Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icewedge 2

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

Icewedge

Final (86/4/5); Ended Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:03:37 (UTC)

Icewedge (talk · contribs) – Its been a while since I did any editing above the "Questions for the candidate" line, so here goes. I am a relativly long time user, its been a bit more than two years and two months since I first signed up. I have more than ten thousand edits with this account and a bit more than six thousand with my alternate account IcewedgeHugglesGoats! (talk · contribs). I am primarily a metapedian, when I think 'time to go do work on wiki' I usually don't think of article writing, although I have created quite a few decently sized articles. I have never been blocked, except for mistake (an admin saw me moving a page with an obscene title and though I was page move vandalizing).

I rather unobtrusive but I think I do good work here. Icewedge (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

A: I intend to work mostly with deletion, it is the area of Wikipedia that is most in need of more admin work, specifically WP:UCFD (unless the current merge discussion is successful), WP:AFD and WP:CSD. As an active vandal fighter (with my alt-acc; I will probably switch back to this account though if successful) I will also of course use the block button in that area, although I doubt I will use the block button anywhere else. The drama boards make good reading but getting embroiled in the major disputes there can eat up loads of your time for little gain. I doubt I will use the protect button as I don't really like the idea of protection, it is necessary in some cases but I think it is overly used. In most cases the vandals will just go elsewhere and edit warriors will just wait it out.

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

A: I don't have any stellar contributions. I do create quite a few new articles (I have thirteen or fourteen DyK's) though. I am also proud of having saved a few articles from deletion, such as The Quarry at La Quinta, there are some other better examples as I recall but I have contributed to so many AfD's I forget names.

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 many arguments and a few editing conflicts but very few real conflicts. I tend to avoid disputes that escalate beyond the immediate page and I have a pretty thick skin. A long break does not hurt when things get overwhelming though.

Optional question from Matt.T

4. What, if anything have you learnt from your previous RfA?

A: My previous RfA was tremendous clue building experience for me. It changed my whole view of Wikipedia basically. I think it might have made me into a bit more of a policy wonk, as most of the opposes came from me not following the deletion policies as well as I should have been. It also made me branch out significantly from vandal fighting.

It gave me a more serious view of Wikipedia most importantly though, when I came here I came only to mess around, my first edit ([1]) was ridiculous nonsense and while I grew out of the absolutely useless phase of my contributions rather quickly it took up to my first RfA to see that there was more than vandal wack-a-mole or write a really, really bad stub whenever you want to WP. Icewedge (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 5a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Blocks should be applied in the cases of vandalism, over the top reversion, incivility, legal threats, enforcing arb-com sanctions or in cases where users have shown that they will just not follow polices (e.g. a persistent uploader of copyvio's after having been warned many times).

• 5b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Pages should be semi-protected when they fall under heavy vandalism and while there is little constructive contributions coming from unregersterd/newly registered users. Some highly used templates should be automatically full protected if they are used extensively because vandalism on them would be much more visible (and harder to find and revert) than vandalism to any single article.

Pages may be full protected to stop edit wars where basically all the editors are at fault. If it is only one or two editors reverting against consensus than a blocking the most egregious edit warriors might be a better route as the disruption would be removed but users would still be able to improve the article.

Protection should generally not be used on vital communication pages, only in cases of extreme vandalism should user talk pages or pages such as the administrators noticeboards be protected, and then only for short periods.

• 5c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: Pages should be speedily deleted when they fall within the speedy deletion criteria, WP:CSD. Depending on the type of page I may wait a while to see if the article could be fixed before I would delete it though. I would not hesitate to hammer vandalism or attack pages seconds after creation but in articles where, say, A7 applies I might let the page be tagged for speedy deletion and then see if the pages creator could make his case with {{hangon}} before deleting it.

• 5d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: See my answer to Q11

• 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.

• A:

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First I would determine what kind of editors they were, whether they were long time users or newcomers and if any of them had a history of edit warring. I would then see if the 3rr had been broken, if it had and the perpetrating user had been previously warned about edit warring, I would give them a 16 or 24 hour block, if not I would give out a warning. If the edit was was slower, I might protect the page and revert it the last stable version then instruct them to discuss the issue and suggest an RfC or a 3O. Unless it was obvious that it was an egregious POV pusher versus a user in good standing I would try to not take sides in the dispute. I might also request help from a relevant Wikiproject or if it is a BLP, BLP/N.

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A:

Questions from John Sloan (talk)

9. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Well if the user had just been vandalizing then I might consider rescinding my block strait away however as he had previously abused the unblock process as well I would be even more doubtful of the users good faith, its seems logical that after getting his other unblock requests declined he might decided to try a different tact, and so I would leave the template be for another administrator to review as an admin shouldn't be declining any unblock requests for blocks they have made.

If I was not the blocking administrator, just a third party admin, I would still be skeptical of their good faith but I would offer them a {{2nd chance}} template and then alert the blocking admin of the affairs afoot and urge him to perform unblock himself if the account showed any signs of trying to perform the 2nd chance procedure in good faith.

10. This is normally NuclearWarfare's RfA question. But I beat him to it! :D - Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. While I am not a fan of how of the current AOR system is used —some administrators put themselves in it so they can claim accountability, but then ignore their pledges (this is just in general, not a specific reference to any incident)—, I do think that voluntary recall is a good ideal, although it should be supplemented by an official community recall process.

So, to answer your question I would add myself to CAT:AOR. If a user has to have consensus to be promoted, they should have to maintain consensus to remain an admin so I really would not mind standing for conformation RfA's every month, however I imagine that would annoy the community and be a waste of time so my criteria for AOR will be six editors with at least one administrator, all with at least 500 edits. No exceptions either way. Simple criteria are best.

Optional Question from VX

11. What do you think of WP:IAR and have you ever had to use it? When do you think it would be an appropriate time for an admin to invoke IAR?

A. IAR is what keeps the policy wonk at bay. IAR just reminds us that pages graced with {{Policy}} are not infallible. In some situations the course stipulated by policy is just not the best way to go and in those cases users should feel free to ignore the rules. Ignoring the rules should generally be kept to a minimum though, even if ignoring the rules to do something would be helpful to the encyclopedia it is best to just go through normal channels for the sake of maintaining order IMHO and overuse would tend to lead to creep on what is a reasonable IAR and what is recklessness.

As for times I have used IAR, I would think that I (and most other users) use the principle behind it every day. WP policy is not strictly constructed and there fore is up for interpretation depending on the situation. I can only recall one instance where I specifically cited IAR, which was a speedy deletion (someone wrote an article about a rock they had recently found in their back yard) although thinking back on that instance an A1 would have probably been applicable. Icewedge (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) [updated: 02:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)]

Optional question from Crystal whacker (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

12. In this poll, you are clearly in the minority. How do you understand the majority, and why do you disagree with it? As an administrator, how will you handle situations where your opinion is opposed to consensus? Crystal whacker (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Never mind, you have enough other questions to answer. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A: No, I am the problem here, not the number of questions. I must admit I have thus far been rather lax in answering them but I would like to answer yours.

Ok, so in that poll we have a lot of anger being vented at an ArbCom that has in many cases failed to deliver. I however do maintain confidence in all of the arbitrators and I doubt that the resignation of the arbitrator with the least support (as the creator of the poll stated he wanted to happen) would be any marked improvement. I think that such a taxing job without any kind of pay is never going to get done with excellence. If we gave them a salary and expected eight hours a day from each I imagine the effectiveness of the ArbCom would spike, however as we don't we can only expect so much. As such I have confidence that they are doing the job about as well as they reasonably can withreal lives and jobs.

There are also other concerns aside from just general lethargy, yes, some reasonable some silly, but to go through them all would require terabytes.

In such situations, where consensus is clearly against me, I would not be taking administrative actions, The best way to get a job done badly is to have someone who does think the job needs doing be its executor. The administrator the interprets consensus of a discussion and closes it kind of becomes the figurehead for the position. Its really not fair to represent a group who's position you do not believe in.

Additional question from Nsk92

13. Could you comment in more detail on your mainspace contributions, such as specific examples of articles you created? (I am asking since your userpage does not contain this info).

A: Pyramid of Sahure, Heitstrenging, Pyramid of Senusret I, Stiefelgeiss, Golden Guernsey, Oxidizable carbon ratio dating, Pyramid of Neferefre, George E. Moore, Patriotic Nigras, Jamnapari goat, Pyramid of Merenre, Robert Furman, Louis Dicken Wilson, Treadwell gold mine. Other pages I have created can be found at this link (warning:takes a long time to load). Outside of articles I have created I have little mainspace experience beyond gnome work. Icewedge (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Townlake

14. Follow up on Q11 - can you imagine a scenario in which it would be appropriate to use IAR as a speedy deletion rationale? If so, would you describe one in brief?

A: I think their should be less room for ignoring the rules in speedy deletion that other areas but there is always room for ignoring the rules in everything. If I ever see the article

6543735824313476565 is a future year. According to the rules of the gregorian calendar it will be a Leap year.

I am deleting it.

I would also speedily delete blatantly illegal material such as an obvious case of child pornography. Icewedge (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Icewedge
• Requests for adminship/Icewedge 2

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

---

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

Discussion

• There is one thing I should explain though. Back in August a checkuser was run and apparently I share an IP pool with a troll, my IP changes every few days randomly from a pool of over 120 thousand. Checkuser showed that I once edited from an IP used by Weburiedourtreasuresinthedumpster (talk · contribs) (In case you were wondering where this exchange took place it was via e-mail). I have pretty strong evidence in my favor though that this account was not me. Just a few hours after Weburiedourtreasuresinthedumpster was editing, I made a couple of edits on this account: if we had shared the same IP at that time I should have been autoblocked but I was not. Icewedge (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• FYI I am a teenager, I will reach the age of majority in 2009. Consider that as you will. Icewedge (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Have to go right now, I will answer jc37's remaining questions when I get back in a couple of hours. Icewedge (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - looking through your last few hundred edits shows solid AfD rationales (whether K or D), solid CSD tagging (looks like everything you nominated for SD is gone), so you're looking good in the areas you want to work in. Donnez le mop. //roux   07:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support WP:WTHN? I've seen Icewedge around a bit, trust his judgment. faithless (^speak) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Trust you'll use the tools well. Matt (Talk) 08:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Without a shadow of a doubt I'll be back to give some meatier reason later if it appears necessary. Regardless, I trust this user to use the tools properly. Protonk (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. I've seen Icewedge edit around, and he does good work, and a quick skim through his contributions shows no sign of any negatives. I support this user, even though his alternate account should have been named IcewedgeHugglesBunnies!. DiverseMentality 08:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
6. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 08:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support, assuming good faith. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I see this user doing good work in the 'pedia as an admin. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I've encountered Icewedge several times, he's a cluefull editor whose views I take seriously. Contribs look good, diverse activities and the only one of your speedies I found that isn't currently a redlink is a close call that needs a complete rewrite. ϢereSpielChequers 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support: Contributions look good and it seems like you could use some additional tools. Good luck. ^Law _shoot! 12:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong Keep Perfectly encyclopedic editor, useful source of constructive edits. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. I already had a favorable impression from what I had seen of him around AfD, and a trip through his contribs only strengthens it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. No red flags in the last four months of your contribs. I happen to agree with the current lone neutral vote though - maybe you were hurried, but your grammar needs attention. Tan | 39 15:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Majorly ^talk 15:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Not one?
15. Weak Support I'm not crazy about promoting underage users, nor do I think "HugglesGoats!" is the most professional username. However, candidate's contributions are good, and (if you will permit me to briefly get on my soapbox once again) it sure is nice to see a candidate who identifies as an atheist while managing to not belittle religious folks. Keepscases (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

    I'm sure that he'd be willing to change his name, if you started paying him ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

    Theres an interesting thought...K50 Dude ROCKS! 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

16. Support you sound like a solid editor, and I think that you would help Wiki more than harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcollins52 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Candidate seems to have clue, user talk page shows no signs of incivility, and I feel comfortable trusting his judgement. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Strong support Because he's 17, i.e. an adult in all but name and this is a self nom.--Patton123 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - I've bumped into his contributions a few times and they've all been high quality. Seems to understand policy very well. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Hello, I am planning to sell my brother-in-law’s internal organs on the black market, so I’ll need to buy a cooler chest, about 10 pounds of ice, a roll of paper toweling...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who is truly good for the heart of Wikipedia. Excellent contributions all around, coupled with healthy doses of honesty, tact, and sincerity. What more can you ask for? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Support for references in userspace. (Im doing an Imatthew here :D). Seriously though, solid edits, good user, decent contribs. Good for me. Andy (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Support All good, no issues, seem to recall granting you (or your sock account) rollback which resulted in pleasing and positive interaction. A couple of errors in gramatical construction in your self nomination does not seem to me to impact on your ability to either use the tools wisely or communicate to others why you used them. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - Your English isn't egregious, so I don't see it being a problem. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong support (from neutral) - The English gives me concerns, but I am willing to overlook that. IMO, Icewedge is an obvious net positive, and I'll be crossing my fingers that this RfA makes it to WP:100. And to tell you the truth, I overlook age, for the most part. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support A clue-full user, has a clean record, and already acts like an admin. ayematthew ✡ 20:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
27. I've been watching you _{(not in one of those creepy ways)} for a while, and was considering a nomination for you by myself. Quality editor. Keegan^talk 20:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
28. Support As per track and concerns of Previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Good user. 'Tis about time. ;0 —Ceran [ speak ] 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Support as candidate seems reasonable in discussions in which we both participated and the one block on his account was quickly undone. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Support I'm sure he'll know how to handle the mop. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 22:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Support No reason not to. Sam ^Blab 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Absolutely — Fantastic editor. Concerns from prior RfA have been ameliorated. At this point, this RfA is no more a formality. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Supports - meets my usual standards, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Please to install FireFox which has a built in dictionary. Very, very handy. Garden. 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Support - trustworthy editor. I agree that using Firefox's dictionary is a help, especially when copy-editing articles. PhilKnight (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Why not?? America69 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
39. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Numerous positive interactions with this editor. No concerns. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Support – has a solid knowledge of deletion policy, and I trust his judgment. By the way, Icewedge, may I also say that having your Huggling done by a separate account was very helpful in reviewing your contributions just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - I trust this user fully, no doubt they'll do great with the tools. Perfect English is not a prerequisite. — neuro^(talk) 01:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. Already tangentially familiar with Ice's work, no issues here. Editor has clue, that's all he needs. Really, it is. Keeper ǀ 76 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. Not a pro with grammar, spelling, or punctuation, but this is an RFA, not an SAT. Icewedge has the skills and knowledge I want to see in an admin candidate. A green light from me. Useight (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
45. support Everything seems to be in order here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Support per many above. More than meets my standards. Review of user talk page allays any concerns there might be about communication skills. Found no evidence of problems on talk page. Civil user interested in personal growth, growing the project, saving articles and helping others. Vanishingly small likelihood of abuse/misuse. Dlohcierekim 05:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
47. Support Yep. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Support - See below comments. ShoesssS ^Talk
49. Support My encounters with him has been very pleasant, and he has been very patient and helpful to me. Not being an adult yet isn't a problem. Do people expect that more grownups surf the web than teens? Leujohn ^(talk) 10:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - this user does good work over at Huggle, and I would trust them with administrative tools. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Positive contributor to the project in many varied capacities, and also per answers to the first three questions, and this. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Support a well rounded editor. Crystal whacker (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Strong Support no doubts about this one. I offered to nom him a few months ago, was impressed by the maturity of his response and am very glad to see him finally here. He nominated me in my successful bid for adminship and I'm proud to support him in his now. Viva la Alaskan Cabal! l'aquatique || talk 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
54. Support of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Very respectable. Ray (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Support — Realist² 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. I always thought Icewedge was a good admin candidate, so yes, you will do fine, good luck :-) SoWhy 17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Support - Was thinking of nomming you myself, but you beat me to it. VegaDark (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
59. Support – Definitely. Very impressed with his work. I've seen Icewedge a lot around Wikipedia doing positive work, and I'm very sure he'll be a fantastic administrator. No doubt. – RyanCross (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - yep.   jj137 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
61. Support Good answers to questions swayed me here from neutral.--Iamawesome800 20:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
62. Support - I am impressed with this user's contributions, and with his answers, and would feel comfortable trusting him with the responsibilities of an admin. kilbad (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
63. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
64. Support via thoughtful answer to my question that demonstrates this editor has clue. Also, WTHN and Net Positive apply as well VX!^~~~ 23:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - Good answers, good potential, good luck! gidonb (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
66. Support. Basically everything looks pretty good, substantial mainspace and projectspace record and the concerns from the previous RfA have been addressed. Plutonium27 does raise some valud points regarding shortcomings of the candidate's English but Icewedge indicated that he is aware of this issue and I trust that he will work on addressing it. In fact, since English is not my native language, I am not really in a good position to criticize others in this regard. Overall, a good candidate for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - Makes usefull edits and would be a great administrator :) RoyalMate1 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
68. Support - Seems up front and straight forward. Appears to be in need of the tools. -- Suntag ☼ 06:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
69. Support If what all the other supporters say is true, which I believe it is, then you will be an asset to the community with the tools, also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Seen him around; good editor, no concerns. I think he'll make a good admin. Chamal ^talk 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
71. Support. →Na·gy 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
72. Support I have no doubts that he'll be a great admin. LittleMountain5 00:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Sorry I'm late! Good user=good admin. Malinaccier (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
74. Support You have a bright future ahead of you. just make sure you don't abouse your powers ;) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
75. Support. I have spoken to this user in the past, and I do not see how his knowledge of English will be an issue. Good, trustworthy user who is worthy of adminship. Best of luck! DARTH PANDA^duel 01:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
76. Support. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - Him had good working. --Mopza | Talk 16:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - Thought he already was an admin. Which I guess means he should be. --Smashville^talk 18:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
79. Support based on personal experiences. Spencer^{Merry Christmas!} 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
80. Support An excellent editor who has been an active creator of new and improved content. Alansohn (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
81. Support, net positive. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 21:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
82. Support, the whole spelling and grammar thing gave me a little pause; I don't expect 100% perfection, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask that you proofread your RFA statement before it goes live. That said, it's only a minor thing, and I was not able to find any other reason to oppose this user. No evidence that they'll misuse or abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC).
83. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
84. Support - WP:WTHN? K50 Dude ROCKS! 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
85. Support I've got no reason to think this won't be a good idea. rootology (C)(T) 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
86. Support per what's already been said. Wizardman 18:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose I hate to do this (and being first sucks all the more) but this application is sketchy and the English is unacceptably sub-standard. Perfection is NOT necessary but too many fundamental mistakes give no confidence. The essential reasons for admin proficiency in this area have been emphasized and reiterated time and again. I don't feel I need to investigate the candidate further. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   And per your User talk:Icewedge (no.11 on the page) response to Stifle re your Oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Efe. Picking over a marginal inclusion at an WP:AFD and insisting upon it as an adminship dealbreaker is a bit precious when you can barely muster a cogent application of your own. At the second time of asking. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   And wherein the candidate acknowledges that "(C)oncerns about communication skills are a valid reason for hesitation." Plutonium27 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose At this time - However a long intro to a simple question. First, Thank you, and I truly mean thank you for your vandal fighting. When I review your contributions, I see an editor that is committed to the betterment of Wikipedia and that can never be viewed in a negative way. On the other hand, I see an individual concentrating in only one area of Wikipedia, and that is being our front line against vandals. Looking at the breakdown of how you contributed to Wikipedia you have done a fine job with the automated tools provided, such as Roll back and Huggle, as show here, [2]. However, I see limited participation in the areas that I feel are most important to the foundation of Wikipedia, and the basic endeavors of our Administrators is to over see AFD - CSD - and the interpretation and enforcement of Policy. As you stated in your opening remarks, these are the areas you will be concentrating in. In reviewing your contribution history, I see at best minimal involvement in these areas, but you are asking for permission to oversee these areas. My question is why should I give you these rights? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk

   Hello, Shoessss glad to see your back around (I recall you were on a Wikibreak or something?). Thank you for your nice comments :)

   I assume you want an answer to your question so here goes: I think you may have me pegged entirely wrong. Reading back over my nomination it seems I did focus on the vandal fighting but I do have significant experience in other areas, of course editcount is not a measure of a user competence but for what its worth I have (based off this data) 579 edits to the AfD Page Family spread over 395 unique pages, with another ~200 edits to other deletion processes WP:UCFD, WP:IFD, WP:MFD, etc. and 1979 deleted edits, most of which come from speedy deletion work. I would personally consider myself well versed in the deletion realms of WP. Icewedge (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

   • Thanks for your quick response, and also for a new tool to play with regards to edit breakdown. That is convenient. You have more than satisfied my personal requirements and I have switched to support. Best of luck, and thank you for the welcome back. Didn’t realize I had been missed :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose: Having looked at this user's contributions in some detail I found a few edits that I considered questionable and which I was going to raise in the questions section. However, then I noticed that it is this user's second nomination which I feel should have been mentioned from the outset in the candidate's nomination statement. The answer to Matt.T's question regarding the previous nomination leaves me even more dubious as to this candidate. This reads to me as if he has changed his behaviour specifically to get through the RfA, which leaves us with no guarantee that the new behaviour will continue as an administrator. Finally I am concerned as to exactly why this user has two distinct accounts, when he wants us to take the edit history of both into consideration but simultaneously provides no reason for having both accounts in the first place. This would probably be best taken up as a question, but I see no reason to do that now because no answer to that specific issue would change my overall impression. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose based on answer to Q1. I cannot support a candidate who states their unwillingness to use the tools required to enforce WP:PROT policy.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

   People have different ideas about how to control disruption. I think it is good when a candidate does their own thinking, and am not concerned about non-standard views. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   That is all well and good, Jehochman, except that as an admin he will be expected to know and implement Wikipedia policy. If he instead substitutes his own unorthodox (and, I might add, wholly unsubstantiated) view at WP:RPP, that would become a concern of the wider community, methinks. The only reason I didn't make this a "Strong" oppose is because of Icewedge's otherwise good record.  JGHowes  ^talk 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I read his answer as meaning he is not much interested in using protection, not that he would go to WP:RPP and obstruct the processing of valid requests. More likely he will avoid WP:RPP the way I avoid WP:AFD, and the way User:Newyorkbrad avoids WP:RFCU. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   I, for one, stick to the areas for which I requested the tools and avoid other areas. One need not be required to perform every imaginable admin task to be a net positive with the tools, so long as one knows one's limits. Like Jehochman says. Dlohcierekim 16:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose At this time I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral It may seem very petty but the number of grammatical mistakes in the candidate's statements above give me pause. I could certainly understand a few minor mistakes and typos but given the relative importance of these statements I can't help but wonder if these are indicative of either carelessness or a lack of understanding of English. In either case, this bothers me given that written English is our primary means of communication here. I would be most happy to reconsider if the candidate were to acknowledge that English is not his or her first language. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   That is a valid concern and I am afraid that I do not have much to say for myself in that matter. I am not a very good writer; on the PSAT/NMSQT I scored on the 99th percentile for reading, the 97th percentile for math and 64th percentile for writing. Icewedge (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I reckon he just types too fast. I do that all the time and end up spelling "the" as "hte" or "that" as "htat" etc.--Patton123 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   We all do that but there is a fundamental difference between mixing up a few letters and demonstrating persistant cluelessness as to basic punctuation. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Here is some explanation for the question posed in the edit summary and the statement above. Caulde 17:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - initially to support, but after reading some unsatisfactory answers and especially "I doubt I will use the protect button as I don't really like the idea of protection, it is necessary in some cases but I think it is overly used. In most cases the vandals will just go elsewhere and edit warriors will just wait it out" - makes me think this may not be someone suited to adminship. Caulde 17:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   While it does tend to stop edit warriors, protection does cause vandals to simply move elsewhere...blocking of vandals is preffered IMO--Patton123 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Regretful neutral - When I saw how many were supporting, up against the people voting neutral or oppose, I thought that it would be crazy to oppose this candidate. But Plutonium27 makes a valid point; the English is kinda weak. However, honesty, preparation, and careful answers to questions push me to neutral. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 19:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Reading over the answers to questions, I am changing my vote to support. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 19:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral Until all questions are answered at which point I'll make my decision.--Iamawesome800 20:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Will change to support.--Iamawesome800 20:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

   Indenting so that automated !vote tally is correct. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 20:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Neutral, leaning to Support I've had many favourable encounters, mainly the "Edit Conflict" for reverting vandalism. However, as noted somewhere above, anti-vandalism, while a positive benefactor, is not the only factor; in contrast, there are many other, if not more important, factors to consider for a RfA. I would change to Support if enough examples of Image Copyright Violations, Articles for Deletion, and Speedy Deletions (by the last two, I mean inserting an intelligent discussion rather than simply posting something up for it) are shown, however. BTW, in case you do have minimal spelling/grammar problems, simply use F7 on Word. :P Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral, leaning support. Just a few issues with your !votes on other RFAs and per Imperator. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral until the three remaining unanswered questions are answered. JS (chat) 18:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.