Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Golich17

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

Golich17

(19/36/11) final Andre (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Golich17 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing on Wikipedia for about three years now and I have to say that I love every moment of it. While I mostly focus editing aviation related articles, I also revert vandalism on many pages. I simply cannot tolerate it as it takes away such useful information that can be conveyed to the world. I would love to become an administrator as I know I will strive to make sure articles are clean and well-kept. Golich17 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would love to be apart of quality control. I would make sure editors don't abuse their priviliges that are made available to them and I will also make sure editors aren't maliciously attacking other editors. I would ensure edits are unbiased and just with the world we live in today.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe my best contributions are to aviation related articles. I've edited many airline articles, most notably Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines, and American Airlines. I've instituted a consistent form of layout in most airline articles which include the way the fleet data is listed, as well as the order of sections in a page. Also, I've edited many airport pages, including Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport and Chicago Midway Airport. I've updated information as it became available, helping each of these articles acheive GA status quality wise. Many aviation editors have known me to be very strict when it comes to vandalism. I always make sure an article doesn't lose quality information that should be displayed.

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: At many times I've bumped heads with other editors, however I just let the steam off and moved on with my life. I almost always try to reach a consensus with my fellow editors in an effort to make Wikipedia a friendly editing environment. If any editor has a problem, I will do my best to make sure some sort of compromise is met in a timely manner.

Additional question from Metros:

4. As a follow-up to your answer to the first question, what tools in particular do you feel you need access to in your editing? Metros (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A:I think that the blocking tool would be my most useful asset. I believe that many users are getting away with things they shouldn't be. The main thing I would block would be people who are blanking pages or removing good content, as I see this happening everyday.

Additional Questions from KojiDude:

5. Regarding Q1, how do you define an edit as being "unbiased and just with the world we live in today"?

A.Well, I've seen many edits leaning towards one persons opinion. Also, I've seen many edits support one person/organization strongly over another, which I think is wrong. We must make sure that every edit is a quality edit without any bias and/or hate towards one paticular thing.

6. Under ideal circumstances, how do WP:AIV reports work, and how would you deal with them as an administrator?

A.Well, usually they would be very simple. The editor would receive rightful warnings and they would note that if he/she persists to deface Wikipedia pages, he/she would be blocked for editing. I would determine the amount of time blocked by determining how much they vandalised Wikipedia. As an administrator, I think they would get the point after a few warnings that I mean business.

7. Regarding Q1, again, what Wikipedia notice boards will you go to in order to ensure that "editors don't abuse their priviliges that are made available to them" or "aren't maliciously attacking other editors"?

A.I would spend most of my time in the United States Notice Board basicaly restoring any lost edits as well as try to make editors compromise if they are in an "argument". I've seen many editors argue with each other and it eventually got ugly so I would like to avoid that at all costs. Wikipedia is supposed to be an editor-friendly environment.

Additional question from Orfen:

8. What would be your process in which you "make sure editors aren't maliciously attacking other editors"?

A.Well, I usually find editors who do these kind of things in the discussion pages of articles. I can scope out those editors and like I've said in the last question, try to help them reach a consensus. Eventually, most editors can let off some steam and reach a compromise. As for the ones who can't, they're abusing their editing privileges and should be blocked.

Additional questions from Haemo:

9 You mention that you want to "make sure editors aren't maliciously attacking other editors". What would you do if two editors are levelling personal attacks that they feel are justified — they aren't being malicious, but they have an issue with how the other behaves to the degree that they can't work with one another. What is the role of someone with admin tools in this case?

A.Well, Wikipedia is not a place for people to attack each other, regardless of the extent. I think they make Wikipedia look bad when they attack each other in such an extent that they can't work together. If they insist that they cannot work together, I'm sure both of them have done something so bad that they can be blocked temporarily. This way, they can both have a "cool off" period where they can figure out how to be a better and more compromising editor.

10 You also say that "I would ensure edits are unbiased and just with the world we live in today" — could you elaborate on what this means? Do think admins have a role in saying which edits are biased and which ones aren't?

A.Well, while we don't pick out those certain edits from the bunch, we can at least prevent them. All I was saying was that certain edits lean towards one person/organization more than the others, which shouldn't be the case. All edits in a sense should be equal.

11 You mention that you always try to achieve consensus with other editors; have you ever had a situation occur in which you can't achieve a consensus with some editor? How do you feel admins should act when editors can reach consensus with one another?

A.I've been in many situations in which I couldn't reach a consensus with editors, actually one in paticular which I won't go into. When editors can reach a consensus, that's great! When they can't on the other hand, I think the editors should each justify why they couldn't come to a compromise and what they could each do to reach a consensus.

Additional optional question from Hrothulf (08:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)):

12 A lengthy dispute at Singapore Airlines relates to the parent company tag in the infobox, and the number of aircraft to be listed for the fleet. If you have followed the dispute, could you let is know if and how you admin tools might assist you to resolve this dispute? (Respond briefly in general terms.)

A.I've tended to veer away from the Singapore Airlines article as I think this page is controled by certain editors that edit that page. I cannot make an edit and not have it reverted, therefore I cannot answer this question as I haven't followed the dispute.

Optional questions from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

13 What, in your opinion, is the most important policy to Wikipedia?

A.I think the most important policy is the three-revert rule. If two editors or more have to revert more than three times in a 24-hour period, they should both try to reach a consensus in the discussion page of that page in order to not violate this rule.

14 When should a cool-down block be used"

A.I think this block should be used sparingly. In situations when two editors cannot work with each other, then they both should take some time to think how they can work better with each other. This is when I would impose a cool-down block.

I did not understand the given information on the page regarding the blocking policy. It should most definately be better worded as it simply states that it "should not", not "cannot" be used.

15 What are your thoughts on BLP?

A.Well, I don't like to edit these pages. I only edit these pages when it relates to current events.

Optional Question from MaidenfansUS (talk · contribs)

16 What will you do to help new users prevent and revert vandalism?

A.Well, if your pertaining to new users who want to prevent and revert vandalism, then I will teach them what is and isn't vandalism. I will show them how to prevent it, and in some cases revert it. I would point out our policies about reverting and I would also give them some pointers about what types of vandalism there are.

Optional Questions from Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Disclaimer: When I tackle something, I don't hold back. None of my questions are meant to belittle you, but since my I'm very concerned about some things, chances are that you will find some of them to be very harsh criticism. I will oppose for now, but I will detail my concerns so that you can correct me if I'm off the track. Also mainspace edits don't matter much to me for RfA, so I hope you understand if I don't review your contributions on aviation articles. I'll look at FA or FL or comparable contributions however, since those involves much more interactions and consensus building than normal.

17 I feel that your nomination procedure is characterized by a certain lack of "polish" that's very characteristic of things that are made in haste. First can you see why I would think that? Second – regardless of whether or not you see why I feel this way – what is your reply to this?

A.I understand I might not know the Wikipedia policy up and down (I'm sure no one can say they do), but I know how to edit Wikipedia in a goodwill manner. I try to edit Wikipedia as frequently as I can, and I like to make sure things look good and are consistent with previous similar edits for commonality. I may be lacking "polish" as you say, but everyone is in certain areas. No one is perfect, and no one is a "know-it-all".

18 I notice that you use simple language and simple sentences. "Refinement" in sentences seems to confined to "stock" phrases such as "in a timely manner". While many would consider the ability to write in plain terms to be an asset, I'm concerned that you have a certain difficulty handling the many subtleties off a situation. Vandals comes in all sizes and shapes, and I am very concerned that you'll have problems communicating what exactly it is that you mean, or understanding what exactly it is that others are trying to argue, and thus a hard time handling anything that is not clear-cut. First, what is your reply to this? Second, could you provide links to a "typical" conflict between you and someone else, as well as the one you think you handled things the best, and the one where you think you handled things the worst?

A.Sure I can right in a complex and intellectual way, but why do that if it can be in easier terms? This way, all editors can understand what I say. As for communication, I believe I do that very well. Almost all editors probably understand what I'm saying when I edit something. During discussions, I've never had a comment in question to the extent that it was clearly misunderstood.

Best: Best Discussion

19 You seem to hold the idea of being an Admin a bit like a kid holds the idea of being GI Joe. They ask "Wouldn't it be great to be fighting bad guys with tanks?" while being completely unaware of that who's the bad guy isn't so clear cut IRL, and that urban warfare with bazookas isn't that great an idea if you're the good guys. What is your reply to this?

A. I didn't mean for anyone to get the impression that I'm a person who thinks that if I have the tools, I will use them to the fullest extent. I will use them when they are needed to be used and I will make sure the use of them will be fair and consistent.

General comments

• See Golich17's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Golich17: Golich17 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Golich17 before commenting.

Discussion

• Comeon guys, the amount and scope of the questions is clearly unfair for this candidate. What did you guys stop beating your wives or significant others? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Whoa, seriously. I asked the follow-up 4th question at 03:29 and we're already up to 15 questions at 13:21. Plus, the editor hasn't edited since right after opening this. Metros (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Having asked a question, I feel bad, because he now has done 12 homework questions on a Sunday. However I am finding this one hard to judge, because I am seeing few diffs in support of the nomination. If I was !voting now, I would oppose because I haven't seen direct evidence that candidate is ready to start blocking disruptive editors, or to tell the difference between DEs and vandals, yet I would be surprised that someone with 5000 edits has not leaned that. But I won't !vote yet: before I vote I need to see how the discussion develops, and dig into the edit history in more detail myself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the nominee may have made a mistake when he said he has been here for 3 years, it is in fact, 2. According to the talk page. Rudget (logs) 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Although in all fairness, the editor has been here in 2006, 2007, and 2008.Hiberniantears (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. I certainly would support someone editing for over 3 years. I do suggest you be a little more specific in the answer to the first question, though. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#Doesn't need the tools. giggy _(:O) 06:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support, candidate asked too many questions in such a small span of time. Wizardman 13:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Without wishing to cast aspersions on the candidate or the editor above, the above appears to be a very poor rationale for supporting a candidate. It seems to be a sympathy vote more than anything, and I don't like to think of the precedent that could be set. Of course, if the comment above is really a "rationalisation after the fact", please disregard this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Support. Even if this user performed only one edit requiring the tools in all of his/her time as an editor, that would still be a plus to Wikipedia. If he's/she's trustworthy, then why not? NauticaShades 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Been here two years and not done anything terrible, has managed to not get sucked into the MMORPG atmosphere, has done lots of content work and has his heart firmly in the right place. No qualms. Naerii (complain) 14:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Support as he's a good article contributor. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Support - way too many questions. The user is a good one, and should do well as an admin. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I see a good contributor here who does not appear to be someone who will abuse the tools. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
9. I agreed with the comments by Naerii, WBOSITG and MBisanz, but none of the opposes struck a chord. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Please give this man a chance; a review of his contribs shows he is a productive and enthusiastic editor. We need more admins that are hard-working article editors too. JeanLatore (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
11. --Taubblindheit (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Of course. Al Tally ^talk 15:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Moral support, user has kept their cool and done a good job of remaining positive in spite of being browbeaten with questions :) Also, while relevant experience in "admin-related areas" may be thin I don't think this user would cause problems with the mop. Shereth 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. I don't see no red flags here. Didn't someone once say something about that it should be pretty easy to become an admin? Kid wants to be a janitor, let the kid be a janitor (janitor is meant positively here). -- Quartermaster (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Support as above. Being an administrator is no big deal and I see no reason this person would not do just fine with the tools. RFerreira (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC).
17. Support, self noms demonstrate the boldness demanded of an admin. –xenocidic (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
18. Unwavering Support An Admin should be someone who has a good understanding with content and how to work to stride to improve WIkipedia. Good Luck! Bigvinu (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Good work in the article namespace. Bwrs (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose First of all, you're a fine editor, and a asset to the encyclopedia. Please continue working on aviation articles:-) Being a great content editor doesn't mean you should get the tools though. I have looked over your last 500 edits, and you really haven't demonstrated a need for the tools. Also, you haven't demonstrated that you know policy well enough, and to the contrary, some of your edits have shown you don't know policy well[1]. IPs don't have to create accounts.--SJP (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Now I have even strong evidence that this user doesn't know policy well enough, and would probably, but unintentionally, misuse the tools. In his answers to the above questions this user says in some cases its okay to block someone to give them some time to cool down. Its against wikipedias policies to give cool-down blocks.--SJP (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose Three years? Wow, a brilliant asset to the encyclopedia. I do have some general issues though. Question 1 can be misinterpreted, I suppose, but I'm concerned by the lack of experience in admin-related areas in general. I believe that a potential admin should have at least a bit of experience in those areas, because as an admin, you will undoubtedly branch off to other areas. Admin-fighting is the area you're most active in, so I've granted you rollback which will help, in case this RfA doesn't succeed. Continue that, and also consider working more in WP:XFD discussions, because that'll improve overall policy knowledge. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
3. oppose Good article writer (something we need more of), but I fell that the tools have very little use to writers. I suggest you get involved in fighting vandalism, have some more interactions, maybe mediate a MEDCAB case. But you should focus more on other things on Wikipedia.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  13:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose Three years of experience is wondeful, but I feel you need more experience. America69 (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - Per Rudget. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Moved discussion of above !vote to talk.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose per answers to questions, especially 9-15. Also, really lacking in the Wikipedia-space. You'll need more experience to get the +sysop.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 16:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose Answers to several questions show a lack of knowledge of policy. Please learn about cool-down blocks, BLP and so forth and then re-apply. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose per question answers and SJP's diff. I'd like to see more Project-space edits, but I'm not usually too picky about that (notice I have only roughly around 300 Wikipedia: space edits and less than 100 Wikipedia talk: contributions), because that would make me hypocritical. Best of luck for a future RfA; it's just a matter of experience. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Simply needs more edits (to demonstrate trustworthiness) to the project space. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose per SJP's link here. Read up on policy, demonstrate your knowledge, and try again soon. Editor obviously has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. Tan | 39 19:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose per answers to questions. I don't like to pile on, but admins must be familiar with basic policies.  Frank  |  talk  19:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose per questions #1, #13, #14 and #15. macy^talk 19:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Greater variety of experience is needed. Need for tools is unclear. MMMMMMMM (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Three years on Wikipedia is great, and no doubt you are a great editor, but I'm not entirely convinced by the answers to your questions. Jack?! 21:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Not yet enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to discern whether this candidate has a solid handle on policies and procedures. Also, cool-down blocks are not to be used. Useight (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose.Yes you've been on Wikipedia for three years, that awesome. Yes you've created great articles, that two is great. But though theres some great stuff about you but there is some stuff that concerns me to oppose that may not be clear to others. One, I dont like the fact that you havent deleted a single article, I havent actually seen an edit of you contributing for a AFD(though you may have) but I have not seen one. Next not enough experience for me. Useight said it perfectly "Not yet enough experience in the Wikipedia namespace for me to discern whether this candidate has a solid handle on policies and procedures". I do think that in maybe another year to get ready for another RFA. In that time prepare yourself, studdy the comments here, and get involved with some of the stuff mentioned to you.Gears Of War 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

    To be fair, s/he could not delete articles without being an admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

    But she has not contributed to any AFD's or put any artticles up for deletion.Gears Of War 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I think what Anthony.bradbury is saying is that you said in your oppose "One, I dont like the fact that you havent deleted a single article", which implied that you were opposing the candidate because they hadn't personally deleted an article (which they haven't: they are applying to get the ability to delete pages). I think what you meant to say was that the candidate hadn't nominated an article for deletion at AfD. I hope this helps. Acalamari 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose Per answers to questions #13, #14 and #15. A cool-down block should never be used, and I don't think you understood #15. The answer to #14 isn't terrible, but it could be better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose I was mildly concerned at some of the answers above which showed a lack of understanding of policy, but I was ready to overlook that based on the good talk page communication. However, giving an IP address a level 3 warning (with no previous warnings) over this diff seems awfully bitey to me. Not a trait I look for in an admin.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
20. For now - comes across as a bit too green. Take some time to gain the understanding and experience necessary and you'll pass without doubt :) Vishnava _talk 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose: The answers to questions #9 and #14 bother me. I think you are a great asset to the community and on the right track to becoming an admin in the future but I think at the moment there are some things you still need to gain experience in. I think you should read up on your policy a little bit and work on experience in admin related areas. If you do that I'm sure you can pass easily.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose: Lack of experience in the Wikipedia space indicates a lack of policy knowledge. Also, you seem to have problems communicating with other users, which is a problem that enough admins have already; we don't need any more. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose with regret: An outstanding editor, great asset to the encyclopedia. Please come back to RfA again when you are more familiar with the policies and processes that apply to the admin buttons you wish to use. Oh, and sorry about all the homework. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose. While I agree that Golich17 is a very good editor, I do not feel that the answers given to the above questions indicate the prerequisite understanding of policy that I would expect from an admin candidate. This is an easy fix however, and I would be delighted to support a future request when Golich has demonstrated a firmer grasp of policy. Rje (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
25. Oppose Sorry. Wait about 5 months to improve your edit summary usage, up your project count and participate in more XFDs. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
26. Candidate isn't ready - ignore stupid bloody timescales people are obsessed with here, follow the advice given above and come back when you're ready. Nick (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose Agree with Hroðulf above. Though you have good edits, your contributions (though outstanding, by the way) don't demonstrate to me the necessity for the tools. This edit also concerns me. The "I know people" source isn't with WP:V. I also see very few vandalism reverts in your past 500 edits, an area you claim to be active in. Also this edit summary concerns me, as the user both was not blocked (or notified if he was), and saying that he "does not know what he is doing" is not the greatest WP:AGF statement. Learn more about policy and I'll check in on (hopefully) your next RfA.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose, but very likely to support some months from now after the concerns in user Gazimoff's thoughtful post in the Neutral section are addressed. — Athaenara ✉ 01:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose per SJP's link -- "You are not permitted to make any drastic changes" shows a reasonably-current misunderstanding of policy. I'm also concerned about his placing 3RR over WP:NPOV and WP:V.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose per the concerns of questions 17-19, as well as per Fabrictramp and per Anthony.bradbury, amongst others. Also, your edit summary usage is at 55% for major edits, which is incredibly low (I got raped for having 85%!). Toggle the "notice me when I don't place a summary" option in your preferences and you'll see that %age skyrocket. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 07:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    So... why ask questions if you already know you're going to oppose?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    I asked questions because he/she deserves the chance to change my mind. My position after review his/her nominations and the various comments here is oppose. I'll reconsider my position after he/she answers my concerns. Likely that it'll remain the same, but I'm opened to change it to neutral or support if he/she succeeds to convince me that my concerns are unfounded, irrelevant, or of little importance consider what he wants to do. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

    Switched to neutral. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 19:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose per Shapiros10. LittleMountain5 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
31. Answers do not adequately tell me that the user understands the kind of issues admins face on Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose - user does not understand policy, especially "cool down" blocks, which can never be used. If Golich17 studies important policy better and gets a good grasp on it, I'll be willing to support in another RFA. --Chetblong (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
34. Oppose - The candidate should brush up on policy, and then come back.  Asenine  08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
35. Sorry - does not meet my standards: virtually no input on Wikipedia space or talk pages; not enough experience to show knowledge of rules or need for the tools. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
36. Oppose - Excellent article writer, but thats as much praise I can give, sorry. Extremely low Wikipedia-space participations, with a vast portion of the work coming from this RfA alone. Not ready yet. Lradrama 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - You don't need to be an admin to maintain articles. Do you have something else to add? Also, as for your response to question 3, "moving on" is not really an option for admins in solving disputes. Admins have to face and deal with disputes. Aquarius • talk 07:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Good work with articles, but not enough participation in the Wikipedia space. Rudget (logs) 09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Rudget. --Cameron (T|C) 13:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral- Just because you have a lot of mainspace edits doesn't mean you should be an admin. Do some work on Afd, Xfd, and other stuff like that-trust me, its a huge boost. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Although I'm neutral, I have no serious objection to the answer about BLPs. In fact, his answer shows a good appreciation of the core of the policy, which is that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy....An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." Not wanting to touch them is a conservative approach that seeks to do no harm. Bwrs (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Comment - the candidate has stated a preference for editing BLP's only in case of current events - which, in my opinion, seems to be the most frequent cause of problems with BLPs.  Frank  |  talk  22:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral The candidate's sincerity is not in question, and his contributions deserve commendation. But some of his answers to the questions seem wobbly. I might suggest doing a bit of brush-up on Wikipedia policies and returning to RfA by year's end. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - You're a good editor, and I really hope that your experience at this RfA doesn't affect that, but I'm afraid I can't support this at the moment. There's a couple of things that I hope you'll take on board in order to further your development and round yourself off. The first of these is looking at opportunities to see how WP's various policies work in practice - they effectively fit together like cogs or gears in a machine, each of them being a requirement to keep the machine running smoothly. The second thing I'd suggest is adding the various noticeboards to your watchlist and read through the debates occasionally - you don't have to participate but it gives you a real feel for how mediation in disputes is almost always sought and how blocks are usually the solution of last resort. Thirdly I'd encourage you to look at how the mop would benefit the work that you do - we already have a number of admins who keep track of vandalism intervention requests, but there are other areas that require administrator work that have backlogs. You may feel that those areas could benefit from your support, as well as giving you the opportunity to demonstrate your sound judgement and level-headedness. I apologise if I'm speaking out of term - I'm a relatively new whippersnapper here, and I don't mean to sound patronising, but I really hope these words are of use to you. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral This candidate really does not look like the power-hungry Machiavellian fiend that Kurt's oppose hints at. On the contrary, they seem much more like exactly the sort of mild-mannered janitor that we need around here. So I really can't oppose at this time. On the other hand, and you knew there would be one, they clearly do not have the grasp of policy and accepted best practice (because they're not always the same thing) needed for an admin. SJP's diff demonstrates a worrying tendency to bite the newbies, in addition to an incorrect view of policy. Should make a good admin, but not yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral. Later you will definitely get my full support. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral I think the user needs to have a wider range of edits. Just vandalism reverting doesn't cut it for me.--LAAFan 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I trust your motivations: I see no reason to believe you would use the tools maliciously or in a self-serving manner, so I will not oppose. That said, I am concerned by what I feel to be some misunderstanding of policy. (Especially the answer to Q8, Q9 and the answer and followup to Q14.) I do not trust, yet, that you would not overact with the power to block, even though your intentions are good. Blocking is an awesome responsibility, perhaps the most dangerous ability of an admin, and I feel you should better familiarize yourself with policy in this regard and come back with a new RfA after taking some time to consider. In regards to your answer to Q9, I don't think an admin should look for some other cause to justify the issuance of a cool-off block. I can't support right now, because I am concerned about your discretion, but your heart is in the right place, so I won't oppose. If you return to RfA, I may well be able to support when that day comes. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral for now, with a penchant for oppose. While I still am concerned about the ability of the candidate to handle heated discussion, my initial concerns about his ability to communicate seems disproportionate with reality. His "best" handling of a debate seems to be a normal debate with no extremes position held, and as such it is hard to gauge his ability to remain cool. Failure to provide link to his "worse" behaviour is concerning, but RfA is not over. Seems to have the heart in the right place, but I am concerned about his ability to assess what is NPOV, as he expressed the desire to removed systematic bias from articles, yet leaves articles full of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK violations, as found here. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 20:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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.