Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TParis00ap

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

TParis00ap

Final Tally (47/35/13); Ended Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:55:08 (UTC) by Avi

Nomination

TParis00ap (talk · contribs) – Hello and good morning/afternoon/evening. I would like to nominate myself for adminship with pure intentions to help the encyclopedia. I hope my contributions can speak on my behalf and I could go on a number of paragraphs on why I feel deserving, but I don't think RfA is about who is deserving. I think RfA is about who is capable and trustworthy enough to do good things for the encyclopedia, and I hope you feel I am. So I'd like to tell you a few reasons I may not be and let you decide.

1. I am a fairly new contributors with only 1996 edits. However, I have indulged myself in not only learning policies and guidelines, but also asking questions so I understand them.
2. I do not have a GA or FA, my best contributions are Cool cap, Colorado balloon incident, and The Faerie Path.
3. I sometimes get a little hot headed sometimes as shown here, here, here, and I was accused of being insulting here.
4. My edits are mostly focused in CSD, which I understand is not a highly regarded field in RfAs, but I try to keep WP:WIHSD and WP:10CSD in mind. I realize they are only essays, but they are pretty good at explaining community consensus as well as common mistakes. I do not feel that all new articles should be speedy deleted if I know they won't pass WP:N, but A7 isn't about WP:N, it is about the assertion of fame or notability, I often PROD instead with my WP:N concerns. I try to save articles when I feel I can such as Crimeface and Mercer_Pottery_Company. I am also trying to propose a new guideline User:TParis00ap/Protecting_Children

Thank you for your consideration.TParis00ap (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the discussion and constructive criticism I am about to receive. Thanks.

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 would like to take part in WP:CSD, WP:AFD, and working on User:TParis00ap/Protecting_Children. As far as CSD, I would like to do my part to provide a little bit of oversight into CSD. What I mean is, if trusted with the tools, I will ensure that when I delete a G2 or A7 article, I am deleting it for the right criteria it is marked for and there is no way to improve the article, getting it right matters. As far as AfD, I already try to improve articles where I can, but I would take on the added role of closing and taking action on AfDs with community consensus. And as far as my proposed policy, I would like to help the oversight committee with an area of Wikipedia that hasn't had any community discussion since 2006. I would like to help keep children safe on Wikipedia without hindering their contributions.

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

A: As I said above, my best contributions are Cool cap, The Faerie Path, and Colorado balloon incident. Not everyone is an artist and I definitely am not. I do my best to contribute to article space, but I am not the most descriptive person nor do I have the best writing abilities. I try to contribute where I can but I am usually only successful at a few good sentances.

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: When I first joined Wikipedia, I was in a conflict with an editor named User:Zephfya. Things became a bit heated, especially when legal threats were made at me. I said my words and when she began blanking the page, I decided to walk away. I've been in a few other disagreements as well, like I said above, but that was probobly the most heated. Since then, I've run into WP:FUCK that I find to be very useful and I recommend it to others wherever I can. I think that essay should be a guideline, it hits a very important point that would solve most conflicts on Wikipedia and greatly improve the encyclopedia.

Additional optional questions from Davidwr

4. You have experience in CSD and are using that as a basis for your RFA. Different non-admins do different things in CSD. Tell us about what you've done at CSD. Do you think your experiences at CSD and elsewhere in the project have prepared you well enough to use the delete tool in CSD without generating more than a small number deletion reviews or a small number of people people thinking "good riddance, so I won't DRV it, but it really didn't meet any speedy criteria, prod or AFD would've been more appropriate"? Why or why not? If not, what steps will you take as you learn to use the tools to prevent too many inappropriate deletions?

A: I see my CSD experience so far going in two directions. The first direction is the standard tagger. I patrol new pages, find articles that meet CSD and tag it as honestly as I can. The section direction I travel is that I check on other CSDers. Wikipedia is built on community consensus and so it never hurts to have another editor review a tag. Often times if I see a {{holdon}} tag, I try to explain to the author why their article has been nominated and encourage them to continue contributing. If I see an article that has been marked CSD which I don't feel meets criteria, I generally decline and either improve the article or nominate it for PROD or AfD. I try to explain on the tagger's talk page why I removed the speedy tag and I hope they realize I do it in good faith and not to spite them. Could I avoid DRVs completely? Doubtful, community consensus involves a difference of opinion and CSD is full of opinions. But I think I tend to WP:AGF as much as possible, I apply WP:FUCK whenever I am unsure, and I try to be honest. I am not afraid to PROD or AfD and mark it on my watchlist, nor would I be afraid to tag and not delete if I wasn't positive I was doing the right thing. Just because I have the tools would not require me to use them and I would defer my questionable judgement to those with more experience whenever I feel I am unsure.

Additional optional questions from Kotra

5. Did you edit Wikipedia prior to creating this account? If so, would you be willing to disclose any account names you used previously?

A: To the best of my knowledge, I don't think so. If I did, it would have been as an anonymous IP because this is my only account. I have editted from 2 IPs while having this account though. One of them is at my office and the other is at my home. My office IP address is removed, but it is a proxy server so I cannot take credit for most of the edits, nor would I want to. I do not know my home IP address, but I would be happy to disclose that when I can get it.

6. Follow-up: thanks for your prompt reply and thank you for your offer, but I do not need current IP account names. I asked Q5 because I notice some of your very first edits were the creation of navbox templates, including your 3rd edit; this is a somewhat advanced, behind-the-scenes part of wiki editing that would be unusual for a new editor to take part in. Do you recall how you came to make these edits?

A: Copy and paste from other templates. I am a computer programmer and I generally do not have trouble picking up new languages or understanding syntax. For example, on a non-Wikimedia wiki [[1], I've already created a bot that cleans up that Wiki. I didn't quite understand all of the {, }, |, and ! at the time, but I understand "group1=" pretty well and I knew I could fill in the blank. I think I used the template from Eragon as my starting ground.

Optional question from Keepscases

7. Do you see anything wrong with the The United States Military Code of Conduct article?

A: I have a lot of trouble answering these types of questions, but I'll give it a shot. The first one that striked me was that it is written in second person. It says a lot of "You" or "your" which suggests WP:OR. The second issue is that after each of the 6 codes, it gives a brief description of them without any supporting WP:RS which again makes me think WP:OR. If I were to have written that article, I would stick with the text of the Code of Conduct and information I could derive from WP:RS including controversy ect.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Ottawa4ever

8.This question relates to images. As a user it would be the type of question i would ask an admin. Consider this situation; An image has been posted on the talk page an article under the context of whether it should be included in the main article. The image is defined as being the own work of the creator taken in a public place. There is no indication whether those on the image have given their permission to be in the photo. The image features several people in embarassing and revealing situations. Consensus on the talk page is that the image has no place in the article and is inappropriate. An individual contacts you and feels uncomfortable with leaving the image on the talk page and would like to remove it. Under what context would you remove the image, would you remove the image?, and if not why? Please cite any relevant policies that you think are necessary, If the question is unclear in any way please feel free to state any assumptions. This is purely an optional question.

A: I would not remove the image and I can't cite policy to support myself. The truth is, unfortunately, I have no experience in images and could not make a reasonable and sound judgement. I am sure I could read WP:Images and make a guess, but it sounds like the relevancy and legalities of the image are in dispute and if I were to tackle that kind of scenario with no experience, I am doubtful I would make a call that would be expected of an administrator. I would likily refer it to User:Accounting4Taste who I have considered my unofficial mentor, or I would bring it to the attention of one of the other numerous admins I have great respect for and could make a better informed decision. I might even search on Commons for an administrator that would be able to answer it better than I. I would most definitly keep tabs on the situation after I've passed it off to another so I would know what to do for next time and have a better understanding of that area of Wikipedia. I hope my answer is not disappointing to you. Sometimes knowing where to get the right answer is better than trying to figure it out yourself.

Optional question from User:ChrisO

9. Do you feel that you can cope with the psychological pressure of adminship, which may include dealing with people who are willing to harass, stalk and threaten you online or physically track you down offline, while coping with the isolation, stress and depression caused by having to deal with petty politics within the admin community and a lack of backup from other admins who are uninterested, unwilling to get involved or afraid of the consequences if they come to your aid?

A: You've asked a really tough question that doesn't have a policy for me to turn to. The reality is that this is a question about how well I know myself and the truth of the matter is that I am a young adult, only nearly in my mid twenties. At my age, do I know myself well enough to predict my behavior in tough positions when I am alone. So how do I answer such a question? Well being in the military, I am sufficiently protected from being tracked down offline. Gate guards with weapons make me feel safe at night. As far as petty policies, my life will be full of them whether on Wikipedia or not. Any working enviroment has policies that not everyone agrees with and the best I can do is put my opinion out there for change and hope that something thinks my opinion makes some sense. As far as lack of backup, if you are strong in your convictions with honesty and truth on your side, you should be able to stand up to any horde. So to answer your question, I would be honest in my opinion, support my answer, and if I become too passionate about a subject, I would apply WP:FUCK until I can come back to a calm and peaceful mind. Wikipedia administrators often take breaks or retirement and I would use breaks and retirements to reflect and redirect my efforts. Of course, at some point I am going to have to realize that if I have no support, perhaps it is because I am wrong. And if I am wrong, I need to rethink my rationale and find a way to support the community consensus.

Optional questions from User:Abce2

10. How would you handle conflicts?

A: I keep mentioning WP:FUCK but I think it is the cornerstone of handling conflicts. I realize several things, 1) We are all here in good faith to build a world encyclopedia of free knowledge, 2) If I cannot remain civil, it may be time to take a break or retirement to calm down, 3) I do not own articles or edits. I do not feel a single conflict would cause anyone to lose respect for me unless I feared losing respect and so insisted that I be right. Sometimes I am wrong and I am fine admitting that and I think it shows more character on a person when they are wrong than when they are right. I hope my contributions in the past reflect as much. At work, I often tell my friends I am 95% sure on a particular subject. I bring up WP:FUCK because I feel if I can detatch myself from the subject it is easier for me to remain civil.

10aCould you please re-answer the above question? I feel like your going around it. I'm wanting to know what you would do.

A:I'm sorry, I must not understand the question. Do you mean what would I do with a specific event? It depends what the conflict is about. If it was a disagreement on content of an article, I would attempt to reach consensus or invite a third party at WP:3. If it were vandalism, I would warn the user and then do a temporary ban. I really would appreciate it if you would explain the question better because I thought I had answered it well. If it seems I am dancing around it, then I apologize, that is not my intention. I think I have handled conflicts well in the past and I have nothing to hide that would warrant me trying to avoid answering it. As I said before, I would exercise detachment and try to see the other editors point of view. There is really no difference to how I would handle conflicts as a non admin to how I would handle them as an admin. Admin tools do not make me right or give me any authority, so I will handle it the same as I do now. I would be civil, try to see their point of view, support my view with sources and appropriate policy, and seek additional opinions from nuetral parties as I've done in the past. If that isn't sufficient, could you please explain the question or put it into context for me?

10bWhat about editor to editor conflicts?

A: So you mean between editors that don't include me? As in I am the 3rd party? Well in that case things get complicated. Since I am coming from the outside, I likily do not know the history of the conflict. Last revisions do not always give an accurate picture of the conflict either. So I would likily have to go through each revision step by step to get a good picture of the conflict. Then the question is if I can help in resolving it, am I qualified? If it is an issue of civility or 3RR, I can apply the appropriate warnings, offer a cookie, and promote civility and remind editors of the appropriate policy. If both editors are acting civily, I would ask the editors to explain their positions without referencing the other party and then try to devise a consensus. If it came down to determining who was right, I could only do that in an area I am knowledgable. If I was not knowledgable, I would seek help from other editors that are more familar with the pertenant policies and guidelines. If things were completely uncivil or 3RR was happening and would not cease, I would warn and then block for a short period of time to get the editor(s) to cool off. If one of the editors proceeded to attack me or vandalize my user page, I would see additional help from other administrators. At the very most, I would try to be calm, civil, and transparent in my actions and remain as nuetral as possible. I would stay detached from the article and subject itself and focus on the problem only. I would encourage the editors to work together on other articles or projects and remind them that disagreements do not have to have negative outcomes, they can have very positive outcomes as well.

Questions from FASTILY

11. Would you ever consider blocking a registered user without any prior notice or warning? If so, why?

A: I was going to say yes initially, but my explationation for the reason I would do it ended up including repeated vandalism which would have warnings I would expect. So I can not think of an instance where the user would not be sufficiently warned. WP:AGF requires me to believe that even a vandal may not know they are a vandal and they are actually just a confused editor. Of course, not all edits are easy to WP:AGF, especially when someone changes a WP:BLP to "This person sucks", but they may just be testing their capabilities and might not expect their contribs to go immediately to print, per se. Perhaps username violations that are for promotions or threaten someone should be blocked, but even then I would like someone to be given a chance to rename an account.

12. Can a non-free image of a living person be used in an article when a free alternative does not exist? Explain.

A: No. If a person is living, there is still an opportunity to get a free image.

13. The Licensing policy of the Wikimedia Foundation requires that all content hosted on Wikipedia be free content. If this is the case, then why is non-free content even allowed on the project? (Let alone hosted on the Wikimedia foundation's servers) Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's policies? Explain.

A: No, it is not a violation. Wikipedia's main goal is to be a non-censored neutral world encyclopedia. It is also a goal to have all content freely accessible, but if it is beneficial to the encyclopedia to have non-free content and it can be legally done under the BCPLAW, then it is not a violation of policy. Editors cannot put Wikipedia in legal trouble, that is not only a guideline, it is a highly enforced rule. However, if by following the law on fair use of non free images we can improve a readers understanding of the article or subject, it should be done. Each project has it's exceptions to the free content requirement.

Optional question from Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Hi there TParis, I'm lucky enough to have interacted with you, and you seem interested in CSD work. Hopefully these questions will allow myself and others to understand your knowledge in this area. Thanks

14a A new page is created with the content "hi im nichoals jameson, i ws walkin down the stret tday, and I wlkd int a lampst LOL! i <3 cake. later!", does this page meet (a) CSD G1 (b) CSD G2 (c) CSD A7 ? What CSD would you delete it under (if anything), and why?

A: Well it is not G1 because it is readable to some extend. I would have to say I could go either G2 or A7 on this one. In the past when I encounter these articles, I generally mark them A7 about a person that doesn't make any claim to fame or notability. However, it could also be a G2 and the user is testing their abilities to edit the encyclopedia. But because it is about themselves, I think I would lean more toward G2 as a test edit. If it were about their girlfriend, uncle, grandma, teacher, ect I would lean more toward A7.

14b A new user is creating a number of pages with "#REDIRECT [[Good Automobiles.com]]". The user has no edits except these page creations. What actions would you take?

A: Well it depends if Good Automobiles.com is a website deserving an article. I am going to assume you mean the Good Automobiles.com articles has already been A7d. I would start with warning the user and marking the article as db-spam. I would make an attempt to educate them on Wikipedia:Notability_(web) as well. If their username had a COI, I would also let them know and suggest they request a change. If they continued to spam, I would eventually report them to ANV and request a short block, or an indef block if their username was only meant for advertising.

14c There is a new user doing a number of good CSD tags, but not warning the creators of the articles, or marking the article as patrolled. You decide to tell me how to do this on their talkpage, write the message you would leave as your answer:

A: "Good morning/afternoon/evening! I noticed you have begun speedy delete work, welcome to the dark side. Although you've done some excellent marking, I noticed that you haven't notified the users of your tagging. It is important that users are notified for two reasons. 1) Is that the user is given ample opportunity to redeem their articles, at least long enough to save it from CSD. Perhaps they will get deleted anyway, but that will be for the community to decide. 2) You want to educate editors about what articles need to survive. If you let them know what they've done, you'll probobly not end up tagging more of their article later and you may be able to help a future valued contributor. It is really easy to do, speedy delete tags tell you exactly what to copy and paste to the user's talk page. I also recommend adding {{firstarticle}} to their page if they are brand new users. In any case, good work and happy editting. Thanks--TParis00ap (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)"

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

15. I get two distinct impressions from this RFA so far. One is that you are a little inexperienced in some Wikipedia policies, the other that you are a fairly quick study and eager to learn, so let's put it to the test: You haven't mentioned that you would be interested in working at WP:UAA, but let's say it was horribly backlogged one day and an call for help was posted somewhere and you decided to try your hand at it. Based on your understanding of Wikipedia's username policy (as I've implied, you should give it a quick read of course before answering) how would you handle the following reports. If your decision would be to block, please indicate whether hard or soft blocking would be appropriate:

User:Jimboisabitch, violation because it's offensive (user has no edits whatsoever)

User:Nipplepedia , violation because it's offensive (user has a few edits which are clumsy, but not vandalism or other disruption)

User:XYZISP, violation because it's a promotional username (user has created a user page blatantly promoting an internet service provider called XYZ, this is their only edit)

User BigBobsUsedCarsMichigan, vilation because it's a promotional username (user has created both a spammy user page and article with the same content, and has added links to the Big Bob website to several other articles)

A: I've encountered username issues before so I am somewhat knowledgable in the username policy, but not incredibly. I did review it before answering your question though so I will try to answer this as best I can.

• User:Jumboisabitch - (Sort of cheating, the other contributors to my RfA have pretty much answered this one for me) I would issue an immediate block. This would be a disruptive username that would be outright trolling and a personal attack.
• User:Nipplepedia - I would not block this user at all. Nipple is not neccessarily offensive and the user may just be well versed in breast or breast cancer and intends to contribute in good faith. I may suggest the user register under a new name though, because the name may give a bad impression to other editors and hamper this users contributions.
• User:XYZISP - I would first warn the user about COI and the username policy and suggest they register a new username. If they only have one edit, it is not neccessarily in bad faith or vandalism. They simply do not know about NPOV or notability guidelines. I would suggest they register a new account that identified them and not their company.
• User:BigBobsUserCarsMichigan - I would treat Big Bob similar to XYZISP except I might also block for 48 hours to stop the spammy link additions to articles. If after the 48 hours they continued to add links and recreate his article, I would issue a permenant block.

Additional optional questions from Rschen7754

16. Explain in your own words what a 3RR violation is and how 3RR should be enforced.

A: The 3RR is any reverting, with no changes, of a single page (does not matter the space) in 24 hours 3 times. However, a violation does not neccessarily have to match that rule and any behavior that attempts to "game the system" by using multiple accounts, teaming with others, or spacing the reverts out to avoid 24 hours, but deliberately prevents others from editting can be considered edit warring. The 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts before a block. Enforcement depends on the user's ability to communicate their reasons and past edit warring. Administrators are to consider all sides and aspects of the warring. If a user is attempting to communicate with the other party and is covered by an exemption to the 3RR like BLP concerns, they are not considered edit warring. Also, users who are relatively new and are reverting may not be aware of Wikipedia policies and may stop with a simple {{uw-3rr}} warning. Although it is important for a 3rd nuetral party to use the template so they are not seen as being aggressive. If a user has a history of warring or appears to be disruptive to the encyclopedia, they may be blocked for 24 hours as a first block or harsher blocks for repeated behavior. This is not meant to be a punishment though, but as preventative to future behavior.

Additional optional questions from Rschen7754

17. What is your position regarding poor edits that are not vandalism?

A: Editors should always WP:AGF to all but blatent vandalism. Poor edits may be an inexperienced editor that isn't aware of notability guidelines and what constitutes encyclopedic content. If I were to find an editor that was editting in good faith but lacked the experience or policy knowledge, I might suggest they find a mentor. Editors should be encouraged to participate, not be discouraged because of poor edits. Wikipedia is a work in progress and poor good faith edits will be fixed eventually, there is no harm done by poor edits as long as they do not have WP:LIBEL concerns. Appropriate warns should be issued for policy violations and short blocks may be issued if warns pile up.

General comments

• Links for TParis00ap: TParis00ap (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TParis00ap can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/TParis00ap before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk page.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question 11 is only half right while Questions 12 and 13 are just about completley wrong. I get the feeling TParis00ap's policy knowledge is pretty shaky.... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I take that back. 13 is half right. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair, Q12 is a bit of a trick question in the way it's worded; unless you take the meaning exactly as broadly as it's technically worded, most people (well, me at least) will assume it means something more narrow in scope. -kotra (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see Q11 as merely showing a forgiveable and not unreasonable inexperience in admin related matters. I don't see a dogmatic "everyone is entitled to four levels of warning" response which would have worried me. If the candidate gets the tools then sooner or later they are liable to come across a situation where an immediate block is merited, and I see nothing to indicate that they would shy away from applying it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, it was an answer that was focused in the areas I generally deal with. I generally only visit WP:ANV when I need to report someone and I have never needed to report anyone to SPI yet. However, I do see the reasons someone would be banned on the spot and I am not an "Everyone gets 4 chances" type of person. On this user, I reported him to ANV after only 2 warnings, my first warning, because his contribs showed massive vandalism and he was an admitted sock. Regardless of my opinion on the subject though, I am willing to follow community consensus on any subject. I can compartmentalize my feelings and focus on the project's goals and not my own.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be possible for folks to expand more on their opposes or nuetral opinions rather than basing it on my edit count. In the words of MLK, and a little of me, I would like to be judged on the content of my character, not on the count of my edits. If you feel that my edits do not reflect policy knowledge or experience, please say the areas you would like to see improvement so I can improve for next time. If it is just my edit count, that suggests I only need to wait for 2000 more edits to have your approval which doesn't offer me any advice for improvement and suggests that I am ready now in all other aspects. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to thank everyone who participated. It seems unlikily this RfA will succeed (maybe the closing 'crat will disagree, who knows?) as far as everyone else is concerned, but I still feel it is a success. The general feeling I get is that most of you feel I am doing well and either am ready now or will be a good candidate soon but not right now. While I am disappointed, I am not attached to the idea of adminship and there are plenty of things I can do as a non-admin. Some excellent points have been brought up from the oppose side (and from support/neutral) that have sparked my interest in other areas of Wikipedia that I may try out. Am I discouraged that it [may have] failed? Absolutely not. Everyone has been great and fair and I appreciate your comments. You'll be seeing me again in several more months and a few thousand more edits; hopefully mostly in article space. I hope to see you all around, happy editting.

Support

1. Actual honest-to-God (i.e. not "moral") support. RFA is really should really be about two things: trust, and confidence. Trust that your judgement is sound and that you aren't a weasel, trying to get adminship in order to help push a POV, play a MMORPG, look at deleted edits for nefarious purposes, etc. Confidence that you either already know exactly what you're doing, or will cause limited problems while you continue learning what you're doing. After a review of your edits and talk page, you've got my trust; you seem to have the trust of the most of the opposers too. You don't quite have my confidence that you already know exactly what you're doing. However, you do have my confidence that you'll cause limited problems while you continue learning what you're doing; you seem to take constructive criticism well, and I don't see a tendency to get in over your head. I suppose I can understand the opposers' desire to see more experience, so they can have more confidence that you won't accidently break something that will be a bother to fix, but I don't share their concern. 2000 predominantly manual, thoughtful edits are enough for me to have enough confidence to support. You'll do fine, whether it's now, or some months down the road. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per above. Only concern as far as I can tell is that you don't have 25,000 edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to expound upon my reasoning a bit. I think the candidate is a refreshingly trustworthy and productive user who is genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia. I therefore believe it is appropriate to support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I believe 25000 edits and four years service is now the minimum requirement to merit rollback. Manning (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Support per Juliancolton. Adminship is no big deal. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. You know, I'm not seeing anything problematic in the candidate's history. I didn't have all that many edits when I stood for RFA, and was approved; I'd like to think I haven't screwed anything up too terribly. Looking at this candidate, I see a lot of good contributions at AFD (See This AFD, where the candidate added sources and improved the article to comply with policy, and the more recent Russell Blaylock AFD, where the candidate brought cookies in an attempt to calm down what had become quite the contentious debate). There is merit here, and I'm happy to lend my support to the cause. No reservations about the candidate, or his/her ability to properly use the tools for the betterment of the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. While the candidate may not have X contributions they do have enough to determine that they seem to be trustworthy, possess a good judgement and demonstrate that they have made good contributions to the project. I have no reason to suspect that they will mis-use a mop. Shereth 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support - a lot of good contributions. A lot of deletion work, 0 about 40 automated edits. Most users with 3000 edits have about 1000 automated edits anyway...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Not that I wan't to turn down a good support, but I do want to be honest and let you know that I have used NPWatcher and Twinkle a few times. I do have NPWatcher rights.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Not nearly as many as most, though.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Going Neutral--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Support A refreshing candidate. (Oh, and please don't feel compelled to reveal your home IP address. It's not needed.) Astronominov 18:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support. Don't see anything wrong here, edit count doesn't really seem to matter. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Support over a year here, active with 2k edits and no problems/concerns visible, absolutely nothing wrong with the diff provided in the oppose section with how the candidate dealt with another editor. If that is the worst in his history, he is better than many current admins. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Support A trustworthy editor that will make a good admin. Pikiwyn ^talk 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Support in the spirit expressed by Floquenbeam. Crafty (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support: TParis00ap is, as far as I can tell, trustworthy, knowledgable of our policies and committed to improving Wikipedia. I see no reason to deny him the tools. Robofish (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak support - moving from neutral, answers to my questions Q5 and Q6 allayed my concerns. Would prefer more history to scrutinize, but what I have seen seems to show only good traits in an administrator. -kotra (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - Normally I would oppose because you haven't been active for long and you don't have a lot of edits. That generally makes it difficult to judge whether or not there is a basis to trust you with the tools. But I have to admit that the answer to Question 8 pushed me over to support. It's not often that a person in an RfA will actually say, I don't know enough to judge and would pass on taking action. That lays to rest fears that you'd use the tools recklessly, and to me alleviates concerns about your lack of experience. -- Atama頭 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Stephen 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Sure. Use edit summaries more often in the future; other than that, no probs here. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - I don;t see this editor doing anything that will harm the project. I'm sure they'll take guidance while they're new to the tools. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Support After a quick check through I feel as though this user wouldn't harm the extra tools. Solid answers to questions. No problems for me here. Good luck. ~ Arjun 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
17. A name I have encountered recently, but have come to find helpful and friendly. Acalamari 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Looking at this now, I am extremely sorry for the premature closure that I made, as it was almost a snowball, but it seems like you are worthy enough to get the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Strongly weak support. 2000 edits is enough experience in my book, and I really liked the answer to #10. Some more article work would have been nice though. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support The only valid concern I can see here is the relative lack of editing experience. And at 2000 non-automated, it's not so bad. He would seem to be an asset to WP if granted extra tools. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should add that the blank edit summary concerns are also worth noting, and I did. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I've enabled the feature that warns me if I have a blank edit summary. Should clear up the problem once I get some edits with summaries under my belt.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

21. Support No problems that make me feel you'd abuse the tools.--Giants27(c|s) 02:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
22. SupportAnswer to 8 is a good indication to me that experience wont be a problem (In that the tools will not be misused). Good luck! Im sure youll do just fine :)Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support worth a trial with the mop. note to all, arbcom is the place to review misuse of tools, so yes our safety valve is working. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. There are concerns, such as edit summary usage and number of total edits, but since adminship is no big deal, and there are measures in place in the event of an abuse (although I see no evidence that it would be likely here), I give my support. Additionally, your comments about "staying out of it if I don't understand it" is admirable and matches my own sentiments. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support even though he doesn't have the requisite 500,000 edits. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. WP:WTHN sums it up perfectly for me. No major concerns and unlikely to misuse the tools. AtheWeatherman 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Support A8UDI talk 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Could do with more frequent use of edit summaries, but otherwise looks OK to me. Good Luck. ϢereSpielChequers 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per WP:NOBIGDEAL. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Support because the "inexperience" opposes are completely unconvincing. Bald experience isn't what makes for a good administrator, but it's what most of the opposition is hanging its hat on. 2000 edits is plenty; I actually find 2000 a better number than 40000, which indicates someone's too personally invested in the project to be objective. Townlake (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I see the question of adminship as less the declaration of a title than a matter of trust in using the admin tools appropriately. I think you can be trusted not to misuse them. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Seems somewhat less unhinged than the rest of the Wikipedia admins/ Trekkies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Seems like a good contributor. The inexperience concerns seem petty. Warrah (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Support as adminship is no big deal. What he lacks in experience should be made up for in his willingness to learn. He appears (here and in other interactions I've seen) to be generally levelheaded and straightforward. I don't see any indication the tools would be abused. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Support per Nihonjoe. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Support This editor has consistently demonstrated to me his willingness to learn and his desire to understand Wikipedia policy at quite a bit more than a superficial level; he has asked me many questions that indicate his desire to understand "why" instead of merely "how" things are done here. I believe that in performing administrative tasks, he would act by looking for a policy-based justification for his proposed actions rather than on instinct or emotion. Yes, he lacks experience; everyone who isn't an admin lacks experience of how to use the mop, and his history with me tells me that he will approach these responsibilities with the same diligence and thoroughness that he's brought to mastering non-admin tasks. I think this is the kind of person who merits the tools and who will use them diligently to improve Wikipedia. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Got a good head. Knows a lot already and what he doesn't know he'll learn quick enough. The mop ain't brain surgery. Manning (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support: As someone who was recently granted adminship rights with a scanty 3,700 edits and who feels exceptionally grateful that 85 editors found it more appropriate to read my answers to the questions and judge my ability, as opposed to my edit count, I feel compelled in this instance to say that, although I don't have full confidence and although your edit count is very low, I think you are capable and mature enough to do the job well and not screw anything up too terribly. Sorry, that was a really long sentence! Similar to SoWhy, I don't like the lack of use of edit summaries, but I can see from your most recent contributions that you are working on that and I hope you keep it up. I realise that this request for adminship is unlikely to pass, but when we see you back here in a few months, I'm sure you'll have a better chance of success. Maedin\^talk 10:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support: Normally, I require two years experience, for me to support a candidate. I have been on Wikipedia for a year and a half and I am no where near ready for tools (see duped below). However, is brighter than I am and more importantly, he shows a calm, diligence and thoroughness in all that he does. I think this is the kind of person who merits the tools and who will use them diligently to improve Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per how together the candidate seems despite the low edit count, and the thoughtful responses to opposers. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Support of course, because becoming an Administrator is "not a big deal", and as is often said "Wikipedia giveth and Wikipedia can taketh away"...what is the problem with a low edit count??? - Seth Whales (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support switched from oppose The arguments above are extremely convincing. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Moral support This RfA probably will not pass, but the honesty of your opening statement is impressive, and the fact that you can readily point out the shortcomings that the opposers would have pointed out shows that you've obviously done your reading, rather than just barging into RfA. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
45. Support per all of the above. Tim Song (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support good attitude and AfD experience. Seems to be interested in making a few thoughtful edits instead of many automated ones. No reason not to trust with the tools. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Sorry, I know your doing good, but I don't feel like you've, well to put it bluntly, got the experiance for adminship. Abce2|This isnot a test 15:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   A note: my oppose isn't based on the number of edits. Thought I would clear it for people(if there are any...)Abce2|This isnot a test 21:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - While the page says 2000 edits, most people (including me) want to see at least 3000.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Supporting--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 17:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose This edit seems a bit harsh to me. People make mistakes; you don't need to talk to them like they're clueless. I think you will be a good administrator, but are not ready yet. I'd like to note, by the way, that I think the Protecting Children proposal is a great idea. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Understood. I just want to let you know, though, that I've known of Until It Sleeps for awhile and I have great respect for him. I was not intending to be harsh and I hope he didn't take it that way. As I said above, I am not good with expressing words and I sometimes can be seen as harsher than I mean.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I cannot oppose based on a rationale that everyone else here seems to think unfair. My first instinct is to remain in the oppose section but change my rationale, which I understand might look like I'm searching for an excuse to oppose ... I think I rushed to oppose because I had bad associations with your name due to some other edits of yours that I've seen, and I chose to link the one on UIS's page because it was recent and easy to find. This RfA looks like it could be close, so every !vote will matter. I promise to replace my !vote with a !vote I can defend better than this one, but I need some time to think about it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Honestly, I am fine with your reasoning and hold nothing against you for it. Everyone has their own opinion and degrees. If you feel I was being harsh, that is a fair judgement based on your set of standards. There is no reason for you to justify anything greater to me, but I understand if you do it for others.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Soap, you thought that edit was harsh? I actually kind of like it—it's informative, links to Balloonman's page (which I always link to when explaining G1 to people), and gives a reason for things rather than just citing rules. Sure, Until It Sleeps is a mega editor and doesn't need the lesson, but none of us should be immune to getting little notices, even over harmless mistakes. TParis certainly wasn't rude or anything. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't get a chance to look into this more deeply, as I had planned, but I don't want to go on record as opposing over a rationale I said I wouldn't, so I'm going to strike my oppose and abstain for this RfA. I wish you the best of luck in the future. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose, with confidence that if candidate continues on current path, I'd be happy to support in the future. For the record, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the diff linked above by Soap. In fact, I find that comment to be thoughtful, pleasant, and respectful. Tan | 39 15:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Reluctant Oppose You could use more experience, and if you continue what you have been doing, I'm sure you would make a fine candidate. I also agree with Tan on the above diff... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Switched to support Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Also reluctant oppose - Agree with Tan, I don't see a problem with that diff, but I do not feel you have the necessary experience to be an admin just yet. Keep up the work though. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:20, 21 October 20091 (UTC)

   Striking and moving to neutral. You've done good work, I don't think I should be opposing on that basis. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Not quite experienced enough. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose: per Soap "This edit seems a bit harsh to me. People make mistakes; you don't need to talk to them like they're clueless." Admins should not be rude! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure how that post is indicative of rudeness on the candidate's part. That seems like a very polite and productive note to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I am really, really, really sorry! I've been duped! I have to confess that I did not read This. As it turns out I was played false. You were not rude. I was sloppy. i have read though the oppose material and it is very unfair. The facts are you will make a great admin. Time for me to do some penance. 0nce again sorry. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose, per Tan. I don't believe that about three and a bit months of active editing, not at an extremely high rate either, is really enough to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I'd be happy to support in a few months if your good work continues. NW (Talk) 20:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Another False Statement but I will not be duped again! This statement is also totally false " . . . per Tan. I don't believe that about three and a bit months of active editing, not at an extremely high rate either . . . " Please check talk page for the Truth - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   In NW's defense, edits prior to July 2009 were very limited. July 2009 was the first month that TParis00ap had more than 100 edits in a month. I believe that is what he was referring to as "active editing", and that by that criteria there is no falsehood. You may feel free to disagree if you have a different opinion of what is "active". -- Atama頭 22:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I was been played false! "Three and a bit months of active editing" is very, very misleading. Please see the talk page. Also see my comment above. The way this candidate is being treated is very, very, wrong ! ! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I don't see anyone being mean, uncivil, out of line, or otherwise treating the candidate "very very wrong". Just because you oppose an RfA does not mean you disrespect the candidate. Tan | 39 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Nor do I feel I am being treated unfairly. Granted there are a few misrepresented facts, but nothing that is too far from the truth that would make me feel I am being treated unjustly. I would say I have 4 months of high activity rather than 3, but I am not too concerned. The opinions would still be the same either way I would think.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose your edit count, discounting deleted items, actually appears to be 1594. Although I am sure that you are on the right track, this and an experience of less than four months editing means that I feel you cannot as yet have acquired the skills you will need for admin work. But I am sure that in a fairly short time you will do so My error on length of experience. moving to neutral.. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Strong Oppose. per my rfa criteria, I'm afraid I can't support - you don't have nearly as much experience as I would like to see, but you're off to a great start. If this rfa passes, please exercise extra caution in your actions and be sure to read all the policies/guidelines pertaining to administrative areas thoroughly. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Questions 11 and 13 are only half right while Question 12 is completley wrong. I was hoping to be impressed but, well, sorry mate, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose, Star Trek obsessive, probably mentally unhinged. RMHED 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Striking my oppose as your reasonable response has proved me wrong. RMHED 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Glad you got to it before I did. That is completely unacceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see anyone being mean, uncivil, or out of line. The problem has to do with fair play and honesty. The Candidate was accused of being "harsh". The exact quote was "This edit seems a bit harsh to me. People make mistakes; you don't need to talk to them like they're clueless." Another editor stated as follows, "per Tan. I don't believe that about three and a bit months of active editing, not at an extremely high rate either, is really enough to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia." Certainly I could never support such a nefarious dude. However when I looked over his edits over the past year or so, I found the candidate to be kind, fair, calm and definitely admin material who has really learned the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Therefore I have withdrawn my "Oppose". I see other editors have also withdrawn their "opposes". I hope still others will do the same as this candidate will make a great admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC) PS Thanks for striking the "mentally unhinged" remark

   You've found my secret. I was the first in line for the new Star Trek movie's first showing.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   First in line for the new Star Trek movie's first showing! Now I know where I met you before. I was second in line . . . a great movie. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Ohh, you were the guy with the Vulcan ears? I was the guy in the red uniform, I wasn't sure I'd make it out of the theater alive.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Strong Oppose. The candidate's answers to several questions are very troubling. The answer to question 12 is very close to dead wrong. The answer to question 13 lacks substance, and never really gets to the policy involved. The answer to question 11 is not well-thought-out. And the answer to question 7 shows extreme carelessness at best-- the candidate didn't realize (although the article states the point quite clearly) that most of the article text is the directly quoted text of the Code, didn't recognize the issues involved with an article in this form, and inexplicably characterized the quoted text as original research, treating it as original content written by a Wikipedia editor. While the candidate cites his experience in speedy deletion, I look at his contributions and immediately see a gross error in the most recent nomination, where Andrew Warde is nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation [2], even though the source was published in 1910 and is presumptively public domain. When looking at the article work the candidate cites as his best, I note that The Faerie Path consists almost entirely of a lengthy plot summary and related in-universe content, with negligible discussion of the book's reception, sales, sourced critical commentary, etc, and a lede that strikes the tone of a cover blurb. When looking at related articles, I noticed that he on at least two occasions cited a review of this book as though it were commenting on different books by the same author, which is entirely inappropriate. Not meaning to be overly harsh, but this nomination presents a well-meaning but inexperienced editor with an inadequate grasp of important policies, whose editing and article writing shows serious lapses. I would hope this candidate would withdraw the nomination, continue to develop experience in much greater depth, and return next spring, if not later, if interested in renewing the candidacy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the constructive criticism. You are right about the copyvio and I am glad you have caught that. As I've said before, CSD lacks oversight and luckily for that article, someone provided the oversight needed. I would hope, though, that since you caught it, you intend to improve it and not let it be someone else's problem. As far as The Faerie Path, I still would consider it some of my best article work. Like I said above, not everyone is an artist. I do not have the grammar or creative skills to develop a GA or FA article. I often envy those who do. Writing is an interest of mine that I have no skill in. I have several fanfiction and small original works where I've dabled in creative writing, but it is only an interest and not a talent. And as far as the Code of Conduct, as a USAF member, I have never seen the text in that article except for the 6 articles. Never during basic, never during tech training, never during promotion testing, and never during Airman leadership school. While I don't doubt there is some publication somewhere with them, I have not seen it and I would expect anyone to make the judgement I did on first look. If I were interested in Military history, I would probobly have been more aware of the additional publications about the Code of Conduct. As far as withdrawing, I don't see why I would do such a thing. This crit is going to be helpful to me whether or not this RfA succeeds and I am not opposed to more of it. I would hope though that my honesty, integrity, and intentions to help the encyclopedia would be acknowledged and that Administrators often work the areas that interest them. Copyright and images just are not interesting to me. When I encounter such situations, I tend to read the policies I can and make the best judgement with the best intentions I can or I ask someone who knows better than I. File:Colorado_balloon.JPG is an aricle that probobly demonstrates your point about my lack of knowledge of this area. But I hope I've handled it correctly. Thanks for your crit.--TParis00ap (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   I've since gone through that article a little more, not to a great extent, and what I truly feel is wrong with that article now is that it is applying an Army publication to a Department of Defense policy. While I doubt greatly that any other branch's definition of the Code of Conduct would vary greatly, if at all, I would not have used the publication word for word as has been done in that article. The Army is subordinate to the DoD, not the other way around. However, I have grasped your point about my lack of attention to detail, I should have checked the sources where the heading said it was the "Text of." I would, however, argue that it is not the text of the Code of Conduct, it is the text of the Army's interpretation of it of which at the very least the Air Force does not use.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Regretful oppose. Given your I might have supported if you understood policy almost perfectly. But for Q11, something like "Jimbo Wales is gay" or an obvious sock of a banned user can be blocked without warning. For Q12, yes there are cases where it is acceptable, e.g. when the photo documents the person a historical moment. You might be able to create a free image of the person easily, but it will be impossible to recreate an image of him/her in that specific instance. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   I actually encountered one of those users today and I found that he was not immediately blocked; User_talk:Fester_Smith. I of course couldn't tell you if an administrator had seen him before he was warned and reported or not, I do not know the details. But in the area I focus in, I could not find a reason that I personally would enact a block without warns. Of course, I may eventually wander into other arenas of Wikipedia and if I do, I would withhold using admin tools until I understood the guildelines and policies that govern that area.--TParis00ap (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Oppose per 1) demonstrated lack of policy knowledge and 2) not being active enough, long enough. ArcAngel (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   One of the contributors above mentioned that I was careless. I don't think I have been careless in my answers. The truth is I do not have a firm and complete grasp of every policy here. I would be surprised to meet an administrator who insisted they did. Community consensus changes and what may have been policy last year may not be this year. I could go to successful RfAs and copy the answers to the same questions, or I could read the policies and try to give a better answer. But I feel that my honesty is the best course of action during this RfA. This is an assessment of my level of knowledge now, at this point, and I need to answer it with my current level of understanding to give you the best picture of who I am and what I know. I have been thrown a curve ball into an area that I do not participate in and have no interest in participating in. If I were to wander in there, I would be very opposed to myself using the tools there. Just because I do not understand policies on images and copyright, does not neccessarily mean I also do not understand CSD, AfD, N, ect.--TParis00ap (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose Good attitude and a fairly solid history so far. But I think you need a little more experience before I fully trust you with the tools. The intense focus on content like the balloon boy incident troubles me (flocking to controversy is never a good sign) and the last link in your admissions of hot-headed behavior feels like biting a newbie. FWIW, I'll happily support if you can show the same general quality of contributions after another couple thousand edits. Steven Walling 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you. I would not have nominated myself if I didn't feel I could survive the crit with a smile ;). As far as biting the newbie, I was also a newbie at the time (and probobly still am by others perspectives).--TParis00ap (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose Answers to the questions imply that you don't quite have the depth of understanding required of an admin. With a few more months of experience those gaps will likely be filled in. You're a good guy but you're not ready yet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak Oppose per the last few above here. Good attitude, but we'd ideally like to see you gain a little more experience before being granted the tools. GlassCobra 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
12. OpposeNot enough experience, half of the edit count is in the last two months. Off2riorob (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose WP:NOTNOW. The candidate states CSD is his area of expertise and yet provides a link (only a few weeks old) that shows a lack of grasp of the CSD rules in more ways than I could possibily go into here (willing to give guidance outside of the AfD if the candidate wishes however). "You can't put the entire responsibility on the taggers, the administrators actually carry out the deletes...Just because I tag a page doesn't mean it will neccessarily be deleted...This is why I only have NPWatcher privillages and not admin privillages. I'm still learning the ropes while you administrators are supposed to be seasoned veterans...The {{article issues}} tag only means the page will be forgotten and abandoned....I just dont understand the point in using speedy delete tags on pages that are ~30 days old." The answer to question 13 shows the candidate has entirely misunderstood WP:FU, i fhe even knows that guideline exists. I am also not very charmed by the candidates repeated use of WP:FUCK. In short, try again in a year's time. SpinningSpark 19:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure how you suggest I lack the grasp of CSD rules with your quote. I was suggesting in that quote that an article ~30 or older is not neccessarily "speedy" deleted whether the tag is applied or not. Not that it could not be done, only that it wouldn't make sense by the term "speedy". I also was pointing out the relationship between taggers and administrators and how the cooperation can be very successful to proper CSDing. I ideally would like to see Admins not delete a page until another contributor (admin or not) has tagged it. At least some community consensus could be derived there. But I am not completely opposed to Administrators deleting as soon as they see a page, just personal opinion. I am familar with WP:FU although I have not seen that shortcut before. I definitely would not consider myself an expert in copyright law or the Wikipedia policy though. As I said before, Administrators and non-admins focus in areas that interest them. Throwing a curve ball at someone who has no interest in the subject is not really a good judge of their capabilities. As far as WP:FUCK or WP:DGAF, it is an essay that I felt was very thought out by User:SoWhyUser:The_prophet_wizard_of_the_crayon_cake and I think if more people applied it, we could achieve Wikipedia's goals more civily and with more cooperation. It was not meant as a charm, only that it is what I use in many circumstances when I am in a tight spot. For example, I am able to take this crit with a smile and out of friendship because I have detached myself from adminship. If this AfD succeeds, I will be delighted that I can serve the community in a greater capacity. If it fails, I will not be upset or disgruntled, it was the community's wish. In any case, I would be more than willing to take any suggestions you have for my CSD work, you're welcome to bring it to my talk page if you'd like. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    Just by the way, this is an RfA (Request for Adminship), not an AfD (Article for Deletion). MacMed^talk_stalk 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

    Heh, typo. My mind gets jumbled sometimes. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose. You're off to a good start and will likely be a great admin one day. However, I'm troubled by your lack of experience. That, coupled with some of your answers (#7, #12 and #13) don't inspire confidence that you're ready for the buttons. Keep up the good work; I expect that you'll be ready by early next year. Majoreditor (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose I think of the number of edits as an indication that you've gotten to know at least part what is a huge community with many areas of interest. I think that takes time. We can't log your time online at WP but we can get an imperfect measurement by number of edits. I just don't think 2,000 is enough. All the best, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose. Not yet experienced enough. No bar to future RfA.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose albeit reluctantly, as the candidate's answers to the questions appear remarkably thoughtful. As with many others above, my concern is mainspace inexperience -- Samir 07:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose without prejudice I understand that WP:EDITCOUNT should not be taken to the extreme but it is hard to judge a candidate with few edits.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose I am impressed by your thoughtful and honest answers, and your comments on wikipedia policy, especially for someone relatively new here. However, I am uncomfortable with your level of experience actually editing articles, which I think is needed to gain an appreciation of (1) conflicts and issues editors face on wikipedia, and (2) how the policies are best implemented in practice. The good news is that this deficit is easily filled in with more time on wikipedia, and I look forward supporting your candidacy sometime in the future. Abecedare (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    Since the candidate has asked for specific feedback on areas that can be improved, I'll point to his response to Q10b, in which he is quick to look for civility and 3RR issues (which are very easy for an admin to spot, almost robotically), and seems to think that he should remain blind to the content issue ("article and subject itself")! This IMO is exactly the wrong approach to such conflicts; admins are supposed to not only enforce wikipedia's conduct policies but also our content policies - in fact the former policies are arguably a means to achieve the latter. So for example, if two editors are in a conflict and one is adding unsourced and far-fetched claims to an article while the latter is challenging and reverting those additions, it is not sufficient to simply count the reverts, or to see who said "nonsense" or "bullshit" first - rather one needs to familiarize oneself with the locus of dispute at least to some extent, and while trying to diffuse a heated situation, keep our encyclopedic goals in mind. Again, one becomes more familiar with such situations and how to handle them with greater mainspace experience. Abecedare (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    Interesting. Thanks for the additional comment. Point taken.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

20. Per lack of mainspace experience and too many spelling errors in the candidate's contributions on this page. (Sorry, but we are a written medium and should expect a certain minimum level of written communication skills by our functionaries. Please use your browser's built-in spell-checker more frequently.)  Sandstein  18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    Internet Explorer does not have a spell checker, but I understand your point.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    I recommend switching to Firefox, which is free and has a built-in spell-checker among many other advantages. There may be spell-checker plugins for IE, too.  Sandstein  20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    I do have it installed with Twinkle set up, but I often use Microsoft OWA and SharePoint which works much better in IE so I am just comfortable in it. I have no opposition to Firefox, but just prefer IE. Which probobly is why my automatic edit count is so low. Twinkle doesnt work in IE.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose. The lack of mainspace experience (I quote Sandstein) is evident in the answer to, for instance, Q7, which Wolfowitz correctly criticized (and the candidate's subsequent remarks indicate that they still don't see the problem). I don't believe someone should have a certain number of edits, but it helps; if a candidate shows sufficient knowledge without a substantial number of edits, they were a fast learner, but I don't see that evidenced here. If this fails, try again when you have more edits under your belt and a firmer and broader grasp of policy, and especially more practical experience, which helps in recognizing situations that may appear in unfamiliar ways. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose user has no substantial dispute resolution experience. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose The repeated reference to WP:Fuck is, in my opinion, puerile. It’s a short essay. I don’t see how you can switch off and on at will and as an Admin. in a case involving me I think I would probably want you to give a fuck. Also, I’m mystified by your uncertainty around Q10. Leaky Caldron 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure you understand the essay then, it isn't about not caring about building the encyclopedia. It is about not being so attached that you get personally distressed over it. I'm slightly offended by your use of the word "puerile", which I didn't know the meaning of until I googled, could you please refrain from calling me names? If you really knew me, you'd know that is far from the truth. I hope we have a chance to work together in the future and you can find out that is not the case. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    Leaky Caldron isn't calling you "puerile", he/she's calling the repeated reference to WP:FUCK "Puerile".Abce2|This isnot a test 02:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

    I am not sure I see the difference, but it's not worth getting too upset over so I'll just let it go.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose Candidate needs more experience with all facets of Wikipedia before I would consider supporting him. Not nearly enough edits and evidence of superior experience. RP459 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. I think a little more experience would do this candidate some good. I also endorse User:Leaky caldron's comments, above. Coemgenus 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose seems to lack sufficient experience.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
27. I admire your enthusiasm but I have to oppose per Sandstein and others. Please give it a few more months and try again. Ben MacDui 16:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    I admire the way you have dealt with the abusive comments. It has confirmed that you have the cool to deal with problem users. Those who raised concerns about you experience have a point. But some of the other stuff is exactly why we need good admins like you. I hope you have a thick skin and persevere for you will puerile prevail, and this will help Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you! Although I think I asked for what I got.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Leaky sorted me out on my talk page. His rebuke was very well done and worth reading. Brutally tough but polite. A formal apology to Leaky - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

28. Oppose - Sorry, not nearly enough experience. No prejudice against another RfA after you've gained more experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose I hate to do this because there is evidence to show that you could be a good admin. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough yet. Three months ago you had only 200 edits, someone even sent you a welcome to wikipedia message then. You are very polite in your dealings with other editors which is good but I need to see a potential admin really tested a bit more. Polargeo (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Regretful oppose per inexperience and answers to questions. Come back in six months or so. Keepscases (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose Too inexperienced at this time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose answer to question 17 is a bit disturbing, and 2000 edits is a bit low. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Hello. Since I appear to have not answered it to your liking, could you explain what you would have expected? Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    You seem to endorse any edit that is not vandalism or BLP in the hopes that it makes things better, and that one day somebody will fix it. This is disturbing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    I don't endorse bad edits, but I also don't endorse biting the newbies. If every editor that made poor edits were banned from Wikipedia, it would not be aa expansive as it is. I agree with fixing the problems, warning appropriately, but most importantly encouraging. By saying they will be fixed eventually, I was not suggesting I would ignore the problems and move on; I would likily be the one to fix it if I saw it. What I was saying is that poor edits do not neccessarily cause harm. Especially when you have such strong recent changes patrollers. I am for encouragement and mentorship of new editors. Even the poor writers who cannot put sentances together and may use chat speak could have an important fact to contribute that someone else may not have realized and it may just take some fine tuning. I certainly am not the best editor, my written skills are horrible in comparison to some of the others in this discussion, but I do not get reverted and slammed at every poor edit. My talk page is full of poor edits that I was unaware of a policy or guideline and some friendly admin or fellow editor came along and educated me and fixed my problem and improved me as a contributor. If an edit is not blatent vandalism, than an editor likily did not do it in bad faith and intended to improve the encyclopedia and should be treated with respect. I am not suggesting that their edits be allowed to survive past the next edit though.

33. Oppose – While I don't have issues with edit count (as there are always users who make few, but high-quality edits), the answers to the questions do concern me a bit. Quite a few of them you dance around the questions instead of making honest, direct answers. With regards to Q8, I recommend you get at least a basic knowledge and understanding of our policies and guidelines with regards to images and other files, as you will, as an admin, come across situations with images (as I have, even though images aren't really my specialty). Also try to keep working on building up articles and bringing them to GA/FA as well as perhaps getting some DYKs in there. You need to be comfortable and confident with the wiki-processes in the mainspace to function well as an administrator. MuZemike 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose per Leaky Caldron above. It's been giving me a headache, at least now someone was able to mostly explain what I mean. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose regretfully - just does not have enough experience according to my standards. Some more article work, a few more months, and perhaps a Barnstar, and I'll support. We need more Trekkers as admins, but this editor needs more time in first. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose A promise made to be open to recall is a campaign promise made ad captandum vulgaris, and as such is a strike against. Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    struck duplicate oppose see !vote 22, but leaving rationale (I had initially struck it, but undid that) despite my disagreeing with it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. See above. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answer to Q5. -kotra (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Satisfied by Q5 and Q6, moving to support. -kotra (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. ♠The Ace of Spades_(talk) 18:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - I'd probably be happy to support candidates like you if there were better recall procedures, or if you'd suggested you were going to not do anything with the tools for a few weeks. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how not using the tools for a few weeks would be any different from the time I've spent here without them. However, I can ensure that I am 100% open to recall and I would gladly contribute to it respectfully and with civility. I would rather have the respect of my peers than admin tools. I can also promise that I am in no rush to use the tools or gain them, I only hope to better the encyclopedia and I am willing to do it with or without the tools, however the community feels best.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support. I'm sure that this editor means well, will not destroy anything, and will take guidance for newbie admins. Even if this RfA doesn't work really hope you'll run again in future. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Unsure at this point. Seems like a trustworthy, reasonable candidate, although he could probably use more experience. I see absolutely no problem with link above, though. Rude/uncivil, huh? It was a perfectly fine comment - TParis wasn't being pushy or strange at all, and UIS (the recipient) agrees. JamieS93 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral Although the candidate seems like a potentially good admin candidate, I do not feel that they are ready for two reasons - firstly, with just over 2000 edits, I do not feel that they have the overall experience I would expect to see in an admin; secondly with only approx a third of their edits being to articles, and just over a third being to user talk pages, I feel that they need a higher %age of article edits (I'd be looking at 50%+). If they fail this RfA and attempt again when they have 10K+ edits and 50% article edits, unless something untowards happens, I would feel that I could support them. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   That's a pretty high standard, Mr. 50.6%/13k :P Gigs (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral This is an interesting request, that much is certain. The candidate's edit count is at the lower end of the spectrum usually expected but is not inflated by automated edits as with many NP patrollers running for adminship. The candidate's approach to speedy deletion and deletion in general is excellent and shows a deeper understanding that our goal here is to improve what can be improved and only delete what cannot be improved. Unfortunately the candidate has a low use of edit summaries which is a red flag for me. This saddens me all the more because I would support the candidate if it were not for this issue. But admins, of all people, need to edit in a way that others can easily understand what they have done and as such I find it vitally important for every admin (and every other editor as well) to use edit summaries with every single edit. Not using them can lead to misunderstandings and problems that could have easily been avoided by using them - and imho, admins should strive to avoid problems that could be easily prevented. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks. You are one of the admins I've always looked to for advice, even if you didn't know it was happening (I stalk your talk page). It is a huge confidence booster for me not to receive an oppose vote from you even if I did not receive a support vote either. In regards to your concerns, I have enabled to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" and if this RfA does not succeed, hopefully next time you'll see it's effectiveness and I'll earn a support from you.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   First of all, thanks for the compliment. Then: If you really do so and also address the policy knowledge problems pointed out above, I would be happy to support a second request (if this one fails) in a few months. In case you need any assistance in those matters, I'd be happy to help of course. :-) Regards SoWhy 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral moved from Oppose. But although experience is adequate in length, deficient in breadth, in that there are only 1594 live edits (plus some 400 deleted) which in my view is a barely borderline limit of experience for an admin. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Just a note (as someone with many deleted edits), deleted edits can represent some valuable contributions. For example, this editor wants to focus on CSD and has worked quite a bit on tagging articles. The large number of deleted contributions might indicate successfully applied CSD templates which only reinforces their competence in this area. -- Atama頭 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

   Okay so it is a straight forward question. Why does TParis00ap have so many deleted contributions? That is a lot of tagging! Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Because I tag well? I mostly focus in CSD so my contributions are quickly deleted.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral. This is probably the finest self-nomination I've seen. NVO (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Too much fence-sitting in answers to questions. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   I am a very opinionated person if you ask a question of my opinion. But I feel adminship requires a sense of nuetrality and I want to convery my willingness to seek community consensus and not pursue my own goals. But I still have opinions if that is what you seek.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   The point is that you appear to be avoiding giving a straight, direct answer in the fear that it will lead to opposes. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   My sense is that this is how xe writes. I agree there is an issue here, but I think it's with clear communication, not with dancing around an answer to avoid oppose !votes. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   I tend to stay neutral and see aspects of both sides of an argument. I often play devils advocate when people agree with me. I don't see being neutral as a bad thing though and I am surprised that you seem to discourage it. Some others have commented that candidates with 10,000+ votes are generally more invested in Wikipedia and have stronger opinions; so maybe it is my low edit count. If I appear to dance around issues, it's probobly more because of my lack of understanding than intentional. I don't fear opposes, as I said before I am not attached to adminship and I can contribute as a non-admin just fine. I was hoping for a consensus for adminship, this was not an editor-review, but I am not upset over it.--TParis00ap (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral only has around 2000 edits while most people have more edits than that when they become an administrator. Crapper123456 (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   Note:The user above is a confirmed sock and has been blocked.Abce2|This isnot a test 15:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral. A likely support in the future with continued experience, but given the slight bobbles in the answering the questions, my exeperience concerns aren't quite overcome. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral an OK candidate, but he really only has 3 months active experience, and the answers ot questions are a little shaky.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral. After reading the oppose section I have some concerns.. not enough to oppose, but enough to not support. -- œ^™ 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral leaning oppose. Likely to be a good admin someday. But lacks a sufficient understanding of policy at this point and written communication skills could use some improvement. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Neutral May support after more experience. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Neutral I don't usually see much point in going neutral, but in this case I'm gonna do it, because I asked you an RFA question and you answered it, and I feel I owe you a response as a result. Your answer to my question was fine, and demonstrated that you are indeed a quick study. However, your answers to some of the other questions trouble me, and you've only been real active since July. I'd really like to see more experience, especially in policy areas, but I'm not so concerned over it that I actually oppose you, so here I am. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2009 (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.