Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vicenarian

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

Vicenarian

(33/26/10) Scheduled to end 01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. –xeno^talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Vicenarian (talk · contribs) – For my fourth nomination, I would like to present Vicenarian for consideration.

Vicenarian is a very unusual candidate, having only been around for about 3 months. BUT, a quick glance at Vicenarian's contribution log reveals one of the most polite and knowledgeable users here. I was Vicenarian's adopter from his second day on the job all the way to late July, and from the start I was stunned by Vicenarian's civil knowledge of policy and communication skills; he had been around for only a few days when I first adopted him, yet he was acting like he had been an admin for half a year! Generally a maintenance worker, the bulk of Vicenarian's activity rests in vandal-fighting, GA reviewing, and account creation. Vicenarian is a highly efficient vandal-fighter, with 3,481 Huggle edits and an impressive 108 edits to WP:AIV.

And now here Vicenarian is, 17 GA reviews, 8 significant article credits, and 49 created accounts later. I have firm confidence that Vicenarian will make a high-quality admin, particularly in the field of vandal fighting. The question now is, do you? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With many thanks to Dylan, I graciously and humbly accept. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 01:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Thanks to everyone who participated, I really appreciate your thoughtful consideration. Happy editing, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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: As an administrator, I intend to follow the admin backlog closely and pitch in wherever there is need. I am currently most familiar with anti-vandalism/anti-spam efforts, through my experience with Huggle, so I intend to watch WP:AIV and WP:UAA very closely. I have also been involved with several sockpuppet investigations, monitored and reported a few edit wars and have patrolled more than a couple new pages on the lookout for spam and copyvios. Through all my efforts, I have carefully watched the administrators I have come in contact with, and have tried to learn from them the "best practices" in each of these areas. I have always tried to emulate these practices in non-admin work, and would do the same if entrusted with the tools. This comment sums up my feelings about a major problem facing the project today.

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

A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia are those that help to accomplish two important goals: 1) Protecting, as well as we can given our open nature, the integrity of the information we are presenting while 2) presenting as much verifiable, notable, neutral encyclopedic material as humanly possible. Seem conflicting? Maybe. I'm particularly proud of my work with Lucy Activewear - it started out as little more than spam with a seemingly COI creator. I initially agreed with the speedy tag that had been placed on it, but after a Google search, I noticed that it was a notable company. I quickly worked to save it from a spammy grave. I hope to do the same for Complete Genomics, which had a similarly rocky start.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have had a few disagreements with good faith edits made by others, but in all cases I have deferred to civil discussion over battle. I recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that disagreements are, in fact, a necessary and welcome part of the development process. It is through disagreeing, discussing and compromising that we create better content. Outside of good faith editing, I have come face-to-face with disruptive behavior, and have at all times tried to educate and set a good example for editors who have run into trouble [1]. However, when it has been clear that an editor needs a few words of caution [2], or is not here to work together, I have not hesitated to say so.

Additional optional questions from Protonk

4. Why do you feel 3 months of experience is sufficient for a prospective administrator? Please explain in some detail.

A: Your question is a valid one, and indeed, I would ask it myself of any candidate in my position. Ruminating on the answer has kept me up well into the night (almost 3 AM UTC-4). I was hesitant to accept this nomination, not because I thought I wouldn't be ready to handle the responsibility of the extra tools, but because I knew my lack of registered experience was going to be a concern. Judging from the comments attached to the !votes below (all of which are very kind, thank you), it is definitely a concern. My answer to the concern is this: I would ask to be judged on my work, my knowledge and my character, as displayed through my edits these past three months. I don't assume to know everything - heck, I'm certain I don't (and a deficiency or two has been brought to my attention). If granted the administrator bit, I would start slowly and judiciously, in areas which I am more knowledgeable, and take my cues from the community and other administrators. I would be open both to frank review of my administrative actions AND to recall. If at any time it became clear the community no longer trusted me to perform the role of administrator, I would voluntarily give up the right, quietly and without a fight. Despite the relatively short amount of time my account has been registered, I believe that I have both the wisdom and the guts to be a helpful and productive administrator. If it is the consensus of my peers that I should wait, then I will graciously accept their judgment and continue to contribute as I have been. However, I believe that I am ready now, and I ask you to consider me with scrutiny, but also with an open mind. Thank you all. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 06:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

;Additional question from decltype

5. You made your first contribution on 2009-05-15. By 2009-05-17 you had done several GA reviews [3] [4], left talkbacks [5], requested rollback [6], and committed several other advanced edits [7], always with proper edit summaries. My question is, did you operate an account prior to 2009-05-15, and if so, why have you not disclosed it?

I believe you have already answered this in the "Discussion" section, so I'm striking the question. My bad. decltype (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Balloonman

6. I've already opposed, but I think this is enough of a concern that you need to address it. On your user page you have:

Now, I'm not asking you to disclose the nature of your ailment. But what I am asking is how might your ailment impact your ability to be an admin when you have already raised the concern that it might impact your ability to be a basic wikipedian? Is the condition a permanent condition that might impact you for years to come? Or is it a temporary condition that in a few days (weeks) won't affect you at all? If the later, why did you chose now to run?

Though I appreciate Balloonman's tactful phrasing, I'm moved to say that I'm a bit concerned about whether this question is appropriate. I've opposed for other reasons, but I think there's a discussion to be had about whether such questions should be asked here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Knowing what Vicenarian's ailment is myself (he does talk about it in his talk archives) I am pretty sure he won't mind answering this question. Though I can say that he will tell you what it is, I can't answer the rest for you. – B.hotep •talk• 09:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I think it's perfectly appropriate, given that I placed that banner on my user pages and have disclosed the condition publicly (I even have a userbox proclaiming it). I have severe sleep apnea, currently untreated, which has in recent days left me feeling constantly tired and somewhat crabby. I will be starting treatment in about a week (CPAP) and that should be the end of it. I put the boxes up because I was concerned that my exhaustion might interfere with my ability to carry out thorough GA reviews and to be an active participant in mediation. However, it hasn't done so to the extent that I feared, and I was actually planning to remove the health banners, except I didn't want it to seem like I was "hiding" something before my RfA. It's a permanent condition, but it is not serious and is very treatable, and hasn't impacted my ability to be a non-admin Wikipedian, and won't impact my ability to be an admin. (Typing doesn't require that much exertion, after all, though I haven't been able to get as much exercise as I'd like!) Thanks again for your consideration, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Would it be possible to back up Q3 with some diffs? Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 02:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) I'm digging through my contribs for question 2, so I'll pull some for 3 as well. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Edit stats are posted on the talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Pmanderson (talk · contribs) - I have been an avid Wikipedia reader and watcher since I first learned of it in 2003. In that time, I made small edits here or there where I saw obvious misspellings, grammatical errors, blatant vandalism, etc. These edits came from IPs that I have since forgotten and are probably too numerous to mention (you'd be surprised how many IPs you may edit from over six years, especially if you change schools and move three times, as I have since 2003). Mostly, however, up until May of this year, I was a reader. An avid reader, I read everything - including the various Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays, etc. In May, I decided it was time for me to dive in and become more involved with shaping what I was reading. I knew about merging articles from the start because I took the time to read WP:MERGE before I did anything. I wanted to do it right. I have read and reread as many of the key policies and guidelines as possible - the box on the bottom of my user page is a reading list for me, more than anything else. One of the policies I need to reread right now is WP:CSD, as it has been (fairly) pointed out to me that I am weak in this area. But no, I'm not the reincarnation of some other user. I just think it's wise to have clue about what I'm doing before I do it. :) I hope this helps assuage your concern. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons of personal privacy, however, I decline to reveal my current IP address. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 06:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to Wikipedia:Fun with trolls - if there is any blot on my Wikipedia record, something I'm not proud of, it's that incident. It wasn't a good idea. It was a lapse in judgment. I do not blame anyone for questioning my fitness as an admin because of it. For those of you who cannot see the deleted page or weren't involved, several weeks ago, after defeating yet another sock of the infamous Bambifan101, several users and myself decided to blow off a little steam by "pretending" to be said vandal on the talk page of the now blocked sock, leaving messages to each other in the style of Bambifan. Additionally, some of us created "sock" accounts that sounded like Bambifan socks, and left messages to each other on that page as "Bambifan". (Mind you, that was all that these alternate accounts - which we admitted were ours - did.) At the end, I decided to move the talk page to Wikipedia:Fun with trolls as an example of how you could turn a frustrating experience dealing with a troll into something fun. It was indeed intended to be harmless fun, but I see now that it was not appropriate behavior for a Wikipedia editor. Not only did it violate the principles of "Do not insult the vandals" and "Deny recognition," it was also using Wikipedia as a game, which it most certainly is not. Regardless of its intentions, it was bad behavior. I cannot excuse it, but I can state unequivocally that I very much regret it, understand now how it was inappropriate and profusely apologize for any harm caused. I can also assure you that it is not behavior that will ever be repeated. However, I understand if it makes anyone feel they must oppose. All I can say is that I hope I can work towards regaining your trust by continuing my efforts to be a productive, clueful editor and by trying to be an example of good behavior the community expects and deserves. Thanks for reading this rather long-winded statement, and thanks again for your consideration. Regards, Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 12:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Too early, but you seem fine otherwise. Wizardman 03:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral Support Being only on Wikipedia for 3 months is not enough experience IMHO. Also, the rather choppy CSD work mentioned by Balloonman is concerning. But other than that, you are a fine editor. Try coming back in about 5 or 6 months. Until It Sleeps^{Wake me} 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Moral support - I do not do these often, but I think the user is a good editor and will make a good administrator at some point. Time is really all he needs. Tiptoety ^talk 03:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm thinking support. Everyone is talking about how good your edits are now, so then why wait? It only punishes you for accepting this nomination, and since this isn't a self-nom, I don't think that's right. It's very likely that this will be denied, but that 15% "penalty" just isn't right in this case. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support Know Vicenarian well, so to be expected. I must admit, I was surprised to see this pre-watched page appear in my watchlist so early, but... why not, eh? Extremely knowledgeable, incredibly tactful, unlikely to abuse the tools. – B.hotep •talk• 05:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Moral Support Will be a fine administrator one day. Keepscases (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support I've seen Vicenarian around and have seen nothing but good come from this user. Also, per the comments of Tiptoety and Bubba hotep. Airplaneman ^talk 07:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - I do not believe they would misuse the tools. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, 4000+ manual edits, and three months is plenty of time to see if you're plainly nuts. I see no indication that you are, so this is an easy call for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC).
10. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong support as nominator. Good luck, pal! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
12. Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support - User has clue, three months is more than enough to tell me if the person has their head screwed on the right way. Lankiveil is on the right lines. Best of luck. :)— neuro^(talk) 11:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. I have seen the contents of the deleted Wikipedia:Fun with trolls and allow me to assure you it is nothing good, and enough to make me want to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 11:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Support I do not care about the length of time active, only about the number of good edits made, and experience shown thereby. Clearly enough. I have looked in some detail at the oppose !vote cast by Balloonman, and while I personally agree with his comments relating to three of the four articles he gives as examples, I note that all were deleted, under the stated criteria, at different times and by three different admins. IMHO a proven difference of opinion is not a reason to withold the tools from an otherwise excellent candidate. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Good editing is like good cooking -- you recognize it immediately. It is fairly obvious that Vicenarian understands Wikipedia policies and would be able to make intelligent admin-related decisions. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Although he's been here for three months, I do not think he will misuse the tools. --[midnight comet] [talk] 13:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per Lankiveil. Vicenarian has only been here three months, but he's already amassed over 9000 edits, 4000 of them manual, appears to know the policies and guidelines well, reviewed GANs, etc., etc. I really don't think time on Wikipedia should be an issue if everything else about the candidate is great. Good luck! LittleMountain5 14:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. I've been here longer than you have and 4000 manual edits is quite impressive (to me, at least). Even though this RfA won't pass, I'll almost definitely be supporting you in your next one. VI ^talk 14:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Very Very Strong Support. Per all the reasons above. And the opposite of some reasons below. Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Good editor and seems experienced even with the three months. I know he'll make good use of the admin tools. Elockid (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Sure, maybe ~3 months isn't long enough on Wikipedia for someone to be made an admin, but really, if time is the only thing stopping you from supporting that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Vicenarian is a very clueful and thoughtful editor and will only improve in the "x number" of months some opposers are asking him to wait. Every time I have read an opinion of his, be it on his talk page or an argument that he is making at XfD, I have been very impressed by his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Clearly having Vicenarian as an administrator here will be a net positive for the project as a whole. Good luck, pal! →javért ^chat 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate is an article creator with rollback and several barnstars while having no blocks. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per Pastor Theo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support per other supporters. However, as a practical matter, this RfA is not going to pass at this time. It might make sense for the candidate to consider withdrawing for now and reapplying in a couple of months with a more conventional period of wikiservice under his belt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Support If a person is clueful and a careful editor, and knows what he still needs to learn (discussion @06:19, 18 August 2009), isn't a minimum time period essentially arbitrary? A clueful editor will make at least as good an admin as someone who spends the 4th, 5th and 6th month of their career memorizing admin procedures. Thatcher 19:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, with a caution to go slow with deletion per B-man's concerns. Cluefulness can be demonstrated in 90 days and a users' clue level often stays pretty much level. –xeno^talk 22:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Support – Contribs look OK and indicative that the user is solid. Why come back here in a couple of months? MuZemike 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. My experience with this individual has revealed a dedication to the highest ideals of what Wikipedia is all about, a subtle and thorough grasp of policies -- not only their letter but their underlying meaning -- the ability to work sensitively and usefully with difficult users and a good sense of humour. I can't think that anything useful will be served by waiting for some arbitrary period of time to pass. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support per many above. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Strongest possible support - this is one of the hardest working users this site is lucky enough to have. Not only does he contribute much to the article space, but he does a lot of really good anti-vandal patrolling. I was honestly going to nominate him myself. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Hey, if you're willing to back me up with a co-nom, it's never too late! --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm good with that. Vicenarian has been utterly invaluable in dealing with one of the most persistent vandals in the history of this site. If it's a co-nomination you'd like, a co-nomination you shall have. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

30. Support - Looks like a valuable contributor across a number of areas. Three months is quite short, but it seems like the user and their actions are, in the majority of cases, well thought out and I don't see that this would change in the administrator role. Camw (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Support A great man can accomplish more in one day, than a fool can do in accomplish in a lifetime. Dream Focus 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    Which am I, Dream Focus? The great man or the fool? ;) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

32. Weak Support, an excellent candidate, although as others say more time would improve you to become even better. I am however supporting, as there is little that concerns me to weigh me to the other side. --Taelus (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support since I'd only been here five months when I was sysopped, it'd be hypocritical for me to oppose on that ground, and I can't see any other reason to. Black Kite 14:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Three months is startling to me, but that's not the real reason why I'm opposing. 5119 of your 9502 edits are automated which makes me hesistant as to how much experience you have without the use of tools.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Giants, I'm opposing for other reasons, but if 5119 of 9502 edits are automated, that means that over 4K are manual. Generally, that is more than enough to get a decent sense of how an editor behaves. I mean within the past year, 3K edits was deemed sufficient to be an admin.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I know but to me that shows kind of too tool reliant.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Sorry, but 3 months is just not a sufficient amount of time to gain the knowledge necessary to become an admin. iMatthew ^talk at 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Weak oppose Please come back in about six to nine months. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   6 to 9 months? Don't you feel that asking 9 to 12 months of active editing for potential administrators is a bit too much? NW (Talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose I am actually shocked that I spent as much time reviewing you as I did, which is more of a credit to your nominator, whom I generally respect. I decided to look at you with fresh eyes and not hold your 3 months against you, which last year would have been an auto oppose from me. But one of my pet peeves is sloppy speedy deletion and while I have loosened my standards elsewhere, I see that as an area where too much harm can be done by sloppy CSD'ers. Unfortunately, just looking at about 15 of your CSD's over the past 2 weeks highlighted 4 CSD nominations that I simply did not agree with. Those CSD's and my analysis can be found here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
5. I don't want to be mechanical about it, but 6 months seems to be a rough lower limit for me. IIRC, I was an editor for 6 months before being sysopped...so maybe that's just too convenient. Self interest aside I can't express how much I learned about how wikipedia worked between month 3 and month 6. Nooks and crannies of project space, DYK, SPI (formerly RFCU) were all unknown to me at month 3 but familiar at month 6. I would also like to see more contribution to the project space (mission aside, that's basically what admins work on) and more non-automated edits to content. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'll come back to this nomination and reappraise it, but that is my initial feeling. Protonk (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose. Vicenarian has done some great work around the project. However, I must agree with the above that you are in need of more experience. I can absolutely see you becoming a great sysop in the near future. Hope to see you back here in a few months. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - I think it's still to early. The bulk of your edits are on Huggle and Twinkle; which isn't to say that they aren't legitimate, but i would like to see more content work and a little more experience. Looks like you've done good work so far though. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose - I too think three months is just a bit too short. Your article work is promising, but not enough. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Although I don't think 3 months is too less, but I'm afraid that you have too less article writing experience. That said, please come back after 2/3 months. Count this as a moral support from me. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 11:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Three months with an account is not enough for me to feel comfortable about how the candidate would use the tools. I'm not saying that this candidate is a sock, but if three months starts to be an acceptable length of time before an RfA, we'll start getting sock candidates up the wazoo. Dekimasuよ! 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    The next oppose disturbs me as well. Dekimasuよ! 14:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose, but not because of questionable speedies or the relatively short tenure. I oppose primarily because of Wikipedia:Fun with trolls and the surrounding events, which I feel was a definite lapse in judgement, too recent to overlook, and in my opinion extremely unbecoming of a potential administrator. Your track record has been stellar since then, but for me, more time is needed before I can trust you not to misuse the tools. I understand if this may seem unfair, and I invite you to post a reply if you'd like. Sincerely, decltype (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    I appreciate your explanation. Just keep doing what you're doing and you'll soon be fully "redeemed" in my eyes. Time is all that's needed. Sincerely, decltype (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose Sorry, if you had waited another month this may be a support.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose In general I tend to eschew philosophies that set a mandatory minimum time that a member must be registered in order to request adminship. If someone were opposing a candidate with six or seven months' experience because it wasn't a year, yeah, that would be wrong. But three months, in all honesty, just isn't enough. Get your hands dirty, write some articles, patrol more pages, get involved in disputes, have some silly squabbles at AFD. We need more than three months' worth of track record to figure out if we can trust you with the tools; however, more importantly, you need more time to learn about yourself as a member of this community, where your place is as a gear in this machine. Hope to see you back soon. GlassCobra 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Weak oppose I'm not really seeing any major issues with this candidate, besides simple lack of experience. Sorry, but I just cannot support somebody who's only been here for 3 months. It takes time to learn about this place and hold a good, steady track record, so come back after another few months or so. GlassCobra said it well, so I won't repeat. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose because it takes much longer than 3 months to understand the culture of this large, sprawling, and heterogeneous community. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - three months is not enough, and your answer to the question about your short period of time here is so long-winded that I couldn't get anything out of it. It doesn't really inspire confidence if you don't know enough to explain why you know enough. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Weak Oppose - a few months is too little experience imo. Francium12 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per Balloonman. 3 months experience in and of itself doesn't disqualify you in my books, but I think that you could use a bit more experience in this area. PGWG (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Not yet. I'd like to see a little more of this candidate first.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
20. I don't think you have all the experience necessary for an administrator just yet. In three more months I will support you. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose Experience is absolutely lacking for administrator tasks.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose same reason as S.Marshall--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Wikipedia:Fun with trolls is enough to make me oppose. I don't know how you could have thought that was a good idea. — neuro^(talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Weak Oppose - I am not entirely satisfied with the candidate's recent CSD work. Furthermore, I'm not sure I want to see more anti-spam hawks at UAA at this time ... Shereth 15:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)I may have been a bit quick to make assumptions on this one, but overall the !vote still stands Shereth 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    If I may be so bold, Vicenarian has only ever made 17 reports to UAA (against 108 at AVI) – I don't really think that can be classed as an anti-spam hawk (whatever that means). :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

    A better response to this can be found at my talk page (where I responded to the candidate), but basically I am wary of candidates who proclaim an interest in both spam-fighting and UAA patrolling. This may well be a minority opinion but it is mine. Shereth 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose mainly per experience concerns. Three months is not enough time to show me you understand all the major policies and guidelines. Otherwise, I see no problems, and I'd be happy to support in a few months. Timmeh (review me) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Vicenarian hasn't been registered long enough to show a commitment to Wikipedia (lots of people burn out after a few months, and I don't want to be promoting people who haven't yet shown this won't happen to them.) Additionally, Wikipedia:Fun with trolls isn't a permanent disqualification but it will require more time than this to fully recover from. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Would like to see answers to Q2/3. — neuro^(talk) 01:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Neurolysis moved to support [8]

1. I think you're a great editor, and, should this request not succeed, you have an amazing amount of potential. You strike me as knowledgeable and intelligent, and I think you would make a good administrator. Unfortunately, the fact that you've only been around for three months concerns me. Three months isn't that long; I've been around for two years, and it seems like I've just begun! There are quite literally thousands of policies, guidelines, essays, how-to guides, noticeboards and discussion pages, and to be perfectly honest, I don't feel three months is enough time to become familiar with them and all their associated WP:TLA's. As an administrator, you'll receive countless questions ranging from "Why did you delete my article?" to "Do you know how to report a potential copyright violation", so you'll need to know where to point people. I don't expect you (or anyone else) to memorize all policies; in fact, I encourage people to read them slowly and over a long period of time. But as I said, three months is simply not enough time to become familiar with all major aspects of the community. However, you seem capable of learning on the job, and that's what is keeping me from opposing. Regardless of whether this passes, I'd advise you to, at your own pace, read through WP:ARL, and perhaps dabble in the various pages listed there. I will watch this RfA for the next week, and I am open to being persuaded. I wish you the best of luck. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   This will sound stupid but for some reason the toolserver isnt't loading for me and I'd like percentage of your edits are automated as opposed to manual. When it does load I'll re-evaluate.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

    Works for me. Approximate total automated or assisted edits: 5119, Auto/Total percentage: 53.88%. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Just noticed, not sure why it wasn't loading for me four minutes ago.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. he had been around for only a few days when I first adopted him, yet he was acting like he had been an admin for half a year! Indeed, his second edit discussed merging an article using that term. That's remarkably knowledgable for someone with no experience with Wikipedia; he may have a long experience as an anon (in which case he would do well to specify the IP); but there's always another possibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   What's wrong with discarding an old user, and starting with a new one? See the page you just linked to - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Nothing, as I have gone to some pains to make sure that page says; but if the old name had an excellent record, Vicenarian should mention it; if not, let us have some time to see if any bad habits have carried over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Accusing a seemingly good-faith editor of sockpuppetry is an exceptionally strong claim, one which I'd expect to be supported by more conclusive evidence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   There is something unusual going on here; I brought up one possibility myself, and Kingpin another, that would be perfectly legitimate. If I were accusing anybody, I'd do it elsewhere; I await Vicenarian's explanation. Please note that this is Neutral, not oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I believe Vicenarian may have been editing as an IP for some time before registering. Not an unusual practice. I may be wrong, I didn't think to ask to be honest because there were no problems with what he was doing now. I don't think you can ask him outright to reveal the IP for reasons of privacy, but that would be entirely up to him and I certainly wouldn't feel any differently if he did decline to bring it forth. – B.hotep •talk• 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   I think that this is a more than adequate explanation from Vicenarian [9] VI ^talk 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral - The user seems qualified, although he has not been around for a very long time in my opinion. @harej 05:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - Seems like a good candidate, but I have concerns. Don't want to oppose though. Alan16 (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Unlike other candidates, Vicenarian's CSD tagging is quite okay. Balloonman lists some mistakes and that's fine but one has to go back a month to find taggings that were not deleted, i.e. were completely wrong. This G11] is such an example (not complete spam, has even a criticism section), as well as this A9 (artist and album exist), this A1 (clearly has context). WP:AGF compels me to assume that the candidate has since then learned from those mistakes and that the mistakes pointed out by Balloonman can be learned from as well. I like the way the candidate reacted after this tagging was contested but I would love to see them try and save articles before tagging. That said, the problems pointed out by Balloonman make me abstain from supporting (this time) but I would be happy to support this candidate in a second RFA if this one fails. On a side note: That the candidate has only been here for 3 months does not influence me at all. Quantity (of time being here) does never transfer into quality (of editing) directly. Regards SoWhy 09:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral I'm here because I, like most of the others on this page, think you'd be a great candidate later on but aren't quite ready yet. Juliancolton summed up the reasons pretty clearly, but it's really easy to be gung-ho and then burn out with your finger on the ban-hammer. You've got about 4.4k non-automated edits, which is a lot for just 3.5 months. In addition to some of the other concerns here (which can all be easily assuaged in just a few months!) I'd like to see evidence of sustained low-stress levels. Your contributions look excellent, and I look forward to Vicenarian 2! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral: Our paths have crossed a number of times, and you've always seemed a sensible chap, but I too would like to see just a little longer. This intensive three months may (for all I know) be because you're in-between jobs/girlfriends/courses or whatever, and you might slow down in the next three months, get fed up of reverting vandals etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Comment. Thank you very much for being a Good Article reviewer. If anyone in the oppose section above has never helped review a FA or GA article candidate then I challenge the legitimacy of their opposition to your candidacy here. Engaging in article reviews materially increases Wikipedia's quality. Please continue doing that kind of work, consider improving and taking an article in a subject you find interesting through the GA and FA processes, and reapply here again in six months or so if this one doesn't pass. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral. An excellent candidate, but WP:NOTNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral. What a great candidate! I am sure they will make an excellent admin, in the future but for me 3 months is just not enough and some dodgy CSD tags put me off from a support. Good luck for the future though and be sure to come back in a couple of months! AtheWeatherman 09:26, 19 August 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.