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

Wikicology[edit]

Final (9/20/1); ended 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC) - Nomination withdrawn [1] — Yash! Heyo!! Food!!! 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Wikicology (talk · contribs) – Wikicology is a lecturer at Adekunle Ajasin University in Nigeria. He focuses primarily on Nigeria-related topics, but also contributes to numerous topics, such as Medicine, Biochemistry, Molecular biology, Governments Politics, History, Culture, Business and other encyclopedic subjects" according to his user page — a claim I have checked, and find to be true. He is also a prolific reviewer of new articles on Wikipedia, and a |Candidates for speedy deletion patroller. He has succeeded in rescuing many such articles — which, to me, indicates that he has a knack for making picks that the community agrees with.

This user approached me with a nomination request. Having had a good look at his contributions over the past few hours, I am delighted to nominate him — and would have done so on my own initiative had I known of his work earlier. David Cannon (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks for your nomination David, I humbly accept with all sense of responsibility to serve diligently. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:I'd like to primarily focus my administrative work on closing discussions at WP:AFD, deletion of candidates for speedy deletion which has a frequent backlog, based on my experience with them. I am experienced in the areas of deletion and deletion processes on Wikipedia, and a significant part of my contributions to Wikipedia focus in this area, patrolling the candidates for speedy deletion to ensured that they are appropriately tagged for deletion and I've rescued a good number of them and re-creation of wrongly deleted articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia include content creation which are denoted here. Examples of articles I have created that are fairly developed include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The first six featured on WP:DYK and I intend to improve them to GA or FA. One of the reasons why I give more attentions to Nigeria-related articles is that only few people are contributing from Nigeria, resulting in poor representation of Nigeria-related articles on Wikipedia. I also focus my work on patrolling Candidates for Speedy Deletion to ease admin stress and to rescue inappropriate candidate for speedy deletion. I also contribute to a wide range of discussions related to Africa, Academics, Films, Medicine, History and so on at AfD to help reach a consensus that determine the fate of some articles. I sometimes get pinged to comments on some discussion by other experienced editors in certain cases.
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 have had disagreements at times regarding editing and contents, which is invariably inevitable for prolific content creators and active editors. I'm always calm when this occur and resolve it amicably with the concern editors at talk pages. I don't go out of control because I believe good faith is all that is required to contribute usefully to the encyclopedia. I approach disagreements by first considering the concerned editor's viewpoints, respect their points of views and engaging in discussion, with the hopes of attaining resolution.
Additional question from Athomeinkobe
4. Upon seeing this RFA I remembered your name from this ANI thread. In the discussion, several problems were identified, including how you interacted with other editors. A year has passed since then, so could you explain what you learnt from it and any changes you made to your editing habits?
A:Thanks for reminding me of that ANI thread, Athomeinkobe. I wouldn't have been a better and valuable editor without that thread. I never realize the damages that biting newcomers and copyright infringements could cause Wikipedia until that thread was initiated. Following the closure of the discussion, I learned to be polite and welcoming to new editors because I later realized that new editors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource and we need to treat them with kindness and patience. Copyvio is another pertinent issue that was raised. Then I have no experience about the use of contents on Wikipedia and 7 of the 8 articles I created was speedily deleted per G12 while the discussion was still on. There, I learned about WP:CV and other related policies and guidelines. I am open to learning from mistakes and since the closure of the discussion and deletion of the 7 articles, I had created over 500 articles across a wide range of topics with only one deleted through WP:AfD (over 6 months ago). I will like to say that I've never had any problem with new editors since the closure of the discussion till date.
Additional questions from SilkTork
5. You come upon an AfD to close it and find all those involved, with possible signs of being canvassed, say A, with nobody saying B, yet B is the appropriate policy based option. What do you do? SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A: Since policy-based arguments are the valid and acceptable arguments at WP:AfD, I will give more weight to B, the appropriate policy based option than unsupported statements in favor of A. In this case, I will relist the debate to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
OK. Given that there are signs of canvassing, what happens after relisting is that even more folks join in support of A, but still nobody sees that option B is the policy based option. So after seven days you come upon it again to close with an even bigger stack of support for A and absolutely nobody supporting B. Imagine it has already been relisted the max amount of times. What do you do now? SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will close the debate as Keep considering the obvious signs of canvass and a non-policy based arguments in favor of A. The number of editors commenting in favor of A doesn't matter. What is important is a policy-based arguments. Although, I may probably consult one or more highly experienced admin before the closure.
6. Looking back at your interactions with User:Cruks, and your essay User:Wikicology/Mosquitoes - how do you know when you are dealing with a "mosquito" rather than a well meaning but inexperienced editor, and how would you differentiate between them in your behaviour, attitude and procedure? SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:Cruks (talk · contribs) is not an editor I will considered a MOSQUITO per my essay. WP:MOSQUITOES are people who only join Wikipedia to promote themselves, their non-notable band, company and so on. I often recognize them through their contributions. For example, an editor that was blocked for continued recreation of article about his non-notable company will certainly want to re-create the same article under a different username. If I happen to be the editor that tagged the previous article for deletion, I will probably be aware of its re-creation if the article is created under the same title. With this, i will easily identify the user as the blocked user. Such an editor is the mosquito I described in my essay. With kind regards.
I am pleased you do not see Cruks as a "mosquito". Considering that you possibly do regard him as a well meaning user, looking back on your interaction with him, how would you sum it up, especially in light of that user now having retired? This may relate to some of the comments people have made regarding your belligerent attitude, and I think it may be helpful for you to reflect carefully and give folks an insight into how you may support other users and be community spirited and supportive as a balance to your clear intention to delete the inappropriate and keep Wikipedia shipshape and free from troublesome contributors. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SilkTork. I'm not aware that Cruks (talk · contribs) has retired. I'd like to say that their retirement is unrelated to my encounter with them and I don't think they stated the reasons why they retired. Sincerely, if I had been aware of their retirement, I would have probably send them a private mail. I often find it very painful when invaluable editors ceased to contribute to Wikipedia. In fact on several occasions, I've sent mails to editors from Nigeria who had stop contributing to Wikipedia, just to bring them back and a user group, "Wikimedia User Group Nigeria" I co-founded was recently recognized by the Affiliation Committee. I had been supportive and I've learned to deal with problematic editors with patience. With kind regards.
Additional question from Brianhe
7. In an AfD approximately six months ago, when the text of your !vote was changed by another account here, why did you not object?
A: Oh...Brianhe, I never noticed that the the text of my !vote was changed. I only checked the editor's own comment because I never expected mine to be altered. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Chris troutman
8. I took a look at your user rights log. You asked to be a pending changes reviewer only 20 days after you created your account. You were refused and undaunted, asked again a month later and were again refused. You asked yet again in November 2014 and were finally granted that right by MusikAnimal. And yet to this day, I see no evidence you ever reverted a pending change. In December 2014 asked for the auto-patrolled right and when refused you asked why anyone "decided to deprive [you] of this right simply because [you] had a copyright issue". Regardless, in February 2015 you again requested the auto-patrolled flag and were granted it. The next day you had a short conversation with Vejvančický who had granted you the autopatrolled right at your request but then removed it because of concerns with your editing. MichaelQSchmidt restored autopatrolled to you. In the ANI thread previously mentioned you said then that you "joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday" and were immediately disabused of the idea. Finally you made this request of your nominator. All this looks like hat collecting behavior to me. How do you respond? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A:
Additional question from ßlaïsi Furstqurzel
9. Why is it that you edited the Opobo page -here, and added Kenneth Minimah even though he was just some retired army soldier that is not very notable? Is this the kind of standard we expect in Wikipedia?
A:You mean the former Chief of Army Staff of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not notable?
No he is not notable at all. You should have gone for Oladayo Popoola or Gibson Jalo, those guys are more notable and more Wikisuitable. --ßlaïsi Furstqurzel (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support[edit]
  1. Support: Wikicology has proven beyond reasonable doubts that he's a superb editor by his way of editing. He will be a good Administrator. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: as nominator (I see somebody else has beaten me to the polling booth — well done!) David Cannon (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Without being biased, I am supporting the candidacy of Wikicology because he was the editor who gave me the confidence to edit on Wikipedia. His contributions to Wikipedia especially on WikiProject Nigeria-related topics and AfD is commendable. He has my support! --—OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Great contributions despite only 6,300 edits; part of the rare group of editors that actually can effectively apply speedy deletion criteria and deletion policy. Esquivalience t 01:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. Looks like a qualified candidate. INeverCry 01:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Candidate is experienced in areas regarding deletion. Net positive. sst✈discuss 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Demonstrates competence in the area where he wishes to work and has the necessary clue to handle the rest of the bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC) I normally wouldn't strike a support on an RfA that has taken a turn for the worse like this, but some of the diffs provided by iridescent and Softlavender are quite worrisome in terms of the candidate's overall attitude and temperament. I still maintain that this user is competent enough for the bit, but simply a little too petulant for my tastes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support –Daß Wölf (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support: I'm watching candidate since few months, he is good at new page patrolling and at AfD, moreover he is humble and polite that one admin should be. He has 2500+ mainspace edits which some people will think "not adequate", but as of now he has created 517 articles which is more than adequate, he don't do small edits, for example see revision history of Abel Idowu Olayinka, he inserted some 20,000+b in single edit, if he would have done 10-20 edits to his each article then his main space edit count would have been somewhere between 6,000-10,000 and total edit count would have been between 13,000-15,000. But he makes big and quality edits thats why his main space edit count is less. Another thing is that, if we want to improve quality of Wikipedia on each Project then we need admins from every region so that they will take care of articles of their related project more actively and with enthusiasm. Africa is big land and I don't think that we have much admins from Africa. And who will become admin from Nigeria/Africa if not Wikicology? --Human3015TALK  05:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support one of the few people from Nigeria who can serve as admin here. Wikicology is a perfect candidate who will be a perfect admin. SDK Olobe (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - NOTNOW, come back after you gain more experience, maybe a year later or even more. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A user with over 6,000 edits and a year tenure slapped with NOTNOW with no further explanation is fairly condescending. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNOTNOW. All I have to say. Esquivalience t 01:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason behind my oppose Thank you - Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I admit that I'm sometimes blunt and hostile with some editors on talk pages for obvious reasons... How on earth will I be polite with spammer? NEVER! I feel bad to oppose you on this but this really puts me off. I completely disagree with this and I believe that even the spammer don't deserve to be treated badly. They might get blocked eventually, but we don't have to come off aggressively at them since they may not be aware of the policies at first. I certainly wouldn't want an admin to be "blunt and hostile" to some new editor or any editor at all "for obvious reasons" regardless of their intentions towards this site. Yash! 01:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Sorry, but 17 months or so of experience on Wikipedia and only around 6.3K edits in total seems like a little light in my book. Come back again later... Guy1890 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I was made an admin after just 6 months' tenure, with only a couple of thousand edits to my name. In those days, we really took Jimbo seriously when he said that adminship should be no big deal. We've made it one, that's a huge mistake, and we need to correct that mistake. David Cannon (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point: It's not so much the quantity of edits that counts, as the quality. I've got a huge number of edits under my belt now — but most of them are of the variety that would not (I hope) count one way or another in an RFA — just basic janitorial work. Wikicology does not have so many edits — but the ones he has are good quality. He creates articles of highly academic quality — something I cannot say of most of my own, or most other editors', articles.David Cannon (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I'll just be outright that my impression of Wikicology has never been good. This is namely a result of their activity at WP:PERM, where amongst their unwelcomed non-admin closures, new and even senior editors were met with unfounded criticism [2] among other degrading "peanut gallery" comments [3]. This to me is suggestive of a domineering presence, or overeagerness toward bureaucratic process, further evidenced throughout their talk page archives. I also have concerns about their English comprehension, such as here where they failed to either read or understand what others had said, and also their frequent unconventional and peculiar formatting of their words. Wikicology has much of the policy and guidelines down to a T, but I think the attitude is way off, and they'll need to put more thought into their actions and verbalization before I can entrust them with administrative tools. Wikicology, sorry if I am myself being harsh. You are clearly passionate about the project and I don't want to discourage that. I can't offer my support for adminship, but you have my overwhelming support as a strong and valued editor — MusikAnimal talk 05:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. There are numerous indications that the candidate lacks the experience, understanding, and temperament for adminship. Just a few that jump out at me: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Several discussions on his talk page (including two that I listed) belie his answer to Q3 above. His content contributions on Nigeria are appreciated; keep up the good work there. However, adminship is not appropriate at all, in my view, at least not at this time. ETA: The answer to Q6 has effectively torpedoed this RfA. Cruks made thousands of good-faith edits to hundreds of articles. To unilaterally describe that editor as "not an editor" but rather a "mosquito" says everything about why this person should not be an administrator, not now, and probably not ever. OK maybe I read the answer to Q6 wrong, but the candidate's English is so garbled everywhere I look that problem alone disqualifies him for adminship. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC): edited Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any problem with my spoken English and you will agree with me that not all editors on Wikipedia hold a degree in English language like you. I'm not a lexicologist or a lexicographer but a Biochemist and a university lecturer. If my English is a problem, it would have reflected in my articles. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly every non-article-space communication by you that I have read contains garbled English and consequently the meaning is often unclear. This is unacceptable for an admin. You don't have to have a degree in English or be a lexicographer to write coherent English. If you find nothing amiss in your communications, that further reflects on the problem. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The ANI discussion (linked in Q4) from just over a year ago shows so many problems (comments like "I am now very unsure if Wikicology can actually function here on the English Wikipedia on anything beyond very basic level editing") that I do not beleive this editor is ready for adminship. Interesting comments in that ANI include "I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday." and (from another editor) "[it looks like you have read a book about how] to become a guaranteed administrator within 6 months of starting to edit Wikipedia.". DexDor (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems highlighted in the ANI discussion (linked in Q4) had been addressed over a year ago and the editors that made the comment you pointed out, User:Darreg and User:Demiurge1000 had been ban from Wikipedia for disruptive editing . Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Inexperienced, unless and until adminship becomes "no big deal" as whatshisname claimed he wanted it to be, this is not a good idea. Also, refactoring other people's comments is not humble, responsible or diligent. It's rude. pablo 08:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pablo X, I'm deeply sorry if you find it offensive, I never did that in bad faith. I don't see any offence in restructuring, as long as the wording remain unchanged. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and something you should know as an admin candidate: WP:TPO. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I'm very much familiar with WP:TPO and I have no idea of why you pointed me to that behavioral guideline. Do you check the edits in question at all? That is not a violation of Wikipedia policy as my edits didn't alter the meaning of the user's comments. You must have misinterpreted WP:TPO. Also note that WP:TALKPAGE is not the same as WP:AfD. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I have to disagree that you did not change the meaning of the comment. By adding WP:TOOSOON to the comment, you fundamentally changed the interpretation of the comment. You inferred all the content in that essay to the person's comment when it may not have been their intention and their use of "too soon" could have had another meaning. Mkdwtalk 11:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You did indeed change the meaning. You added a wikilink to a wiki-essay, when none was there or intended. This is particularly reprehensible in that you were the person who opened the AfD, so it looks as if you were trying to stack the results in your favor. (You also added the word "Comment", which wasn't there before.) Softlavender (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had wanted to link WP:TOOSOON, I would have done so. If I wanted to preface my comment with bold text indicating that it was in fact a comment (as opposed to what? a sandwich? An antelope?) I would have done so. There was no reason for you to reformat. Your reaction to this is not encouraging either. pablo 11:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that your use of "too soon" could have had another meaning and I feel remorseful about any alteration but I never did that in bad faith. Thanks for the clarification, Mkdw and my sincere apology to Pablo X. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Insufficient experience. Also echoing concerns expressed by MusikAnimal, especially regarding the clerking at WP:PERM. Widr (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Simply not been here long enough to get sufficient experience to do the job properly. Try again in a year. Rcsprinter123 (remark) 10:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I can see the candidate becoming defensive over some of the opinions expressed here. I also have to disagree with their opinion about TPO and if they can't even understand "why" it's being raised as a concern. It's clear there's relevance, whether they agree with that application or not, and not some far fetched guideline being cited. This all leads me to further concerns about whether they have the administrative capacity to apply our policies to situations that involve editorial conduct. Being an academic doesn't necessarily mean you would make a good administrator and very often in post-secondary institutions those duties are intentionally separated. Likewise, I understand this editor is a prolific writer and could certainly use the tools. I'm simply not certain if they have the demeanor and patience. Mkdwtalk 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm sorry. The candidate obviously puts in a great deal of effort, but I'm seeing too many issues in exactly the areas I don't want to see them in an admin. Communication skills, interpersonal issues with defensiveness, inability to understand a situation and what policy is relevant/how to apply it. I first came across this editor in this ANI thread, where many of these issues were evident. That was a year ago, and while progress has obviously been shown, it's not enough to support this RFA. Examining his contributions, and the diffs linked in this section I have to say that at least another 12 months of solid progress specifically on the issues outlined here would be needed before I could support. Begoon talk 12:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC) - adding, you probably should give some thought to what kind of a message you are sending with the big, pink box on your talkpage - that's just advice I'm offering... Wikicology removed the box - thank you Begoon talk 14:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Here's a recent example of the candidate nominating an article for deletion. The nomination is triply-flawed in that it suggests that the article is a personal opinion, when it isn't; that it should be blown up, which is not our policy; and all this when the topic is actually quite notable. Andrew D. (talk) 12:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, I don't like to !vote early in RfAs, but I know nothing could happen that would change my mind on this one. Per all the opposes above, and especially activities like the "clerking" at WP:PERM really rub me the wrong way. You don't join the police force to shoot, and that's exactly what this user wants. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, with regret, per MusikAnimal. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I don't normally join pile-ons, but in this case I'll make an exception as I think it's an important point at stake. It's been hastily removed about an hour ago, but someone who boasts on their userpage of their rudeness and ability to drive off users they consider unworthy is certainly not someone who ought to have access to the block button. ‑ iridescent 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, as much as I'd like to support a fellow teacher/professor for adminship his pattern implies non-neutrality in edits and an administrator should be more neutral as a judge rather than an executioner. I have to concur with Kharkiv07 here. LordPsychon (Com lines open) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - not yet, sorry. Too many valid concerns raised. Definitely one for the future though. GiantSnowman 16:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose: I participated in a small way in the WP:ANI thread myself, and argued against any drastic sanctions on Wikicology. I am happy to note that my judgement in this instance was right (though I was and still am very inexperienced in these matters). Wikicology's edits are by and large quite positive. However, several people have noted problems in the oppose section which I share: I won't reiterate them. I hope that they will stick around and get more experience. Wikipedia does need more experts and diverse editors, but there is no overriding reason to make them admins before they are ready. I hope they will not be discouraged by this RfA but learn from it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per the answer to Q5. Defaulting to the exercise of administrative of authority in lieu of attempting to reach the appropriate consensus is poor judgment. The appropriate response should be to cast an appropriate, well-argued !vote at the AFD and raise the CANVASSING at an appropriate noticeboard. There are no indications here that this is a case where more strict action is necessary (eg, an attack page or other clear BLP violation). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Unfortunately my interactions with Wikicology have been less than exemplary. At this AFD he demonstrated a poor understanding of what constitutes an RS and how to apply SNGs. I'm unable to offer support at this time. There were also similar problems here and here. When he declined an A7 deletion, leading to this AFD which I speedily closed as the article clearly met A7, he went on to tell me that I shouldn't have deleted it and that AFDs should be left to run their course. That's of course not correct and the way they communicated seemed rather confrontational and condescending which has been echoed elsewhere in this discussion. I agree with others that the notes on their talkpage and userpage that have since been removed were not appropriate for a potential admin, but I also find his views on admins disturbing since other users should not be wikt:obsequious to us and nor are we leaders. Altogether I'm not able to support at this time. SmartSE (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral because I don't wish to pile on. I agree with the opposers and suggest that the candidate withdraw this RfA and gain more experience before running again. Jianhui67 T★C 16:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
General comments[edit]
He already is "on board". We don't elect admins to "send a message", we elect them on the merits. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  RFA Withdrawn. I hereby withdraw this RFA for obvious reason. I had never for once thought that the contents of my User page will send a wrong signal to other editor. Since the issue of WP:BITE raised at the ANI thread in my earliest time on Wikipedia, no single case of newbie bite have been reported. My clerk activity at WP:PERM raised by MusikAnimal is pertinent. I only felt I could also help in that area but I never knew I was doing it wrongly. The issues raised in that ANI thread over a year ago had been addressed and the clercking issue had also been addressed before now. I hope these issues will not be raised again in the future. The comments I made at my earliest time on Wikipedia that "I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday" shouldn't be taken seriously . The comment was made because I don't know how things work on Wikipedia then and should be disregarded. I want to assure the community that i won't be discouraged but learn from this RFA. I want to use this opportunity to appreciate everyone that participated in this RFA particularly, the awesome editors that supported my RFA and the ones that opposed but gave one or more useful advices. Many thanks to you all! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:24, 30 October 2015 (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