Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MilborneOne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 26 November 2024 (Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

MilborneOne

[edit]

Final (73/2/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne (talk · contribs) - MilborneOne is an active and diligent member of the community who now has a two-year track record of many useful contributions, mostly in the sphere of aviation. He is a trusted and valued member of WikiProject Aircraft, which is where I have been fortunate to work alongside him. He is consistently level-headed and courteous while at the same time unafraid to challenge vandalism and other breaches of policy (and breaches of common sense in general). I have no doubt that he will use the mop and bucket sensibly, fairly, and for the betterment of Wikipedia. Rlandmann (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly concerning the work I do at the moment with the different aviation projects, with a lot of aviation articles in my watchlist and being active outside of the normal North American timescales I often come across vandalism and issues first. Having the admin tools will assist in this process. I have an interest in images and would like to get involved in related image WP:CSDs and copyright problems although so far my involvement with image problems are related to the aviation projects.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Over two hundred created articles for the aircraft project and others to fill in related gaps like Frederick George Miles and United Kingdom military aircraft serials. Always enjoyable to fill in the gaps missing to improve the coverage of the encyclopedia. Particularly pleased with getting three different projects to agree on a common guideline criteria for accidents and incidents on WP:AIRLINES, WP:AIRPORTS and WP:AIRCRAFT.
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 try me best not to be involved in conflicts, if reverted for the second time or in a difference of opinion I will discuss on the article talk page or directly with the other uses and or bring it up for discussion on the related project page. I dont do stress Wikipedia is an interest and a change from the day job so I avoid conflicts by discussion, talking can do no harm and sometimes has suprising results.

Optional question from Jon513

4. I know this might seem like a strange question. You have been editing Wikipedia for over two years, made almost 19000 edits and in all of this time you have made less than 20 edits that did not have an edit summary. How does that happen?
A. Presumably the 20 are the few that I have pushed the save page to soon! I presumed that it was good practice to use the edit summary and have always used it, I have never used any tools or gadgets or scripts just entered by hand. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a bizarre question. It happens by typing something in the edit summary box. It can even happen by typing nothing into the edit summary box. Could this not have been asked on the candidate's talk page? Splash - tk 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking how he typed a summary in the box, but more generally if it indicates anything about his editing habits. This might mean that he uses many automated tools for editing (which automatically make summaries) or that he often clicks "edit" by sections instead of the top 'edit this page'. Does this indicate that the user has a gadget or script that reminds him to use edit summaries? Or perhaps it reflect a certain personality trait, or ethic. I think it is legitimate to ask for some insight into a candidates editing habits, if he disagrees he is completely within his rights to not answer. Jon513 (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he has the force edit summary preference checked. Can we please keep the questions in this RfA focused on adding insight pertinent to the RfA? Other questions could just as easily be posed on the talkpage of the candidate. Avruch T 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from TheProf07

5. There has been a minor aircrash in a country you have never heard of (until now). A newly registered editor has created an article for it. And now lots of anon IP editors are adding unsourced information to it. What, as an administrator, would you do?
A. First point would be to check the article and sources I dont think that the creator being new would necessary make a difference. If there was a problem with the article there would be a number of paths to go from asking for better sources and reference and checking if it meets any of the WP:CSD criteria. With the anon IPs it would be a matter of finding out if sources exist by discussion with the user is possible. If the edits are nonsense or vandalism then they may be some grounds for semi-protecting the article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from User:DanBealeCocks

6 A new user, User:0912838716, created three nonsense articles yesterday, and today has corrected twenty spelling errors, and added some references to some stubs. The editor's talk page is blank. What do you do?
A. Welcome the user to wikipedia and give them some guidance on where to find info like Help:Contents/Getting started. One would have to assume that the nonsense articles where produced in good faith it is not easy for starters to understand all that is required when they start editing. MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

7. A user claims to have been banned just because an admin has a content dispute with the person. The admin gives the excuse that the person is a sock even though checkuser proof is not conclusive and the edits are not really the same as the other sock. Do you side with the admin or unblock the user or do you encourage the person to create a new account, edit, and just try to avoid the admin (in essence, ask him to really create a sock)? This is not a joke question because the issue of sock versus admin abuse is common in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) — Ads124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
A. Welcome to Wikipedia - an interesting question for your first ever edit. Administrators should not unblock users blocked in good faith by other administrators and the first port of call would be to discuss it with the blocking administrator. If it appears to be an unresolved problem then it should be discussed probably at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and the help and advice sought of experienced administrators. Sock puppetry is not acceptable behaviour whatever the reasons. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question
Q. How would you handle a situation where a user believes that an administrator does not completely follow Wikipedia policy? For example, a RFA candidate says that "sock puppetry is not acceptable behaviour whatever the reason" (see above, your answer) yet the WP:SOCK policy clearly allows certain reasons and prohibits certain reasons for socks. Will the RFA candidate change his mind and follow policy? — Asd124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A. If the user thinks an administrator has acted improperly and cant be resolved by direct discussion with the administrator responsible a number of avenues exist and WP:ADMIN ("Administrator abuse") has a number of suggestions for dispute resolution which can be suggested to the user. WP:SOCK says that a sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively and all sock puppet uses are forbidden, in the example above it was suggested that an alternative account be used to avoid a block which according to WP:SOCK ("circumventing policy") sock puppets may not be used to circumvent sanctions. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Q. What if the blocking administrator has no evidence other than "I say he is a sock despite lack of checkuser proof and lack of similarities in edits". In other words, I can call anyone a sock and my words are the final decision. Would you go along with this administrator or have the courage to unblock and resolve the situation when the administrator refuses to admit that they are really blocking because they want total control and censorship? This is no theoretical question, I have seen it happen to someone else.
A. Refer to the answer to Question 7 and note that if the user claims that admin tools are being abused then this should be discussed at WP:ANI and a concensus agreed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Question

Q. What would you do if that user has brought it to ANI as you said above and it was promptly removed by someone that says it's trolling (but its removal might actually be because they don't want others to discuss or even see it). This is not theoretical as I have seen it happen. Is this an explanation why people get so fed up that they start to vandalise? Back to the question, would you intervene or just let the possible abuse go on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asd124 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC) — Asd124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Optional Question from SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK

8. Which Wikipedia policy is, in your opinion, most in need of improvement, revision, or clarification?
A. Dont think I would consider any of the policies in need of improvement they have all had many years of work and consensus to reach the points they have to make. My main concern is that new editors can be confused with the differences between policies and guidelines which is not always apparent, like everything else this can normally be sorted with clear and concise discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from DarkAudit

9. What should be done with editors found to be members of groups like CAMERA, per this discussion, where they make public their intentions to stack Wikipedia with editors and admins to push their agenda?
A:

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support Lack of all-round admin-related experience, but should be fine if he's going to specialise in images. Epbr123 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No problems here. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Per Epbr123: Not much all round admin work but OK if going to specialise in images...--Cameron (t|p|c) 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - good experience with editor in the past. Thanks/wangi (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Long-term editor with commitment to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I can not find any faults with this candidate. ArcAngel (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support The more article builders become admins the better. Nick mallory (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Good editor. No sign he might abuse the tools. Looks like it would be good for Wikipedia if he gets involved in Admin-work, too. --Abrech (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Diligent editor. Rudget 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Pundit|utter 16:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC) impressive work, clear specialization[reply]
  12. Weak Support. Well, this user has done great work in the mainspace, but projectspace work in "admin areas" is extremely weak. Please take the time to read everything on WP:ARL, and be careful with controversial actions. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good answers here + positive contributions = definitely trustworthy. VanTucky 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Solid, well-rounded editor. SWik78 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I'm a little concerned by your answer to Q1, I'd like to see you do a bit more with the mop. Maybe (once you pass) you should do some work at WP:AIV and WP:RPP. In any case, you passing this RfA is clearly a net positive to wikipedia! Good luck :-) Alternate account of TheProf - T / C (AC) 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support As per Question 1 and user track is good.The user has been around since with over 14000 mainspace edits since January 2006 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - I like his answers to the questions, and from my experience with this editor see no reason he would abuse the tools. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support as meeting my standards. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Has been here a while and made plenty of edits to establish a solid history. He's been a solid contributer in WP:Aircraft and has shown to be helpful and level-headed in dealings with me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Good enough for me. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:20, April 17, 2008
  22. Sure, I'll support. Anthøny 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support due to no negative interactions with the editor, who seems committed to building Italic textWikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Also per Malinaccier. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, an inspirational answer to Q6. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No worries here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support CSD always could use help. Yanksox (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I like his answers to the optional questions.--Bedford 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Changed from neutral based on the candidate's answers to the questions. Seems like a level-headed user. I trust that they will not jump headlong into risky admin-duties without forethought. Recommend versing in several admin-related areas though. Good luck! Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support – A top-notch, level-headed editor who would handle the tools responsibly. (Of course, that probably means he won't let me get away with creating Category:Flying things. <Inside joke>) Askari Mark (Talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Flying things? My son likes to fly---when I throw him up in the air at the pool he yells, "Flying!"Balloonman (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I like what I see... and I like people who specialize in images---it's an area that frightens me :) Balloonman (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support A well qualified editor who will not abuse the tools. --SharkfaceT/C 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I never saw a non-admin with "all round admin work"... dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Yep, good evidence of 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. support - lack of bite and good contribs. Dan Beale-Cocks 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support - great candidate. Johnfos (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - looked at his edits and would be a great admin. --FGWQPR (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. No good reason to consider otherwise. Spinach Dip 08:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per above. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support will make good admin. SpencerT♦C 10:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support! — Athaenara ✉ 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Good answers. Axl (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Good specialist editor, should cause no problems. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yes, I think this editor can be given the extra tools, and can use them wisely. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Seems worthy of community trust. -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Use the force for good, young skywalker! -- preschooler@heart 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. "Need" for tools is irrelevant: no one needs the tools. I'd rather have a someone who uses them rarely and correctly than often and abusively. In addition, MilborneOne has said he wishes to work in image-related areas, and we need more admins who'll do work there, and if that's the only place he plans to work at as an admin, Wikipedia will benefit. Acalamari 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Reasoned answers that aren't just the usual boilerplate. Seems quite civilm, and has plenty of experience. My only concern is a sporadic editting history, but I'll defer to the philosopher Jagger Adam McCormick (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - I can't see any reason not to. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Here are my reasons - 1. Individual has over 18,000 edits with a sufficient a mix of wikispace, talk mainspace. 2. Individual received no blocks, no obvious history of vandalism and the only edit warnings appear to be due to 3RR due to fixing a page due to vandalism. 3. Individual has been editing on wikipedia since 15 January 2006 in good standing 4. Individual has been active in at least 3 wikiprojects related to aircraft and aviation 5. This is the 1st time the user has submitted RFA that I can tell 6. Individual has a lot of articles, mostly related to aircraft and aviation 7. Individual has received several awards and accolades visible on their talk page and archives. 8. This editor seems to stick mostly to aviation and aircraft related articles and will likely continue to do so in the future but I see no reason not to support. Also, the editors responses to the questions leads me to believe that they will not abuse their admin responsibilites and will ask for assistance or read up if they are unaware what to do.--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - No problems here, decent answers.--Bedford 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote, see support #27 above. Xenon54 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - diligent and trustworthy. I see a desire to specialize as a good thing rather than anything else, as it ensures this user will stay at that task. At my RfA, I stated I was going to help at WP:RPP and WP:AFD and I think I've protected five or so pages and closed one AfD in the three months since then, as versus my activity at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, despite the total lack of contributions to autogyro... Nothing indicates a likelihood of running amok with the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, appears to be a great editor who I believe will not abuse of the administrative powers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - I trust this candidate to tread lightly as they learn to use the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per Kumioko's very nice assessment above. I come to the same conclusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - You're answer to question six shows me that you will make a fine and friendly admin. iMatthew 2008 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - An editor who sails in calm waters. SunCreator (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - has a good track record of encyclopedia contributions, and seems to be thoughtful and level-headed. the wub "?!" 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Handles issues well, responds positively to constructive criticism, acknowledges and even apologizes where appropriate when mistakes are made -- all excellent qualities for an admin. Shell babelfish 18:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Looks good. User seems capable of keeping a level head under pressure. GlassCobra 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Administrators are trusted members of the community - we give the tools based generally on trust. This editor may not have tremendous experience in admin-related areas, but he has shown that he his clearly trustworthy. Valtoras (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support It is difficult to judge how the candidate will use the tools considering his inexperience in admin-related areas. We oppose hundreds of candidates because they showed poor judgment in these areas as a non-admin user. In regards to this, it may be viewed as unfair to support when the candidate never substantially addressed these areas. But the candidate seems to have the community's trust and I found nothing worth to oppose in his contribs. So I support, knowing that other admins will assist when necessary and that the user is dedicated to help the project. CenariumTalk 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I have always found MilborneOne to be pragmatic in his dealings and willing to engage in collaboration. As he builds on his administration duties, I am confident that MilborneOne will be able to adapt and learn how to use the tools that will help support others. I have no reservations about this editor. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  65. Support A solid and very fair editor. I have worked on many pages with him and he is always a pleasure to work with. He would make a good admin. - Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seems to be a good editor who will make a fine administrator. Deli nk (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - You are an excellent contributor to aviation articles and the like who I have seen around from time to time; you seem to have the right attitude and trust with the community to be an administrator. Experience in admin related areas does not concern me much in this case, I think you will use the tools sensibly and appropriately. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - I've seen this user around and they do jatte bra ('Very good' in Svenska) work. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support This looks like a good solid candidate who would make great use of the Sysop tools. --Mifter (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Should make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. -- Naerii 21:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Fly-boy, eh? Support. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Valued article contributor, would be nice to have an admin focused on the subject matter specialty like aviation. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Recent double edit war. Not quite 3RR, but his reply to #3 indicates that he would consider two reverts to be ok before even considering to initiate a discussion. In the recent case, he didn't even do that, the discussion was not started until an admin protected the page and explicitly asked for it. There are already too many trigger-happy admins. Also, I don't like the answer to #5: CSDs should be obvious, not something to search for. --Yooden ☮ 18:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose His answer to question one makes adminship seem un-necesary.--KojiDude (Contributions) 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA isn't to prove that one needs the tools. Nobody needs them. This process is whether you trust the candidate to use them correctly and efficiently. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If one does not need administrative tools, then why does he/she need to be an admin? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the user will use them eventually. Instead of reporting a vandal to AIV, tagging a page for speedy deletion, asking for a protection or a protected edit, the user will just do it, saving time for everybody. Nobody needs the tools but people who have them use them, not solely to clear admin backlogs (for the most part, these are under control) but also to make better decisions in everyday editing, to evaluate difficult situations with full information (deleted contributions and edits is very useful in that respect). And to point out the obvious, users with admin tools don't bug admins. We kind of like that. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't write my oppose to put this long-debated topic up for discussion once again. I wrote it because that is my opinion on why I don't think the User should be an administrator. RfA's are too frequently turned into places for debates on things that aren't even relevant to the RfA in question. I don't think he needs the tools, I said Oppose, big whoop.--KojiDude (Contributions) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think it's a stupid argument, double big whoop. The reason that RfAs turn into places for debates is that some of us actually think it's a good thing to have more admins. If you've ever tried looking for admin candidates, you'll find that many potential editors are in no rush to face the RfA mob, in part because of spurious opposes like yours. That's why I feel it's important to insist: by arguing that an editor needs to show a necessity for the admin tools, you're ultimately doing a disservice to the project. It leads to absurd things like people interested in adminship doing a week of AIV reports to show that they can understand a five line policy and to face the "no need for tools" crowd. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then let the closing bureaucrat decide the weight of KojiDude's oppose. Holding this argument on this RfA here is just beating a dead horse, same as the responses made on every single RfA to Kurt Weber's "power hunger" oppose. It is generally accepted that these arguments for opposing RfAs aren't given much weight. We should probably leave it at that. Calling his argument stupid won't solve anything, and certainly won't change his mind at this point. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral. Good editor, no history of doing anything that requires would warrant Admin tools though. Tool2Die4 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm misreading this, but of course he hasn't done anything that requires admin tools. He doesn't have admin tools. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misreading it. Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. But I think it's safe to say that you're using the long-discredited "no need for tools" argument. See e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This neutral is fully justified. He's saying that Milborne doesn't have experience in areas that require admin-like decision making and policy knowledge. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was trying to say. Vandalism was mentioned in the answer to question 1, but I didn't see a single AIV contribution (if I'm wrong by all means point it out to me). This person is obviously a great editor, but IMO being a great editor is different from being a great admin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying, T2D4, that's what I was hoping you meant! Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:DeletedContributions/MilborneOne says otherwise. Nick (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Too bad only admins can see that link Nick. ArcAngel (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I'd like to respectfully point out that adminship is not rocket science and, as every admin will tell you, it is not only rather simple but also rather boring. You don't need 50 AIV reports to understand how to deal with vandalism, nor do you need months of newpage patrol experience to understand speedy deletion. By design, all policies and guidelines are relatively short and simple: they're not legal text that scholars need years to understand. Any user with a lengthy track record of responsible editing and good communication with other Wikipedians will do just fine as an admin. 90% of my current work as an admin relates to policies I had never read prior to my RfA and I'd humbly suggest I'm doing an ok job. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - For now. I'm at work, and don't have ample time to go through the special contributions thoroughly. However, I felt it necessary to indicate the alarmingly few admi-related areas this candidate has worked in. Yes, yes, I know that some users don't look strictly at edit counts and what not when making their decision, but, the Wikipedia namespace is completely editorial. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Err, not really. Does this make me wary about the user's experience? Indeed. On the fence at the moment. Will return. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support.[reply]
    Comment - Good answer to question 6. I like that attitude. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now MilborneOne seems to be a good editor. However, I fail to see why he actually needs admin tools. A more specific response to Q1 might change my mind. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MilborneOne&oldid=1259660861"