Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Thunder

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

Red Thunder

Nomination

Final (32/35/9); Originally scheduled to end 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Thunder (talk · contribs) – WP:WTHN. 12 admins have resigned over the past month, and I think that Wikipedia needs at least a few devoted new administrators to help out with the growing backlogs and administrative tasks. My username here is Red Thunder, and I have been an editor here for 1 year and 5 months. It's been eight months since my last RFA, and I personally think that it's time again to put myself up. I believe that adminship is not an award, more so a chance to help Wikipedia by doing different tasks. I have an edit count of 15,000 or so, about half being to the mainspace, and have worked in the fields of NPP, AFD, and AIV over my time here. I believe that my contribution to Wikipedia as an administrator would be a net positive and reliable one. R.T. 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I'd like to start working in the areas where I've had the most experience as a user, being AFD, NPP, and AIV. I have read over and have knowledge of the necessary policies and believe that I could help out in those areas. After I became experienced, I would probably venture out into some areas that I have had less experience with, such as RPP and RM.

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

A: I would have to say that my best contributions to the encyclopedia are the articles that I have had a major role in writing in (examples: Ivan Rodriguez, List of Heisman Trophy winners, The Office (U.S. season 2), and Tornadoes in the United States). After all, we are here to build a global collection of all human knowledge, right? In the non-encyclopedia areas, I have probably been most active and had my best contributions at AIV, but have also had good contributions at AFD and have done newpage patrol.

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 to admit that I have not been any conflicts with other users, but have seen a lot go up around me. A few months ago, I adopted a user who soon befriended a group of users, who were all underage. They got into an argument with another user about whether age should be a factor in adminship, which they tried to pull me into as their adopter. I stayed out of the whole thing and told my adopted user to calm down. If I were in a conflict, which I know administrators are in a lot, there would be many options. I could find a reliable third party user to help settle it, bring it to the Mediation Cabal, or try to settle it peacefully with them myself.

Additional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

4.' Is there a difference between wikipedia policy and the content of policy pages?

A: There is a difference between the actual policy and the content on the pages. The actual content on the pages are not necessarily the exact policy if it prohibits you from making the encyclopedia better. I view the policy as set standards that have earned a consensus abound the community to abide by, and the content pages as explanations of that set standard.

5. What impact, if any, does WP:Edit warring (as opposed to WP:3RR) have on wikipedia's content?

A: To the average reader, edit warring may have an impact on an article. As an example, let's say that Reader A is reading an article to use as a source for a report. The article is in an edit war between User X and User Y, who have different opinions about what should be included in a section of the page. Reader A may return to the article more times to find that he first saw User X's version, but saw User Y's the next day. This may cause confusion throughout the average reader, since they most likely do not understand edit warring. The impact on Wikipedia's actual content is that it may vary over a few days. I believe that it is an obvious negative impact on Wikipedia, as its content may change due to opinions during an edit war.

6. If WP:Consensus means that truth on wikipedia is purely social, what do you think are the implications for wikipedia's perception and authority in the wider world of the readership?

A: I do believe that consensus means that Wikipedia's truth is purely social. Wikipedia is like no other project created before, in which thousands of users collaborate over a universal project. Wikipedia must prove that it can be trusted to gain a good perception in the eye of the average reader, through article verification and the use of more reliable sources.

7. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP

A: This is a violation of BLP because it is negative material about a living person in which an unreliable source (the link) is given to back up the claim. This claim is also an opinion, and can not be sourced to a reliable site.

Additional question from Ironholds:

8.In what situations is it appropriate to use non free-use images of living people?

A: It would only be appropriate to use a non-free image of a living person or group of people is when their notability began in the past, and no free images are available of their past appearance. In this case, a non-free image of the past appearance of a living person or group of people is acceptable to use if no alternatives are available.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

9. I'm a bit confused at your answer to question #3. Could you please elaborate?

A:

Optional questions from PeterSymonds (talk)

10. I remember deleting a number of your Radio Wikipedia episodes because they were derivative copyright violations. Do you understand derivative works now?

A: Yes, I do understand derivative works now. A derivative work is when a person uses the work of another person, copyrighted or not, in their work. If a Wikipedia user uses a copyrighted work as a derivative, it is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore should be deleted.

11. How have you improved from this review by Dweller in mid-~~December~~November?

A: During Mid-December, I took a Wikibreak up until two days ago. Over that time, I began to think about the things that I could do to improve upon what I was doing, as I had "hit the wall". I began participating in AFDs more often to gain experience in administrative areas of work, and soon will begin to start with speedy deletion again. I did not want to call in some of my "harshest critics", because I had thought of ways to improve myself.

Optional question from Dank55: 12. Pick your favorite policy discussion, and tell us what role you played in defending or changing the policy.

Optional question from Graham Colm: 13. Hi, thanks for offering to serve as an administrator, I hope you find these discussions helpful and friendly, what are your views on the concept of Featured Articles and the WP:FAC process?

Optional questions from K50 Dude the great: 14. What would be the FIRST thing you do when you became an admin?

15. What would you do if an administrator was making mistakes? What would you do if someone told you that you were making mistakes?

16. Is Wikipedia your main hobby? If so, how did it become your main hobby?

General comments

Links for Red Thunder: Red Thunder (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/Red Thunder before commenting.

Discussion

Support

Support I'm sure this user will be an even greater asset to the project as an administrator.--Patton 123 13:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ehh, no issues. Might change depending on questiony-answery-things. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per positive interactions. aye matthew @ 14:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Great user, could benefit from the tools. Sam ^Blab 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak, after reading question three. RT, you're a great guy, but you were definitely involved in the conflict more than that, even starting the AN/I thread. Sam ^Blab 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Knows his way around Wikipedia, gets along well with other users. Sobar Talk 14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong editor, so I have not doubt he'll use the tools the right way.--Iamawesome800 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just gives him the darn tools already? Wizardman 15:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been a rough road, but my feeling is that this candidate has arrived at a point where he can be trusted with the tools - and may be better for the travails in getting there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supportsame reason as Iamawesome PXK ^T /_C 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong SupportRed is one of the best editors there is. I can no doubt guarantee he will be a posotive for the project and use the tools wisely. Andy (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see anything particularly troubling about this candidate. If he's conservative with his use of the tools and continues to study up on policy, I'm sure he'll be an asset as an administrator. AniMate^talk 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support as per AniMate Spudinator (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)_{Changing to oppose}[reply]
Support - I think Wizardman said it best. jj137 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:WTHN and per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from Neutral after five months, I can forgive him. Prompted to switch !vote mainly because I strongly disagree with many of the Oppose !votes; once you have been here long enough, I don't see moderate inactivity as a problem. Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - having scanned through his edits (and then spending a few hours mulling it over) I am happy that he is able to interact with the general wikipedia community - including the development and use of a new welcome template - in an appropriate manner. I also see appropriate use of the user warning templates. These two are essential for NPP and AFD. His mainspace edits are also of a high standard. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support 8 Months is a long time on Wikipedia, even if it contained a wikibreak the candidate was active for several of those months. Nearly 15,000 edits with no blocks should be more than enough to earn our trust. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 11:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – as a previous nominator of Red Thunder (née Stormtracker 94) I am aware of his ability to work well with other users and perform tasks to a reasonable standard. There is nothing concerning about his edits, in my opinion, and I am surprised that the opposition raise "inactivity" as a reason for denying a perfectly acceptable user from gaining the bit – I can see no concrete evidence (in the contributions, or in the opposition) that would suggest any considerably detrimental has occurred in that time. Surely if there is no diff nor evidence that can be provided, there is no basis for the oppose? Caulde 15:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The only issue I see is a faulty understanding of derivative works, which can easily be straightened out. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell not. Is a good, productive editor who only wants to help. What more could be asked? Garden. 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell not? VX!^~~~ 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --B (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous three supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I've always thought of you as a good editor and I'm sure you will do well as an administrator. Your inactivity is a little worrying, but it's honestly nothing to sink an RfA over, especially when I know you already have clue. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good luck (next time, at least?), Red Thunder. · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gets along well with other users. Doesn't abuse his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I have no doubt of his commitment to Wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I trust him completely with admin privileges. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - is there a reason not to? 2 D ^C 18:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long string of WP:WTHN's over on this side, which is fine, but when the candidate is (at the moment) losing the vote, WTHN is neither likely to make the candidate feel warm and fuzzy, nor likely to win over the opposition. Reminds me of Chris Rock's observation that he's been hearing "I've never been in jail" in pick-up bars lately, and he wonders when standards got that low. We also haven't heard anything from the candidate for a while. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support- I feel as tho the answers are on the weak side, but I see nothing to fear that the user will abuse the privilege of the extra tools, which is what it all comes back to, in my mind at least. Good luck with the rest of your wiki career, admin or not. ~ Arjun' 20:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This won't pass, but I decided to offer my opinion anyways. Overall, I don't see any red flags that assert this user will abuse or misuse the tools. Would advise reconsidering the answer to Q8 - non-free images of living people should not be used, even if the image comes from the time they were popular. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support WP:WTHN? K50 Dude ROCKS! 04:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support At least moral support. Here's to you having more success if there is a next time.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 09:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support - you'll get there, just give it time and patience. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose per inactivity over the last few months, especially in areas he hopes to work with with the tools. He has three edits to AIV since the end of August. Red Thunder also says he works in new pages patrol which would suggest having a bunch of speedily deleted edits but he only has five deleted edits that were speedy deleted since August 25. I'd like to see more sustained activity over the next few months before I support, either way (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, in particular, would recent high activity make you more confident in the nominee? He's still making an average of about two edits per day, so it's not like he's losing touch with how Wikipedia works. rspεεr (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's not demonstrating that, though, particularly in areas where he desires to work as a sysop. Additionally, he says we need more devoted admins and that's the main reason he is running, but his recent edit history doesn't seem to support him being a "devoted admin" should he become one, either way (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your answer to question 3 is almost shoving the blame for your past behaviour on everyone else. You say "I stayed out of the whole thing and told my adopted user to calm down", but from Icewedge's link, you were actively participating in it. I'm also concerned by your inactivity. Mid-December you felt like you'd "hit the wall", took a long break, then came back to run for RfA. Sorry, while I can understand this in a way, I'm not seeing much improvement since Dweller's review. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that he was an active participant as he did stay out of the ANI discussion mostly, but he did indicate that he was in favor of the users ban and did nothing to stop the personal attacks. If a user comes to your talk page with a personal attack in their topic summary, you should at least tell them to knock it off, even if it is a friend, RT. Icewedge (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "actively participated" is a bit misleading on my part, but what I meant was that supporting the ban (on an issue that was 1) a rather trivial issue and 2) an issue on which he was obviously not a neutral party) doesn't give credit to his answer to question 3. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this indication of support? On the link you've provided below, Icewedge, RedThunder provided some diffs and stayed out of the discussion entirely. That's not really inflaming the situation. If I'm missing something, which I almost certainly am, please point it out. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To back up what PeterSymonds is saying, there is also this thread that Red Thunder started. So there does seem to be more than just adding diffs to the one thread, either way (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What Peter said, but inactivity doesn't matter too severely to me. — neuro^(talk) 15:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, answer to Q10 is incorrect. — neuro^(talk) 18:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many requests in a short period of time, to quote Kurt Weber on the matter, I believe making 4 requests in a year is "prima facie evidence of power hunger". I'd say wait at least a year, just like John does, and if you don't do that then I most certainly cannot support. — neuro^(talk) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You don't seem to be as familiar with image policies as I would like. I disagree with your answer to question eight, as I feel that is not always the case by any means, but I also feel there are other cases where non-free images of living people would be acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. User needs more time since coming back from break to prove trustworthiness with the tools. The long string of previous RfAs still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. GlassCobra 17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All 5 opposes above mirror my thoughts, as well as Sam/Shapiros10's Support #4. However, RT is an experienced user and a good guy, and I'm open to changing my vote if the candidate and/or supporters can meet the burden of proof that his strengths outweigh the points brought up so far. Besides, RT has done a lot of good things around here, and I'd enjoy reading more about him. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now, pending the answer to my question. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, per either way. Too much inactivity in the last months. —_macy^{es: bot} 18:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per concerns noted above. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the answer to the question 3 and fifth attempt for adminiship without much improvement.--Caspian blue 22:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Far to many requests for the tools in a very short time. I'd consider supporting your next RfA if you waited at least a year before trying again. John Sloan (view / chat) 22:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose My first and only real interaction with this user was from his time at Radio Wikipedia. His involvement with regards to using copyright material in recordings subsequently released into thdontblic domain which really questions my trust in thialieviateving even a basic understanding of copyright. I dont ask for in-depth knowledge and will say that did alieviate some concerns with the subsequent use of CC and PD material in the set up of another podcast. However I really need to see some long term proof that this user has learnt since then. This user has done some content work but I think that a good dose of clue is isntly needed. Having an RfA 2 days after a relatively long wikibreak when there have been multiple rfa's before probably isnt the greatest of ideas. The length of time since the previous rfa was much better but you need to be looking at things from all pov. This tied in with the lapse of clue with the copyright just make me concerned that there are gonna future lapses of clue. My suggestion right now is to get back into the areas your good at, give 4-6 months solid work, along with that start branching out even if only a little (prehaps into DR, of which your more than welcome to help out with a case at medcab), then I will look at how things have gone and If i am happy, you have an open offer from me to nominate you. But i will only do so If i feel that you ready. Seddσn ^talk 23:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Good user, but too much inactivity ~~and too many requests for adminship lately.~~ LittleMountain5 ^{Happy New Year 2009!} 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too many requests for adminship lately? Are we only allowed a certain number every given period of time? GlassCobra 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His last RFA was back in April... I'd say that's a good amount of time between RFAs. · AndonicO ^Engage. 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize his last RfA was all the way back in April, but I still don't feel confortable supporting him. Little Mountain 5 18:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Answers to several questions suggest to me a superficial understanding of WP policies, protocols, and standards. Specifically: #3 and #4 both seem muddled; #5 seems incomplete and superficial; #6 doesn't really seem to answer the question; #8 appears to be incorrect; and finally, #11 just seems rather naive, to suggest that one can participate "in AFDs more often to gain experience in administrative areas of work" in 2 days. I believe that some of the cited answers may have seemed weak perhaps due to just a problem the candidate has with expressing himself. Looking through the candidate's edits supports this suspicion, I do see some minor problems with syntax and clarity. This, to me, is a problem since an admin must be able to express his stances effectively in order to be effective. -Seidenstud (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PeterSymonds and Neurolysis, who summed it up quite well unfortunately. The Helpful One 13:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PeterSymonds and Neurolsis. Spudinator (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PeterSymonds — JoJo • Talk • 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry to say at this time. The reasoning is not for your lack of inactivity in any given month. God knows that real live always seems to interfere with what we like to do versus what we have to do. And all to often people forget we are all just volunteers on this project, and Wikipedia should not be the be the end all of our life’s. Likewise, my oppose does not deal with the drama that you have been involved with. If you are involved with Wikipedia long enough or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, we all get sucked into it. My oppose is based on a lack of policy knowledge. Just two days ago you were involved with an AFD, an area you stated in your opening comments that you wanted to participate in as a administrator. The particular AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern School, Lucknow. Your initial opinion was to delete this article, stating that the piece was “…Clear advertisment (sic) and complete violation of NOPV. Does not establish notability‘’. Though the piece was a bit spammy, it clearly did establish notability in the opening statement. My understanding of policy with regards to AFD is that the reasons you stated are not valid reasons for deletion. In fact, I believe it is mandated by policy to clean-up the piece, and than and only than, if the piece can not be savaged to delete the article. The result, of the AFD was snow keep in that it only took 5 minutes to clean up and properly reference. I would hope that an administrator or an individual hoping to become administrator would have recognized this. My suggestion would be to review policy and guidelines, especially in areas you want to participate in, stay involved for three months and you should have no problems gaining consensus of the community to weld those extra buttons. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Answers show too much fence-sitting and too little policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't like the idea that there are more admin needed because a few resigned. That makes me wary. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with trusting this candidate with the tools or not? aye matthew @ 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poor justification for the need of the tools. I'm one of those believers that adminship is an important thing and that people need a very good reason. We should want quality, not quantity. The above introduction seems to suggest the opposite. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Per answer to question three, which, to me, qualifies as question dodging. Better to say "I have no bloody idea what I would in a conflict," rather than the cryptic "I could find a reliable third party user to help settle it, bring it to the Mediation Cabal, or try to settle it peacefully with them myself." ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I am not confident in the candidate's grip on policy. For example, the answer to Question 8 is not only wrong but confused (the notability of anyone, by definition, begins in the past!). TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Q3/Q8, and having recently hit the wall; adminship will likely be a cause of additional stress for this user, and through 5 attempts at passing an RFA, I would have expected a better grasp (or better explanation) of policy in response to the questions. I also am concerned by the user's statement that he wants the mop to help out with the backlog, yet the areas he said he will work in do not have backlogs, nor do the ones he says he would venture to next. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like his answers, he's premature to the adminship --Mojska (m) 11:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- The candidate seems reluctant to answer the optional questions. This is not a problem in itself, but I'm opposing until I see answer to question 15 (which I think is a good question). What would you do if you were told that you had made an administrative mistake? Graham Colm ^Talk 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say it's reluctance per se; it's more that he hasn't edited since 14:25, 1 January 2009. That speaks to my concern in the first oppose about the periods of inactivity lately, either way (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A few months ago Red Thunder was part of a group of young editors who were fighting over their Radio Wikipedia project, running to ANI like it was their mother, [1] [2] asking for admin intervention, for people to be topic banned from the Radio Wikipedia project, bickering on talk pages and so forth. I'm afraid it's going to be a long time before I'm convinced any of that group have matured enough to be suitable for consideration as administrators. Sarah 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sporadic inactivity doesn't matter and shouldn't for any prospective admin; even if someone takes off every other month entirely, good for them, if we get a good admin 6 months of the year. Adminship costs nothing, so it's still a +6 month benefit for the project. But, overall, I don't think Thunder is quite ready just yet. rootology (C)(T) 16:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Symonds above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per PeterSymonds. America69 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inactivity doesn't bother me, answers to the questions do - candidate needs stronger policy knowledge. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am unconvinced that he has a good understanding of policy. --Kaaveh (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Immature admins cause all sorts of trouble. Friday (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you please elaborate on what you mean by immature please. To me user shows no such behavior. :) Andy (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah's comment above reminded me that I had encountered this editor before. I observed the same behavior she describes above. Also, I realize that simply knowing an editor's age is no substitute for actual observation of immature behavior, but since he's very young, I don't suppose the immaturity is unusual behavior. Rather, I assume it is the norm. There may be some editors who would say "But he's quite mature for his age!" Well, maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But mature for a young kid is not the same as being actually mature. I expect Wikipedia editors to be able to behave like reasonable adults, almost all the time. Anyone who cannot do this should not be welcome here. Way too much time is wasted on childish nonsense. I have no confidence that this editor can behave like a reasonable adult. In 10 years or so, I'd be willing to take another look. Friday (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC) PS I also note that maturity concerns have commonly been raised in previous RFAs for this editor. So, while I only know one specific example from my own memory, I assume many other examples exist. Friday (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, that was a lot of help, and now come to think of it, I have seen quite a few RFA's where users have failed either because they are too young or immature. Thanks again. Andy (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the Radio Wikipedia debacle Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - From the start, I didn't have a good feeling about you. The whole "since a bunch have quit, pick me up" idea rings of a 'I wouldn't get adminship otherwise' ideology that I'm not too comfortable with. Plus a lot of vagueness and deceptive practices I don't quite trust. bigjake (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deletionist tendencies. AfD hero (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for being in support of the ridiculous topic ban request for StewieGriffin! and exacerbating the overall drama of the situation. Icewedge (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was six months ago. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six months is still relevant---depending on the issue, it could take a year to redeem oneself.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six months is a long time to hold a grudge on a user for such a minor fault. Providing diffs on an ANI thread isn't really that bigger deal, even if it does suggest support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken per my Support !vote. Icewedge (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User is almost, but not quite, named after a Galaxie 500 song. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The candidate's vices and virtues appear to be evenly balanced, so I think might park myself here for now. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, not too confident now, but can't bring myself to oppose as the candidate shows what looks to be a genuine desire to improve. I think a future request could be successful a few months down the road. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Neutral --69.1.153.88 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IP editors cannot !vote. In addition, how do you get a 'strong neutral'? 'I have strongly decided I cannot decide.' Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have "strong neutral" from IPs lately, see Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial#Neutral OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I would like to see the answers to some of the pending questions, and fuller replies to some of the users existing responses. kilbad (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, would be able to support, but for recent inactivity. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral. Support for having never been blocked and for awards and good/featured credits on user page, which demonstrate working well with others and efforts to contribute to the building of our project. Moreover, the nomination rationale seems well-intentioned. Also, good arguments included [3] and [4]. Oppose per [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11] per WP:PERNOM. Most importantly administrators will likely close discussions and so we need more insight into their logic and interpretation than simply voting rather than arguing. Of additional importance is that when considering the good faith contributions of our colleagues we need to show them the courtesy of thorough consideration of their contributions, not simple votes. So, due to the split of some good positives, but some concerns with the above examples, I am on the fence, i.e. neutral. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Red Thunder has generally good contributions. However I am unconvinced that he has a good understanding of policy. He seems to be unaware of "Ignore all rules". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Unfortunately, Red Thunder seems to be that generic AfDer (like me) who just doesn't have enough to push him over the edge. The lack of activity doesn't scare me, but the raw amount of RfAs combined with the sketchy AfD work doesn't impress. However, there isn't anything negative about this user, so I cannot oppose either. Thanks and best of luck in your future endeavors! DARTH PANDA ^duel 04:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I really wanted to support you, but the opposes makes me have to go to neutral on this for now. One thing I'm not very impressed with are your repeated "per nom" !votes at AfD that A Nobody (talk · contribs) pointed out. AfD is a great place to see if someone really knows policies on articles, but doing "per nom" !votes doesn't show me much or proves you really know policy or not. I don't see any or much evidence that proves you know policy related to articles, so I can't support, though, I know you'll do fine in other areas you have more experience at, so I can't oppose, so I'm a sitting duck here at this point. And the inactiveness? I do have to give that a little weight, so that's another reason why I can't support fully. People do tend to forget policy and experience through inactivity (I've seen it), so it's a bit troubling to come back and go for RfA right away out of inactivity. Though, work at it, I know you'll be able to improve. — RyanCross (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2009 (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.