Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/28bytes

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

28bytes

Final (30/24/4); ended 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Withdrawn by candidate. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

28bytes (talk · contribs) – My name is 28bytes, and this is a self-nomination for adminship. I've been a registered Wikipedian since 2006, but only had a handful of contributions until June of this year, when I decided to become a more active member of the community. Since June I have created about 60 articles and made about 6,000 edits, the majority non-automated, although I do have some experience with Twinkle, Huggle and AWB as well. 28bytes (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I had planned to see this RfA through to the end, but since 24 editors have, in good faith, decided that giving me the bit would be bad for the project, I'm not comfortable proceeding. So I'm hereby withdrawing my request for adminship.

Thank you to everyone – support, oppose and neutral – for your kind words about my contributions and your honest appraisal. I look forward to continuing to work with you as a non-admin editor. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Over the past few months I've been involved with the DYK project: reviewing nominations, building hook sets, and participating in talk page discussions on how to improve the project. The main areas I haven't been able to help with are moving the hook sets to the main queues and fixing main page errors, since those are administrator-only activities. If given the mop I intend to help out with those two activities as well. Two other areas I would like to spend time in are handling AIV reports and helping repair cut-and-paste moves. I'm also comfortable with deletion policy. I've already closed a handful of AfDs. I haven't done much CSD tagging, but I'm familiar with the CSD policies and the ones I have tagged have been quickly deleted with the rationales I tagged them with. Those are the areas I'd like to focus on, but I'm willing to help out in any and all administrative areas as needed.

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

A: My first DYK nomination (of 19) was Atari 2600 homebrew, a B-class article I wrote from scratch. Although it didn't pass its first GA review, I'm nonetheless proud of the work I've done on it and plan to continue improving it based on the feedback I received during the review process. I've also been helping cross names off the list of notable songs without articles, as well as blue-linking a number of songs on the List of number-one mainstream rock hits. As a classic rock fan, I was surprised that "Good Times Roll", "Everybody Wants You", "Lift Me Up" and "R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A." didn't have articles, but they do now.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had disagreements with other editors over content, but I'm always eager to find common ground, and come to an agreeable compromise if possible. It can be a little stressful when someone calls you an idiot for undoing their unsourced or otherwise bad edit, but I believe I've done a very good job of responding respectfully and discussing the content rather than the editor. I have strong opinions but I have never edit-warred and my block record is clean. I'm a big believer in AGF and consensus-building, and in recognizing the possibility that I might be wrong about something, even if I was previously quite sure I was right.

4. Additional question from Mkativerata. Working DYK, you come across an article created and nominated by an administrator. The article is on a new locality in the West Bank. The article and the hook meet all the DYK criteria.

However, looking through the article's history, there have been some reverts going on. The administrator has described the locality as an "Israeli settlement" in the lead, and cites a source to support that description. However, two IP editors have, through two edits each within the last 24 hours, replaced "Israeli settlement" with "town". The IPs locate to the same city but in different ranges. The IP editors also cite a source for this description. Each time, the adminstrator has reverted the edit, the first time with an edit summary saying "source not reliable", and the 2nd-4th times with no edit summaries at all. None of the parties have issued reports to WP:AN3 or WP:RS/N. It appears in the last three hours that the IPs have gone away. Neither the IPs nor the administrator are mentioned here.

What would you do (a) in respect of the DYK nomination; and (b) in respect of the three parties concerned? Would it make any difference had there been an AN3 report?

A: Answering the DYK question first, one of the rules advises nominators that an article is likely to be rejected if it is in the midst of edit-warring, and I think that's a reasonable policy; if edit-warring is going on, it's difficult to be sure what version of the article we're approving. Unfortunately, with any West Bank article, there's likely to be some of that, so rather than reject it outright I think we'd be well-served to give the article a chance to stabilize first.

Regarding the administrator's actions, "source not reliable" is not an exemption from following 3RR; in this case the administrator has broken the three-revert rule with their 4th revert in a 24-hour period, and they need to be either warned or blocked: warned that they need to revert their change immediately if this is a "first offense", or blocked if they've already been warned for edit-warring and ignored that warning.

5. Additional question from Fly by Night. Your first edit after a four year break (your 129th edit over all) was a request for undeletion. Have you ever edited using a different account, or IP address? And if so, would you be prepared to disclose the details so that the edit histories could be checked?

I've never edited under another account, and I'm absolutely fine with a checkuser or any other investigation. I have maybe five or six IP edits in 2006 from before I registered an account (typo fixes and other gnomish stuff) and another three or four logged-out edits from 2008–2010 when I wasn't using my account.

What prompted me to register an account in 2006 was that I wanted to create an article: The Vietnamization of New Jersey. One of the things that prompted me to become an active editor in 2010 was noticing that it had been deleted (expired prod). I was curious (and, to be honest, a little irritated) about that, so I started learning the policies and was pleased to find out I could get it undeleted, which I did, and added a couple of references to it. At that point, I was intrigued enough about the "inner workings" of Wikipedia to want to learn how everything else worked, so I started getting more involved.

FYI, I've added some more background on the talk page to help explain the two-year editing gap. 28bytes (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

6. Additional question from Mkativerata. An IP posts to WP:ERRORS claiming that an article currently featured on the main page in the DYK section (Ryan Butterworth) too closely paraphrases this source. As you monitor WP:ERRORS, what would you do?

The first thing I would do is pull the article up in one browser window and the source in another, and look to see if the charge is accurate. If it is, I (1) remove that entry from the DYK list, (2) put a {{copy-vio}} template on the article, (3) notify the author, and (4) bring it back to DYK for further discussion.

If it does not appear to be close paraphrasing, I would (1) respond with a message to that effect and ask if there was a specific sentence, phrase or paragraph that they could point to, and (2) mention the concern on WT:DYK so that the other editors there could review and possibly override my opinion if they disagreed.

Thanks - but do you think this is close paraphrasing? Sorry if I wasn't clear: I was asking this question as a specific example rather than in the abstract. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, guess I was looking at it too hypothetically! I did look at both, and no, I don't see any paraphrasing of concern. The section discussing Prince Edward High School has probably the closest resemblance to the source, but I think it's sufficiently differently worded to pass muster. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Groomtech

7. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: No. The role of the admin, generally, is to implement the wishes of the community as a whole. Admins can, and certainly should, issue warnings (not orders) when a user is edit-warring, vandalizing, or making personal attacks, but that's not a role exclusive to admins: any registered editor, and indeed non-registered IP editors, can and should issue those same warnings when appropriate to do so. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Pepper (Stolen from Mike Cline)

8. Which one of the following do you believe is the most important role of a Wikipedia admin and Why? ("All of the Above" is not an answer. Sorry.)

a. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are deleted.

b. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are, when at all possible, are improved until they do.

c. Mentoring new and established editors by helping them understand policies and guidelines in a way that allows them to write better articles and improve the encyclopedia.

d. Fighting vandalism by blocking persistent vandals and IP addresses.

A: I choose "C", most definitely. Of all the tools an admin has, the only one that can't be undone is the scaring off of new, good-faith users. Pages that shouldn't have been created can be deleted; pages that shouldn't have been deleted can be undeleted, but failing to help someone new to the project understand its goals and policies in a non-bitey way is very, very difficult to undo. I've tried to make an effort to do that myself when I encounter new editors (see my talk page for some recent interactions along those lines). 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee

9. I see you intend to do some work on CSD, and I wonder if you have any general thoughts on the whole CSD process? For example, as a community, do we generally handle CSD well or badly? Are there any categories that you think are easily misunderstood? Are there any categories that are abused - deliberately or accidentally? Do you think we need any new categories? What do you think are the biggest pitfalls to be wary of when nominating and deleting articles via CSD?

A: In general I think CSD is a great tool for quickly dealing with the clearly inappropriate pages that are constantly created, and I think the criteria themselves are well thought out. The problem is that it can be extremely bitey for new users who are trying to create a page bit by bit. When I add content, I try to do it in one huge edit ([1] [2]) and use the preview button until it's perfect, but many new users don't do it that way, and that can lead to an A1 tag the moment after they've saved "So-and-so was a great man" but before they saved the "who was lieutenant governor of Ohio" part they were about to add. Judging from some of the NPP's talk pages I've seen, there does seem to be a great deal of misunderstanding among some editors about what to tag and when. There are certainly some gray areas (when is a hoax "blatant"? does the presence of a couple of positive statements about the subject exempt it from G10?), but overall I think the SD criteria are as comprehensive and detailed as they need to be. I wouldn't call it an abuse exactly, but I have seen a lot of too-quickly-placed A1s and A3s in spite of the admonitions on WP:NPP. The best thing to do in those cases, IMO, is a friendly reminder to the tagging editor to be a little more patient with pages that are in the process of being updated. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for 28bytes: 28bytes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for 28bytes can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. At first, I was somewhat hesitant to support this user because of their somewhat low amount of time spent active recently, but after examining 28bytes's editing, I am confident that s/he will do well as an administrator. Not only does 28bytes have a lot of quality content work through the strong DYK work, s/he also demonstrates good knowledge in the policy area. One place where this particularly stood out was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't, where 28bytes made several extremely well-informed comments in dealing with the author of the article up for deletion. If there is one area that makes or breaks an administrator, it is being able to respond to problems that crop up in an intelligent and efficient fashion. Best of luck to you, 28bytes! Malinaccier (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Very strong self-nomination demonstrates a sound understanding of policy and process which leads me to believe that this user can be trusted with the admin bit despite the lack of experience relative to other recently successful adminship candidates. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Support, I see no issues whatsoever. Good blend of decent content edits and intelligent contributions to a variety of Wikipedia-space discussions. Sufficient experience, I think. ~ mazca ^talk 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Weak support for now. Short activity period is a potential problem, but it's positive to see a contributor with the initiative to find and fix a content issue. Absent someone else finding anything problematic, I see nothing wrong. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Support When I ran in September 2008, I had just started editing seriously in May 2008, so I cannot oppose anyone with a similar track record because I know full well that it's possible to have sufficient knowledge to understand and pass RFA with a short track record (and if you believe some people, you can be a very good admin with that track record ). 28bytes has a good track record of content edits and policy knowledge and I did not see anything really that might be concerning when checking their contributions. If this request is successful, I would though advise that you request a more experienced admin to mentor you before handling speedy deletion requests. It's a pretty tricky area and I would feel more comfortable if you did not try tackling it without someone to assist you. Judging by the clueful edits I have seen so far I AGF that you will, so that will not stop me from supporting. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - I see no reason why he shouldn't be an admin - he hasn't done anything recently to show that he'd abuse the tools, and it's just adminship (as opposed to a big deal). Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - I found discussions reasonable and constructive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Support - Works well in deletion discussions and shows AGF. The work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't really impressed me, as Malinaccier notes above. Also has good experience in content areas and anti-vandalism. Overall, 28 bytes seems like a well-rounded candidate with nice expereince, making up for his shortish time here. Derild4921Review Me! 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Support. I see a good candidate with solid contributions, and have no problems with handing over the bit. As to the short span of active editing, I can only note that I had a similar span of really active editing before going to RFA (and passing). The quality of edits is critical - and, in this case, that quality is good enough for me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
10. I was considering nominating you myself. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
11. I was only active (500+ non-auto edits) about a month and a half before self-nomming and becoming an admin. I like to think I turned out okay. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

    Really? In your RfA, back in 2007, you said that you'd "been in the Wikipedia community in all areas for nine months." — Fly by Night (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

12. Support. I strongly believe whether a user should be an admin or not depends on the quality of their edits and what they would do with admin powers, not the length of time editing. 28bytes has clearly demonstrated this. Samwb123^T-C-E 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Stephen 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Should be fine. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Shows clue and no bright red flags pop up. Experience level is fine. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 23:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
16. He should be successful on this RFA. WAYNESLAM 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

    I have to ask - why exactly? May you please explain? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

17. Support I don't see any major issues. Krashlandon 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Support I see no problems. Has been doing a great job at DYK and I'm satisfied with 28's experience level. Royalbroil 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Support I believe an candidate should be judged on their overall attitude and demonstrated good intentions with the edits they have made, rather than experience in specific areas. Most admin tasks require common sense, a willingness to help and complete neutrality. After reviewing a sample of 28bytes' contributions, they have adequately demonstrated this with their activities over the last few months. --§Pumpmeup 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
20. Support will do fine. Dlohcierekim 05:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
21. Support has been doing good work at DYK, which needs a workaholic admin. Also, strongly support answer given to Q.8 above. The Interior(Talk) 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
22. clue. dyk help. clue. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
23. HJ in the oppose section: "Adminship is a tough role that requires you to draw upon significant experience." No, it really isn't, and the notion that it is frightens me. You can delete articles, you can protect articles, and you can block editors. Deleting articles is an easy call 95% of the time, protecting is an easy call 99% of the time, and blocking is an easy call 95% of the time. There's no reason a good editor like 28bytes can't learn on the job by doing the easy tasks, doubly so when their interest is in DYK, which can be picked up relatively easily. I learned almost everything I know about adminship after I was given the tools – I had never done speedy deletions, rarely participated at AfD, never did anything at SSP (now SPI), and only posted at ANI when I was a party (so one section's worth). Despite this, I'd like to think I have done a decent job. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
24. Per Ed. When I started participating in RFA in 2006, three months was the standard. There's nothing that's happened since that makes me think we had the wrong standard then. Do I trust 28bytes with the tools? Yes, I do.--Chaser (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
25. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
26. Weak Support I like Eds words above which i find sums up things nicely. For our candidate though, This is a hard working editor with positive intentions for the project and would be a benefit as an admin HOWEVER, Editing history is too short. I really count only 4 and a half months of active participation, therefore my support should be judged as weak, but I do encourage You, to re-apply in some time and give another go. I think many will look at you much differently with a longer editing track. Keep up the good work. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
27. Support He has Reviewer, Rollbacker and Autopatrolled rights, which therefore, knows the inclusion and expansion policies, and hasn't notably misused rollback. I'm sure he'll do fine with the extra buttons despite the four year break. Minimac (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
28. Support I don't really see that your relatively short period of "activity" is an issue, unless there are reasonable grounds to doubt your trustworthiness (I can't see any). Clearly you are a committed contributer and a responsible editor, the answers you gave to the questions put forward showed that you are an intelligent individual with the ability to rationalise and engage with others in a personable manner. I don't see that 'a few months more editing' will make you a more suitable candidate for Adminship. That being said; if you were granted the tools, I would like to see an equal amount of your time dedicated to tackling the usual Admin backlogs at CSD, AIV, UAA as well as monitoring the Admin noticeboard. Pol430 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
29. Support The supporting rationales seem so much more persuasive and sensible, so I'll stick my name here. AD 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
30. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits, sufficient WP edits, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. I do not consider leaving and coming back to be a serious issue. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose – Sorry about this. WP:NOTNOW. Your account lay dormant for four years after it was created. You've only been active since August this year. Out of your 6,400 edits, almost 3,000 (i.e. 45%) were automated; meaning you've only made about 3,500 edits yourself. I'm sure you're trustworthy, but there is no where near enough edit history to prove it. Sorry. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   Have you looked at 28bytes's 3500 regular edits? Can I direct you to his or her comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Men Know that Women Don't? Malinaccier (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   I've looked at a fair few, and I can't see any major problems. I just don't think someone with four month's experience is qualified to be an admin. I would like to see a longer track record. Four months isn't enough time. I also have some other doubts. How can someone with four month's experience edit with such a high level of proficiency? How does someone with four month's experience know what an RfA, let alone want to put themselves through one? It doesn't add up. I'd like to see a long track record.— Fly by Night (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   It's fair enough that one may not wish to support someone based on time and experience, but casting suspicion on an editor because of their proficiency of edits goes a little too far. It is probably best to assume good faith rather than doubting the integrity of an editor merely because they have done well. There are plenty of ways that an editor can figure out about RfA early on without having any malice in mind (simply look at the large volume of NOTNOW closes). I was not going to respond to this until you brought up the suspicions of ill-will on the part of the candidate. It's not fair to assume such poor faith. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   Do you intend to hound every oppose? Please stop! I stated my reasons for opposition, they are at the top. You can throw accusations of bad faith around all you like. I was simply expressing my opinion. If you don't like it, tough. Stop hounding... please. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   Hold on, let's just calm down here. RfA is about discussion. Any contributor is free to comment and discuss. I have not hounded you at all--I have merely responded to your opposition. Furthermore, I am not accusing you of anything. Please do not think that I am attacking you, I am just also expressing my ideas and opinions on the matter as RfA is intended for. Let's both please just keep calm and continue discussion :). Malinaccier (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   You're right, I'm sorry. I'm new around here. It's only the second or third time I've voted. I guess I got defensive. My main objection is the lack of time, edits and therefore experience. Four months isn't long enough to know how the candidate will react under different circumstances and pressures. Their Wiki-life is short and they haven't lived. They haven't experienced a Wiki-life. Things can run smoothly for months, and then go off the rails. A longer track record would make me confident that the user has encountered, and properly dealt with, what Wikipedia has to throw at him. I do also have other niggling doubts at the back of my mind; doubts I've already explained. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   For the record, I think length of active service and edit count are perfectly valid criteria on which to judge a candidate, and I respect that as an oppose reason. 28bytes (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Reluctant but strong oppose. You've only been active for 3 months (20 edits/month isn't what I'd call active) and RfAs for candidates with similar tenure have been open and shut within an hour. To invoke NOTNOW is a little insulting to a candidate who has 6k edits and has been granted reviewer, rollback and autoreviewer permissions, but 3 months is not enough experience for adminship. Adminship is a tough role that requires you to draw upon significant experience. You want to work at AIV, but have made only 31 edits there, along with just 8 to AN and, if you have made any to RfPP, UAA or ANI, they're so few that they don't show up on X!'s tool. All in all, you have very little experience outside of article writing and DYK, both of which give you valuable experience, but you don't have the breadth of experience I look for in a potential admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   In all fairness, RFAs for candidates with similar tenure have been successful in the past as well. Regards SoWhy 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   HJ, I have been really reluctant to address opposes directly, but since people are now opposing "per" your rationale, I think it's only fair to point out that August + September + October + November ≠ 3 months. I'm disappointed that you discount my contributions from years past, and my contributions from June and July, but I can accept that, since in those cases I had fewer than 100 edits per month. But I must strongly object to your portraying my experience as "3 months" and your implicit discounting of my work in August. In August I had several hundred edits, and created several new articles, including the B-class article I referred to as my best work so far. I have no problems with you opposing me on the basis of experience, but I do ask that you not misleadingly suggest I have only been active three months, because that simply isn't the case. 28bytes (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   For the record, you've made a whopping total of 107 edits prior to August 2010. Of your 6,355 edits total, 107 edits equates to 1.7% of your total edit count. While I am no stickler when it comes to edit count, please realize that it is ludicrous to suggest that you were highly active during this 32 month period in which you made 1.7% of your total edits. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree, it would be ludicrous if I were suggesting that I was highly active before August. I'm just a little frustrated that my August work seems to be getting discounted too, and I don't quite understand why that is. 28bytes (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, you're right that you can claim August as well, but I think that pointing out that you have 4 months of active experience instead of 3 months not a productive argument to rely upon when you consider that most (though not all) people edit here for several years before they run for adminship. —Soap— 11:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   Point definitely taken. And I know a candidate wades into the dreaded oppose zone at their peril, but I think I would have regretted not setting the record straight on that point. Quite possible I'll regret not keeping quiet, too; I guess we'll find out! 28bytes (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose WP:NOTNOW Not enough experience to make me comfortable supporting. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 20:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry, but I fail to see how this candidate is a WP:NOTNOW case. Is there any reason for this oppose? Derild4921Review Me! 22:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   The talkback was not necessary. I don't feel comfortable supporting with the current level of experience. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   Reformatted so numbering works. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

4. I happen to think the article in question 6 does closely paraphrase the source. It's not obvious copy-pasting, but a number of consecutive sentences are largely the same. I picked that example because the candidate placed that nomination in the prep area. No big deal for me though, it's very difficult to pin down a clear view on close paraphrasing and it's not a very clear case (watch now: a number of editors will probably come along and disagree it's close paraphrasing). But DYK and other main page areas are places that need a lot more scrutiny at the moment from experienced admins who will keep a better eye out for close paraphrasing, dodgy sources and BLP violations: see the mini-essay on my user page. I don't think you have the experience at the moment to fulfil this role, I'm sorry. Also, per HJMitchell, a bit more experience in other areas would be useful given the breadth of the admin toolset. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose, concerns raised regarding issues surrounding experience are significant. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia, but you don't have the requisite experience yet to go for the mop, in my opinion. Don't hesitate to return, though, when you've racked up some more time here. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Reluctant oppose. Your contributions look good, but I agree that you require more experience in other areas. I would recommend you wait six to nine months before trying another RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   For those opposing based on edit count: User:Panyd (who recently passed unopposed) had 4600 non-automated edits and 9 DYKs. 28bytes has 3500 non-automated edits and 19 DYKs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   The fact that 28bytes has a low edit count has nothing to do with why I opposed. I opposed more or less for the same reason Fetchcomms opposed (see below for Fetchcomms's vote). The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose per MarmadukePercy. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Reluctant oppose, per MarmadukePercy. Saebvn (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose - You seem like a productive Wikipedian, but I'm not confident that you have enough experience. I'd be willing to reconsider at a later date. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
11. I consider DYK to be a different project from Wikipedia, one with a fundamentally different culture and goals. Inexperience on the main project compels me to oppose. Townlake (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
12. I think HJ Mitchell had an excellent rationale, so I am stealing it. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Almost nothing to projectspace/projecttalkspace. Candidate has been active for a few months, certainly not enough to be familiar with most of the project (evidenced by, well, the lack of projectspace edits!) Not right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose Concerns with experience in administrative areas. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Reluctant oppose – Although I see you with the best of intentions, and your answers to your questions are adequately answered, I do not yet feel that you have enough experience in the areas you wish to work in, excluding DYK, of course. I also echo MarmadukePercy's thoughts—come back in maybe six months with more experience. I look forward to supporting you in the future. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Track record isn't fresh enough in context of all of the above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose Lack of experience shown. Self-nominating after barely three months of unexceptional/regular activity with no evidence of dispute resolution or consensus building, doesn't indicate a clear understanding of how the community thinks. Candidate appears from comments to be a reasonable and intelligent person, and at this stage I would hope would withdraw from this RfA, get involved in helping out in dispute resolution, clearing backlogs, and doing various other maintenance and consensus building activities for at least six months, then apply again. This is a fairly clear WP:NOTNOW based on almost total lack of previous activity. The user boxes on 28bytes userpage indicating long service on Wikipedia are extremely misleading to the point where someone might reasonably consider their use to be deceptive. I would suggest 28bytes to remove the Experienced user box, as that should only be displayed by someone who has 18 months service (a stale, unused account is not "service"). For a number of people, myself included, you are a new user, regardless of when you registered your account. It is active use of the account that we consider, not the date it was registered. SilkTork *^YES! 14:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

    It's certainly not my intent to be misleading about my length of service (my nomination statement lays it out quite plainly, I think), but since you feel my userbox is misleading I have removed it. I would like to dispute that I have no experience building consensus, though. If you look through my edits to both article talk space and WT:DYK I believe you will find that I do. 28bytes (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose. A look at this user's edits show them to be courteous, highly active (recently) and experienced in areas which desperately need admin attention. The main question seems to be over his/her long break from editing. Now, if this was immediately following (or within a couple of months) of a user's return, I would most probably oppose on those grounds. Policies and guidelines shift massively over time, and an administrator has tools that require knowledge of a fair few of them, particularly in relation to the "delete" button - notability guidelines, particularly those relating to BLPs, are the guidelines most constantly and regularly in flux. Four or five months of activity is easily enough to get a grip on most of them, and none of this user's highly intelligent and verbose answers to the questions indicate, to me, that he/her does not have such a grip. The issue is over experience. While 28bytes may be experienced in DYK and other areas, the tools (as mentioned) cover a wide swathe of ground. I would expect to see much of this ground well-trodden by the user in question before I could support. Please don't take this as a bad thing; get some more experience, reapply in six months, and I can see nothing which would prevent me from giving a strong support. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose Although a Wikipedian since 2006, the candidate has been highly active only since September of this year. That is simply not enough time. You are on the right path, but another 6 months to a year of experience is needed.--Hokeman (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
20. Reluctant oppose. Give it a few more months and I'm sure you'll breeze past your next RfA. Regards, ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose I want to support you, I really do, but at the same time, I feel I can't. Some people say a year, some say nine months, some say six. Personally, I'd just as easily go with six months, but three just is too little time. If you run again after, say, 1 March 2011, and you haven't exploded or done anything reprehensible, I see no reason why I wouldn't support you. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose with moral support - Per Sven Manguard. Also, you said you want to take part in CSD work, but only have 25 deleted edits. At maximum, therefore, you have only tagged 25 articles for CSD. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
23. Reluctant oppose - Like Fetchcomms and Fastily have said, I don't think you have enough experience in administrative areas. I do think you are still an excellent editor, just not sysop material yet. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 21:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
24. Reluctant oppose - As per Sven Manguard et al., your record looks good so far, I see no reason you couldn't be confirmed with a few more months experience. - Chrism would like to hear from you 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral- I can see by your answers to the questions that you are thoughtful and intelligent, but still I'd like to see a few more months of experience. I have no doubt that if you try again in February or March that you can succeed. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral Your edits and answers show that you are an intelligent and committed editor, and i would have no trouble in principle supporting. But you must/should have realised that you would generate significant numbers of oppose votes based purely on experience and understanding concerns - based on your activity level and edit count. This suggests to me that you are well read in the policy of the project. But perhaps less aware of the more "messy" realities of everyday life on wikipedia. I reserve the right to strike this vote and support (or oppose!) if you convince me otherwise during this rfa, but at present I fell you need to understand the community aspects of wikipedia a little more thoroughly. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   First, thank you for the compliments. I won't make a habit of "hounding neutrals", but I did find your comments engaging and worth addressing, and I hope you don't mind me doing so. I have been following RfAs long enough to know that there would be opposes based on my length of recent service, and I did give serious consideration to waiting until a few more months had passed to aim for a better chance, statistically. But in the end I felt that rather than delay until an arbitrary number of edits or days on-wiki, I would request adminship when I honestly felt I was ready for it. The community may disagree, of course, and if so I will respect its decision, but I believe my contributions so far have demonstrated that I'm a trustworthy, knowledgeable and helpful editor, temperamentally suited for the role I'm seeking. And if they haven't demonstrated that, I would rather know that sooner than later. 28bytes (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

   The point is that for a number of people you haven't been active here long enough to earn trust. I note above that somebody has a feeling you might have another account. The community tends to be cautious when looking at new accounts for a number of reasons, and trust is one of them. I would be understanding of anyone who leaned toward being cautious of an account that gives the appearance of being a sleeper account. Some users may be concerned about the potential harm that could result from an admin sock account. My own oppose was based on your lack of experience, and your lack of understanding of why the community might reject your request - your comment that you feel that a few months of unremarkable activity might outweigh people's natural concerns and lead people to trust you is an example of why I feel you don't quite have the judgement yet to be an admin. SilkTork *^YES! 17:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

   FYI, I've responded to this "sleeper account" business on the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Still undecided. -- œ^™ 07:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral—will most likely be a net positive, but I'd like to see a longer track record first. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)