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

SQL[edit]

Final (talk page) (44/13/7); Ended Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:31:57 UTC

SQL (talk · contribs) - Let's see... I really hate talking about myself, but, I suppose, I have to here. For starters, I really believe in this project, and, I would like to help it succeed. I think, that I would be a useful addition to the extraordinary team already in place here. I've only been what I'd call active, here, since about 6/07. Since then, I've done a lot of reverting vandals, reporting to AIV, and, generally improving the encyclopedia. I have been very active, in fixing articles with reference problems. I've even made a bot to list articles with <ref> tags, but, no ((reflist)) tags to display them. There were some 16,000 entries, before User:Smackbot started fixing them at high speed :)

I also try to fix Broken Redirects. I've got a bot for that, too. I do my best, to notify users, of these tags, however, more often than not, it's too late, by the time the user gets the notification. I should probably note, that I've got somewhere around 700 deleted contribs, I think, from doing this.

Anyhow, I would like to thank you all, for your input here. SQL(Query Me!) 05:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Obviously, I accept :) SQL(Query Me!) 05:47, 20 September 2007 (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: To start, I would like to participate, in the things that I am the most familiar with. For one, fixing (or, deleting) broken redirects. A lot of the time, these can simply be fixed. Sometimes, they cannot, and, should be removed.
Secondly, I'd like to help out at WP:ACC more. I really enjoy helping out there. I love bringing new people to the project :) (I've probably got stacks of wikipedia-space edits in, doing this, but, as WP:ACC pages are deleted every so often, they likely won't show up in the editcounter.)
I would also like to help out, more, fighting vandals, and spammers. Particularly at WP:AIV.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hmm. That's a tough one. I'm really proud of my work with references, on the other hand, I really enjoy correcting vandalism. I suppose, the reference work wins :) Not just the ((reflist)) stuff, but, correcting references in articles, such as, changing inline links, to cited references (((Cite news)), ((Cite journal)) etc etc etc,), finding new references, and, removing spam references.
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: That have caused me stress? Not really. I don't really get stressed over things on the internet. The closest I've come to a conflict, was, when User:Lib Democrat came to me, asking me to get involved in his/her conflict. Basically, I rephrased WP:DR to that user, and, they moved on.
Optional question from Миша13
4. Why have you decided on a self-nom (which is often frown upon) instead of finding/letting someone else to nominate you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misza13 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I've only ever seen it made a big deal once, from a user that always claimed that self-noms are evidence of 'power hunger'. I also feel that sometimes, the nominator gets factored into the equation as opposed to it being about the candidate. I would really prefer to go through RFA on my own merits / faults, as opposed to who / how many who's nominated me. I hope this answers your question :) SQL(Query Me!) 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from aldebaer
5. A box on your user page says you made over 3.000 contributions to Wikipedia. Wannabe kate displays a total of 2.537. Is it broken?
A: Sorta, but, no. As of right this second, Special:Preferences says I have 3,388 edits. This includes deleted contribs, which, Wannabe_kate does not display. SQL(Query Me!) 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: Could you explain the difference? What was the nature of the ~850 deleted edits? — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Edits, to pages that either no longer exist (due to being deleted), or, edits, that were not included, when a page was restored from deletion, are not viewable by non-administrators. I assume, that wannabe_kate uses some form of screen-scrape, and, probably (wisely) does not use an account with administrator permissions, and, therefore, does not list these, in it's count.
As to the exact nature (I mean, down to every last edit) of my edits, I can't tell you for sure... I don't have sufficient permission to view them at this time. However, Mr.Z-man summarized them pretty well below, in the Neutral section. Most of them are Broken redirects (under R1). I tend to tag a lot of those for speedy deletion. Some are A7's, albeit not many, probably less than 30 (Notability not asserted). And, there are probably 30 or less G11's (Advertising). Also, probably, less than 10 G10's (Attack Pages). Of course, those figures are guesses.
Another bit of my deleted edits, although I have no idea how many, are pages from Wikipedia:Request an account, which, are deleted every so often, due to privacy concerns. Anyhow, I hope that this answers your question! SQL(Query Me!) 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment As an admin, I can confirm that most of the deleted edits are either to WP:ACC, or are nominations for speedy deletion. When I checked, there were 856 of them. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from User:Geo Swan
6. One of my frustrations with the current corps of administrators is that, in my experience, we have allowed it to include some volunteers who seem to act as if their obligation to comply with WP:CIV is over once they have been entrusted with administrator authority. The way I see it, administrators have an extraobligation to fully comply with policy, becasue we should be conting on them to set an example. If we entrustr you with administrator authority, can we count on you committing yourself to continue to do your best to fully comply with WP:CIV -- to fully comply with all wikipolicies? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Absolutely! WP:CIV is a very important policy, and, should not be ignored by anyone, regardless of what area of the project they volunteer at. And, I agree with you, about administrators setting a good example. I don't claim to be perfect, but, I will do my best to continue to follow Wikipedia's policies, regardless of the outcome of this RFA. SQL(Query Me!) 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Another important quality I would like to see all our administrators possess is enough objectivity and humility to keep in mind that they too are fallible, capable of error. I'd like our administrators to have enough maturity to bear in mind, ever time someon has a question about their decision, that they are capable of error. I own up, when I realize I have made a mistake, and I would like all our administrators to be able to own up when they realize they made a mistake. When you have realized you have made a mistake in the past, have you been able to openly acknowledge this? If we entrust you with administrator authority, can we count on yuo being objective enough, and humble enough, to remember you are capable of error? Can we count on you owning up when you realize you made a mistake? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yep, I have made mistakes in the past, and, expect to make them in the future :). I'm only human, and, will make mistakes. It's always best just to admit it (ESPECIALLY to yourself...), try to correct the mistake, apologize, and move on. So, yes, I beleive you can count on me owning up to it, when I make a mistake. SQL(Query Me!) 20:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. I was a bit alarmed by one of your answer to the frist question -- that you saw yourself as a "vandal fighter". But you didn't say what "vandal fighter" means to you. No. This is not obvious. And, unfortunately, in my experience, the ranks of administrator include some self-identified vandal fighters whose definition of vandalism is indistinguishable with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Could you please be more specific about what you regard as "vandal fighting"? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm sorry, that I wasn't clear enough. WP:IDONTLIKEIT should NEVER come into consideration, when correcting vandalism, and, I think I've been pretty neutral, so far, in my efforts. My definition, of correcting vandalism, is two-fold. I use tools, like Lupin's, and, techniques such as watchlisting articles with vandalism problems (and, watchlisting everything I touch), to find vandalism. As above, an edit isn't a vandal edit, just because I don't like the subject. Vandal edits, are things like 'XXX is a dick', and the like. I do this part already. The second part, is blocking accounts and addresses, in order to prevent further vandalism. In most cases, this does not mean, an account that stopped 4 hours ago. I hope, this helps clarify things for you, and, everyone else SQL(Query Me!) 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9: There is Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Less than ten percent of the existing administrators have volunteered to be open to recall. Were you planning to open up your administratorship for review? If not, why not? Geo Swan 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I've always thought that this category is a great idea, and, I do plan on listing myself there, should this RFA pass. I haven't, however, put much thought into the process to use there (it seems, like everyone has a slightly different version), but, right now, I don't need to worry about that. SQL(Query Me!) 20:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SQL before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support I was kind of thinking the Wikipedia space edits were too low. But, considering the other work you've done over the last few months I'm fairly certain you'd do fine with the tools. Pursey Talk | Contribs 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wholeheartedly support This user embraces the spirit of WP in my opinion. We all make "whoops" once in a while. Locking someone to a minimum period of time or number of edit counts does not necessarily demonstrate skill which has obviously been demonstrated. I think this user would be a great addition to the admin ranks. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support While my normal thershold for a comment in support of an editor is 14 years and 3 months of experience in the project, an annual income in excess of $56,378, and an Image talkspace edit count well north of 90,000, I believe this editor has displayed enough maturity, and skilled edits over an admittedly short period of time to gain my trust. Hiberniantears 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I do not believe that this user would abuse the added tools given to him. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak support an excelent editor but he does not have as much project space edits as I would like to see. -Icewedge 16:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Good user. Acalamari 17:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why thank you! I genuinely appreciate your trust! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per Water. See him around. Also, I can't help express my incredulity at expecting a user to be here a year before submitting a an RfA. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded my comment on the one year thing here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Honestly, I find the extra scrutiny this user is enduring (yes, enduring) to be unusual, unnecessary, and ridiculous. There is no evidence the candidate will abouse the tools; therefore there are no reasons to oppose. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CO2 20:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — your mainspace contribs are not particularly satisfying, you seem like a good guy who won't go crazy with the tools. The opposing comments here are just plain bizarre. --Agüeybaná 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support although the project space edit count is niggling, there's no reason whatsoever to believe tools will be misused --Benchat 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure niggling is a word? :P Interesting enough, FireFox isn't flagging it as misspelled... I'm gonna have to google this one! (Googled before saving....) Well I'll be! it means 'petty' basically. Not what I thought it would have been! :) Thank you, for your trust. SQL(Query Me!) 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as I see no reason to assume abuse. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Experienced enough. It shouldn't be necessary to spend your entire life glued to a keyboard in order to become an admin. WaltonOne 10:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Per Walton One. ♠TomasBat 13:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - however weak or strong - per Pursey and Icewedge. Not quite at the magical number of 3,000 edits, but six months is enough time to test the user's trustworthiness. Perfectly sensible editor. Bearian 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. SQL did a good job at Hunting license. Bearian 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This user seems just fine for adminship. I do not see the need to deny tools based on the reasons of the opposers. Captain panda 02:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Thoughtful candidate, no issues, will do fine as an admin, even though he is slightly inexperienced. Editcountitis is no reason to oppose for me; most people who became admins 2 years ago had less than 2.5k edits, and I haven't seen them go mad with the banhammer. Melsaran (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support An earnest candidate, slight inexperience in this case is not a problem for me. No oppose evidence has been provided, only vague generalizations. VanTucky Talk 21:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Reedy Boy 23:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Very modest, constructive and supportive. I don't see how he'll misuse the extra tools. MITB LS 06:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Rettetast 09:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Good edits, seems friendly and helpful. See no reason why this user would abuse being an admin, and wish you the best. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - if you do good work, don't get stressed and get loads of slightly drivelly opposition to your adminship, you get my vote! :-> Porcupine (prickle me!) 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support good editor will use the tools properly and after spending the last part of this evening deleting all the broken redirects you tagged for speedy deletion, next week I hope you'll delete them yourself. :-) Carlossuarez46 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support a fine editor who will make a fine admin. Xdenizen 07:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, does not appear to be stupid. Neil ム 13:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Good sense of the social dynamics and how they grow at Wikipedia. Bsharvy 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, switching from neutral. Excellent answers and great attitude. Tim Vickers 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Looks good to me. Dureo 04:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support answers, CSD tagging, edits to AIV. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support SQL seems like an excellent editor with a desire to use the tools and the experience necessary to know what he's doing in almost all cases and know what to do when the rare anomalous case comes up. I don't see much in the opposition that doesn't boil down to editcountis.--Chaser - T 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Don;t believe will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Me neither, and the one year thing is ludicrous. * Aillema 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. Setting an arbitrary time frame is meaningless. I've seen sleeper accounts run by bots that pop up after a month to a year, some even make edits off and on during that time. Having an account for a year doesn't make an editor any more qualified for adminship than an account created yesterday. Setting an arbitrary time frame for advancement is for paid positions, not volunteer work. If a volunteer shows the dedication and skill(s) to get the job done, give them the tools to keep working. --I already forgot 10:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, so you oppose per all those reasons. How very odd. * Aillema 11:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I don't think he will abuse the tools; seems at least adequately experienced. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support NetUtility(SQL + mop) > NetUtility(SQL) Ronnotel 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Ach, what the heck. I trust this user will not misuse the tools. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I see no reason to believe the user will misuse the tools. Level headed, mainstream view of the goals of the project, etc. Avruch 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. With the deleted ACC edits, you show that you have the experience to handle the tools. •Malinaccier• T/C 23:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. He's been around a while, he's got at least a thousand edits, he's never been blocked, and a brief look at his contributions show no major problems. I see no reason to oppose. --Carnildo 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak support. I'd love to see more experience. However, seeing as that's basically the only argument given by the opposers and I see no red flags, I'll give in here. Wizardman 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Looks OK - a little more experience might have helped with a few lingering doubts but you seem to know what you're doing. Take it slow when dealing with anything unfamiliar and don't hesitate to ask for help :-). WjBscribe 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Spawn Man's concerns, expressed more thoroughly and persuasively than those of some other opposers, are not, to my mind, without merit, but I do find there to be the record of contributions here to be a sufficient one from which to draw the conclusion that SQL is sufficiently acquainted with policy and sufficiently possessed of sound, measured judgment as to be altogether unlikely to abuse or misuse (even avolitionally, e.g., by acting whereof he does not know that he does not know) the tools, such that I feel comfortable concluding with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 04:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. There's nothing to suggest that SQL would, in bad faith, abuse the administrative features, and there's nothing to suggest that xe, while acting in good faith, would misuse the tools through ignorance, or that xe would misuse the tools in an occasional lapse of judgment and be unwilling to revisit the situation, reverse xyr action if necessary, and accept appropriate criticism for, and learn from, that occasional lapse. </longsentence> WODUP 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - per question 2. More experience required. M.(er) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (expanding) Also, per question one, you really don't need the tools for those purposes. M.(er) 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...how not? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators have to do more than tagging refs. Although, I applaud the user for his efforts, there is so much more than tagging refs. For example, upholding biographies of living persons. I have created accounts, combated vandalism, etc. and really didn't need the tools in order to help out in those areas. M.(er) 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    re. his Q2 answer: Since when does question 2 have any relation to admin tasks?
    re. his Q1 answer: I'm sure you're aware that administrators are able to create more accounts than regular users, are able to revert more effectively using the admin rollback function, and are able to block persistent vandals - 3 tasks that SQL is currently unable to do. You may not need the tools, but he has demonstrated a need for them in these areas. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, however, that's just a small scope of what adminship details. You have to make sure articles coincide with certain rules, as well as resolve disputes among editors. I don't see that from this candidate right now. We aren't debating what the powers do. We are debating if we can trust him to use the powers. And, now due to the lack of experience, my decision is still oppose. Sorry. M.(er) 09:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok. No offense taken :) I asked for the community's opinion, and, among others, you offered yours. Thank you! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Ignored basic WP:AFD assumption and deleted a draft article I was working on in my user page --Donn Edwards 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he can't delete articles at the moment - he's request the powers to do that ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I beleive, this is what Donn Edwards is referring to: [1]. I removed what I removed, because it seemed like a copyvio or an ad to me. (NOTE: This user has since blanked most of my user page[2], via comments, and, most of my talk page[3]) SQL(Query Me!) 07:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I'd like to see more experience all round yet. Especially Wikipedia-space. Lradrama 09:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your honest criticism :) I'll make sure to work on that SQL(Query Me!) 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for understanding. As long as you take note of all the pointers laid down here, and work on them, you'll become a great Wikipedian and a worthy admin. Mind you, this RfA may yet still pass. ;-) Lradrama 08:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NP :) I'm not terribly concerned if this RFA passes or not. I'm just volunteering to help :) I knew, going into this, that I might be a little new, for some people's tastes, to be trusted to help out, and, I take absolutely no offense, at any Oppose comments here. In fact, I have found most of them very helpful, as to directing me to places, that I can help out more! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - User requesting adminship should be active for a minimum of one year so other wikipedians can make a thorough evaluation of the user before granting such privileges. --I already forgot 10:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ( Note to discussion )Confirm oppose with El C method. Even though this is the users RFA, user made no attempt to mediate discussion or quantify reasoning against requiring one year for adminship, even though user responded to less controversial decisions to support/oppose after discussion. --I already forgot 05:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If requestor of adminship should be active for at least one year, should those that support or oppose be required to be administrators who have been administrator for at least two years? And also be bonded with a criminal background check? After all, there is no mechanism to prevent convicted felons, rapists and murderers from being an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of One (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One year? Most admins have not even been active for that long, and it shouldn't take such a period of time to evaluate a user. DarkFalls talk 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Most admins have not even been active for that long" And so goes the problem. "and it shouldn't take such a period of time to evaluate a user" Says who? Is their an authority on admin evaluation and what is/are their credentials. If you allow, I accept nothing less than a BA in BS :) .--I already forgot 11:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no should be active and this is a personal requisite. Khukri 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like adminship is a big deal. Leebo T/C 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was made an administrator with 10 months experience and 2000 edits. Am I that unsuitable for adminship? This is not a reason to oppose the candidate. --Deskana (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was made an admin with 5 months of experience and did not get a single opposition on my RFA for experience. - I still don't have a year of experience. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I've been un-happy with some of the decisions made by admins elected over the past 8 months with very little overall time here at wikipedia. I've decided that instead of complaining to myself about it, I should be a bit more active with the RFA process. I personally would NEVER hire a manger to help run my company with less than one year of on the job training. Anyone who has been in a position to hire someone knows that the worker always starts out as an eager motivated worker that is pleasant to work with. After they have settled in and the newness of it all wears off, you finally see their true colors. Throw in a few season changes, employee disputes, job redundancy, etc., then you can start the evaluation for a management position if you think they are still qualified. Until then, they are just a newbie enjoying the "newness" making friends and focused on moving up the ranks. I may be over analyzing the requirements for adminship but there is more to adminship than reading the rules, making friends, and wracking up edit counts. Time in the saddle is just as valuable. --I already forgot 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So rather than follow the procedures for resolving conflict, you enter a protest vote here at RfA? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact of the matter is that an administrator is not comparable to someone of responsibility like a manager. Everything administrators do is undoable, and it really doesn't take much to carry out the majority of administrative actions. Again, adminship is not a big deal, but discussions like this make it seem like it is. Leebo T/C 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely disagree and obviously hold adminship too a higher regard (which may be why my opinion is not very popular). I'm sure my opinion will keep me from ever being chosen for admin rights but its not about me so I will continue to voice my opinion on matters that have a large affect on wikipedia even if it doesn't send warm fuzzies and barnstars.--I already forgot 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm speaking from experience rather than opinion; Can the user clear backlogs? Do they show reasonable judgment in discussions? Are they going to block Jimbo the moment they get the tools? Leebo T/C 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said it was the reason why I chose to be active in the RFA process ( which I knew would not go over well with the liberalness with which administrators are "elected" so I always avoided it). Also, I have not been in a conflict with any administrator. My perception has been influenced by admin actions toward others. I feel that SQL needs more time in the saddle which has nothing to do with any sort of protest. --I already forgot 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically you won't support any user unless they have one year of experience? --DarkFalls talk 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There can and will be exceptions to my own personal criteria for adminship, hence the use of "user" instead of "users". In this case, I see nothing that would warrant an exception. Given the relative low activity for the first six months or so, an additional few months to evaluate the user does not seem unreasonable. --I already forgot 09:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin is more a glorified janitor/security guard than a manager. There are about 1,000 admins on Wikipedia, most recieved the mop (that's what some of us used to call it) with far less than one year's expereince. I'm sorry you don't agree with some admins, but it's their responsibility to follow consensus, support policy. If you know of any instances of admin abuse, it needs to be addressed through proper channels for the good of the project Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, calm down. Regardless of whether or not editors should be active for a year before adminship or not, he is entitled to his own opinion on the matter. Everyone has different ideas on admin criteria, X number of edits, X number of months, X number of mainspace, X number of AIV, or whatever. Useight 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Far as I know, everyone still uses the "the mop" to describe adminship. Sure, we are supposed to believe that they are just a janitor but soon as a janitor (admin) can put employees on leave or fire them completely (editors banned continuously blocked from editing) or discontinue a product (page deletions) I refuse to accept that admins are just janitors in the traditional sense. To me, they are more of a hands on manager. Yes, I agree, they should act as janitors but thats not always the case so I'm not going to throw out my support to every smoe requesting adminship. I think if more editors here were concerned less with becoming an admin, they would tend to be a little more cautious about handing out the mop. Just my opinion here.--I already forgot 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You mentioned "placing on leave" (which I assume means blocking for various lengths of time), but admins cannot ban users ("fire completely"). Leebo T/C 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Not enough experience. AdamBiswanger1 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, for offering you opinion :) I am curious, however... Is there a particular area, that you beleive I need more experience in, or, just all around? SQL(Query Me!) 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Just not quite there on the experience...yet. Keep up the good work, and try again a little bit later on in the future. Jmlk17 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, thank you very much, for giving your opinion here :) Is there a particular portion of Wikipedia, that you would like to see me to help out at more? SQL(Query Me!) 08:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Too little experience. Not enough real contributions to the project. Another janitor for the project. And really weak answers to the questions (don't expect a novel, but I do expect some indication of intelligence, commitment, wisdom, and other character traits, whether positive or negative). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Slight oppose for now. I can't help suspecting that you've been editing based on what would sharpen your RfA, possibly at the expense of integrity. You've supported a lot of RfAs recently, and some of your !votes were cast 2-3 minutes after a previous one, though it looked like you didn't have prior familiarity with the candidates in most of those cases. My suspicions might be off, and if they are correct you might make a good admin anyway, but I'd feel more comfortable supporting after a few months. — xDanielx T/C 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, thank you, for your honest feedback. My editing patterns, generally reflect things that I think I can best help with. For instance, I think, that references on wikipedia, are a semi-serious problem, and, one that I feel I am well-equipped to deal with. Yes, that resulted in probably 4-500 edits, before a bot was created to do it. Also, RC patrol... Another area, that I feel I'm well-equipped to deal with what I see as a serious problem. Then, there's RFA comments. My criteria, are probably fairly low, compared to other editors. Also, for every hour that I spend editing, I probably spend 5 reading. While I may not interact with everyone, I feel like I get to know them fairly well. I probably don't dig as deep in the contribs as I should (and, often times, I am working on a couple in tabs at the same time), but, generally, I go by what I see around the wiki :) I don't see admin status as a big deal, so, I usually lean towards support, unless something catches my eye, to give me a reason not to. In other words, I try to practice WP:AGF at RFA. However, I generally refrain from commenting on RFA's, where I have not 'seen the editor around' a lot. Anyhow, again, Thank you, for your feedback, and, I hope this helps to address some of your concerns :) SQL(Query Me!) 06:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response; it was very much what I was hoping to hear. Switching to neutral. — xDanielx T/C 07:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Very Weak oppose. Looks pretty good, but over half of this editor's edits were in the last three weeks. I'd like a longer time before supporting. Useight 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, 1/3 or so of my contribs have been this month (by Special:Preferences, I have about 3,200 contribs, not 2xxx as wannabe_kate does not include deleted contribs). Had it not been for the reflist project, and, my addiction to fixing references, this would very likely have been another ~350 contrib month. I believe, that I have proven that my judgment can be trusted, given over 700 successful CSD's (Although, DarkFalls, did decline a few, that redirected to the mainspace as a result of bad/vandal moves, because they were in the userspace), and, almost 20 successful AIV blocks. Anyhow, thank you, for your honest feedback. I asked, you answered, and, I appreciate it! :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, wannabe_kate shortchanges me about 1100 edits (4600 in Special:Preferences and only 3500 in wannabe_kate. Stay active through next month and I'll be supporting in six to eight weeks. Useight 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not enough contributions in talk space to evaluate how this editor interacts with others. I feel that communication is vital to the role of admin, and this "lack" also does not provide evidence that the candidate fully understands policy - as abiding by it, and explaining it to others are different animals. LessHeard vanU 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Not much time here and my interactions with him show that he hasn't yet learned how to deal with problem users, my read is that he gives input without regard for newbie biting or what he's actually giving input on (for example, he inadvertently got involved with a very nasty edit war, without even realizing it I think). Also came away feeling he had only a superficial understanding of WP policy. Certainly adds to the "inexperienced" comments above. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per question 2. Admins should have sufficient interest and practice in article writing in order to be able to make a sound judgment on many issues that involve the use of admin buttons. --Irpen 20:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second thoughts about opposing Weak oppose per above. I want to support you, but it doesn't appear that you've been under enough pressure to effectively judge how you will respond when that time comes. I hate opposing over this, but I don't feel that I can support you, or be apathetic to you getting the tools. Sorry, The Hybrid 04:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (withdraw oppose) 4 months of editing is really fresh and 82 main talk edits are awfully few to reliably estimate long-term behaviour in that important namespace. What tipped it over for me is the smiley in the signature overuse of smileys which gives me the creeps and the feeling that the user doesn't quite get it (I know it's a lame reason, but it really makes me uncomfortable in combination with your editing age and main talk participation). On an unrelated note, you may also want to get rid of the annoying floating message on your talk page (but that's really just my personal opinion and I wouldn't withhold support for much longer than a second if it were only for that). — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, for your comment! Hey, I'm curious, where the smiley in my signature is? If there is one, It's not intentional. Also, I'd like to point out, that I've been here for about 7 months (well, registered, at least). Anyhow, thank you for your input! SQL(Query Me!) 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I discounted your first 4 months with 13.25 edits on average. Ok, make that overuse of smileys then, it amounts to the same contention. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, either way, thanks! SQL(Query Me!) 18:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. To give you an idea of how I came to the sig conclusion, search your browser window for ") sql". — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - WOW! How come so many editors are supporting when this user clearly hasn't been active long enough or racked up wnough experience?! 8 months, one of which he was inactive and the others with low edit counts? Under 200 Wikipedia namespace edits?! We really are letting our standards slide significantly. However, although I don't think the editor is a bad guy or would abuse the tools, he really needs more experience. I thought I knew everything on here, then I started contributing to AfD and noticeboards recently and I found I knew very little. I'm only now getting a grasp on things and I've been here over 2 years. This user needs waaay more experience and I'll oppose until he does so. Please don't reply over and over to this comment, everythin's already been said above and you're not going to change my mind, so there's no need. Cheers, Spawn Man 12:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - per Spawn Man and others. Experience is limited. This is the first month of strong participation. Wait a few months, gain some additional experience, then try for adminship at that time. LaraLove 14:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Regretful Neutral with shades of support. I just really can't fully support. You've only really been here three months with a sudden massive flood of work recently. Nothing wrong here, but I'm just not convinced that it's enough time as opposed to experience. I strongly disagree with I already forgot that you need to be here a year, but I wish you'd perhaps waited one more month or so to show consistency. Also although your work is great I'd have liked to see more WP:XFD bits and generally more project contribs. In my opinion, a certainty in the future but I would like to see more than a one month explosion before fully supporting. I'm sorry if that sounds mean. Best. Pedro |  Chat  10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, leaning towards support What this editor has done up to now is great, but I myself am in agreeance with Pedro, in that it's not experience, but time, as once you have been here for a period of time, you get to know things more deeply, and realise there actually is a lot to Wikipedia than first meets the eye. Phgao 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - The opposes have some good reasoning, however I won't oppose. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, with only 81 edits to talk pages it is hard to be sure how well this editor interacts with others. Everything looks OK with what is there but I'm uncomfortable making a decision on such a small sample size. Tim Vickers 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Switching to support. Editor's answers and ability to address issues brought up by other editors during this RfA have been exemplary.[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning heavily toward support: While I can't find anything to make me want to oppose, some more talk space (other than user talk template warnings) would be nice. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, even though you did not specifically say you were going to do much CSD work besides redirects, some more CSD experience would be nice too. I skimmed through your deleted contribs and only a handful of your speedy deletion tagging were something other than R1. While you may not be interested in clearing the article/image backlogs, some more knowledge of the different criteria (like G11, G12, and A7 specifically) would be nice as questions and complaints regarding speedy deletion often come up in places other than CAT:CSD and newpage patrol. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, all the way :) I said, that I would like to start out, on R1 CSD's.... It's what I'm probably most familiar with right now (As far as CSD's go)... And, that's exactly what I've been CSD'ing mostly :) Thank you, for confirming (for those without the ability to do so themselves), that what I'm looking to do, is in fact, exactly what I have experience doing :) SQL(Query Me!) 08:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Switching to neutral. Same concerns are before, but candidate's response was fairly convincing. — xDanielx T/C 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Lack of experience, but very strong edits recently. I would support in the future, but for now - I am undecided. Crassic(talk) 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral - user does lack experience interacting with other users, but I no longer have any concerns about what this would mean. If a user can take the pressure of an RfA, then they can take almost anything :P. I don't feel that I can support due to this lack of experience, but I no longer consider it anything worth opposing over. The Hybrid 06:23, 26 September 2007 (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