Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fourthords

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Fourthords

[edit]

Final (49/29/4); Closed as no consensus –xenotalk 02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC); Scheduled to end 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]
Fourthords (talk · contribs) – I am Fourthords and this is a self-nomination for administrator.

In the past, I’ve spent time in most reaches of the Wikipedia. I was heavily into AfDs and FfDs at one point, I did a lot of work with fair-use images once upon a time, and I used to monitor the new page and recent changes lists and keep an eye on things there. Most recently I’ve been reforming ‘’Star Trek’’ articles to B and even GA status. I’ve never been blocked, and to the best of my knowledge never been accused of incivility or personal attacks. I have a half-dozen Good Articles under my belt and I enjoy taking under- or un-cited articles at at least making them meet muster. I’ve been editing Wikipedia since December 2004, and though I know it may or may not be pertinent to those judging me, I have in excess of 30,000 edits. I hope that my interaction with others bears out the maturity expected of an administrator. I have no other accounts; this is my universal Wikimedia account.

I don’t currently actively seek out administrative areas of the site (though would if granted the tools), but happen upon them while performing other activities. It frustrates me that I can’t help out when I come across backlogs, and I especially dislike requiring others to do for me what I know I could otherwise do for myself. The administrative rights aren’t some high honor I seek, but merely a tool to help out others and ease the functioning of the Wikipedia as a whole. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would expect to find myself, initially at least, helping in non-controversial areas of administratorship: blocking vandals, deleting candidates for speedy deletion, deleting defaming or otherwise damaging edits to BLPs, closing uncontested AfDs and FfDs, and patrolling new pages for nonsense. As I gain experience and confidence in using the administrative tools, I would branch out into other areas of admin work as I felt comfortable.
To clarify, as I may not have been clear regarding closing AfDs and FfDs, I'll clear out AfDs and FfDs that are clearly either keep or delete, and then, as time goes on, decide on more controversial deletion discussions. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I’m proud of any article of mine that’s well-written and fully cited, regardless of length. Heck, I’m even proud of the disambiguation pages that I’ve cleaned up and brought in compliance with policy. I enjoy re-reading some of my longer and Good articles like Osborne Reef, Joint Expedition Against Franklin and Tuvix, but I’m really no more proud of them than I am of Peter Ostrum, Airman Basic, USS Lexington, or Luther Burger. They’re all as right as I could make them, and I feel they all benefit the Wikipedia reader as equally as possible.
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 been in a few rows with other editors and administrators in my time here, but it usually stems from my adherence to the “letter of the law” for policies such as Wikipedia:Verification. In the past, I dealt with it several ways in succession. Firstly I talk with the editor or administrator on the appropriate talk pages. If we still disagree with policy or my interpretation of such, I’ve taken the disagreement to policy talk pages, Wikipedia: Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Third opinion, any involved WikiProjects, and in one instance it wound up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. In most if not all instances of conflict, it’s been resolved through these avenues and the implementation or adjustment of policy as needed.
Additional question from Atama
4. Do you have an example of a significant dispute you've been involved in, and can you describe how you handled it? This can either be a dispute you've had with another editor, or a dispute between other editors that you helped resolve.
A: In 2009 I had a dispute with an administrator named Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I was insisting on verification for a production code in the article “33”, and he felt that the unverified information was too trivial to source, and that I was unnecessarily adhering to the letter of the policy instead of the spirit of the policy. I took our disagreement to the talk page (where the verifiability was but one point of contention) and to Editor assistance, I inquired at the Verifiability talk page, and it eventually ended up at ANI. Edokter took it to WT:TV. There was also an inquiry at Third opinion at one point. In the end, we wound up on NuclearWarfare’s talk page where Edokter came to say that he was keeping the unverified production code in place for consistency with all other Battlestar Galactica episodes. He required I remove them from either all or none of the episodes, so I agreed to go through all articles and remove the unverified production codes.

The crux of the matter was that I couldn't find any way to reconcile what Edokter wanted and what the Verifiability policy required of us. I handled it by first discussing it with the administrator, and then taking the issue to some of Wikipedia's many available conflict resolution pages. In the end, I requested the input of another involved administrator at which time a compromise came about. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Laurascudder
5. I see you haven't spent a lot of time at AfD, so I wondered if you would talk a little bit about your philosophy on deletion.
A: I tend to maintain a policy- and guideline-based philosophy on deletion: Verifiability, Notability, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Point of View/Advertising concerns, and generally the enumerated entries at WP:NOT. I also take into consideration the article's likelihood to meet those policies and guidelines in the future; I've retracted and replaced !votes dependent on an article's progress during an AfD. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Randykitty
6. Under Q1 you indicate that you intend to work on speedy deletion and closing AfDs and FfDs. However, from your edit history it appears that you have participated in only 2 AfDs in the last 2 years and the last FfD that you participated in was in July of last year. Neither do I see much evidence of tagging articles for speedy deletion or PROD (although that just might mean that you have a 100% "success" rate, as I cannot see deleted contributions). Can you comment on why you think that you have enough experience in these areas to do even non-controversial closures? (I had an edit conflict with the previous question, but think that my question is sufficiently different to still pose it).
A: With regards to AfDs and FfDs, I haven't been active in those areas recently, but I've had more experience with those processes in the past. It's because of my lack of recent experience though that I would only focus on those non-controversial closures initially (unopposed nominations, policy-based arguments vs. WP:ATAs, etc.). I feel my previous experience, general familiarity with Wikipedia, and policy-based philosophy (see Q5) would be sufficient for making uncontroversial closures.

You're also correct regarding the speedy processes: I haven't been as active there recently as I once was, but the non-controversial steps I would initially tackle are the obvious ones: self-deletion requests, copyright violations, patent nonsense, basically most of the general categories of CSDs. I think some basic Wikipedia experience and a modicum of common sense would be sufficient for making such obvious speedy deletions. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Inks.LWC
7. Looking at your entire AfD history, you've only !voted 40 times, and all 40 of those times were a to delete (most of them with you as the nominee). Quite a few of those times, the page ended up being kept. Is there a reason you have exclusively participated in AfDs where you feel that the article should be deleted?
A: I would first contest that I've only participated in 40 AfDs. When I do a search for "Articles for" in my contributions I come up with 122 matches, and that's only since September 2008. Neither is it true that I always !vote for the deletion of an article, though doing so makes up a majority of my AfD input. I predominantly recommended deletion because I tended to give input when media- and fiction-based articles were up for deletion, and many of those at the time predominantly failed to meet core policies (N, RS, V, NOT, etc). I'd argue that a lot of media- and fiction-based articles like that still exist, but I'm more geared towards revamping them so AfD isn't necessary. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see my mistake now. I did not realize that you had previously gone by the name pd_THOR. Although since a large majority of your !votes were in favor of deletion, your response still answered my main underlying question. Thank you Inks.LWC (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Kelapstick
8. In your own words, please explain in one sentence what CSD A1 (no context) means.
A: In my own words, an A1 article strikes me as an article without any proper nouns. Hes, Shes, and Its aplenty with perhaps a sprinkling of verbs, adjectives, and common nouns, but without proper nouns there's no context for what or who the article is about. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Minorview
9. How can minority viewpoints be treated equally in a consensus-driven system?
A: Minority viewpoints, such as the lone keeps in an AfD full of deletes? They are already treated equally by virtue of having the same voice and opportunities as anybody else on Wikipedia. Minority viewpoints have the same access and the same weight of input as the majority.

If you're asking how minority viewpoints can be accommodated equally, then the short answer is they cannot. Sure there're instances where a compromise can arise such as merging information into another article instead of deleting it, and sometimes if the minority viewpoint is on the right side of policies and guidelines it'll trump the majority of !voters. And then there's always the "no consensus" result too, though that's not satisfying to either side, and usually results when there's not a majority and minority. But given equally weighted arguments from the majority and the minority, most of the time the majority is the consensus and the minority cannot be accommodated. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Buffbills7701
10. What is the main difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban prohibits editing, a block enforces it. More verbosely, a ban is a prohibition from editing topics, pages, etc. It's imposed by the community without any intrinsic technical enforcement. A block on the other hand is a technical feature of the MediaWiki to prevent users or IP addresses from editing; it can be used to enforce bans if the user doesn't otherwise comply. — fourthords | =Λ= | 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Sven Manguard
11. Since you've expressed an interest in FfD: The Wikipedia community holds widely varying views on how to apply NFCC criteria #3a and #8 (i.e. what is and is not a violation). Please detail your personal views on how to apply those criteria.
A: To me, when I'm writing articles, WP:NFCC#8 means that if there's explicit, reliably sourced text that describes or relies on knowing what an image looked like to understand it completely, then it's kosher. For example, in the article "Tuvix" there's not only a small paragraph describing the changes to the uniform worn, but discussion of how the extensive makeup was a detriment to the actor's performance. Both of those benefit from seeing this image of the actor in the uniform and wearing the extensive makeup.

WP:NFCC#3a follows behind #8 and says that when we find something that needs a non-free image to best be understood, we use as few pieces of NFC to do it. Returning to my example, I had two paragraphs that described two separate things about the actor in question. I could've used a closeup of the uniform and a closeup of the makeup to illustrate those, but that would be in violation of #3a; instead I used one image to satisfy both paragraphs. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12. Suppose that a batch of images were brought to FfD with the rationale that they were only in use in galleries on a page that contains over two dozen non-free images, and therefore violate NFCC 3a. A majority of voters are in favor of keeping the images, noting that there are no free alternatives and claiming that it would be a detriment to readers' understanding of the subject to not have these images. How would you close this FfD?
A. I wouldn't do anything without first checking the article and seeing that you're right, that they're in violation of WP:NFCC#3a. Then, if the majority is saying they meet WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, the problem is that all NFC must meet all of the criteria, not just some of it. If they're in violation of 3a, but meet 1 & 8, then they're still in violation of 3a and I would probably close in favor of deletion. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Independent Contributor
13. Is there a good reason for why you have made only 850 or so edits over the last two years i.e. since March 2012? I'm not exactly a frequent contributor myself and I can understand the whole quality versus quantity argument about edit counts, but I would have expected a potential admin to have been a bit more active, certainly in the last 12 months or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent Contributor (talk • contribs) 15:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A: From mid-2012 to mid-2013 I was living abroad without reliable or convenient internet access. After that I was busy IRL with moving back, a new job, and other personal sundries. I edited as often as I could during those times, and am looking forward to higher levels of interaction now that everything's calmed down IRL. — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional related questions from User:DGG
14A. Are there any policies or guidelines or interpretations affecting decisions at WP:AFD that have changed in the last two years since you were last active there?
A The policies and guidelines that pertain to AfDs are mostly the Biographies of living persons, Notability, Verifiability, No original research, and the list of entries at What Wikipedia is not. I've kept an eye out at Notability in the interim and though its nutshell has been changed a dozen times at least, I've seen no dramatic changes that would affect its application at an AfD. Checking the other pages I've mentioned, I don't see anything that's significantly different than what I knew to be the case before checking. Even though I haven't been active at AfD, I still check in with policies and guidelines for my own article-writing awareness. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up You are not aware of the changes in interpretation for some athletes and some porn performers? They are both very frequent at AfD . DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14B. Are there any guidelines at WP:CSD that have changed in the last two years?
A Do you mean have any of the policy criteria changed in the last two years? Probably in the wording of some individual criteria, but nothing significant. I look over the list now and don't see anything that looks different than I remember. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Followup -- At WP:CSD. the entire criterion A11, Obviously invented was added within the last few months ; the criterion A7 was broadened to include "planned events" also a few months ago. About 6 months ago, G13, abandoned draft, was added. They were not there two years ago. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14C. What is the official definition of "no context" and how does it compare with your answer in Q.6? Can you think of any counter-examples to your own definition?
A The crux of the official definition is a short article that is vague and lacks any unique searchable parameters to be able to determine its validity or potential. An easy counter-example for my definition is to add a first name. "Mike went forth and declared himself awesome." Who is Mike? It's a proper noun, but doesn't provide sufficient additional information to determine its context. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14D. Have you ever contributed to the discussion of a change or interpretation of deletion policy? When did you last look at the discussions at WT:CSD?
A I have vague recollections of contributing to Wikipedia-process changes in the distant past, but nothing comes to mind specifically, and certainly not in the last two years. As for the CSD talk page, I can't say I've ever looked over the discussions taking place. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14E. If you intended to come here to ask to be an admin, with a primary interest in closing deletion discussions, why did you not have some recent involvement in those processes first, to be able to show a recent record?
A I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply a "primary interest" in closing deletion discussions. Closing one-sided, uncontroversial AfDs, FfDs, and CSDs is just one area in which I would feel initially comfortable. I didn't bulk out my contributions because (a) I feel I have enough experience in such processes and that they have changed insubstantially from when I used to spend more time there; and (b) the policies and guidelines are there in black and white to read and re-read. If I felt uncomfortable with a potential decision I would make due to inexperience, I would refer to our policies and guidelines defining such actions. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Additional question from Stfg
15. Sorry to add another question when you've already had so many, but: suppose that an editor adds a uncited but plausible statement to an article. Under what circumstances do you: (a) revert this addition; (b) tag it with {{citation needed}} or {{citation needed span}}; (c) let it stand?
A: I see a {{fact}} tag (as well as {{unreferenced}} and {{unreferenced-section}}) as a quick flag for another editor to search for a citation; I'll use it when I'm working on something else and don't want to shift my attention from my current article/project. I'll revert it if the edit is plausible yet detrimental, defaming, of otherwise damaging to an individual's article—especially a BLP. I'll also revert if I've gone in search of the citation and found nothing. Vandalism, commentating, and other such nonsense will also get removed. I'm not inclined to let an unverified statement or statistic stick around, and can't really think of an instance where doing so would improve the Wikipedia. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from I am One of Many
16. Suppose you made a close to delete at WP:AFD. Afterward an editor disagreed with your close and deletion based on their view that some of the editors arguing for deletion did not understand recent changes in policy. What would be your process for reviewing your decision? What would be some of the possible outcomes of this process?
A: If I was aware of the recent change in policy/guideline, and feel I interpreted it correctly in light of the deletion discussion, I would first explain more thoroughly my rationale to the dissenting editor. If he or she still doesn't accept my decision, I would genuinely invite them to start a thread at deletion review. However, if I wasn't aware of the recent change in policy/guideline, and had closed it without that knowledge, I would most likely temporarily undelete the article and take it to DRV myself. I would explain the recent change and my closure in ignorance, and ask that the process be reviewed. I wouldn't change the result of the AfD because I can't know the minds of those who contributed; maybe they all knew of the recent change and !voted to delete anyways. But my ignorance as the closer is a problem with the process and should be scrutinized in that light. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from The Herald
17. How much are you Wikipediholic?
A: I don't really know how to quantify that. I spend time each day doing wiki-related activities, whether it's writing, editing, browsing, researching, buying research material, or talking about it IRL. Friends think it's odd that I spend money to contribute to a thing that doesn't pay me and is free; they would probably use the term Wikipediholic if they knew it. Aside from that, I've been doing it for over nine years, and don't see myself quitting any time soon. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ihardlythinkso
18. Have you ever seen invocation(s) of WP:IAR that you disagreed with? Have you ever seen invocation(s) that you agreed with? Please describe.
A: I can't think of any instances where somebody came out and explicitly invoked IAR, but I've seen instances where rules were ignored. One instance is related to Q4 where I disagreed with Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about ignoring the Verifiability policy. At the time, I used conflict resolution channels and administrator intervention to resolve the disagreement. Sometimes I've also opted to ignore rules myself when I disagree with an editor's stance or actions, to avoid drama. If I know a rule (policy, guideline, etc.) should be applied thusly, but an editor feels very strongly about the status quo, so long as I don't feel it's to the detriment of the Wikipedia, I elect to ignore the rule (while still explaining it) to maintain a general tone of harmony. I expect that eventually somebody else will find the rule violation and change it, or the rules will change, accommodating the original editor. — fourthords | =Λ= | 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Nsk92
19. Could you give a few examples of where you !voted "keep" in an AfD?
A: Sorry if I over-did it; I !voted to keep:
— fourthords | =Λ= | 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

[edit]

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

Can you give diffs or a link to a edit history of an article showing your best work, in addition to links to the articles. It's not clear which edits you consider your best work....Minorview (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of the articles I linked to in question two are some of what I would consider my "best work". I suppose the Good Articles in particular are notable as they've been through a peer review process of sorts. Here are links to the article histories for those three Good Articles: Osborne Reef, Joint Expedition Against Franklin, and Tuvix. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support. Looks like a good candidate. INeverCry 18:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Yes, please. HiDrNick! 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support deleted contribs looks good, with mostly picture delete nominations, but some other non problematic work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I don't see why not! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ok. Alan (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. My question was answered quickly and perfectly. buffbills7701 00:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cats. I don't see any reason to oppose, and although I'll admit I'm a bit shifty on activity, they demonstrate clear understanding of policy despite low participation in admin-related areas, and I particularly like the content work. Cloudchased (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support most likely a net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why not. → Call me Hahc21 01:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I see no reason why not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. We definitely need more administrators working in such areas (speedy deletion, in particular, I've found to be not so speedy). Looks like a perfect candidate to fill in those positions. Best of luck! — Status (talk · contribs) 01:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Seems good, expereienced and long tenured user. Does a lot of gnomish work which I appreciate. Clean block log for almost 10 years! ///EuroCarGT 02:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Moved to Oppose. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The candidate seems to check all the boxes on the list of things I look for in a prospective Admin. He's been around for longer than 4-5 years, has well over the 10,000 edits I normally look for in a diverse range of topics and projects, no evidence of any out of the ordinary conflicts with other editors, solid grasp of policies and guidelines, a teeny bit thin in AfD experience but not enough to be an impediment. Seems to lean slightly towards a by the book approach without being rigidly strict constructionist. In other words as far as I can see he will bend rules, but there needs to be a compelling reason. I like that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looks like a good candidate. I am One of Many (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Experienced, knowledgeable, sensible. Samir 05:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Seems good to go. Widr (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, and not convinced that the (only, at this time) oppose vote highlights a history that should be of concern. AGK [•] 10:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Fourthords has been working diligently on Wikipedia for years, taking care of a multitude of tasks. He is very even-handed in working out issues when other editors disagree with him. Nv8200p talk 12:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No concerns. benmoore 13:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Based on the careful answers to questions, although I am a bit concerned by the low edit counts of the last years which do not really indicate a strong need for the tools. It would have been better to get back into editing more frequently first and then start an RfA. --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose. --Randykitty (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support First time I have come across this editor but after reviewing his work am convinced he can handle the extra responsibilities that the mob demands. CrossTempleJay  → talk 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Secret account 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - most of my concerns had already been addressed by the earlier questions from other editors. The remaining concern I had was the low recent edit count but the candidate has supplied a perfectly reasonable answer to my question. Independent Contributor (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Seems clueful, has plenty of experience and a variety of contributions to article and non-article space, and I like the answers to questions given above (including the answer to mine). -- Atama頭 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Regretfully. -- Atama頭 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support – Seems like an OK editor to me. Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I'm weary that the candidate wants to work in FfD but has less than 1000 edits to the file namespace and only ten edits to the namespace in 2012, 2013, and 2014 combined. His last 500 total edits also stretch way too far back for my taste as well. These concerns are somewhat alleviated by the answers to the questions, which are excellent. Ultimately, this isn't the most enthusiastic support, but I think that the candidate can do the job. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Experienced, net-positive, level-headed editor with good answers to questions and reasonable explanation of recent (relative) inactivity. Seems trustworthy and cautious (a good trait in a new admin). Miniapolis 02:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Andrew's and DocTree's points give me a little concern but they do not outweigh the positives, especially as I think the candidate has shown trustworthiness. I am persuaded to support along the lines of Sven Manguard and Miniapolis. I think the candidate has many good traits and has made many worthy contributions over a long period of time. I conclude a net-positive. Donner60 (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - looks like a good candidate overall. I would expect them to go slowly with AfD at first, though, since they haven't had much recent experience there. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. General concepts about deletion seem adequate, despite issues of detailed wp:CSD questions, and WP needs more deletions to confront "wp:Data hoarding" of vast oceans of (unsourced) trivia. Even debated some headstrong users to remove unsourced details. Although low contributions were explained by relocation, I feel tools will inspire to delete/remove more unsourced text in numerous pages or wp:Navboxes in the wp:Overlink crisis. -Wikid77 11:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per common sense answers to deletion related questions. It is good that candidate does not read WT:CSD discussions (Q 14D), and therefore is likely not influenced by the petty process wonkery of arm-chair deletion theorists therein, or care about unimportant trivia like whether or not A7 is applicable for planned events or not (Q 14B). jni (delete)...just not interested 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Have examined the oppose rationales in detail, and am not concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I have my reservations, but see an overall net positive. DGG makes a good point about athletes, there is a lot of interpretation there. I have seen minor league baseball player results vary from being deleted by CSD to kept at AfD with rationales based solely on their playing minor league baseball. I trust Fourthords will take due caution and become more familiar with the deletion process (and others) before jumping in head first. If I can offer one piece of advice, stay away from soccer. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Jianhui67 T★C 09:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Despite having no previous interactions with him, the candidate seems qualified and most likely to be a net positive to the project. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Seems to be a reliable user. --High Contrast (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Old and experienced member. Clean block history. OccultZone (Talk) 03:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -- Be a good Admin. Herald 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- no problems --cyrfaw (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Ultimately, I disagree with DGG that this editor is overconfident in his own knowledge; his confidence stems from prior (albeit slightly outdated) experience. RfA is an open book test, and so Fourthords's misfires might be seen as reason enough to oppose for not taking time to do some research. But there's a difference between this process and the real thing. I'm convinced that they'll review CSD and other guidelines before acting on any request. Not being up to speed is nothing a quick glance wouldn't fix. Kurtis (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support A couple of concerns, but overall feel this user if initially cautious will be a good admin.Blethering Scot 18:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Answered the demanding questions well and I think he will be one of the rare few good administrators.--ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 00:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Can be trusted. -- Ϫ 05:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. While not the most active of editors I've seen here, they've been around the block once or twice and should be trusted. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - With almost 10K deleted edits I do think they are adequately experienced in deletion to wield the mop. Some recent changes in policy or their interpretation they have missed, but first, the topic has been raised in this very RfA to alert them of that situation, and second, I don't think the 'come back in 6 months with X AfD edits' is a hoop they should be made to jump through. It might not change the numbers to turn the RfA but I'm confident with that user. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Seems to have a level head on his shoulders, and even if he does one administrative action per month I'm a lot more confident that it'll be a good one than a bad one. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- a sound mind is more useful than knowing policy by heart. Activity levels don't make much of a difference, it's not as if there is a cost to the project to change one flag in a database... --Tawker (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support -- I don't see why not! A long standing editor partially good understanding of policy and guidelines, the candidate seems to check all the boxes on the list of things for a prospective Admin. I do think they are adequately experienced and clear understanding of policy the candidate can do the job. I understand the candidate wishes to participate in less-controversial XfDs at first, no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools, a reliable user. You can hardly fault a person for not spending all of their time on Wikipedia. Honestly, I find it more applaud-able when someone has other things going on in their life, but still makes time to help out here. KhabarNegar Talk 15:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Every phrase is copy/pasted from others' votes. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may aswell have put "per X" instead........?? -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo! So what!? Of course I read this page from top to bottom, & did not vote because my lord did, and so read the vote plus comment again, and you’d better this time DO pay more attention, to every word which have written above. KhabarNegar Talk 18:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - while I share concerns that an admin should know the trends in policy, this editor otherwise meets my usual standards. I would caution Fourthords to be extra cautious when starting to use "the mop." Bearian (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I reviewed the candidate's contributions, picking the month of October. There weren't many edits in that month so I looked around and found this substantial edit, cleaning up the article Theater Hopper which was then nominated for DYK and appeared on the front page. The article seems problematic in that it contains a lot of extraneous BLP material about the artist's family and the sourcing seems mostly to be from that artist. I expect an admin to be working at a higher level of quality. Andrew (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Reluctant oppose. I enjoy taking under- or un-cited articles at [sic] at least making them meet muster is stated in the nomonation. I don't see that in recent history. Most recent edits are deletions and tagging. Some appear to be the result of misinterpretation or overly strict application of policy. I strongly support those who fix it and/or help others, especially new editors, to do so. I admire and thank you for your work but how you interpreted policy and how you might judge consensus in closing AfD and FfD discussions worries me enough to oppose. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Addition on the talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. No AfD contributions since July 2011! I do not trust Fourthords to close "uncontroversial" AfDs, let alone CSDs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose If you want to use the tools in AFD you should demonstrate your current grasp of policy by participating in discussions. Once you have the tools there's no way to limit you to "uncontroversial" decisions. We need to know that you're qualified before you get the tools. It's too late after.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Candidate's answer to my question shows poor grasp of concepts such as systemic bias (AKA "tyranny of the majority"), and the problems in applying principles when their application is unpopular. Minorview (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how relevant your question is to WP:BIAS, and Fourthords was spot on from my perspective. I don't really get what your complaint is, and what the "right" answer is for you. This seems like a relatively frivolous opposition. -- Atama頭 21:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong opposition. Based on the answers to the questions about deletion, and especially my Q 14. The candidate is unaware of significant aspects of present deletion policy; much worse, but he seems to be of the opinion that he is aware of it. I expect new administrators to have a good deal to learn, just as I did, but I also expect them to recognize that they have a good deal to learn. Nobody with this degree of overconfidence should be trusted with deletion --and the other potentially harmful tools. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC) To be fair, I should add that one or two of the candidates I strongly opposed have in the end turned out to be very good admins. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I think DGG makes good points which pushed me from neutral to where I now sit. As for closing uncontested AFDs and the like, that is something that you can do without having the admin bit, and perhaps that is a good place to start, so you can learn more about the deletion process here. I don't think you would intentionally do damage to the encyclopedia, but a lack of experience and overconfidence combined can often lead to mistakes and drama. Added: I would be very open to support in the future, after some more experience handling deletions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - I like this editor, but an average of one edit a day over the last year and a half isn't enough for me. Advice: If you don't make it, please spend a bit more time here and come back to Rfa late this year or early next with 500-1000 or more. An admin should really be able to demonstrate that they are willing to spend more than a few minutes a day here. Jusdafax 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can hardly fault a person for not spending all of their time on Wikipedia. Honestly, I find it more applaud-able when someone has other things going on in their life, but still makes time to help out here. What should be more important is whether or not they would have a use for the sysop bit, and in this case it seems like they would. Finally, if his few minutes per day on Wikipedia produce page re-writes like this, then I'm all for it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I was startled to see, when I looked at the candidate's last 500 edits, that they went back to September 2012. There is part-time, and there is really part time. I have to define this candidate as the latter. Jusdafax 05:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per DGG. I think fellow oppose voters have made enough of a case against the nominee. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose  Administrators working AfD need to be prepared to post !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I want to say the candidate is a net-positive, but I have doubts. They say they want to help prevent abuse of the wiki, yet I see very few edits at WP:AIV (none since 2008!) or vandalism reverts. An edit summary search indicates roughly 50 reverts since September 2012, which when checked were mostly not anti-vandal work. I take the blocking policy pretty seriously and I've seen administrators who are (unwittingly) harsh with their tools. As such, when a candidate says they want to block vandals, I need to see evidence that they are very familiar with what constitutes vandalism and that they know how to react accordingly. Meanwhile, AfD stats do not look good. Roughly 50% of votes – all deletes – matched the result. Finally, I'd have to agree with Jusdafax that the brevity of the contribution history over the past two years is a concern. You don't need thousands, but ~30 edits a month is just not enough to tell me you will stay versed in policy. I hope I'm not too harsh with my words, and that the candidate accepts my criticism and is not offended by it. He is in my opinion an otherwise excellent contributor and I do not want to discourage that. — MusikAnimal talk 17:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I can understand the reason for minimal participation until a few months ago, but it is clear that this enforced absence, as ahown by the answers to some parts of Q. 14, has left important gaps in this editor's knowledge, in areas where accurate knowledge is of fundamental importance. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Oppose (edit conflict) I've been sitting on the fence on this one. I'm going to have to place myself in the oppose column merely out of the fact that this editor has not had more than 50 edits in a single month since July 2012. I worry that this editor does not have enough recent editing experience to be in touch with the administrative status quo to be handling the tasks associated. The answer to 14B highlights that this editor has not reviewed the policies lately and has made the assumption not much has [changed] which could mean that there would be several cases in which they'd make decisions relying on their old understanding of things without reviewing the policies before acting. They also do not seem aware that much has changed. I would be more than willing to consider this editor if they truly needed the tools or were more active. Mkdwtalk 22:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - I am not convinced that the user knows as much about the deletion process (specifically regarding CSD and AFD) as he claims he does. Per the answers to 14A and 14B, the user alleged that he knew roughly what the curent policies were and claimed that there were no recent updates since he had last been heavily active with AFDs and CSDs, yet this is quite clearly not the case. I am also hesitant about Fourthord's tendency to !vote Delete at AFDs. Over 20% of his Delete !votes resulted in the article either being kept or merged; I went through the last 3 years of his !votes at AFDs (since 2011; I didn't go back further than that), and 14/14 were all Delete, which concerns me that the user tends to be too concerned with deletion of articles. Additionally, the fact that he did not expressly disclose the fact that he previously edited under the user name "pd_THOR" in this AFD makes me further hesitant to support his candidacy. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose I've changed my !vote as user seems to lack knowledge and experience in AFD's and CSD's, He's not edited much since 2012 and not disclosing the "pd_THOR" account's not helped neither!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment, Davey2010, but to be fair to Fourthords (in case someone is !voting based only on others' comments), his previous username is disclosed at the top of his userpage and has been since his routine name change via WP:CHU. He didn't try to hide anything and did nothing improper. It was just mildly annoying when we found that xtools doesn't deal well with a name change and some of us initially made incorrect assumptions based on the output of xtools when searched only using the current name. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally meant he should've disclosed it here but perhaps I could've checked his userpage, Anyway struck out. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose The candidate seems to not understand one of the five pillars (WP:IAR). He sees it as a negative thing, ignoring rule enforcement when another editor breaks a rule, in order to "avoid drama", with the idea another editor after him will be successful where he has failed to stop the user and revert her/his change(s). (The IAR pillar is supposed to be a *positive* thing--encouraging editors to not hesitate to break rules if they interfere with improving the quality of the encyclopedia. How did the IAR pillar become a *negative* and sour thing in the concept of this admin candidate?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose A lot has been said in the past few days where I was without Internet access. Several things that made me move to the "oppose" column have been explained above (sometimes multiple times) and I won't repeat them, apart from the concern about the modest edit history that I already voiced above. I am also not completely happy with the answer to Q16. An admin needs to be able to interpret policy, not just count !votes. In the case described, the first step should have been to check the alleged policy change and then re-evaluate the AfD debate and weigh the arguments in the light of the policy change. If the conclusion is that delete was the right decision, the admin should stand by that and refer the complaining editor to DRV. If the conclusion would be that deletion was unjustified, the admin should reverse the AfD decision (and inform the other participants, who perhaps have removed the closed AfD from their watchlists). I the admin would feel that there should be more discussion in the light of the policy change, the AfD should be reopened, explaining the issue (and again informing previous participants). The admin taking it to DRV immediately doesn't feel right to me. I'll definitely support this candidate in, say, six months, if a more substantial edit record (including AfD participation) can be build up in that time. --Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - per DocTree and others. Part-time status cancels out "basic Wikipedia experience and a modicum of common sense". I'm also not keen on "self-nominators". Maybe next time. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - I'm one of those who think that the candidate's current Wiki activity level is too low for an admin-to-be. Better come back full time for some months and then return to RfA. In the meanwhile, get busy at AfD (since that is one of your desired admin fields), and show that you know that there not only a vote, but a rationale is required. Consulting the list of your abovementioned "keep" votes, one sees several ultimately deleted or redirected articles, and most of the kept articles without properly explained rationale. For an admin it's not enough to say "This is clearly notable", it's necessary to explain why, possibly citing guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose the concerns with the candidate's lack of experience in admin areas is significant enough for an oppose. Northern Antarctica (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I saw this RfA when it opened, and I felt uncomfortable about it, so I've waited until now to make up my mind. This is the mildest possible oppose, and I'd be prepared to support a future RfA that fixes the concerns that have been raised this time. I end up feeling pretty much the way that Jusdafax does. And if you are interested in FFD, I'd suggest a read of WP:AAFFD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Kraxler defines me best. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - Seeing two of my most trusted Admins, David G. and Dennis Brown, in the oppose section makes me very ill at ease. I also don't like a "last 500 edits" page that spools all the way back to 2012. We need to see some more steady, current work, I think. Give it another shot in six months... Carrite (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose on the grounds of the statements of the candidate and other opposers whose names are stated herein. I forced myself to hold my !vote because I had also changed minds between support and oppose. Experience is lacking as may be evidenced by answers to questions and contribs. I have to agree with concerns shown by other editors - waning quantity of edits per month, lack of and even shifting admin-related work, to name at most two. One great editor, but you may need a lot more experience and activity onwiki. Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose because of a general vagueness about various areas relating to admin-related issues. The most striking example was the answer to DGG's question about criteria for speedy deletion. I would I hope that any administrator would be more aware of developments in such matters. What is more, it would have been a trivial matter to have looked in the editing history of WP:CSD and compared the version from two years ago with the current one: an administrator who does not even bother to do that much checking before making a decision is not going to be a good administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    An even more striking example is the answer to question 8, which in my opinion is absolutely bizarre. Any administrator who can misread policies and guidelines in such a gross way as that will cause problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - Most of what I said above in my initial support statement still stands. I think Fourthords has potential. But a number of the opposes above, made since my support, have swayed me. I was looking at the overall contribution to Wikipedia, which I think is promising, but I think that Fourthords's recent absences are telling. It's not just the drop-off in participation, but also the unfamiliarity with recent changes as a result as evidenced by the answers to question 14. And I'm puzzled by the answer to question 8, it's strangely specific, and it even contradicts what is actually in the description of A1 at the policy, where the example given contains proper nouns. My advice to Fourthords is this... Now that you're back and available, spend some time getting familiar with the areas of the encyclopedia where you want to contribute as an admin (deletions, new page patrol, AIV) and try again, maybe later this year or early next year. -- Atama頭 15:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The example given in the A1 policy includes common nouns and pronouns, but it doesn't have proper nouns, which are nouns that denote a specific object. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct. I misunderstood. But I still think that it's an incorrect answer. What if an article titled "Flux coordinator" had the content, "Mike uses this at least once a month." Would that satisfy A1? Clearly not, because proper nouns that don't provide context for the subject aren't any help. -- Atama頭 15:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose The candidate's answers to the questions, and the oppose rationales above, leave me strongly questioning whether the candidate has a sufficient grasp of Wikipedia policy (especially deletion policy) to become an administrator. I also have strong concerns about experience in deletion-related fields, including AfD.--Slon02 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per the comments by DGG, Dennis Brown and Carrite, three editors I respect greatly. I look forward to supporting this candidate in the future, after the candidate has comprehesively addressed the issues raised here. I want to see a higher level of active editing, and positive involvement as an ordinary editor in administrative related areas of the encyclopedia. I wish the candidate well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - I follow with the general view others hold: that this candidate doesn't currently have a polished up-to-speed grasp of Wikipedia's administrative tasks. I echo Cullen328's suggestion of committing to more active involvement in the admin-related workspace. I would definitely feel more comfortable if this candidate spent more of their current wiki-time in the deletion process, which is the area they want to begin their adminship with. Get a better foothold of the deletion policies and other admin policies before returning. Good luck. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral for now. Strict adherence to the letter of the law concerns me. Be bold and ignore all rules. I judge WP:BLUE superior to WP:NOTBLUE; the latter slows progress, encourages WP:REFBLOAT. I'll move to support or oppose but can do neither without a much closer look. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 02:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Moving to oppose. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 22:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Doctree: Interesting comment. Could you provide some examples (or point in the direction of some), so the rest of us can consider? For what it's worth, there are plenty of administrators who are reluctant to IAR. The internet attracts that kind of personality. Even if the candidate were that sort of contributor (I'm not saying he is), it would probably be nothing to worry about. AGK [•] 10:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this editor wanted to be bold and ignore rules as a rookie administrator I'd oppose. Any admin should be cautious starting out, and someone who is reckless and overeager is a red flag to me. -- Atama頭 16:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is an example of why I'm concerned. The edit summary (see WP:V; everything must be cited) is incorrect; policy is that content must be verifiable and that all quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include a citation. In the diff above, the deleted edit by a new editor was correct, easily verifiable and unlikely to be challenged. The same information is not cited in the College Park Airport article but verifiable here.
Please read the 33 talk page related to Q4. Since that was almost 5 years ago, I wouldn't be concerned if I saw no recent interpretation of policy and guidelines more strict than their letter and spirit. From what I am seeing, consensus judgement and interpretation of policy and guidelines are questionable. I can't support but will stay here for now. Will oppose if I find more problematic edits. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 17:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm afraid that the amount of recent contributions is simply too low for me to support. The strict adherence that Doctree mentions above also gave me pause, but as the specific policy you mentioned in relation to that is WP:Verifiability, I'm not concerned enough to oppose. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) moved to oppose Northern Antarctica (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not immediately obvious which way to go. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Moving to support jni (delete)...just not interested 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral A long standing editor with no evidence (till now) of incivility and partially good understanding of policy and guidelines looks good at first instance but North Antarctica and Doctree concerns make me to sit here. Waiting him to answer DGG questions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC) His answers to DGG questions bring me disappointment. I wanted to flag support for her deep inside but I've got all reasons to put myself in oppose sub-section. I will wait a little more, though. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC) moving to oppose. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral I don't think Q14 was a particularly useful set of questions, and I'm unconvinced by the conclusions have been drawn from it. Surely a new admin doesn't need to know all the arcane details of notability of, for example, porn stars; he only needs to know where to look them up. The historical details are for historians, not practitioners. I asked Q15 because the candidate, with admirable restraint, has not replied to any of the opposes and neutrals, and I wanted to know what he had taken from this diff, Doctree's discussion of it, and perhaps the very old events the candidate told us about in Q4. The answer is fine about damaging edits, but for things like the street leading to the airport, I find "I'll also revert if I've gone in search of the citation and found nothing" disappointing. Maybe the editor who added the fact could identify a source -- why not ask them? Just batting away someone's contribution (with an edit summary that misstates policy, no less) is harsh. This isn't enough reason to oppose on its own, but it's worrying. I don't know the candidate, so I can't estimate how much his stickler-for-the-law tendency would affect his performance as an admin, so I'm sitting this out here. --Stfg (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per Doctree, User:DGG, and Stfg. A user's lack of recent edits doesn't worry me as much because policies are there to be able to read again, and they could easily have more policy knowledge than we think. The answers to the relatively obscure questions for candidate about specific criteria doesn't mean much to me, because they think they are aware of much of it and stating that they plan on initially focusing on non-controversial areas doesn't help this because of the small things even in policies regarding uncontroversial decisions. Also interest in FfD with lack of experience. --Mysterytrey 13:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per the responses to Q14. AfD has become such an institution here, that currency and the ability to articulate cogent, concise justifications for a deletion decision, with reference to clear patterns and practices at AfD, is essential. While I understand the candidate wishes to participate in less-controversial XfDs at first, I feel that much greater care was warranted in responding to those questions. I will say as an aside that DGG's questions there are in my view the hardest legitimate RfA questions I've seen in awhile, and I would not relish having to form my own response to them. I don't see DGG's reference to the change in PORNBIO standards as being something Fourthords specifically needed to know, but as a pretty obvious example of something that's changed that would have made for better response fodder. I do disagree with the position taken by some that new admins needn't know the arcane, intimate details of AfD politics before taking up the mop. Per my standard RfA response: "One's candidacy for adminship is likely to be the only time when the community will evaluate said candidate's ability to use the tools, and whether he or she has the responsibility to do so properly." For a candidate explicitly stating that he or she intends to participate in AfD, I feel it is very appropriate to look at policy competence in great depth before unleashing that candidate upon the process. I choose not to oppose, however, because this is a fairly technical grounds for not supporting, and because I want to give Fourthords the benefit of the doubt that the responses to Q14 were the result of misunderstanding their significance or of being excessively concise in responding. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. I don't see any benefit in opposing at this point, but I agree with Kraxler (and others) concerning the candidate's recent activity levels. That said, Fourthords has put forward a strong candidacy here, and I hope to support at some point in the future. — sparklism hey! 08:16, 18 March 2014 (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/Fourthords&oldid=1237727946"