Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theopolisme

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

Theopolisme

Final: 31/25/18. Closed as unsuccessful. WilliamH (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Theopolisme (talk · contribs) – Ooh! Scary! A self-nom! I’m not exactly a conventional RfA candidate - I’ll grant you that. I don’t have 50 GAs, 10 FAs, and 200 DYKs... because maybe I just don’t contribute much in those areas. I’ll grant you that I don’t have 1 million edits - I’m sorry to have destroyed everyone’s perfect world. But I have a respectable 7K, which I’ve spaced around the namespaces - articles: removing vandalism, performing copyedits, tagging CSDs/PRODs/AfDs. Talk pages: welcoming new users, assisting people with their problems, and working to keep Wikipedia growing. Wikipedia namespace: working as the co-coordinator at the Counter Vandalism Unit Academy, helping new folks at the Teahouse, creating hundreds of redirects and articles at the WP:AfC, and adding myself to various newsletter subscriptions (because don’t all the cool cats do that?). But I could go on, and on, and on... One last thing: Before you go on to read my answers and make your votes, I have just one request: I'd like to, no matter what happens, use this RfA as a learning experience. No matter what. (I won't waste those bytes!)

As a bit of a sideline, you may be wondering why the heck I submitted an RfA. And, to be quite frank, it's because I couldn't help Wikipedia (that's a slight exaggeration, obviously) in my current scenario. I didn't have the buttons to click - the buttons to use to block an obvious vandalism-only account, the buttons to use to protect a page from edit warring. And that - that is why I would like to become an admin. To be able to help Wikipedia in the ways that I think I best can. <end ramble> Theopolisme _TALK 06:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As I’m a counter-vandal at heart, I would mainly take part in various anti-vandalism areas - from the AIV, to the entire RFPP muddle, to all of those gorgeous noticeboards. I would also help out at PERM - with my prior experience, I think working at the Request for Rollback area would make quite a bit of sense. I think that I can offer a light-hearted - yet serious - touch to these rather tense forums (where a <cough> is expected wheras a <> is unheard of...) Don’t expect me to go insane, though - I firmly believe that I have a firm grasp of policy and would be open to recall if I ever got out of line.

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

A: I am very proud of my work for the CVUA - I was one of their first students... and boy was it a rocky ride (my instructor actually went on an indefinite wikibreak during my instruction :P), but I loved it. I knew I wanted to have a part of it, so I became an instructor, and taught several new students. Eventually - and in retrospect, I’ll spare you of the details - I was elected co-cordinator (along with Dan653) of the CVUA, where we’ve brought in new instructors (and enrollees!) galore, revamped several of our pages/systems, created an IRC channel, and more. While the CVUA is my “special favorite”, I’m also very proud of my interactions with others - I think that gaining new editors is key to Wikipedia, and I try to offer a friendly smile - or maybe a wave - as well as some tips whenever I can... which I think makes the difference of having someone who will add a sentence and then run to someone who will add a sentence... then write a book or two. :)

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: “Life ain’t perfect.” - I’m sure someone has said that at some point, I just don’t know who to quote. I have definitely been in stressful situations before (and if this RfA is successful, have no doubt that I’ll land in quite a few more), but am proud of how I handled them. When you’re working in counter-vandalism, you deal with a lot of different people. Some of them threaten you - “DON’T YOU DARE REMOVE MY EDIT AGAIN!” - which I remove from my talk page, ignore, and leave a friendly user warning for personal attacks on their talk (unless of course it’s a violation after a level 4, in which case I would report to AIV - erm, I mean, block... however, if this was the first time/I did not feel comfortable, I would ask an uninvolved admin to intervene. <haven’t said that before>). To deal with stress like this - which happens on a pretty regular basis - I breathe (I think deep breathing can truthfully help everyone), and then walk away from the computer - and do something else. If, when I return later, I still feel stressed, I talk to someone else and ask them to help out (friends! I knew they were useful for something!). As an admin, I would talk to another uninvolved admin (quite frequently at the beginning). But we can’t forget that some many (IMHO) of those people genuinely want to do well, and so I would help them to genuinely do well. But if you're looking for the most stressful moment in my recent history, I think the bar would be a recent case of socking (+ vandalism) to CVUA pages and CVUA instructor talk pages. This wouldn’t have been too bad for the nerves - except for the fact that the sock’s IPs (for the ones that were just plain IP addresses, not with accounts) originated from the same location one of our instructors did... Luckily, it was a school - but that was a very terse moment. As far as dealing with that sort of conflict, it’s definitely unusual - in that case, I ate a banana... but I think it depends on what fruit is laying around.

Additional question from Sphilbrick

4. In your answer to the conflict question you said that if someone left the message "“DON’T YOU DARE REMOVE MY EDIT AGAIN!” on your talk page, you would leave them a friendly user warning for personal attacks. Do you think that statement is a personal attack?

A: It depends on the context in this case, of course - Personal attacka are defined as "threats." The phrase "don't you dare..." has an implied threat - that you will do something "if they dare" .... at least that's what I learned forever ago on the playground (people always cut off right after "dare" in order not to get in trouble...) but I digress. In this case, I would most likely construe it as a personal attack. I did a bit of a search through the ANI (and other) archives and, while there is no "don't you dare" clause, I believe that - after the user in question undid my revert, it is a show of hostility on their part, and would therefore leave a warning for personal attacks.

Additional question from Callanecc

5. This scenario, I believe, is something which you may encounter as an admin. Please read the following and answer the questions.

An IP user completely changes a large section of a non-BLP article from being unreferenced to completely referenced. However on the talk page, the community has a consensus to use the unreferenced information. Acting with this consensus, an experienced registered user manually uses rollback (with default edit summary) to revert the change and issues a level {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning (just the template by itself) to the IP user (the IP user has made 10 edits on 6 different pages all of which were good edits). The IP user asks the rollbacker (on the rollbacker's talk page) to explain why they reverted the referenced edits.

Following the rollback & warning and request for the rollbacker to explain their actions (which, after an hour of the rollbacker being active on Wikipedia hadn't yet been answered), the IP user undid the revert and added the referenced information back. The same registered user rollbacks again, and leaves a duplicate 4im warning and IP asks the rollbacker to explain their actions again. After another hour of the rollbacker not responding to the IP (during this time the rollbacker is still active on Wikipedia), the IP adds the information in again. The rollbacker uses rollback again then reports the IP to WP:AIV.

You see the request at AIV; outline all the steps you would take, and the policy basis for those actions.

I suggest that you structure your answer into the following format (but it's completely up to you): (a) request at AIV (decline/accept, any other actions & why); (b) the revert including use of rollback, warning, unanswered message on rollbacker's talk page, possible 3RR vio (for all - implications, your actions and policy basis); (c) change to the article (your actions (and possible actions) and policy basis).

A: First of all, if this occurred to me early on in my adminship, I would probably not get involved and see what path another, more experienced, admin decided to follow. But, as this is theoretical, I would...

• Wonder why the community decided to use unreferenced information... and take a close look at that discussion.
• But on to the real deal: speedy decline - if there is such a thing - the AIV request, as it is not "obvious vandalism", as well as the IP was not in the least given enough warnings (as a 4im would not be appropriate in this situation - "The user must be given a chance to see, and react to each warning given.", WP:UW).
• Before even dealing with the rollbacker, I would leave the IP a message letting them know what was happening - and that it was not their fault - it was an error by the rollbacker. As per some of my other answers, I think editor retention and communication (with newbies, specifically), is huge.
• On to the rollbacker: I would most definitely shake my head in disgrace (disgrace felt for the rollbacker). I would then proceed to contact the rollbacker on their talk and tell them about their mistakes in this situation: not assuming good faith of the IP, not responding but still acting (as Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing states, "Communication is the key to avoiding conflict" - which this user did not understand), as well as - most jarringly - a complete misuse of rollback, which is only to be used to "revert obvious vandalism". While my first notion would be to immediately strip the user of rollback, I would, having read WP:ROLLBACK ("[administrators] should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action"), include this as my key point in my comments to the user in question. Unless they had some sort of quite good reason - for example, "I was actually the IP and I was reverting my own mistakes but then I accidentally used Twinkle to AIV myself" (in which case I would suggest a good hard read of this friendly page), I would remove the rollback flag from their account until they could prove that they understood the core policies of Wikipedia - which the user obviously does not - as if they did, none of this would have happened.
• Note that I didn't mention WP:3RR, as it is not applicable here - according to my count, the IP only had 2 reverts and the registered editor only had 3 - and WP:3RR states that, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period."
• As a final note, I apologize profusely for any grammar errors in this answer - it's all being typed from an iPod. :P

Additional question from TruPepitoM

6. How can you help new users that are having a hard time in Wikipedia?

A: There are seemingly infinite different ways to help new users on Wikipedia - from the Help Desk to patrolling the New User Logs, but I tend to help out mainly with the Teahouse, failed AfCs - tips for moving on, of course CVUA related questions which are posed at the academy or directly on my talk page, as well as with users whom I've reverted edits... if they ask for a more detailed explanation, I'm always happy to help them figure out how not to make the same mistakes again. :)

Additional question from Jorgath

7. Please state your interpretation of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:WHEEL. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A: I'll go backwards (just because) and start with WP:WHEEL. In a nutshell, my interpretation of this policy is that "discussion>reversion of reversion" * - and I think that is the case in many an area on Wikipedia, not just with administrative actions - for example, in many cases of WP:RFPP that I see, no one tries to initiate discussions of any sort (they just place templates on talk pages of those involved.. which I do not think are effective means of communication, except for cases of simple vandalism) ... I feel that a nice motley lot of WP:EW could be avoided if not for resistance to discussion - and discussion is definitely something I would push, especially if I disagreed with another admin's actions. I'm a strong believer in good faith, and I think that discussions - civilized ones - can solve problems. But back to the core of WP:WHEEL - if another admin disagrees with me so strongly as to revert my changes, I would reach out to them via their talk (or email, if sensitive) - not just start edit warring. (*Except for some of those notorious special cases in which WP:ANI or another noticeboard/discussion forum might be necessary, of course - i.e. a BLP issue, or some sort of serious problem that could cause real harm.)

As far as WP:ADMINACCT goes, I agree. Wholeheartedly. I think that, just like every other one of the <insert number of editors here> of editors on Wikipedia, admins should be held responsible for their actions. While I don't endorse "templating the regulars", I do endorse "telling the regulars." Everyone makes mistakes, but if they are not told of these mistakes, and if others ignore their actions just because of some userright, problems will never end. So yes, I am a supporter of Accountability - for everyone - and if doing something would get a 1-edit newbie warned, I believe it should also get a 5 quadrillion-edit oldie warned... unless of course it is for something like clerking PERM requests... as that is specifically an admin responsibility. But I digress.

Additional question from ItsZippy

8. You say that you plan to work mainly with anti-vandalism; would you envisage yourself straying into other areas of admin work at some point? If so, how would you approach these new areas?

A: I'm not a crystal ball, so I can't say anything definite. I think I do have my work cut out for me - what with my anti-vandalism work as well as my new obsession, the New Pages Feed (as well as the Curation Toolbar... shiny!). However, if I were to become interested in other admin areas - which I think is a high possibility as time keeps ticking, I would take them slowly, just like I've done in the past. Lurk a bit - then talk to other admins and ask for their help and advice. I don't believe in rushing into things, but if I thought I could make a positive difference in one of those areas, then I would most definitely not "run away" just because it wasn't something I was comfortable with.

Additional question from Vejvančický

9. You created the article MetaLab, Ltd. An editor expressed concerns over referencing and other shortcomings of your article (see oppose #10). I agree with the concerns. Could you explain why do you think the company meets Wikipedia notability requirements and back up your claims with reliable sources?

A: I believe that it does meet notability requirements. Firstly, the company was mentioned in a rather controversial situation 2 years ago involving Mozilla "plagiarizing their designs", see [1] per this ("with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff"). This in and of itself was what propelled me to write the article - perusing the TechCrunch archives - as I wanted some more detail about the company. While this was my first article (and written near the very beginning of my active editing), I think that it did do what it needed to do, provide information, and is an "article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance." (A7)

Thank you. I added another reference (related to the same controversy). The matter of notability (in this case) may be more complicated, but your answer shows that you know what are you doing, and that's important. Follow up: Do you think it is appropriate and encyclopedic to quote promotional content of a company website in our articles? I'm talking about the section "Products" of the same article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it definitely depends on context - with over 4 million articles, it's impossible for "one size fits all", if you get what I'm saying. In MetaLab's case, I think limited quotation of company promotional material is acceptable, as other descriptions of the products were not available (and, as I have not used them personally, I was unable to write them). However, it's always preferable to not quote promotional content - but as the promotional material's use is limited and no free alternative was available (yet, of course), I think that it was acceptable in that special case.

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

10n. An editor has reverted you for the 7th time in 24 hours on Paul Ryan and you are the first administrator to notice it. What do you do? Electric Catfish 15:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A: Can you clarify? Is Paul Ryan purely a theoretical page - and it could be any page, or is it supposed to be specifically that page? Also - what is the context of their reversion? Are they reverting my removal of vandalism? Or reverting content I added? Or reverting something I removed as it was unsourced? Given that the page is already semi-protected, I'm doubtful it would be vandalism (so it must be a content dispute... but wait!) Why the heck would I revert someone 6 times in a row (which I would have to do in order for them to revert me 7x)? That violates everything about WP:EW, which I'm obviously aware of... Again, can you please clarify? Thanks!

Thanks. The purpose of this question was to test on your knowledge of Edit warring regarding BLPs and WP: INVOLVED and you answered it. Electric Catfish 16:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from StephenBuxton

11. Understanding CSDs can give a good indication of awareness of policies, not just those used for deletion. With that in mind, please can you carry out the exercise User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises? To save space here, please create a userfied page and provide the link to it here

A: Hi Stephen! Please see this page for my answers. I enjoyed the exercises, by the way.

Supplemental questions: 11a Following on from your "deletions" of 4 and 7, can you please explain why you do not consider those to have asserted notability?

11b Still on number 7, are there any other actions that you would, as an administrator, need to carry out? Stephen! ^Coming... 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Theo, not trying to trip you up, but I think there's something else quite important that would need to be done with example #6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What might you mean by #4 asserting notability? #4 is this - I deleted it as a test. As far 11b., I would - oopsies, sorry! - also need to delete the talk page of the article (under criterion {{db-talk}}. Now - as far as notability of #7, it does not meet any of the general notability guidelines (see the google search results). If it met any of these - specifically "Significant coverage", I would have attempted to add those sources (and content) to the article. However, as the person is presumably a completely made up figure (as the search results imply), I would not.

HG, I think I've lost you... what would I need to do with #6? I've already deleted the page as a test/bio, and warned the user... apologies if I'm missing something obvious... Theopolisme _:) 21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant #5 - Wizzy Wig. However, you have pretty much answered what I needed to know. Stephen! ^Coming... 21:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Thine Antique Pen (public)

12: a user uploads a file under a claim of CC-BY-NC-SA. How would you act?

A: Firstly, I do not intend to work heavily in the File: namespace... Regardless, WP:IMAGES specifically states that images with "any license restricting commercial use or the creation of derivative works may not be used on Wikipedia." As the user does not claim (at least to my knowledge from what you've said) fair use, I would delete it immediately under {{db-filecopyvio}}. However, if the user asserted "fair use" or it was their own image and they simply did not understand the Wikipedia copyright policy, I would tag it with {{db-f7}} and get in touch with them on their talk page (letting them know their violation, telling them how they can release it themselves, etc, etc, etc...). Hope this answers your question - if you had more specifics, please let me know. Thanks!

General comments

• Links for Theopolisme: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Theopolisme can be found here.
• Stats on the talk page. Thanks! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support - Seems a bit green, but I don't see that as a reason to oppose or not support here. Decent spread of edits around the namespaces, their attitude is great, and I like their answers to the questions. Good luck! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - I've seen him around and I can trust him. The answers to questions are really good. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Friendly Support - I've been his protege (at the CVUA) and I surely can trust him. @GabeMc His color IS green! That's all. TruPepitoM (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Weak Support User has demonstrated great vandal fighting experience.I believe trust is the key factor for the mop though the active period matters too.Hence this weak support. TheStrikeΣagle 15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
5. I've been editing since about the same time as Theopolisme, and he is a great editor with a great attitude. Theopolisme, keep doing the work you're doing, and come back in a couple of months. Good luck! David1217 ^{What I've done} 16:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Seems knowledgeable and trustworthy. We could definitely use more admins. Back in 2006/2007-ish, it was quite common for admins to be approved even if they hadn't met the 6-month requirement (that many users independently held) if the user had shown trustworthiness, diversity of experience, etc., and nothing truly horrific ever came of any such exceptions being made. Michael (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Support Good work with regards to anti-vandal patrols. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Changing to neutral--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

7. Support Being the co-coordinator with Theo at the WP:CVUA I can say with 100% confidence that he can be trusted with admin rights. Dan653 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
8. I think he'll do just fine as an administrator, and that's the important part. We need more users with +sysop. I'm not worried about the relative lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
9. - -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 04:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Support The main criticisms that have been offered regarding the applicant appear to be a relative inexperience in a purely chronological sense, and a certain deficit in edits. Applicant jumps the gun a bit, but when I was 19 or so..:) In any event often a swift thinking- on- feet response is needed in admin. Judgement calls are the hardest test for an admin person. His instincts seem basically sound. The rest appear to be irrelevant points about the applicants breeziness and informality. I see that as one of the applicants main strengths. How many new users and potentially excellent editors have been deterred by "old school" admin attitudes? In any event the applicant has shown great maturity in his present official Wiki roles, and has a pleasant and discoursive style. His learning curve and knowledge of Wiki procedures appear excellent. We need new blood here. Wikis admin arteries are starting to harden :)

    I propose a one month trial. Based on performance, final decision. New admin candidates should maybe be given some leeway. A mentoring system buddying up with experienced admin guys? May be a good way forward for editors with talent and potential. Irondome (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

11. Support As Irondome says new blood is good. I've quite a bit of contact with the candidate and all has been positive. He is dedicated and will follow something (whether that be a suspicion or a certainty) through until he has an answer - exactly the sort of thing an admin should do. The answers to the questions are great and show an in depth understanding of policy and it's application. I have 100% confidence in Theo, both as an editor in general, and as an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Support I like this users attitude, and we need more anti-vandalism admins. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Nothing wrong with a comparatively new person who doesn't seem ready to break things; after reading Vejvančický's comments down below, the link that HJ Mitchell gives bolsters my support instead of weakening it. I don't understand Kudpung's oppose either; it seems that the candidate wants to be an admin in order to use the tools to strengthen this project, rather than in order to engage in hat collecting. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Support As with some of the other users I think this user has a lot to learn but they have a good history, they seem to be on the right track and the answers to the questions above looks promising. Also, I was going to sit this one out but I agree with Nyttends comments as well. Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Support I've had the pleasure of working with Theo at WP: CVUA and he's been a major part of the success of the program. Besides serving as the co-coordinator, he is also a vandal-fighter, new page patroller, and AfC reviewer and he can be well-trusted with the mop. Electric Catfish 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Support I really like this editor's approach, both in his nomination and in his answers to questions. I am convinced that he will make a good admin, and seriously hope that the community will agree with me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Moral Support Although i consider that Theopolisme still needs to polish some of his skills, he will be an amazing anti-vandal admin. I have worked with him a lot at the CVUA and it's always glad to read his comments. A very good user with somewhat low contribution level and a lack of experience in some areas, but his desire to work on counter-vandalism and the good job he does at it is enough for me to support. —ΛΧΣ21™ 00:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Support – I haven't interacted with the user previously, but from their answers I can tell that they would be a good admin! A support from me! Statυs (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Answers just seems great. Also I have seen him doing a lot of anti-vandalism work, and admin tools will be handy for him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Weak Support: Probably needs a bit more experience. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Support. Though more experience might be helpful, what I see in the questions above and in the contribs convinces me that it is not strictly necessary. Giving Theopolisme the mop would be a net benefit now, even if it would be a bigger benefit in 6 months or so. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Because I believe that a) he'll do a good job and b) in the absence of a reason to oppose, any editor who's dedicated significant time and effort to the project should get the tools if they are willing to do more. The ongoing hoop-jumping that some people require is overly onerous and unnecessary. People who do a good job should be able to do more if they have the time and willingness. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Semi-Support The fact that I hear from many people that Theopolisme doesn't have much experience bothers me. But not the point that I would want to oppose him from being an admin. When I was a new user, I made some edit's that were not sourced. Which caused users to put 3 warnings on my talk page, I then understood what I was doing wrong and then removed the warnings. After I did that, Theopolisme reverted my move and said not to remove my warnings, because it helped users keep track. I was very furious when he did he not let me remove my old unsourced warnings on my talk page. Why would I want 3 warnings on my talk page, when I understood what I did wrong. After that, I read on Wikipedia that I had every right to remove those warnings. So I removed them once again. Theopolisme did not revert my move. I do not keep grudges and Theopolisme was very friendly to me, plus he worked hard fighting vandalism. So I support him! Good Luck! (: -- Webclient101 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    For some reason, many overzealous vandal fighters seem to feel that talk page warnings should exist there for all eternity. There is no such policy that even implies that. I looked back on the history there and am extremely dismayed that the candidate, who takes it upon himself to train anti-vandalism editors, needed to be schooled in policy by a new editor. HOWEVER, I do think it speaks highly of the candidate when I read how helpful he was to Webclient101 after the incident. Despite my misgivings, I do note that civility and helpfulness are the candidate's strongest points. Trusilver 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yes Trusilver, I was very happy that he gave me tips on how to add citations. I was even about to oppose Theopolisme because he didn't let me remove my warnings. But I then thought about the friendliness and tips he gave me. Which changed my views of him. I'm very grateful that he help me out. His friendliness atitude really does have a great strong point for his RFA. -- Webclient101 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

25. Support Sorry for late vote, I totally missed this nomination. I have talked and worked with this candidate. Very helpful and friendly and has been doing a great job. I like the way he assesses his own works. He is a good anti-vandal admin. I feel he will be a good job if he is selected as admin. --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Oh c'mon. 7K edits is not enough? Max Semenik (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Sorry for late vote, I totally missed it was 7K (hit "earliest" as opposed to "older 500". Tommy Pinball (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Support This editor lacks a lot of the experience which I would expect of an administrator but does a lot to help new users, resolve problems, and clear up vandalism. I trust this user with the tools and believe that access to those tools would result in more efficiency and no problems through this user, but still I would want this user to explore more content development and other project areas just to become familiar with other processes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Weak Support I support him for admitting he's not the ideal candidate, which is also why it's weak. While I appreciate seeing honesty in an RfA candidate and a lack of bragging about how many articles they've created, I would like to see a little more than 7K edits. 10K would usually be my minimum, with 15K being a nice safe zone. I do like, however, that he realizes that when you're a Wikipedia editor, it can be better to have many Wikipedia-space and user talk-space edits in addition to article-space. Welcoming users, the Teahouse, and the CVUA are all things to be proud of. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 17:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Support- A lot of nice contributions all-around, particularly in clearing vandalism and being an overall good guy, to outweigh his lack of experience. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Support- I have seen some of his work and they seem quite productive plus vandalism work seems effective. In addition great indepth (some) questions, no problems in my words. John F. Lewis (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Regretful oppose - Sorry to oppose but this nomination was way too rushed. I've seen them around and was impressed but somehow, they do lack a lot of experience. I always feel bad to support a good candidate but will have to here. If considered your edits, you have been active for merely five months, and you've got a good number of edits. But majority of them have come in last three months which leads to the conclusion that most of the things you are experienced with, came in this time span which is little too low amount of experience for me to trust any user. Being active for only three months doesn't give me a complete opportunity to judge your judgement skills, understanding of policies or the way you behave at different situations, conflicts, etc. I'd like to see you active the way you are for good 9-10 more months and then probably would support but not now. Wish you all the best for your next RfA. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I'm having a difficult time quantifying my opinion here except to agree with the TheSpecialUser in saying that the nomination is too rushed. I look over your contributions and they look excellent. A sampling of your antivandalism work is equally good. I don't find any particular fault in your work on CSD, aside from one poorly labelled report, which everyone has done at least once. You are extremely civil and very easy to work with. I may be a little old school in the way that I feel pursuits like the CVU Academy and the Teahouse are colossal wastes of time and speak more of treating Wikipedia like a social networking site than an encyclopedia, but your mileage my vary there too. I think what I AM concerned with is someone who intends to be primarily working as a countervandalism admin who only has 20 reports to AIV, yet has extraordinarily devoted themselves to things such as the Counter Vandalism Academy, making more than 100 edits to those pages. I am always very wary of administrative candidates who seem more concerned with the bureaucracy surrounding the process, rather than the process itself. I am not ready to support yet, perhaps a few months down the road. Trusilver 08:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose ~ Theopolisme appears to be a very passionate; good-faithed editor; who will likely be an Administrator one day - however, that one day, will have to be in the future. As has been pointed out by TheSpecialUser, Theopolisme has been active on the project for the past five months, which in my opinion, is little time. I would strongly encourage this editor to re-nominate in no little than 6-12 months - by then, they would have not only accumulated more edits - rather more knowledge, and would have a better understanding of their surroundings on the project. Finally, Theopolisme, I urge you to take these comments made here, as constructive criticism - because at the end of the day, you may not make a great administrator (presently), but you are certainly made out to be a wonderful editor. All the best, -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Sorry - your work here is good - very good in some places - but I'm afraid there isn't enough of it to properly judge. Keep doing what you do, and come back in the future where I'm sure you'll whizz through. GiantSnowman 09:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
5. I agree with above, while you seem like a very passionate editor, I think it's too soon, especially with today stricter RFA standards (you probably would have passed if it was 2005/2006 by looking at your edits). Keep up the good work, do some content writing and participate in areas within project space that might interest you and with enough time you will pass your next RFA without much issue. I'll be willing to mentor if needed. Thanks Secret ^account 09:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I had a feeling this RfA would be coming. While I heartily join with all those who have praised Theopolism's enthusiasm and engagement for Wikipedia, I am also 'old school' (very old for some...) and must reiterate True Silver's concerns about the CVU Academy that it 'speaks more of treating Wikipedia like a social networking site than an encyclopedia' . I have commented several times that I find the CVU project has become unnecessarily bureaucratised and has introduced pseudeo hierarchies and leaderships. Such pursuits appear (to me at least) often as stepping stones for hat-collecting where it should be clearly understood that user rights are not rewards for good work. That said, I encourage Theo to keep up his good work, but he does not yet meet all my RfA criteria, and I'm not sure he has read this; its reading is of course not mandatory, but I feel it may have prevented what here is, IMHO, an RfA a tad too early. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Hi, Kudpung. I've just read this oppose, and whilst some bits maybe true, I'm just a bit confused about your comment about leadership in the CVUA project - hum, maybe it's true (though I think it's good) but you are yourself a coordinator for WikiProject schools. That to me seems like leadership, perhaps over-bureaucratised, yet you criticise about the CVUA having leadership..--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 12:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   Chip, the only evidence I could find that Kudpung is a co-ordinator is the small box at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Administrators. The role is defined there, in a WikiProject designed around content creation. CVUA appears to have a much more heirarchical structure, with enrollees, instructors, co-ordinators and possibly deputy co-ordinators, all having "requirements". The CVUA also includes a lot more socialising than the WikiProject. I don't share Kudpung's thoughts, but I do believe you are trying to compare apples with oranges. I'd be happy to discuss further at my talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I was looking a their userpage and found a user box at the top. Thanks for the reply, maybe you could bring up your issues on WT:CVUA or pop along to the IRC meeting this evening. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 13:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that the schools wikiproject is content related. Whereas the CVUA... I have read over all it's relevant pages and I'm still mystified both why it has such a ridiculous hierarchy, or even why it exists to begin with. The criteria for so-called "instructors" is incredibly low and just to be frank, I do not find it encouraging that the co-coordinator of such a project has a mere 20 WP:AIV reports. The encyclopedia has produced a decade of extremely competent vandal-whackers, and we haven't needed to send them to school to do it. Trusilver 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I will also point out that Theopolism should remember to log in when editing, especially when he has an RfA running. Anyone can make an innocent mistake of this kind - we all have - but at the moment it reinforces claims of Theo's general carelessness. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Kudpung - if you'd kindly note the situation, I was at family's house, was unable to log in (on their computer), but saw the ECF had notified me and quickly replied so as he wouldn't work.. Again, I apologize for this - but there was nothing I could do in that case. Family comes first - and I strongly support that "policy". Theopolisme _TALK 01:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   Replied on your tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose for now, but willing to support a future RfA. You joined about a year and a half ago, but only started editing heavily in April of this year. Sorry, but I don't think you have enough experience just yet. You're definitely a valuable contributor, though, so keep on doing what you're doing (maybe do a little more contet work but that decision's up to you) and if you come back here in six eight months or so you will probably have my support. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose per this discussion.--Anderson - What's up? 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   What about that thread made you oppose? Specifically? All that occurred was you notified me that you tagged a BLPPROD (which I was not the creator of, so I was curious as to why you notified me)... then, it turned out that - after our discussion about BLPPRODS in general - whoopsidaisy! The article you tagged actually wasn't a BLPPROD at all, as the person in question wasn't not a living person (at that point I smacked myself with a trout to spare others the trouble of doing so to me)... so we both learned something from that chat. What about it made you feel like you needed to oppose? Theopolisme _TALK 03:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   It was I who pointed out this grotesque error originally. The applicant handled it with knowledge and humour. I am saddened to see the original perpetrator of the error repeat it here, in a totally inappropriate forum. Like the Bourbons, the above appears to have forgotten everything and learned nothing. Good admin material, and a credit to Wiki. We are lucky to have such people. My support is above Irondome (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks, Irondome. :) Theopolisme _TALK 05:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   I concur; the above is not a reason to oppose an RfA. Would the user like to expand on their thoughts, or strike their comment? Statυs (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I think I may have added to the confusion there. errare humanum est. I consider myself trouted! On the basis of which, Anderson may wish to reconsider his !vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I agree, a rather strange, somewhat dubious reason for opposing, I see nothing in that exchange to cause any worry. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) It was when he said, Ha ha, you win Irondome. A discussion is not about winning, But to solve a problem or any other issues. And regarding that message you left on my talk page shows you don't fully understand WP:CSD and WP:BLPPROD.--Anderson - What's up? 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not going to comment on the "you win" statement as I don't know the background, but regarding your comment about him not understanding CSDs and BLPPRODs, see the message I left on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   To clarify, the "You win Irondome" statement was because we (Kudpung, Anderson, and I) were having a discussion about tagging BLPPROD/CSDs/etc/etc in regard to my comments to Anderson in re to his original warning of me, but then Irondome popped in suddenly and mentioned that it wasn't actually a BLPPROD at all that we were basing our discussion off of - and so therefore, he had the last word - at least in that regard. I was simply using an English phrase for "you've beat us all" (as in found the loophole) - and I apologize if it did not appear as such. Thanks - Theopolisme _TALK 11:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

   I would recommend that the closing bureaucrat disregard Anderson's "oppose" here. Anderson is accusing Theo of not understanding WP:BLPPROD, yet it was Anderson who tagged an article about a person who had been dead 70 years for WP:BLPPROD, which only applies to living people. Furthermore, when Theo asked "Why notify me? ... I was not the article creator," about the BLPPROD, Anderson could have answered something like, "I already notified the article creator [which, in fact, he had done], I just thought you might also like to know", but instead ignored Theo's legitimate question. It seems like Anderson is trying to blame Theo for his (Anderson's) own error. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not blaming him, I'm just saying that WP:BLPPROD doesn't fall under WP:CSD.--Anderson - What's up? 22:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose. As I've said before, amdinship is not merely about mashing button, and if it were the Foundation would simply hire a group of moderately intelligent monkeys. Adminship is about judgement, and Theo currently exhibits almost precisely the opposite of the judgement and maturity I expect of an administrator. His talk page would seem to suggest that he, or at least his friends, are more concerned with the social aspect of Wikipedia than with the business of building an encylcopaedia and he seems to make hasty decisions, which can result in sloppy work. This is evidenced perfectly by the nomination statement in this very RfA and by this incident sorry, admins only. This combined with the relatively short tenure compels me to oppose. Theo, you have the potential to be a good admin, but I think you need another year or so's experience first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   HJ Mitchell, could you please give a quick summary of the undelete example you cited, so the rest of us have some context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Support Transparency would be helpful Irondome (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   See User_talk:Theopolisme/Archive_5#New_Page_Patrolling. Kudpung proposed the article for deletion and Theopolisme added another (basically duplicate) prod tag few minutes after that. It could be hardly called an 'incident', rather an innocent 'misunderstanding'. The second prod was a bit careless, but it is nothing serious, in my opinion. Don't be so hasty, Theopolisme. See also {{prod2}}. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)It wasn't an undelete. It was just a poor handling of a PROD by using Huggle instead of following the guidelines in WP:NPP. Nothing that deserves more than a trouting under normal circumstances, but not something that would be expected from a page patroller a few days before running for adminship, and the de facto leader of a project that trains counter-vandalism and talks of teaching NPPers as well. I was going to mention it in my oppose above, but felt I had already said enough.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, but the candidate realized the mistake and corrected it quickly in a hassle-free way. That's what I expect from a good editor/potential admin. I've seen far worse deletion nominations by established editors and admins. This was a minor procedural mistake. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Kudpung there are absolutley no talks of training NPPers, at all. The one user who wanted to learn how to NPP was referred to you by me and in no way was there even discussion that he would be trained in the academy. And yes Theo is "in fact" (because that's what "de facto" means) a leader. If you mean the second definition of "de facto" "a leader without lawful authority" Theo was elected to be a coord by a majority of instructors. Either way I don't get your word choice of "de facto". Dan653 (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Oppose, a well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but one with too little experience for now to be made an admin, and also, IMHO, with a need to shift his priorities. First, having only 4.5 months of active editing is too early for asking for an admin hat. Second, like several other opposers above, I am concerned about the current focus of the candidate on the part of the project (CVUA) that emphasizes the social networking aspect rather than actual encyclopedia building. To me that alone is already a significant negative. E.g., in the candidate's preferred area of admin-related activity (vandalism fighting), his contrib record shows only 20 edits to WP:AIV and 24 edits to WP:RPP, with several hundred edits to CVU pages and subpages. Finally, while I do not necessarily expect "50 GAs, 10 FAs, and 200 DYKs", I do want to see some substantive evidence of content-creating work from any RfA candidate. After all, this project is supposed to be mainly about building an encyclopedia. For now the highest number of edits that the candidate has to any individual article page is 9, to MetaLab, Ltd., an article that the candidate created. The article is rather stubby and its current quality strikes me as sub-par, maybe even AfD-able. The article has 4 references total: references 2 and 3 are primary refs to the MetaLab site itself. Ref no. 4 redirects here[2] - not quite sure what that is, but does not strike me as WP:RS and again looks like a primary source based on "Meet the designers" note at the bottom of the page. The only third-party ref (ref no 1) is to this site[3], which again does not strike me as passing WP:V. Like I said, I don't expect 50GAs from an RfA candidate, but I do expect something significantly better and more substantive in terms of content creation than the above example demonstrates. Nsk92 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    The page MetaLab, Ltd. has been improved since my post above, but if anyone is interested, here is a link to what the page looked like at the time of my initial post[4]. I've got to say that the candidate's answers to Q9 above reinforce my concerns about his priorities and about his content-creating experience. My point was about the condition of the article at the time of my post. Yes, the condition of the article was such that it would have survived a CSD A7 nomination if someone cared to CSD tag it. But creating an article that can only just survive an A7 challenge (and leaving it sitting in mainspace in that shape) is too low a standard for any regular and experienced WP editor and is well below doing "what it needed to do", particularly for an RfA candidate. The article was created in mainspace on April 22 and left there in very poor shape for almost 4 months. The candidate had plenty of time and opportunity to fix the article up before the RfA and to bring it to a semi-reasonable state by adding some proper third-party WP:RS references, but he chose to direct his efforts elsewhere. Like I said, to me that indicates that his editing priorities are not exactly where they should be. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    By "what it needed to do", what exactly do you mean? Also, where should my editing priorities be? As I said in my nom statement - and what I believe is apparent by contribs - I am not a big "original content" contributor, and did not claim to be one. Rather, I am interesting in assisting with cleanup, copyediting, and counter-vandalism - and I think my RfA should be construed as one for these such items. Again, just curious as to where you think my priorities should lay. Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 23:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    When you create an article, even if it is just a stub, you should make sure that it is properly referenced to third-party reliable sources, and complies with the basic content policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and, if applicable, WP:BLP. The article should be sufficiently well referenced so that actual notability (not just a plausible claim of importance needed to survive A7) of the subject are apparent. After that you can leave the article in peace if you don't feel like expanding it. That is a minimum that should be expected from any regular Wikipedia editor, whether or not that editor wants to be an admin. In terms of editing priorities: First, make sure that the new content that you do create, even if there is not a lot of it, satisfies the above mentioned minimum requirements. Do that first, ahead of other tasks, and don't leave an article you created hanging there in the shape making it a likely AfD or PROD target. Second, if you want to be an admin, you do need to pay some attention to and get some experience in content creation. That does not mean that you have to get "50 GAs, 10 FAs, and 200 DYKs", but you do need to get some reasonable amount proficiency in content creation, even if that is not your thing. An admin has to deal with many complicated issues such as content disputes, page protection, blocks, figuring out if disruptive editing has occurred and important policies are being violated, etc. You have to have some reasonable amount of content creating experience in order to be able to make these kinds of judgements. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

11. Weak Oppose per Nsk92 but also, I find this editor a little bit too emotional for the tools at the moment, which makes me worried in-case he makes a hasty decision. I think there's a likely chance that he will succeed the next time round, maybe in the next 6 months or so when not only he will gain more experience in editing but also maturity. Minima© (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hi, out of interest, in what way do you find Theo 'too emotional'? Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 20:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    It's just the way the nomination statement was written, which made me hesitate about supporting the candidate. Minima© (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Oppose - Eh, I'm sorry I have to be here, but I cannot see your vandal fighting and work at the CVUA as enough to demonstrate the right experience and understanding to be an administrator. While I am certain that you could carry out the anti-vandalism parts of adminship with your eyes closed, there is too much that you have little experience in. I find it difficult to support an admin candidate if their primary contributions to Wikipedia consist of anti-vandalism unless they have significant experience in other areas as well. I can see myself supporting you in the future, but I'd like to see experience in other areas first (then again, if anti-vandalism and instructing others in anti-vandalism is what you are really enjoying, then enjoy that and don't worry about the toolkit). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hey Zippy - thanks for the comments. Just curious, and I think that this is a broad question that may be a bit past the scope of one RfA: but is the idea of a pure anti-vandalism admin gone? The reason I ask is because you said, "While I am certain that you could carry out the anti-vandalism parts of adminship with your eyes closed, there is too much that you have little experience in." Again, I'm trying to use the RfA to learn as much as possible, and I apologize for plying you with questions. When/if you have a chance, I'd really appreciate a reply. Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    In my mind it is because, while dealing with pure vandalism as an admin is not difficult at all, it often throws up various other issues which are much more difficult to deal with. I have often found that, when I am at what seem to be anti-vandalism areas (AIV, UAA, RPP), I will often come across deeper issues. A significant minority of AIV reports have larger issues: a content dispute, a prolific sockpuppeteer, etc, which require more than just a good anti-vandalism record. Also, when dealing with vandalism as an admin, you will often need to approach users personally - someone who seems to be acting in good faith but editing promotionally, for example. This requires more than just the ability to revert vandalism, and warn/report users; the kind of communication skills required cannot be gained (or demonstrated) through only anti-vandalism work. For that reason, I tend to oppose admin candidates whose primary contributions are to anti-vandalism, unless they have also demonstrated experience in another area of Wikiedpia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose. Mainly per HJ Mitchell, but I also have concerns about maturity level/clue from my reading of his answers. Lord Roem (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose my apologies for this oppose, I cannot support a user who has only actively edited for 4 months. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose per ItsZippy. I generally don't support specialist admins, especially on vandal fighting, an areas which is fairly straightforward and we're in no desperate need for the tools (AIV is rarely backlogged to my knowledge). I appreciate your work Theopolisme, but I think you need a bit more experience yet. Worm^TT(talk) 07:51, 14 August 2012 #(UTC)

    Your statement sounds like "we are recruiting admins, so that backlogs could be cleared". Is RfA supposed to be like recruitment rather than test of trust. I am not arguing against your vote, just a comment. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

    Not exactly. My point was that specialism is good in general and might grant leeway on adminship, but specialism in anti-vandalism is not needed and therefore no special dispensation is required. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

16. Oppose Sorry, but more time is needed. AutomaticStrikeout 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose, too soon and per HJ Mitchell.VolunteerMarek 07:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Too soon. Not a lot of content creation, not a lot of admin area experience, and almost all of the edits happened in the last 5 months. Simply too soon. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Too Soon. Also per HJM's remarks and Kudpungs reply re:poor handling of a PROD. I'm of the opinion that this editor has potential but needs much more experience. Also, self-nominators, to get my support, need alot of positive history. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose; I'm going to be honest here, the whole CVUA thing seems to me like yet another self-important bureaucracy where enthusiastic kids can exert pseudo-authority on newer kids (or as Trusilver puts it, a colossal waste of time). I mean no offence, it just looks that way to me; though certainly it speaks to your sense of initiative, and that can't be a bad thing. More experience and a slight change of priorities would certainly increase your chances of success at your next RfA. Best regards and keep up the good work, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose Sorry to be here, you're a great editor and I wanted to support despite your short tenure, but I still think you have a way to go before you have the knowledge. Your A7 tagging brought me here specifically. Remember that A7 is only for articles that have no credible claim of significance, not for articles that don't meet the notability requirements. Ryan Vesey 21:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose You have the right attitude, which is a lot of what you need for the mop, but you are missing some of the basic understanding of policy essential to being an administrator. Give it a few more months of work in areas where you'll be exposed to a lot of the major policies (such as help desk and WP:XFD) and you will be more than ready. I'll post some feedback on your exercise page. Stephen! ^Coming... 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose The casual self-regard and childish combativeness of the self-nom statement doesn't invite confidence; further examination reveals inexperience and a lack of comprehension of the realities of adminship and the necessary abilities to perform those duties effectively. Those can be corrected and improved by time and work but I am not certain that the necessary maturity of attitude can be developed simultaneously. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose 7,000 is barely anything. Get more editing experience! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Tepid oppose - I concur with TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) and with other editors above me (e.g. CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs), StephenBuxton (talk · contribs)). Maybe in the next few months or so he will be a suitable candidate for Adminship, but it really is too soon. BTW, there is no shortage of Admins in wikipedia. Most are worthy some are just not. I personally feel, the fewer admins, the better. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (start talk?)} 09:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Although your account was created almost a year and a half ago, you barely had a handful of edits until 4 months ago. As such, it's really only possible to consider you a 4-month old account. What you have done since April looks good at first glance - the type of stuff we want/need to see, and the stuff the project needs. Normally, I would have opposed based on the timeline, but consider this neutral a "moral support" for use at least 8 months from now (so, a year of consistent editing). dangerouspanda 10:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Moral support - Not right now, I really think four months of active editing isn't a good enough time period to decide, even with as many edits as you have racked up in such a short period of time. I see nothing to make me oppose, however, so I hope you apply again when you have a year or so of experience - if you keep the same editing pattern, there wouldn't be any reason for me not to support. Best of luck to you. :) Toa Nidhiki05 14:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Ah, the dreaded link to WP:NOTNOW ;) ...Just Kidding! Honestly, I expected that would be brought up - and it has been - and I think it makes a valid point - "Just four months! What could he be thinking!?" And I think that I'm thinking outside the box. Then again, everyone has their own box - and I respect everyone for it. Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 15:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

   Actually I don't think it is bad at all for you to self-nom this early - RfA can give some valuable input into how to improve editing. It also shows a certain amount of self-respect and courage to volunteer to be subjected to RfA, and leadership skills are certainly needed to be an admin. My sole concern is time of activity, but that isn't an indictment on you - it is just with more active time it makes it easier to judge overall behavior, particularly when dealing with disputes. Regardless, keep on what you are doing and I am sure you'll pass this very easily when or if you choose to apply again. :) Toa Nidhiki05 15:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral per dangerouspanda/ES&L, who sums it up rather concisely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Moral Support per Dennis Brown and ES&L, although I'd be comfortable with four more months (8 months total), not make you wait until you've hit the arbitrary 1-year mark. You're clearly a very good contributor, and you're a good candidate, but you'll be an even better one soon. To my colleagues with similar responses, I think that one year is a good rule of thumb, but it should be a very bendable one for extremely good candidates. This candidate is one of those, but not so much that four months is enough experience. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Wants to work on anti-vandalism, which is mostly what the admin buttons are for, in my estimation. However less than a year of serious WP participation is inadequate, in my view — understanding Wikipedia's culture and policy norms and precedents takes time. A NOT YET situation. Don't let this horrible public assessment process sour you on the project, even those voting against you doubtlessly appreciate your efforts and wish you the best. Give it another year of hard work... Carrite (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
6. 'Netural per dangerouspanda, Jorgath, etc. I reviewed a number of PROD/CSDs/AfDs and found them generally sound and in some ways generally conservative-in-a-good-way. Turns out I'd declined one of your A7s here but given how abbreviated the article text was (and the general quality of your tags), I'd like to be clear that that was not a reason for my lack of support. I went looking for reasons to oppose in order to provide some constructive and specific feedback, but honestly, I've got no significant complaints except the "4 months is too soon". Would you come back in 4-6 months and give this another go? I'm looking forward to having a chance to support in the future. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Neutral. I genuinely like what I see, and in 8 months if you simply produce another 8 months of the same, I'd be happy to support. But 4 months of activity is not enough for me to be comfortable supporting. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Moral Support I like what I see; I just do not see enough of it. In about six months, if you keep up with what you're doing now, you'd most likely have my support. --~ScholarlyBreeze~ 04:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
9. I've worked with Theo a lot, and he has a real enthusiasm for the Project. Unfortunately, there are a lot of issues that he will need to consider of this passes or before his next RfA, that have either been brought up here or elsewhere, that I shall list in no particular order and with no commentary, simply for Theo's benefit: Maturity, and the demonstration of that maturity; the creation of content, and evidence of an understanding of the content-relevant policies; the use of Wikipedia as a social network; that desire for bureaucracy, as opposed to using sound judgment and a sense of IAR. Theo does good work, and when he comes back in 6-10 months, I envision a slew of "support"s if he can focus on those things moving forward. Achowat (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral I contact Theo on a regular basis, and we get on really well, so not supporting is quite hard for me to do :(. Whilst I do think what he does is great, I'd like to see a longer tenure from him, I agree that he hasn't been active since the past few months. I'd also like to see his edit percentage on articles reach a minimum of around 40%. Like Joe Decker, I can't find reasons to oppose (not that I want to), but then I can't find reasons to put my full support. I can't wait to strong support in around 4-12 months time!--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Moral support. Come back after 6 months, and I'm sure you'll get a much better reception. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Moral support. I like your enthusiasm, but I think we need more than 4 months of active editing - I suggest a year would be more like it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Neutral You have been a net benefit to the project, but I would like to see some more experience before I support in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Moral support. Fine work so far and helpful. – SJ + 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Neutral. Somewhat lacking in experience. Also, little content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Neutral - I'd like to support but some more experience prudent. Creating content makes an editor more appreciative when tagging content of others. I recommend this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Not ready yet. Please do not feel discouraged by the RfA process. You remain a valued Wikipedian, with a good future very much possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Neutral - In the answer to the question I asked: I would've hoped for the user to try and satisfy the fair use criteria before deleting/tagging the file. Thine Antique Pen (public) 10:22, 16 August 2012 (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.