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

Zginder[edit]

Final(8/34/9); the RfA has hit the red zone at 19% and the candidate has had sufficient time to reconsider the RfA as well as the request to reopen; closed per WP:SNOW by SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zginder (talk · contribs) - I have had an account since 2006-04-16T01:34:14, made my first logged in edit 2006-04-16T01:44:36, and have been a rollbacker since 2008-01-11T16:57:45. I have made 5,448 contributions (included deleted). I have never been blocked and never edit warred. If I think I may have been slightly too abrasive I always apologize on their user talk page. I am requesting adminship, because I am starting to request admins to do things a lot more than I used to. I am most active in Wikiprojects Time and Homeschooling. The pages I have edited the most are 12-hour clock (my work there convinced me in the virtue of ISO 8601 and the standardized test articles ACT (examination), SAT, and SAT Subject Tests. Zginder 2008-05-09T02:02Z (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Zginder 2008-05-09T14:18Z (UTC)

I live and breath Wikipedia. I use all of the following outside of Wikipedia: NPOV, NOR, V, RS, Free culture, IAR, BB, EQ, CON, NPA, CIVIL, and [citation needed]. Wikipedia is a great source for mantras. I would be honored to become an admin. Thank you for your support. Zginder 2008-05-11T19:01Z (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I already have Requests for page protection, In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, Cut and paste move repair holding pen, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism on my watch list. I will also handle speedy delete, prod deletes, and image relative speedy deletion. Zginder 2008-05-09T14:11Z (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Why best contributions are to the 12-hour clock article, and at featured sounds. I have the most personal connection with 12-hour clock, it is where i first really got in to editing. Zginder 2008-05-09T14:16Z (UTC)
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 never been under great stress in a conflict with editing. I have sometimes given up instead of edit-waring and congratulate others when they do the same. Zginder 2008-05-09T14:16Z (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

4. Do you see yourself remaining objective/neutral on the 12-hour clock article when vandalism occurs, or would you defer judgment to another administrator?
A. I actuary come to that article to make it neutral. I have made it much more neutral as I edited it. I used to support its use, but not anymore, and can, therefore, see both sides of the issue. Zginder 2008-05-09T14:48Z (UTC)
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A. A block is a technical measure that prevents editing. Any admin can block someone. A ban is a stronger more social measure that orders a person not to edit. Bans come from Arbcom, or if a user is indefiniting blocked and not a single admin is willing to unblock him, it is a ban by community. Zginder 2008-05-11T12:50Z (UTC)
6. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?
A. I believe it should be optional and as such I will not answer more questions about this optional process. Zginder 2008-05-11T12:33Z (UTC)
7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. They should never be used. I know I would not cool down, but be heated up by a block. Zginder 2008-05-11T12:33Z (UTC)

Optional questions from TravisTX

8. When patrolling speedy deletion nominations, I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. Has each article been tagged correctly? If not, please explain how you would handle it. (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)
A: These appear to be cut and paste page moves and are, therefore, copyright violations of the GFDL 1.2. Zginder 2008-05-11T18:42Z (UTC)
a. Sam Jones
A: This is a speedy candidate, but for a different reason. I would SD per criterion A7, non-notable person. Zginder 2008-05-11T18:42Z (UTC)
b. Rob smith
A: The same as above. Zginder 2008-05-11T18:42Z (UTC)
c. Aliens on earth
A: This is not a speedy candidate. I would tag it as Prod in a few days. Waiting a few days allows it to be improved or for the creator to not pay attention. Zginder 2008-05-11T18:42Z (UTC)
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 9. Would you describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 9a. ...an editor to be blocked?
  • A: First of all I would like to say that no Wikipedian wants the admin tools to ever need to be used except for page moves to a page with history. I do not like having to block people, but I understand that it must be done; therefore, in order to prevent blocking people we should not the bar must be high. There are a number of reasons why a user should be blocked. The most obvious is simple vandalism. Not following policy, such as 3RR, EL, BLP after having been warned is another important reason to block. With such, care must be taken to insure that the user had a chance to read the warning, before blocking. An account may be blocked if is is compromised. Finally, an editor my be blocked for personal attacks or legal threats. Zginder2008-05-12T13:37Z (UTC)
  • A: A page should be semi-protected if it is repetitively being vandalized by different IP's. I look for about the last ten edits being IP's and reversion for vandalism within about 24-hours for a temp-protect. A page should be fully protected (to the meta:The Wrong Version) if there is an edit war and many reverts. Zginder2008-05-12T13:48Z (UTC)
  • A: Speedily deletion is a quick way of deleting pages that consciouses has decided should not be in Wikipedia. The criteria are strict and must be followed strictly, as they should be. There are a number of criteria that I can not discuss all of them. If someone whats to know about a certain criterion I will discuss it. Zginder2008-05-12T13:48Z (UTC)
  • A: Technically consensus is 100% of editors; however, this is not possible in all WP:XFD and WP:DRV discussions. On a talk page, if the last side to make a statement's version is the version on the article and the other sides have not responded or reverted in a reasonable amount of time there is consensus. On XFD's consensus is required to delete and on DRV consensus is required to undelete. If the majority is to the non-burden of proof side do not take action. If the arguments that the burden of proof side are not based on policy and guidelines then no consensus. After that it is based on discretion. On RM a much stronger consensus is needed, I would require everyone to be able to live with the move and a plurality support the move backed by policy and guidelines. Zginder 2008-05-12T20:29Z (UTC)
  • 11. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First, I would figure out what User:JohnQ's relationship with the article or the other users is. Then, I would look it see whether there are WP:BLP concerns that one is defending. I would then check for three-revert rule violations. I would see if they are discussing the issue on the talk page or one or both or the user talk pages. If they are not discussing the issue, or other violation[s] were taking place I would warn a/both user[s] if this has not already been done. If they have been warned and continue, I would block [a] user[s] and/or fully protect the page depending on the situation. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:09Z (UTC)


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

At least give the poor guy 24 hours. There are only ten opposes at the moment, and if the questions are fielded suitably, this RfA could still turn around. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was 17% support at time of closing; it's more likely the percentage would decrease than increase (tends to happen to RFAs), but if Zginder wishes to keep it open, I don't have a problem with that. · AndonicO Engage. 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened per user request. · AndonicO Engage. 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support I looked through the deleted contributions as well as Zginder's talk page and contributions and this looks like a reasonable editor who has progressed to the point where they can clearly use the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor Support A few minor concerns, but nothing that indicates he would abuse the tools. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support (and re-open the process, I'd say....) - I've taken a good solid look at Zginder's edits, and think he's absolutely ready and responsible enough for the tools. This process really does need to be slowed down a bit too.. no rush folks. In the interests of full disclosure, I should add that Zginder and I have met briefly over at WP:NTWW and I've expressed strong support for his concept of keeping an audio diary of this process - I think it'll be fascinating, and wish Zginder the best. I'd encourage all neutral and oppose voters to have another look at their comments and consider changing their vote if, like me, they perceive a rather foolish haste about this page.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. naerii - talk 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. --SharkfaceT/C 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A joke made in poor taste. My apologies. --SharkfaceT/C 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have a smile on my face right now if you had adjusted the wording of your support. What prevents that is the impression that apparently your entire support was meant as a joke, which is in very bad taste indeed. dorftrottel (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Needs the tools and seems a reasonable editor. Sounds like the perfect case to me! --RegentsPark (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. So then sometime later. dorftrottel (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support User has put in a self nom even though he knows full well he will take flak for it. This clearly demonstrates he is able to stand on his own two feet, something we really need in administrators.--Phoenix-wiki 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SureSimple reason - needs tools and requesting admins too often. He can do it himself. Trustable. Good track record. Prashanthns (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons why not are listed below under Oppose... also, you made 3 supports within 2 minutes of eachother. One even within the same minute. I do hope the 'Crat takes this under account. Qb | your 2 cents 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is allowed, if he knows what his personal criteria are and sees that they are meet. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:10Z (UTC)
    Not saying its not allowed... saying that this user must not have done much research to have copied and pasted the same response on three seperate RfAs in a matter of 2 minutes. Qb | your 2 cents 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a horrific argument for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. What's to say he didn't do all his work beforehand, then opened a bunch of browser tabs or windows at once, made his edit, and then hit "Save Page" three times in a row really quick. Please think of and consider alternative explanations before jumping to conclusions. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Occam's razor. xenocidic (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That only applies when one has no particular reason to give one option consideration over the other. As someone who himself does what I just described, I have plenty of reason to think that this may be the case here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. xenocidic (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Weak Oppose for now, I may change after I continue to look through the candidate's contribs. Just wanted to get down what I had so far. Candidate wants to work with CSD, and has tagged a fair number of articles for deletion, but only a few in the last couple of weeks. Thise included a couple that would a little disconcerting: this and this definitely shouldn't have been tagged as nonsense, especially the first one. Also, candidate wants to work at AIV, but has only 3 reports there. I'm going to keep looking through his contribs to try to find evidence that convinces me that he'd be fine with the blocking tools. Useight (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add that of his last 1000 edits, 205 were via AWB, 161 were via Twinkle, and 34 were through Friendly, which happens to add up to exactly 400, so his edit count might be a little bloated. I went through my own contribs and realized that 275 of my last 1000 were via Huggle, so I can't really knock him too much for using scripts, but I didn't start using Huggle until I had made over 10,000 manual edits and had become an admin. Now I'm rambling, what I'm trying to say is it's not a really big deal, but it's not great. See my admin criteria for more info. Useight (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose Lots to like here, but seems to me an unpolished diamond in this candidate at the moment. This was not spam. [1] and [2] - wow ! 1 whole minute before slapping a speedy tag? This mystifies me - why do you need to point out that a comment is not an attack? In addition I think you could have made a clearer job of communication in your answers to the questions above. It's not one big problem, it's a host of little things that make me concerned. Sorry, and good luck. Pedro :  Chat  15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first diff, the editor that I undid apologized on my talk page. If I understand policy correctly an admin can delete an SD on sight. An admin does not need to wait x units of time. If the policy says to wait x units of time I will. On the last diff, unless you could call what I wrote an attack, I would not have brought it up. I did not attack that editor there or ever, as far as I remember. Zginder 2008-05-11T12:57Z (UTC)
    On the first diff the editor did not apologise to you at all and rightly so. [3]. I'm even more confused as why you assert he would apologise when you reverted his perfectly fine edit as "spam". Yes, admins can speedy delete on sight, but only if backed up by no ambiguity whatsoever in policy - both my diffs are now articles so an immediate delete was clearly wrong. Yes, you did not attack the editor. That's my point. Regarding the final diff - why did you feel the need to point out it wasn't an attack in CAPITALS?. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  19:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for calling me "an unpolished diamond", though. Zginder2008-05-11T19:19Z (UTC)
    It's my genuine feeling. This isn't a "no-never" oppose. It's a "sort some things out and go again" oppose. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Good edit count, but opposed as per Pedro. asenine say what? 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: Also per your reply to Kurt. asenine say what? 22:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I have strong issues with an admin-candidate who would support admins being able to delete biographies on request. MBisanz talk 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this even relevant to becoming an administrator? It's a statement of what he prefers policy to be and has nothing to do with how he would deal with established policy or with the tools. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Philosopher on this. I think that the WP:OPTOUT idea is horrendous. However, I think that a person's stance on policy should be a separate issue from their qualifications to be an administrator. Should the nominee become an admin, it doesn't suddenly give him any more power in consensus than he had as an editor. Again, it comes back to the idea that if we only promote people to sysop status who have the exact same opinions and beliefs as we have, that would be far more dangerous than giving the mop to people who hold minority opinions. Trusilver 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pagename was changed since he signed, it was originally titled a noticeboard. Signing a straw poll doesn't concern me, signing up as a supporter/participant at the noticeboard where subject-requested deletions will be posted does. MBisanz talk 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank, Philosopher and Trusilver for defending me. I never indented to disregard policy and delete upon request. I only want to change the policy. Just because I disagree with a law does not mean I disregard it. Zginder2008-05-11T19:19Z (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Not bad, but there are a some things that make me feel extremely uncomfortable, Pedro's diffs for example. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And just as an addendum, yes edit count doesn't matter, but, experience does. In the answer to question1, the user mentions WP:RFPP and WP:AIV being watched list, which I will interpret as areas of interest and areas that he/she plans to work if granted the bit. The former has about 8 edits, while the latter has about 4. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Sorry, you know when you get that odd feeling that you just can't trust someone despite there being little evidence to support those feelings? This is one of those situations for me. Also, Pedro's diffs are a little worrying. Good luck in the future and happy editing. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. The candidate has potential but isn't quite ready. Majoreditor (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per MBisanz. --CapitalR (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on! I nominated myself so, I do not have to bother admins when I need to protect, block, or delete. As a plus, I could then help other editors to protect, block, or delete. Zginder2008-05-11T20:47Z (UTC)
    I see you're not familiar with Kurt. He opposes every self-nom on that grounds. Before you start protesting, however, know that community consensus is that he has the right to his opinion, and we shouldn't repeatedly hassle him over it every time he opposes. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, that Kurt's opposes on every RfA that he has opposed, is exactly the same; it looks like it's copy-pasted. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is no reason as the first thing for an administrator is to being BOLD. A self nomination indicates that he is ready for the 'Job' -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mailer diablo also copy-pasted (or at least, always supported with exactly the same words), but no one ever complained. · AndonicO Engage. 13:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Old news folks... move on. Qb | your 2 cents 13:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And so did I as well for quite some time, Andonic :) Nobody complained. But that's probably because I copy-pasted supports :( Snowolf How can I help? 04:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose All things considered, I just don't think you're ready for the challenge quite yet. That's not to say that you're not on the right track. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per response to Kurt... Qb | your 2 cents 21:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition... oppose per this. You opposed an RfA due to a self nom... therefore, are you then opposing yourself? Qb | your 2 cents 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "non-self nominations" My is a self nomination. Zginder 2008-05-13T00:42Z (UTC)
    Yes, apologies. I read that wrong. Qb | your 2 cents 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak oppose. I don't see any evidence that he would abuse the tools, but I can't help but feel a bit more experience (# of edits) would beneficially prepare him more. The answers to the questions could have been clearer/fuller — as an admin I think it's important that you be able to express yourself clearly so there's no risk of misunderstandings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per the above reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose for lack of understanding of deletion criteria. This and this were mis-tagged CSD G1 (nonsense). Martin's Brandon Church, with substantially the same information and format as the current article, was tagged G1 (and deleted!). I interpret WP:NONSENSE as meaning nonsense def. 1, not nonsense def. 2. The first two examples might be the latter, but the third example is neither. Sorry, spend some time at XfD and read up on deletion then try again. —Travistalk 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two had no content, it really doesn't make much of a difference what something like that gets tagged as when the case for deletion would be obvious. The third one looks like a mishap using twinkle (since the article looked much like the previous two initially, and got improved at the same time it was tagged). I'd blame a bad tool and especially the deleting admin in that case. - Bobet 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No content ≠ nonsense. Articles with no meaningful content should be tagged CSD A3. As for the third example, yes, the deleting admin was wrong. But, with all due respect, blaming Twinkle is akin to blaming a hammer for smashing your thumbnail. The one wielding the tool is responsible for using it properly and, if a mistake occurs, is responsible for cleaning up the mess. —Travistalk 13:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. While I am not impressed with Kurt Weber's oppose, I am going to oppose per TravisTX. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  00:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Too many deletion concerns. Tiptoety talk 03:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, I really admire your moxie in going through the whole RFA meatgrinder and sticking at it even when it became clear that it would not go your way, but I'm afraid that I must regretfully oppose per User:MBisanz above. Would probably have let it slip though, if it were not for the poor use of ((db-nonsense)) tags as pointed out by User:Useight. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  18. Oppose - I don't like to object when an editor clearly works hard and has good intentions. Nevertheless, I oppose per answers to questions 6 and 7, lack of answer to 10, and to a lesser degree, what I see as an unseemly bias toward quick and broad deletion.  Frank  |  talk  16:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per diffs provided by Pedro and Useight. Poor understanding of policy.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I'm concerned with this user's policy experience, and the somewhat shakey answers to questions (namely 6), and deletion concerns. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What about #6 indicates a "shaky" response? - jc37 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when Zginder says, "I will not answer more questions about this optional process"...I take that as a cutting off of communication, as that it's not open for discussion. I feel that an admin needs to be open to discussing things, especially controversial ones, such as CAT:AOR. SpencerT♦C 01:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an optional process...that some have made seem like a requirement for RfA. Yes, an administrator needs to be open to discussing controversial things, but in an area they wish to work in, as with any other editor. Perhaps he feels it's been discussed to death or doesn't see the usefulness in discussing it in this forum? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per Pedro, and per other things I'v seen. I just don't think this user has a good grasp on all of the policies. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Sorry, but you've got to be able to spot BLP violations like in Q8b. east.718 at 02:52, May 13, 2008
  23. Oppose per trying to make a point regarding Kmweber's oppose here (see the candidate's contribs on every non-self-nom rfa currently running). I really wouldn't like to see an admin who's answer to criticism (even if unfounded) is to make petulant responses to people who aren't even involved in the issue. - Bobet 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per opposing other candidates just to make a point. xenocidic (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong oppose per Bobet. Shows immaturity that I don't want coming close to the tools. Wizardman 05:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose as per Bobet. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per response to Kurt's vote. Not being able to tolerate criticism, as it appears there, is something that leaves me a bit sour. And the supporting of WP:OPTOUT, well, that adds to my concerns, but I can't support a candidate that would delete bio's on request. Sorry. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Very disappointed in user's recent oppose to Coppertwig: not only does it shown complete lack of judgement, but also an infamiliarity with the community as a whole. Other concerns are even more disturbing. Rudget (Help?) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose per apparent violations of WP:POINT regarding RfAs; agree with the first half of Steve Crossin's statement - if you make a point using your editors tools, intuition suggests that you may do the same with your administrative tools. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Because of his statements in other RFAs like this -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 15:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose As noted above, to make WP:POINT opposes to uninvolved RFA candidates because of kwebbers oppose doesn't show the temperment needed for an admin.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong oppose point-voting and disruption are not expected from administrators. Try again next year, at the earliest. EJF (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Don't like the answers to some of the questions, and per all above. Jack?! 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose per above. miranda 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]

Moral support Don't get discouraged, and best of luck in the future. xenocidic (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral for now, as candidate didn't fully read the self-nom instructions. xenocidic (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Changing to oppose. xenocidic (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I miss? Zginder 2008-05-09T14:50Z (UTC)
You didn't delete the acceptance line. Don't worry, I'll likely change this as the RFA progresses. xenocidic (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many self noms do that. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that someone who does not fully read and understand a process to nominate oneself for adminship might not fully read and understand a policy before enforcing it. but, as it is a minor issue, neutral. xenocidic (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem - he is nominating himself...and then accepting his nomination. If anything, it provides clarity for those who may not have noticed it was a self-nom and are therefore wondering if he's accepted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindof a moot point now, but I stand by my reasoning. xenocidic (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. I can't see a huge fault with this users article editing, but little to no involvement in XfD discussions, poor edit summary usage and no real need for the tools indicated, I can't support now. Sorry. (PS: The last one isn't a big issue.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not intend to close XfD discussions. Since I will not be doing these things, I do not think that is relevant. Zginder 2008-05-11T19:06Z (UTC)
    OK, but you do say you'll be active in WP:AIV; according to the talk page, you have less than 7 contribs there. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answers to the questions, but I have to agree with WBOSITG. I’d like to see a lot more involvement with the admin-related areas, particularly XfD, and a bit of work at the help desk wouldn’t hurt, either. —Travistalk 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Pedro's diffs. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 16:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per weburiedoursecrets -- --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per WBOSITG with the exception of that last qualifier. I don't feel that need for tools should be a prerequisite to getting the tools. However, A lot of harm can be done by admins who don't really have a solid foundation in admin-related functions. As such, I would be happy to support you a few months down the road after you have a more all-encompassing experience in project space. Good luck. Trusilver 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Pedro and Useight's opposes with suggestions
    1. I welcome new users and then review their contribs. This way their first contact with the Project is a positive. If further education/coaching/warning is required, it softens the impact. It also gives them one more chance to read the guidelines and policies. Sometimes, the only thing new editors understand is "bebold". It also gives their articles time to develop and improve.
    2. I try to check the internet before tagging/deleting articles. Sometimes a Google search will reveal notability, context, or sourcing that was not evident in the article.
    3. I try to stub tag and categorize articles as appropriate and apply Wikiproject tags to the talk pages. This brings the article to the attention of editors that have expertise in the given areas so they can evaluate and improve the articles. Hope this helps and best of wishes for the future. Dlohcierekim 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral as per Pedro. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. a lot of edits are marked as minor - I didn't look, but there seem to be too many to actually be minor. A small point, but this, and the opposes, lead me to be neutral on this editor. Admins are allowed to make mistakes in theory, but in practice they get stomped on. learning on the job seems to not be an option for admins anymore. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever heard of Wikignomes? They make many minor edits and few that are not. Zginder 2008-05-11T19:06Z (UTC)
    Those are the people who definitely shouldn't be servants. They tend to develop a harmful siege mentality, leading to horrific abuses of power if they're given the bit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you made a lot of minor edits. I said you made a lot of edit that are marked as minor edits when they should not be. Read the guide to minor edits - tagging an article for speedy deletion is absolutely not a minor edit. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle does that automatically. You should bring that up here.
    This can be changed in the settings. markSpeedyPagesAsMinor  : true,. xenocidic (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you a neutral - are you trying to kick me into opposing? You don't understand the automated tool your using and you're avoiding taking responsibility for your edits. I really don't know what you're trying to achieve with your comments. Dan Beale-Cocks 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per WBOSITG. --SharkfaceT/C 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Moved to Neutral. Pointy behavior in this and other RFAs, but not really enough to oppose because I've seen the candidate do well in other areas. · AndonicO Engage. 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category