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

RobertMfromLI[edit]

Final (17/15/3); ended 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate. Jenks24 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination[edit]

RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) – I am happy to present RobertMfromLI for consideration as an admin. Robert has been editing Wikipedia for almost two years and has racked up about 4200 edits. While this might be considered a bit low, the reason I'm nominating him is that he tends to have a calming presence in disputes. The first time I ran into him was when he was making edits to Star Trek: Phase II (fan series), prior to which he disclosed his involvement with the series on his user page. When I reminded him of our COI policies, he accepted with good grace that it was an attempt to avoid future issues, rather than an accusation of current issues. He has continued to assume good faith when working with other editors, and I think that's a characteristic we need more of in the admin corps. He has mentored other editors, and helped get an article to GA status. He even tried to mediate between Doncram and Blueboar, and was doing a decent job keeping them on track before external events overtook them.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I hereby accept this nomination,with thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawal At this time I would like to withdraw this nomination.
With that said, I would like to thank everyone involved for their support, consideration and comments. Equally as important to me as the yes (or neutral) !votes is the overwhelming support I got in each oppose listed below. I've seen very few RfAs where virtually every oppose was so well thought out, or where the editors spent so much time with detailed responses, tips and constructive criticism. Heck, and even a few unnecessary but appreciated apologies attached to them. Because of all of you, this has been a winning experience for me, regardless of the !vote. It was never the vote that mattered (to me); it was that I was contributing to the community in a fashion the community (as represented by you all) deem I am best suited to (hence, there was no way for me to lose - especially with everyone's detailed and thoughtful responses).
So, to everyone, once again, my sincere thanks. Whether or not I ever accept a nomination again, I've learned a lot, including other ways where, as an editor, I can contribute in a better fashion, and I thank you all for that learning experience (and hope it won't end with this RfA). Best, Rob
ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[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 would hope to be able to assist with the administrative backlog, help at AN/ANi, continue helping with vandalism, and assist in pointing new or inexperienced users in the correct direction when they make silly mistakes that might otherwise put them in situations where they get scared away. Yes, the last two do not require a mop (and I enjoy doing both), but I think it doubly important (especially the last one) for an admin.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've help successfully mentor a few adoptees, one of which[1] I helped rescue from his third[2] run-in at ANi and still communicate with to this day.[3]. I have also helped assist other mentors with such adoptees[4]. I think (though of course the community should be the judge of it) that I have (in numerous topics) been very good at separating any COI or biases I may or may not have from my editing and comments. One example is here[5] where I made the content match the sources (even though I knew the figures were wrong, and I could simply have updated the sources or disseminated the info to other sources - but it's verifiability>truth). I believe I also do a good job in defusing what sometimes are hostile or tense situations.
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: I cannot say I've gotten into any real conflicts over editing. To date, Wikipedia has not stressed me out, nor do I expect it to - I manage a very diverse team of cast and crew for Star Trek Phase II (sometimes upwards of 150 people); if that doesn't stress me out, I suspect Wikipedia won't either. ;-)
Additional question from RobertMfromLI
4. How do you think your lack of article creation or extensive edits will affect you carrying out the duties of being an admin?
A: Since I know this will probably come up, I figured I would ask and answer it. While I have not created any article on Wikipedia, and haven't done extensive work on any, I am very experienced with such (I've written about 50% of the content and copy edited about 80% here[6][7]). But, on the other hand, I am also very slow at it. So, on Wikipedia, I would rather concentrate on what I can bring to the table, instead of concentrating in areas that other editors are better qualified at (being both excellent writers and far quicker than me). Thus, my knowledge and understanding of content creation isn't lacking... I simply realize that this isn't a competition and there are people better suited to such a task.
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
4. As an admin, what would you do if you stumbled upon the following articles: [8], [9] and [10]?
A: Hi, thanks for the question. #1 I would PROD, and not tag as A7 (though it might not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, a credible claim of notability has been made). #2 I would tag A10 for speedy (duplicates an existing article). #3 would also get an A10. Under the assumption that neither #2 or #3 had dupes existing, I would place maintenance tags on them, check the creator's history/contributions and account age, and if a new account, I would welcome them using an appropriate message or template that provided them links to tips and help to get a better handle on how to make and improve a Wikipedia article. Something like this[11].
Please see comment below in discussion section. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support, obviously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support, in-obviously. jorgenev 04:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Per nom; I have a great deal of respect for Sarek and implicitly trust this candidate. --John (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I first came across Rob in the AJona situation, which I thought he handled fairly well despite his adoptee being very stubborn initially. His mentorship seems to have been invaluable in turning AJona into a useful editor. Rob will benefit from the tools. StrPby (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Support Yes please. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support. I had a few doubts regarding your CSD tagging (due to the following articles: [12], [13] and [14] — though this was one was deleted —), but I like your answer to my question, so I'm supporting. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Support See no reason to oppose - give the man a mop! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 08:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Weak support. Patchy editing history. Generally sensible comments in discussions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Support: While the user does not have a great deal of experience with content creation, I don't see this as a deal breaker as I believe not everyone is comfortable/skilled with content creation, but can excel in other areas. He seems to have a solid understanding of policy, and I have no reason to believe that he would not use the tools as they were intended. Topher385 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But the A7 tags here and here were simply incorrect, and Robert did not comment on them. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure I did... Should have been A10's or templated with appropriate maintenance templates (ie: not A7) and creator offered assistance. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But the A7 tag on the first one was correct, and you didn't say you would have removed them from the second and the third. As an admin, you probably should have deleted the first one, that is, granted the A7 tag, and you should have removed the A7 tags from the second and the third. The last two tags were not correct, and that you didn't comment on them is not a good sign. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The A7 tag on the first one is highly debatable. The fact that he is the youngest business man in Shrewsbury could be considered a claim to importance. It may be non-notable, but it is reasonable to remove an A7 tag and replace it with a PROD if the claim to importance is questionable. The criteria for speedy deletion are extremely specific and it is better to be conservative than liberal. The other two tags were A10's and he stated that he would tag them as A10. He probably should have said he would delete them as A10 and it may be what he meant but A10 is correct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ? No, they were tagged as A7, incorrectly: the second one is not deletable under that category, and the third one had a real valid claim to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Go read it again, they were tagged as A7 in the example. RobertMfromLI stated that he would change them to A10. Both examples exist here and here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ryan, you're a GA editor--you are usually a careful reader. Robert said he would tag them as A10, which, as I pointed out below in my oppose, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in this context, since it would make no sense for Salvio to ask a question about duplicate articles. But regardless of that point, he never said what he would do with the incorrect A7 tags, and for an admin that's an important thing. But I'll bow out now. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)Dmries, I wasn't aware you can simply add a tag to it. As a matter of fact, Twinkle will refuse to. The only way I can add an A10 is to remove the existing tag or manually change the template to a multiple (which I made no mention of because it was not my intent). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I really don't mean to badger, but I too would like to make a few final points. First, I think, given the fact that Salvio's question is ambiguous, that it is only fair to allow all possible views of the question. To me, the articles should be treated as if they are new today. If the two articles were created today, then they duplicate the existing articles. I also think the fact that he stated he would tag them with A10 implies that he would remove the A7 tags. I do agree that there were some problems with his response. He probably should have said "deleted" them under criteria A10 and he should have left a message on the talk page of the taggers. In addition, I now see that he stated what he would do if the duplications didn't exist. He stated that he would place maintenance tags on the articles and leave messages on the talk page of the creators. It is implied that he would then remove the A7 tags; although, not explicitly stated. The only problem again is his failure to notify the person who tagged it A7. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is correct, I should have stated I would notify, but I thought that obvious (besides being automated via Twinkle)[15]. Regardless, I too am bowing out of this one. Dmries is definitely entitled to his interpretation of my actions. How an admin is perceived is probably equally as important as many other criteria, so I expect nothing less as a candidate. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correct (and thanks). And I did a literal, direct interpretation of the A7 criteria, without trying to impose my bias upon what I *I* consider (or dont) a credible claim of importance. I'm sure in many small towns and small suburbs, such things are deemed important and credible. My worldview is not the worldview (otherwise, yes, I'd A7 it). I've been taught (including by some in this thread) that it is always both proper and best to apply the narrowest meaning, as a PROD is always an alternative, and I must confess, I will continue to endeavor to do so (though as noted, I have recently made at least two mistakes in not doing so). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Weak support Candidate has some rough edges that could be sanded off with more experience, that said, I generally see a competent user. If this passes, remember that your fellow admins are great sounding boards, and don't ever be afraid to bounce an idea off them. If this fails, I hope you'll be back in six months with more experience. Courcelles 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Support Looks to be a good mediator and also someone who likes helping newbies learn to become quality contributors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Support Per Courcelles. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Support net positive. Swarm u | t 18:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Weak support I am a bit reluctant here and agree with Courcelles. I highly recommend the candidate get some experience in content. PumpkinSky talk 19:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Support A goo, reliable contributor. I don't agree with any of the reasons given for opposing, including the string of objections on the all too common but pointless grounds that only people who have written lots of articles can be administrators. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. Support Clearly a trustworthy, decent chap. Concerns about lack of experinece with whatever are irrelevant. Adminship is no big deal - he won't do anything stupid, he will be a credit to the encyclopedia. As I write this the vote split doesn't look so promising, but let's hope there's more people around who know a good guy when they see one and are happy with that Egg Centric 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Support I agree with the above from Egg Centric that the vote split doesn't look good right now, but Robert would make a fair admin. He's taken those in need of mentoring under his wing (which is more than many prolific article-creator admins have done). Doc talk 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. 800 article edits, 0 articles created. Seems like a class act of a guy, but simply inexperienced with Wikipedia content. Townlake (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Townlake, I thank you for your vote and constructive criticism. While I thought I'd addressed it adequately (including links to examples) in Q4, I do understand that many editors here look for solid content creation on Wikipedia. The only difference I saw in my content creation elsewhere and here is wiki-markup, which I didn't consider an issue; I code (hand code) HTML, PHP, SQL, CSS, etc such as my PHP, CSS and HTML revisions turning this[16] Wordpress template into this[17]. Thus, wiki-markup is quite simple in comparison. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Couple things. 1) If you don't understand how Wikipedia is different from other collaborative writing environments, adminship might be premature. (Hint: I do collaborative writing as part of my job, but I don't have anonymous editors altering my content at all hours of the day and night. It's a bigger difference than technical markup.) 2) Friendly advice - the RFA community generally frowns on candidates responding to every oppose. There's no written rule against it, but it's generally not looked upon favorably. RFA is about the record you've established, not your ability to spin it now. Take that with as many grains of salt as you see fit; just putting it out there for your consideration. Townlake (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Re (2): There is no good reason for the Wikipedia community to frown on candidates responding to every oppose. There is no good reason for it not to be looked upon favourably. There isn't supposed to be a separate "RFA community". RfA is not supposed to be run by a clique. What you are saying could very well be true, but it is not a good thing. James500 (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I felt like warning TL of this. I said the same thing in a recent RfA and was shouted down. But it's true: if people are discussing your contributions and edit history, have the grace to leave them to it. If a !voter is unclear of something, they will ask for the candidate to respond, and if an oppose rationale is unacceptable, another editor will more than likely respond to it. As an aside, I wouldn't read too much into the phrase 'RfA community', some !voters pop up more than others, many decidedly steer clear, but no one is claiming a clique exists Jebus989✰ 15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear, there's a difference between a "community" and a "closed community." RFA isn't separate, and there are no barriers to participating, but it's undeniable that the same names tend to show up here time after time. Townlake (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I hear that! Your own tally of RfA votes (between "wiki-breaks") in the last eight months alone have been... disproportionate to other contributions. Doc talk 06:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for taking an interest in my history. Townlake (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, I mean, come on! You walked right into that one... Doc talk 07:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not the one running for adminship here, champ. Townlake (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Champ"? That's cute. Quite right: despite having no user tools of your own (given to you by trusted users/the community) you regularly pop in to vote here for some reason. One of the "same names that tend to show up here time after time". The irony of your above comment is delicious: jus' sayin'. Doc talk 07:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Haven't asked for 'em. Again, though, thanks for taking an interest. Townlake (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem! Here's a suggestion: ask for Rollback, use it for awhile without issue... and maybe then you can appropriately begin to judge what makes a good admin (and vote in multiple RfA's in a relatively short time. It's a learning experience, at least. Doc talk 07:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That didn't make any sense, and this conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Good luck to you. Townlake (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Townlake, thanks for a follow-up comment. (1) I don't see how Wikipedia is different than my other work. It is my fault for not elaborating that though. Most people have never worked on a film set. Everything is collaboration, and I have built a dedicated crew who all work together due to the example I set. Much of the writing (the other roughly 50% I did not craft) for the website is collaborative as well. (2) Thanks for the friendly advice. And please, elucidate where I have spun something that's not readily already posted in my history or userpage. I have only elucidated where those items were missed. Thanks again, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You clearly don't understand the points I'm trying to make, and I imagine additional efforts would be fruitless. Townlake (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because you disagree, does not mean I do not understand. I have collaborated here - but that takes really reviewing my edit history, something most wont do. As a Line Producer for STP2, I collaborate with people worldwide, via computer and chat, and during shoots in person; as well as collaborate on content and scripts with them. I think perhaps this conversation would have ended a long time ago if you'd simply said "I dont know what editorial collaboration is like anywhere else, much less on the types of projects you've worked on, so I only count Wikipedia experience". I might not have a ton of such experience here (by your standards), but I do have it here on Wikipedia, and do see how the two match up nicely. Best ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Oppose. Most contributions seems to be in pop culture and not in traditional encyclopedia content, and the editing efforts have not been extensive. Like many other edits, this ANI intervention was not what we want from administrators, in terms of resolving disputes, of helping to focus rather than fracture discussions, and of writing clearly. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Kiefer.Wolfowitz, thanks for the feedback. Alas, my article edit history does not accurately portray my involvement in a large number of very diverse articles (very small number of edits across a lot of articles or consensus building and content suggestions on talk pages). I must admit, I definitely deserve for being trouted for missing a misspelling of Mjolnir, especially since I've even known the proper pronunciation since I was a kid (but, I am far from perfect and do make mistakes, which was one of the earliest things I mentioned when I set up my page). I'll endeavor to have more substantial edits in other areas regardless of this outcome, it is indeed a good point. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (re: your new vote) You are correct, that was not one of my best days, for which I apologize. I definitely could have chosen better wording to get across my point... though I hope my edit history would have proved that was far from the norm. Regardless, the mistake in wording was made, and I accept responsibility for it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This appears to be a very, very low blow, Kiefer. Snottywong made a single uncivil comment about Christianity, and you brought it to ANI, vehemently arguing for a block. Robert argued against the block. Now you oppose his RfA, citing problematic dispute resolution methods, with the only supporting evidence being part of a dispute, on which you were on opposite sides? Very poor show, Kiefer, as this may well be based solely upon a grudge (regardless of whether it is or not). I strongly request you back up your claim of "many other edits" with an example from any situation in which you don't have a blatant conflict of interest in assessing. Swarm u | t 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Swarm! A personal attack based on religion can result in indefinite blocks (until an apology be made). I was wrong to use ANI rather than to request for an uninvolved administrator. It may be that the editor was exasperated by (by what more experienced and no less charitable editors than myself regard as) trolling.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Swarm! Robert's greater familiarity with our interactions makes him a better judge of my intentions; his straightforward, kind response tells something about his good nature. I mentioned that other diffs exist, and I simply cited a memorable one; I am sorry that others have quoted other imperfect diffs, and I would wish that a few human imperfections would be forgiven and people would leave this discussion more appreciative of Robert's many great contributions.
    Everybody likes Robert, and nobody has said a bad word against him. I would be happy to buy Robert a beer or a sarsaparilla at any time, and I should be happy to support him in 6 months if he continues to improve as an editor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Oppose It's a shame that I dropped my vote on this side on the RFA nomination, because RfA has been quite inactive within the past couple of days. All qualified administrators need to be calm and have some good judgement, especially when working with vandalism patrol and more importantly, ANI. At the moment, I have seen a couple of cases where you called some edits vandalism when they're actually not. [18] [19] [20] [21]. Also, I was unimpressed to see a comment like this, as part of it has a personal attack some sort of aggressive attitude like "That's reality. Live with it." for example. At the moment, you do have some good content creation under your belt and you are quite an active editor, but running for adminship though is questionable in my case. Minima© (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict)Thank you for your vote and comments. On #1 (unexplained content removal (against consensus) and tenditious editing), if you study the talk page archives (or that Omar2788 has been the subject of ANi for just such matters), you will be able to discern why the edit was marked as vandalism (ignored consensus and discussions at ANI). On #2, you may note that the IP (his real account) was blocked already for edits that the community (see article's talk page) deemed as vandalism. Perhaps marking it as vandalism for making the same edits the editor was blocked for, was incorrect? On #34, you will note I first marked it as a good faith edit, even though it was (citation included) a bogus claim that the citation didn't make[22]. It was after the third such edit[23] and multiple warnings that were read and erased that I marked it as vandalism. As for the comment at AN/I, you are correct, as I addressed and admitted to above. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The three are either "blanking/illegitimate", "gaming the system" and/or intentionally (after multiple read warnings) introducing incorrect information entirely unsupported by the cites provided by the same editor (and gaming the system by doing so). And on #3, you may wish to review this[24]. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    On a related note, even if you were correct, three mistakes out of roughly a thousand articles reverted AGF or reverted vandalism isn't the most horrendous of records. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Oppose. User does not appear to be very active. Less than 100 edits in 7 of the past 12 months.--EdwardZhao (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience highlighted by premature transclusion, answering opposers in the discussion section, and backed up by ~3k non-automated edits. In all honesty I think i was a mistake for SoV to push a nom on you at this time. I hope you don't take this or any other oppose comment to heart, it's just an RfA Jebus989✰ 13:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "answering opposers" part seems to contradict the "discussion" part. Not that I'm a big fan of responding to every oppose, but I'm a little confused by what you mean. There's obviously a time when it becomes annoying or just disruptive, but that doesn't seem to be the case (yet) here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think you misunderstand; I wasn't echoing TownLake's point, just pointing out that addressing oppose comments under the discussion heading shows some inexperience with the RfA process Jebus989✰ 15:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, got it, I'm not sure why that wasn't so obvious to me in the first place. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Oppose There is extreme lack in content creation. The top edited page seems to be Iron Maiden with 68 edits which is ok, but then, the second top edited page is OS/2 with just 18 edits. Also, in January, they made 1 edit, in Feburary and March, they made no edits at all. Then, in April, they made 4 edits. Administrators need to have a stable editing history with no random gaps in editing like this person has. Puffin Let's talk! 14:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not necessarily -- I had quite a few random gaps when I passed my first RFA in June 08.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you want to get into that it was hinted at, but that was three years ago and I assume the standards were different then, for now, I will remain at oppose because of this and the other reasons stated. Puffin Let's talk! 15:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that a candidate has periods of inactivity or low activity is wholly irrelevant. There is a world outside of Wikipedia. James500 (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    James--you're kidding, right? Drmies (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why is a period of inactivity or low activity a problem? James500 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, that's not it--you said "there is a world outside of Wikipedia". Making such statements is a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Drmies, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't not only call attention to, but also perpetuate, such misleading claims. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Oppose per Jebus989. Just not enough experience to satisfy the current RfA standards. Candidate barely has over 3,000 non-automated edits. Rack up a couple thousand more edits, create an article or two (maybe even bring one to GA), make some significant contributions to areas where you'd like to work as an admin, and then come back here. —SW— soliloquize 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, he did help one of his mentees bring an article to GA -- I mentioned it in the nom, and it's linked from his userpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Oppose Too much fighting of oppose votes by candidate and nominator. Keepscases (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How can the nominator's behaviour possibly be relevant to this? James500 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As adminship is no big deal. Puffin Let's talk! 18:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Citing WP:DEAL does not explain why a nominator's behaviour is supposedly capable of reflecting badly on a candidate that he has nominated. This isn't SarekOfVulcan's RfA, so I do not see how a perceived gaffe on his part can be relevant to the issue of whether or not Robert should become an admin. James500 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Oppose. Two things. First of all, while I have found at least some of Robert's (many) remarks at ANI helpful, I detect a certain eagerness to jump in with comments, which (in my opinion) are not always grounded in a lot of editing and communal experience. Second (but see my note above in response to Salvio's question), I disagree with the comments on Salvio's sample articles. Now, I am going to assume that the question is "what if you stumble upon these new articles with these tags on it."

    1. There is, in my opinion, no credible claim to notability in this example. Even if the article were verified and all, owning a bicycle business, even at a young age, does not establish notability, unless the kid had been reported on in the WSJ and the NYT and was frequented by Lance Armstrong, and the article gives me no reason to believe that something special like that was going on.

    2. This article, and I think that perhaps Robert misread the intent of the question, is simply a poor stub on a notable topic which deserves a place. BTW, it couldn't be a duplication of an existing article, since they have the exact same title (I assume it would be called "Maritime Safety Information", not "User:Salvio giuliano/CSD1"). Now, I understand that Robert followed up with "Under the assumption that neither #2 or #3 had dupes existing", and some elaboration, but even the follow-up does not completely convince me. That they would support a new user, that's great, of course, but they forget to mention that there's still an A7 tag on the article which is completely unjustified (such "information" is not covered in that category). So, a better answer would be, if there is no duplicate, to immediately remove the speedy tag, with an extensive edit summary, and possibly a note on the speedy deletion nominator's talk page: if that nominator is new, then they need some guidance and possibly oversight. Helping new editors is great, but stopping other editors from chasing away new editors with incorrect speedy templates is just as important.

    3. Something similar applies to this article. First of all, the duplication thing doesn't pan out for the same reason, "Sorj Chalandon" presumably being the title of the sample. Second, this one is also incorrectly tagged with A7, since (as opposed to the bike repair kid), this article does make a very credible claim to notability: "Médicis", for a Tunesian novelist (who presumably could be eligible for an award given to a book in French), is immediately identifiable as the Prix Médicis--automatic notability (if correct, of course). So, here also, that A7 tag needs to be removed immediately, with an explanation--an edit summary, a note on the talk page, a note on the nominator's page.

    More in general, but this is editor's more than admin's advice, do something with those articles besides tagging them. Add a category, add a reference, make some MoS edits, wikify (the Prix Médicis, for instance), so that the next person looking at it will know there's something to it, instead of thinking that someone removed a tag without a good reason. Incorrect speedy tagging is a real big deal, and I think this is something you need to work on--not just what to do with an article, and with a tag, but also what to do after a tag, so to speak. I think you can be a very productive editor and possibly a good admin, but there is work to do. Yes, article creation as well. All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Perhaps I have misunderstood, but how is it at all relevant that the first article does not display of notability? A7 concerns indications of importance, not notability. In my opinion (and admittedly, I am not an administrator, while you are), Robert's answer to the first one of Q4 is correct. The article asserts a credible claim of importance ("youngest business man in shrewsbury"), so A7 is not applicable and a PROD, as the subject does not appear to be notable, is the correct course of action. Also, A10 for the other two examples in Q4 is an understandable answer, as duplicates do exist (though probably not the answer Salvio was looking for). Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Reluctant oppose. I really do not want to be casting this !vote. I've interacted with Robert quite a bit, and I actually like him very much, and enjoy working with him. I like that he gets involved with adopting new users, and I have zero doubts that he has the best interests of the project at heart. But here's the thing that holds me back. Please see User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 9#Right idea, wrong justification?, where Robert and I discuss my having reverted what I am quite certain was a troll posting on a talk page. It turns out it was an adoptee, whom Robert defends despite a messy history with SPI and ANI. Just a few days ago, there was Talk:Atheism#First sentence misleading, which starts with what seems to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion from a newish user. But as the talk continues, it becomes apparent that the original poster is asking increasingly trollish questions. As this becomes apparent, the rest of us pretty much walk away, but Robert continues to discuss the issue as though it were serious. Now please don't get me wrong, and please don't accuse me of being BITEy, because I'm generally a fan of AGF. But I keep getting the feeling that Robert just goes too far in AGFing users who don't merit it. (I don't know how to reconcile that observation against other oppose rationales about being too argumentative, other than a general sense of poor judgment.) So I feel very bad about opposing for, in effect, being too much of a nice guy, but I think that if Robert starts using administrative tools in situations like these (perhaps overturning a legitimate block on appeal), we are going to end up with too many instances of actions taken that are not consistent with community sentiment, and too many cases where actions will have to be reviewed. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Reluctant Oppose - I have no idea who this editor is, but judging by the supports and opposes, seems like awesome guy, and we do need coders, but admins should be well-rounded, and article creation in multiple namespaces (even redirects), participation in GA/FA process (as reviewer or significant editor), participation in WikiProjects, participation at Meta, participation in policy talk and articles (including essays) etc etc etc are all key things for an admin. These things take time, and take edits. I dislike edit counting, but it is a good measure not only of commitment and knowledge, but of experience - if you have not been steeled in the often grueling process of editing real, live content, how can the community know how you work under pressure? I highly recommend that he wait some more time, perhaps putting his coding skills into use at Templates and trying out to generate a decent amount of quality content (GA/FA/DYK/ITN etc) before trying for adminship. There is simply not enough experience with the dark side of wikipedia for us to be confident that the tools can be trusted at this time. I might reconsider, that is why is "reluctant", but this seems to be the type of nomination that doesn't understand WP:DEAL. I mean, if this guy can be an admin, I should be a steward! --Cerejota (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    None of these things are necessary. James500 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your point?--Cerejota (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Oppose per the response to the question he, himself, asked. It is one thing to say "I've contributed content elsewhere so I can easily contribute content to Wikipedia" and quite another to say "I've contributed content elsewhere so I can easily be an admin at Wikipedia." Similarly, as this is not the traditional kind of public office, what one has done outside Wikipedia is quite irrelevant to this admin-ship "campaign" whereas what one has done here is quite relevant. Admin-ship someday, perhaps. But, not today. JPG-GR (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Oppose per Tom Morris' concern (in the neutral section) and also Kiefer's link. Mato (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Oppose....sorry, just not what I'm looking for. If you had some more content creation (or at least more than 800 or so article edits) I'd be open to reconsider, but you don't. 2,000+ user talk edits? Why? Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I considered not answering this, but since it was a direct question, I don't want to seem rude in not doing so. Because a decent number of my talk edits are content suggestions allowing others to do the actual final content work and changes... an example wold be reviewingAmor Prohibido Amor_Prohibido_(song) where, first on talk pages, then entirely by chat, Jona and I worked on the article, with me going paragraph by paragraph and sentence by sentence changing things. The history will show him citing that the changes were mine right up until the point I told him I dont need the credit and simply leave an edit summary that reflected what the change is. Now, to the point at hand: that in no way changes the fact that I have only 800 edits. That's obviously something I need to work on. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Oppose I find 4,200 a very small number, especially in two years. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I will not !vote until the general questions are answered (I find it curious that the RfA was transcluded before the questions were answered). Still neutral at this point. Logan Talk Contributions 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Neutral I found the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary: I participate in AfD quite a lot and your back-and-forth was, well, too much. I hate to be frank, but a bit less arguing, just simply state your case calmly and trust the closer to sort the good arguments from the bad. Not quite enough to oppose, but I would want to see some more calm, level-headed participation in consensus-based discussion outside of ANI before voting support. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Neutral - Seems okay, but cannot in good faith support the candidate with irregular contributions. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apologies, but I had some real life (and death) family issues to attend to. The beginning of this year was... not the greatest. I would rather not go into more detail publicly. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[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