one. I figured someone would get it :) --jonny-mt 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I'd say "Strong support" but that's probably unnecessary. Anyway, Rjd0060 is an exemplary user; I've only seen him around occasionally on my watchlist, but that's probably because the editing he does spans many spaces. His efforts as a vandal fighter are superb, and I haven't seen him mess up yet. His work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey‎ is excellent because it displays both his skill at communicating with fellow editors and also knowledge of article editing. Demonstrates good understanding of image policy, which is crucial, and is active at the Admin's Noticeboard. I won't mention the incredibly courteous and approachable nature of the candidate. *phew* Oh, and is also regularly available on IRC, which is a plus. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Everything suggests this user will make a great administrator. SorryGuy  Talk  04:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Suppport Highly qualified user. MBisanz talk 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. SO EASY support. Fantastic editor. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per awesomeness. BJTalk 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Good to see a genuine concern re. incorrect speedies. I'm very very impressed - well done mate. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 11:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Will be a good admin. SpencerT♦C 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Though I have to admit I'm concerned about him being a Detroit Red Wings fan. But, I'll let that slide. ;o) He's always been a polite and helpful editor, and has a very good understanding of the maitenence tasks that go into Wikipedia. Resolute 18:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I've seen Rjd6000 doing good work round the Wikipedia and knowing how helpful and useful he is on IRC, I can only give my full support. Wikipedia and the community are far too important to this editor that he would ever feel the need to misuse the tools. Poeloq (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Fine editor with a level head. Best of luck with the mop! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. You're not already a mod?-type Support This user does great work through the Help Desk and will be a valuable mop. --Sharkface217 21:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 00:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support Very good user. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support! I highly doubt you'd abuse the tools! SQLQuery me! 08:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support Seen this user around, couldn't find any reason to oppose. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has already commented, see support comment 8. EJF (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot that I have supported this user. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 13:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Seen evidence of good editing from this user around the traps, a further check of contribs suggests this person will be an asset to Wikipedia and is very unlikely to abuse the tools. Good luck. Orderinchaos 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support – I see this user all over RC patrol and have no doubt about his/her good judgement. —Animum (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support A definate asset to Wikipedia, I've seen nothing but favorable things from this editor on the Hockey project. --Pparazorback (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - My personal interactions with you suggest you are a sensible editor with a good knowledge of policy which I cannot foresee abusing the tools. Lots of article writing is nice, but not essential for adminship. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Answer to my question was excellent: the temporary userpages category has a backlog far worse than CSD, and we need more admins there. You have my strong support. Acalamari 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. From my limited interaction with him, he strikes me as a very responsible guy with a good understanding of the workings of WP. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support - Don't care that you don't have a FA, that's not a requirement for being an admin. Gromlakh (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Don't you worry one bit about not having made any significant FA contribs. I don't know why people assume that has to be necessary on the criteria. Any good article writing / development is fantastic and in some cases, even that isn't needed. A good user. Lradrama 11:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I seriously thought you were an admin, you would do wonderful with the tools. Rgoodermote  15:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I don't find a single remotely compelling argument in the oppose section. This user has always impressed me and has been an excellent asset to WP:AIV. Trusilver 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Can make good use of the tools... surprised this user wasn't an admin already Triona (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support OK by me. :-) - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Seems like a good user.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Hal peridol (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - to counter Anwar's misguided oppose. The Transhumanist 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no. You can't Support twice, however misguided you think an Oppose is. Indented. BLACKKITE 15:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Conscientious editor with good history of working with admin noticeboards, etc. Even though my main interaction with this editor was to disagree over someone's notability, that's irrelevant to evaluating this user's obvious value. Wryspy (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, has contributed significantly to the hockey project and seems to have a good knowledge of administrative issues already. Natural hat trick 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support as a great and prolific editor, who makes some mistakes, but admits them. I think I'm one that disagrees with him sometimes. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. --Bhadani (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose at this point whilst I'm a million miles from any 1FA standard, I like to see some real evidence of content contributions from admins. It is difficult for writing contributors to have confidence in admins if they've never been proper editors. Sure janitorial specialisation is fine, but at least some content is essential. All I can see from the two or three articles you've pointed me to are an inordinate amount of reverting. I suggest you spend a bit of time on learning what it's like to be an editor and re-apply in two or thee months - I'll be happy to support then.--Docg 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. August 2007 is not very long ago. Also: I too do not in the least believe that FAs are a necessary standard, but 13000 edits without a large number of major article contributions are a problem. I'd would be happy to support this account once it has demonstrated a familiarity with the constructive editorial process. Relata refero (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure I follow this oppose. The user, whilst not having an FA has made content additions to many pages within the encyclopedia. Adminship is not about being the best contributor, it's about being capable and willing to contribute to admin tasks such as deleting pages, closing AfD's and blocking vandals. Rjd0060 has got numerous AfD contributions showing he understands the major content guidlines and policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NPOV.... His contributions in many different areas show he has a firm understanding of the way we work, and has shown to need the tools in many areas. Futher, he has shown respect to the community and can be trusted with a couple of extra buttons. Many of the best article writers are better without the tools, let them get on with their job, and let admins who are willing to do tedious tasks mop the path so the article writers can efficiently get on with their job. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, here's the problem: vandal fighting is one thing. Performing research is another. Do have a look at the deleted content of Brahmanical See for an example here, and that article's talk page for a nightmare. (I picked up this excellent example at WP:FAIL.) An editor who has not spend time writing, and familiarising himself with the tools and methods of research used by different people, will be too ready to see vandals. In the case of the above example, the longest-running hoax on WP, an editor who tried to remove the material and attempted to fix the issue was blocked as an unrepentant, disruptive vandal. This is what happens when admins with unbalanced experience are running around.
    I don't want to minimise the user's effort. 13,000 edits is a lot, even if its all vandal reversion. However, that's simply not good enough. He isn't being given those buttons that fight vandals. Those same buttons fight non-vandals, and he's being given others as well, and we simply don't know how he'd use them. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence suggests that our best admins are also writers. Indeed the skills needed for writing and quality adminining are commensurate - ability to communicate well and organise thought. So, when someone has been about an encyclopedia project for months and never really bothered contributing to the content - I get twitchy. The FA/GA thing is a red-herring, all I'm looking for is a modest amount of content editing that shows the user's commitment to the basics. We are editors first. People who are interested in deleting - but never creating; policies that police content - but never building content; the community - but not its raison d'etre - should not be admins. They simply cannot understand the needs, or command the confidence of, those they would administer. It is a bit like asking me to vote someone into governance who isn't a local resident fist and foremost. It really has to stop. Let him go and do some content - if he has the skills needed to be an admin, then that should be a walk in the park.--Docg 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I take issue with the fact you say he hasn't contributed to the content. All the "management" areas shown above have contributed greatly to the content of the encyclopaedia. And, I also feel that somebody could have good communication skills without necessarily being a good article writer. In a way, they're different kinds of communication — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to be a great article writer to be an admin. But when a wikipedian isn't any sort of writer whatsoever, it is not good. I don't want us to be "managed" by people who can't (or won't) manage even a little bit of the core thing.--Docg 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I could agree if there was no available evidence that the candidate actually knows policy, but in this case, there’s loads. Although obviously, content is our most important thing, to maintain our highest standards, we need processes and discussions to keep the things we want here, and the other stuff off. Users that show a good understanding of all our major policies in various discussions can quite easily transfer these skills to adminship, and can use the tools effectively. In fact, the most important part of adminship is often being able to show good judgement in interpreting discussions, not just content. I can understand the collaboration argument, it’s hard to thoroughly get what the battle grounds are like without actually participating in them, but most admins stay away from these kind of disputes completely. I’ll be honest, I’m crap at writing articles, but I contribute in other ways, I’ve created two featured portals and have a few DYK’s, but when it comes to article writing, I haven’t got anything substantial at all, but I like to contribute in any way I can. We have plenty of great admins here that have few article writing skills, and they stick to tedious tasks that they do well. I don’t think it’s really fair to judge a user solely by their article writing, because when it comes to adminship, there’s plenty of other available markers to judge how a user would use the tools. That said, I repect your opinion and I think it’s something that many people differ on. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to support the candidate because you don't see yourself as primarily an article contributor is missing the point. You, in fact, DO have a substantial number of content contributions. That may not be your strongest suit - but you have demonstrated you CAN do it - and you are obviously NOT wholly crap at it. That's entirely different from the case in point, where the "editor" can point to nothing at all. You are actually setting up straw men here: you "don’t think it’s really fair to judge a user solely by their article writing" - I agree. I am not doing that. It is simply one of my criteria to expect some slight content contributions, in addition to many other things. Actually, another point that has been raised is that there is no evidence to tell us how this candidate will handle himself in serious disputes. He does not seem to have been in any - or have contributed in areas that are prone to them.--Docg 02:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, I certainly appreciate your comments, and respect your opinion. However, I find it a bit surprising that you are implying that I have made absolutely no content contributions to this encyclopedia, and thats precisely what you've been saying. I invite you to look again at the diff's on this page, and at my contributions, and see. I know they aren't what you call "major contributions", but they are "contributions" nonetheless. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not content. They are basically tweeks to templates and tables and two or three instances of adding cats. Fine in themselves, but I don't anything more than a phrase of real content added.--Docg 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, we have several admins who do little or no article writing at all, and yet nobody complains to them, because they are very good at what they do, and that doesn't always include writing articles (sorry, sure that's already been mentioned).   jj137 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they're not admins, who are held to higher standards than regular editors. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. As per the reasons stated above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I'll readily admit to doing far less writing than I should, but there is a very good reason why admins should also actually write articles. It is very easy to get lost in all the drama, vandalism reversion and conflict that admins inevitably get dragged into. If you don't have a firm base on how collaborative writing should work, it is so much harder to make correct decisions. At the moment this looks set to pass anyway, so I hope you can take this as a gentle reminder that it is really the writers and not the vandals that matter. Good luck! henrik•talk 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking oppose per [30] as it shows a willingness to listen to the concerns of others. henrik•talk 07:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Doc. Everyking (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Fails JG Test. Anwar (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This JG Test seems awfully strict. Has anyone passed it yet? I'm beginning to wonder how many Wikipedians, admin as well, would have passed this when they submitted their RfAs? Lradrama 11:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Doesn't yet pass my requirements. Lawrence § t/e 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't pass your criteria either: I haven't brought an article up to featured status, and neither do I have 250 Wikipedia-talk edits. Am I a bad admin? Acalamari 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No sir, you are not a bad admin. But as you admit failing the JG Test you are not qualified to be a admin in the first place. Housekeeping and gatewatching are secondary to a encyclopaedia.Anwar (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not qualified? You seem under the wrong impression that admins dictate content disputes - this is untrue. Admins do janatorial tasks and they need experience in these housekeeping roles, not in writing a FA. I would suggest that some of our best admins have no experience writing a featured article - they're fantastic at what they do, and it doesn't require serious writing expertise. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, those standards are ridiculously high - 250 wiki talk edits is far too many, I expect that most admins don't have that many, and 1000 wikispace edits is again considerably higher than many admins will have. I'm not sure I follow your standards because on one side you seem to realy encourage content additions, but at the same time, ask the candidate for loads and loads of meta discussion contributions. Those standards are also amazingly arbitatory - there's a lot of different places to comment in wikispace - are you saying a candidate that constantly gets dragged to arbcom and have 1500 edits to arbitration and RfC pages defending himself has the potential to make a good administrator? I'm guessing you would pick up on things like that, but my point still stands that setting minimum edit counts for the candidate gives no idea of his suitability, especially when those counts are far higher that would be sinsibly required for most users to use the tools effectively. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that LC's criteria are extremely strict, they are his and by rights he can oppose anyone he wants based on them regardless of our opinion of them. (BTW, I would've failed miserably by these standards too. So what). Keeper | 76 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course he can, I'm not questioning whether the oppose is legitimate or not, I'm just suggesting his standards are too high. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we agree (you just talk better with your hands than I do). They're too high. Maybe a discussion with Lawrence Cohen on Lawrence Cohen's talkpage is more appropriate than clogging up Rjd's RfA? Keeper | 76 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's already a section there on my talk; I'll answer there.
    Well, you're fully entitled to your own standards, but not qualified to be an admin? Does anyone here possess such qualifications, apart from the one or two users who seem to make a few thousand edits each day...? Lradrama 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I also remind you that this GA Test isn't the standard Wikipedia policy / criteria, which means that you don't have to go to such great lengths to be 'qualified' to become an admin. Lradrama 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. – Gurch 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gurch, Is there a reason why you are voting neutral here? NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - [[The_Librarian - Recent edits extremely limited in scope, doesn't appear to do much other than revert. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I see far more than just simple reverts, in fact, he does far far more. Have you got any evidence that he may not use the tools effectively? I'm just at a loss to understand this neutral. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Would like to see more article writing. miranda 08:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I rarely oppose nominations, but I share the concerns about article writing experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, with regrets. I'm impressed with the candidate's contributions, especially with providing image fair-use rationales. However, Doc, Sandy et al make good points. A bit more article-writing experience would make you a better admin. Majoreditor (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category