Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Voidxor

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

Voidxor

Final (13/22/8); ended 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC) - withdrawn by candidate Kharkiv07 (T) 22:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per the good-faith advice on my talk page. Thank you all for your valuable feedback and constructive criticism. I assure you there are no hard feelings. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Voidxor (talk · contribs) – Voidxor has over 8500 edits and has been around the community for a number of years. Recently I have gotten to know him under live Wikipedia events, and have found him to be both level headed, increadibly knowledgable about community policies and best practices, and very much committed to maintaining neutral and policy-complient representations of public knowledge. Looking more thoroughly through his user contributions, talk page history, and work on others talk pages, he has been more than welcoming, and very good at finding suitable communications with other users (for example: [1] and [2]). He has done both new page patrol, and cleanup in various parts of Wikipedia (for example [3]) , and every time I have interacted with him both in person and online, he has made an effort to learn a new process or new way of understanding the Wikipedia community. Giving him adminstrative tools would be one more opportunity for him to learn and excel in his commitment to improving Wikipedia and the community: allowing him to help with backlogs and community processes more easily handled as an administrator. I hope everyone gives him an equitable opportunity to become an administrator, Sadads (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I graciously and humbly accept my nomination as put forth by User:Sadads. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:20, 27 April 2015 (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: To some degree, the answers to this lie on my userpage, where I track my significant contributions, along with their outcome (which helps me to learn best practice, when it comes to things like merging or speedy deletion):

• History merges: I'll start with the cases where I did cut-and-paste merges in the past. Going forward, I plan to close some merge discussions (e.g. 1, 2, 3), implement the merge (if consensus is to merge), and merge the histories.
• Page deletions: I have some experience opening AfD discussions, proposing deletion, and tagging candidates for speedy deletion. As an administrator, I would not only be able to close my own AfD discussions and PROD tags, I would be able to assist with the backlogs as well.
• Applying page protection: I have some experience requesting it, and could more effectively combat persistent IP vandalism by applying short-term semi protection. Additionally, I will offer to indefinitely semi protect vandalism-prone pages in userspace (e.g. User:QuackGuru).
• Unblocking IP ranges: Sadads is mentoring me in hosting meetups and GLAM events. Once I start hosting these events or even WikiEdu in the classroom, I might need to unblock the IP range of the library or school. Sadads makes a good point that such an event could be bust without an administrator on hand for just such an occasion. Depending on the circumstances, I might reinstate blocks after the conclusion of the event.
• Editing protected templates and modules: Until now, I've had to make edit requests (e.g. 1, 2). Of course, I would only make such wide-reaching edits after gaining consensus and testing my changes in the associated sandbox.

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

A: Many of my best contributions take place off wiki; they take place in the classroom, at the museum, in the art gallery, and at the library. That is, my best contributions are the folks I've inspired to join Wikipedia and helped to make their first edits. Several of these new Wikipedians continue to contribute productively even after our tutorials or meetups. Through recruitment of new editors, each hour of assisting and teaching on my part can pan into several hours worth of research, writing, and cleanup work by the new editors. Thus, it's multiplicatively better for me to foster these new resources than it is for me to try to conquer Wikipedia's gaps and cleanup needs myself. That's important, and the reason I plan to involve myself with more GLAM events in the future.

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 occasionally been in editing conflicts, a few of which have caused me stress. This is rare, however, and generally occurs no more than a couple times a year. I've dealt with it by opening fruitful discussion, reviewing pertinent policies, then graciously conceding if I was in the wrong. I'm proud to say that I've never edit warred and never been banned.

Within the last year, my Wiki-stress levels have diminished considerably. I attribute this to a better knowledge of the policies and guidelines, becoming better at assuming good faith, a less hurried lifestyle (i.e. more time to edit), enabling Twinkle and using the standard warning templates (rather than reverting new editors without explanation), and working to become a good role model for other editors (e.g. 1, 2). I will continue this trend in the future, and especially focus on being a positive role model if elected to an adminship.

Additional question from ONUnicorn

4. In response to question #1 you say, "As an administrator, I would not only be able to close my own AfD discussions and PROD tags, I would be able to assist with the backlogs as well." Could you clarify your statement? Are you saying that you would close AFD discussions (as delete) where you were the person who nominated the article for deletion? Or delete articles where the prod tag you yourself had applied had expired?

A: No. Upon further review of the deletion guidelines, I now see that it's better if an non-voting, non-nominating admin performs the actual delete. On unambiguous speedy deletions, I could proceed myself, but not on PRODs or AFDs. Sorry for the confusion.

Additional question from Wehwalt

5. What articles do you consider to be in significant part written by yourself?

A: Samsung Rugby Smart and Comparison of online brokerages in the United States, to name a couple.

Additional question from Kharkiv07 and Mkdw

6. What's your opinion of WP:INVOLVED, and how it applies to admin actions? How do you interpret if you're an involved admin?

A: I fully support WP:INVOLVED; I misspoke when answering question #1 above. In fact, I have been impressed when other admins recuse themselves from voting. And, at times, I have recused myself from voting or closing discussions. As an admin, I would not close AFD or PROD proposals in which I voted. Even now, I do not vote in proposals where I was the nominator. Again, sorry for the confusion as I learn these policies.

Additional question from Jo-Jo Eumerus

7. Do you have any experience in disputes and arguments, either by resolving them or by being a party in them?

A: I have a some experience resolving disputes (e.g. 1, 2), and more experience being a party in them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4). In both situations, I try to maintain professionalism at all times. In situtaions where I'm resolving a dispute, I approach it as a voice of experience, and try not to take sides. In situations where I'm party to a dispute, I work to respectfully express my views while assuming good faith in others; I only ask that they give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Additional question from FreeRangeFrog

8. You become aware of a situation where an IP with no prior contributions has repeatedly blanked the contents of a biography of a living person, and they have been reverted several times already by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what to do other than to also keep reverting. Both are now over 3RR. The IP has three warnings in their talk page, and refuses to respond to questions about their behavior. They have not used summaries at all when blanking. You examine the contents of the article and see that it is largely unsourced, but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information. You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. What steps do you take to resolve the issue, and why?

A: I would deal with this situation on three fronts. First, I would temporarily block the IP address with a short expiry time (a day or a week, depending on the time frame over which 3RR was violated). I would explain to the IP exactly why they were blocked on their talk page (3RR, blanking, and failing to collaborate), as well as what they could do better after the block expires (use edit summaries, engage in talk page discussion, and tag uncited content {{Citation needed}} instead of blanking).

On the second front, I would ask the inexperienced user why they violated 3RR. If they simply intended to fight vandalism (I would assume this to be the case), I would not ban them, but I would explain 3RR and how to request admin help in the future. If their reasoning was other than fighting vandalism (say, ownership over the largely uncited biography), then I would ban them for an incrementally longer expiry than their last 3RR ban (if one is in the logs). Then, as with the IP, I would explain 3RR on their talk page.

The third front that would need my attention is the biography. Since it's now disputed, I would move as much uncited content as I could (without butchering the flow of the article) to the talk page. What remains could be tagged as uncited. Depending on my familiarity with the subject, and as my time allows, I would try to find at least a couple sources for factual statements. Since only two editors where involved, and both have been addressed, I would not add page protection. The talk-page discussion and maintenance tags should help draw the attention of established editors. If the biography was written in large part by just one or two editors, I would reach out to them to see if they could provide additional references.

Additional question from Mkdw

9. In response to questions 4 and 6, you mentioned "voting" in relation to AFD. Could you describe the basis on how AFD discussions are closed?

A: My use of "voting" is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, since polling is no substitute for discussion. In actuality, I would never tally votes and would always close proposals (whether AfD, merge, move, or otherwise) in favor of the consensus. If there is no clear consensus (i.e. nearly split down the middle with strong arguments on both sides), and enough time has elapsed, I would close the discussion with a result of "no consensus at this time". Per WP:INVOLVED, I would not close proposals on which I have weighed in, nor would I allow my personal opinion to sway my interpretation of the consensus.

Additional question from Supdiop

10. If a new user vandalizes a few biographies without stopping after receiving several warnings, what action do you take on that user? and What action would you take if it was an IP?

A: After multiple warnings are given, continued vandalism would result in a block. I would start with a relatively short expiry time (again, dependent on the frequency and duration of the vandalism) and increase it incrementally if similar vandalism blocks have been issued for that user or IP address in the recent past. I would add an explanation of why they were banned to their talk page.

Because anybody can edit Wikipedia, I would not treat IP addresses any differently from registered users, other than realizing that IP users are more difficult to get a hold of, and may actually be more than one person. It is also important to note that we do not bite newcomers. My goal is to inspire vandals and test editors to become productive editors, rather than to scare them off. Many productive editors got their start by test editing or even vandalizing.

Additional question from Berean Hunter

11. As you have mentioned that you would unblock ranges at a school for an event, you find that you are on the 117.165.0.0/16 network at that school and you check the block log and see this. If you choose to unblock, how long will the duration of that unblock be or would you leave it unblocked when you leave?

A: For IP addresses or ranges with persistent problems, I would restore the blocks at the end of the event. I agree with the way in which NawlinWiki and Materialscientist setup the block to which you refer—that is, blocking anonymous editing and account creation for IPs associated with public computer labs (e.g. schools, libraries), but allowing established editors to still edit. Since I would encourage new users to create accounts, such bans could be reinstated as soon as all attendees have logged in.

Additional question from Winner 42

12. When should you not delete an article nominated under G7 when the only editor of the article was its author?

A: You shouldn't perform a G7 delete when the speedy request did not come from the sole author, or somebody other than the sole author page blanked it. If asked to G7 a redirect left behind by a page move, the requester must have been the only significant contributor to the page that was moved. Lastly, all G7 requests (either explicitly via tagging, or implicitly via blanking) must be made in good faith.

Additional question from Winner 42

13. I'm going to steal a question from Neil's RfA from Stuartyeates and ask, On which topic do you consider yourself to be furthest from the general wikipedia consensus?

Q: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "topic". Are you asking if I disagree with the spirit of any rules, policies, or guidelines?

To clarify: What general practice, policy, guideline, often cited essay, etc, that is typically followed on Wikipedia do you disagree with the most or agree with the least? Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A: I cannot think of any policies or guidelines with which I disagree. However, I often see editors misrepresenting WP:IAR. I don't disagree with it; I just commonly see editors use it as the substance of their argument when they happen to disagree with a given rule. Ignore All Rules pertains to situations in which the rules or guidelines are holding back the continued development of the encyclopedia; it does not invalidate all rules and policies across the board.

Additional questions from User:DESiegel

14. What is your view of Process is important?

A:

15. How strictly should the literal wording of the speedy deletion criteria be applied?

A:

16. What is the place of WP:IAR in carrying out administrative actions?

A:

17. An admin is often expected or requested to help others, particularly new users, and to aid in calming disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution. How do you see yourself in this aspect of an Admin's role?

A:

Additional question from StringTheory11 (t • c)

18 How would you close this deletion discussion? No cheating and looking at the actual close!

A:

General comments

• Links for Voidxor: Voidxor (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Voidxor can be found here.
• A WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK are two different things on the English Wikipedia. You've mentioned "ban" a few times in your answer to Q8. Do you mean "block"? Mkdw^talk 19:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Voidxor I'd provide clarification on that. Kharkiv07 (T) 19:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant "block". I used "ban" in part to avoid ambiguity with blocks of IP addresses. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 20:12, 15 June 2015 (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 as nominator. Voidxor has been more consistent and experienced with policy than I was when I got Admin rights, and has consistently shown himself to be level headed and good at enforcing, exploring, and reflecting on policy. In my mind, there is not reason not to give the tools, and give him another opportunity to grow in the community, Sadads (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

   You had over 62,000 edits at the time of your RFA. All editors should grow, but some growth needs to happen beforehand. Hard to say how much, but I am curious to know more from these questions. Mkdw^talk 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

   @Mkdw:True about the number of edits: but in a way, I have not been the most productive admin: in that, because I am so focused on outreach, new editors, and content, I often don't have time to step in during other community processes (though I try to do a significant pass on deletions, etc, every month or two). I will say both online and offline interactions with Voidxor have included a number of very inquisitive conversations about policy and process, that in turn lead to him improving his involvement in the wiki. I can only imagine him growing with more tools/responsibilities. As I have learned, many of the admin tools and processes are ones that you have to learn as you go, rather than know about up front, Sadads (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

2. Support. After a review of contributions, I trust this user not to deliberately screw things up. While I expect that they may make a few mistakes when performing administrative tasks for the first time, Voidxor appears to be a quick learner. Net positive. HiDrNick! 19:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Moral support. Honestly, I think you'd be fine, even if you don't know the usual policy shibboleths (which I'm tempted to count as a point in favor). It's not brain surgery. But the thing is, being a good admin is as much about effective self-presentation as knowing what's in which WP:TLA, and the combination of spotty experience and wobbly answers to the questions isn't quite adding up to a convincing case. Still, you're obviously competent and with a little more experience will be well-qualified. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Support Wikipedia needs administrators and I'm thankful this candidate is even running for it. I don't really see anything that would really count against this candidate rather than inexperience and even that could be learned on the job. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Support, if somewhat weakly. Voidxor may not have the experience that most RfA participants look for, but I think he'll do just fine. Adminship is not rocket science. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
6. Support Of course the candidate needs to study policy some more, but it is clear from the dedication of this user to the project that he or she will. Sure the candidate was a bit confused about the distinction between bans and blocks, but I would be willing to bet that he or she now understands the distinction. The bottom line is that the candidate is not going to harm Wikipedia as an administrator and the project will ultimately benefit from having this editor as an administrator. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

   You're right; I now understand the distinction. Thanks for your support! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

7. Support I see a candidate who was nominated before they were quite ready, and know what that's like. Although there are gaps in their grasp of policy and (let's be honest) WP jargon, those can be bridged. What's putting me here is the candidate's temperament—an important, often-overlooked quality of a good admin. Miniapolis 01:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Support' I suppose this is a losing cause but this is a candidate with the right temperament to be an admin. The rest can be learned on the job, it's really not rocket science. Pichpich (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Support' As per Yamamoto Ichiro. Very well put. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
10. Support I see nothing that would lead me to believe that this candidate would abuse the tools. I am unconvinced by the arguments of the oppose voters. --rogerd (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    Are you serious? Look at User talk:JoanneB123 or User talk:Charliallpress. Do you want this admin to fall into that trap? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    I'm currently neutral, but can you explain how these talk pages show that voidxor is likely to abuse the tools? I don't understand your point. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    I think most admins don't deliberately set to abuse the tools. But a big problem I have found (and principally complained about by friends and relatives off-wiki) is communication. If a candidate is confused between a block and a ban, and has little experience in AfD, there is a serious risk they will make a judgement call that leads to strong criticism and lost editors. I apologise if I sound like a grump; rather I'd like Voidxor to look at the talk pages carefully and see how a seemingly routine template can scare off new editors. Once those problems have been absorbed, then he can file a new RfA in about six month's time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

11. Support. I've not encountered Voidxor before this RFA, but reading their contributions here and links I'm very impressed. They don't know everything, but who does? I'm happy that they'll ask and discuss about anything they're uncertain regarding and they are clearly willing to learn and not afraid of admitting when they are wrong. If this RFA doesn't pass, please do continue with Wikipedia and apply again later as you will make a great admin. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
12. Support I won't say I'm unswayed by the oppose votes, like several others I wish Voidxor were running six months and 50 AfDs later. That said the most important parts of an RfA are temperament and trust. Voidxor has the temperament. They are close enough on the trust that I am placing myself here in support. Admins should be allowed mistakes, they should not be allowed incivility. This does not look likely to pass, so I implore the candidate to understand the neutrals and opposes, there is a lot of good advice for editors in general there, not just for admin candidates. Then, please apply again. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
13. Strong support because he's been around for a long time (five years more than me, and I've been an admin for a long time), is intelligent and highly educated (the type of person who should be an admin), and his only "mistakes" seem to be "incorrectly" answering completely contrived questions where not enough information is given to make a reasonable judgment. This is simply ridiculous: "Needs six more months," or "needs 50 more AFD votes," or "incorrectly answered the contrived questions". Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I suppose I'm going to be that guy and go ahead and oppose. All around, Voidxor seems like a strong editor who's an asset to the project, however I'm not overly impressed with credentials for adminship. One of the main points for requesting adminship was page deletions. However, with only 5 AfD !votes, 4 PRODs, and nearly no speedy deletions besides G6s, and (as stated in the answer to question 4) a lack of familiarity with the deletion policy, I don't feel comfortable handing over a delete button. Another point that was raised was working in RfPP, but (by Voidxor's own records), they only have six requests in the mainspace, and only five of those were protected. I'm also not very happy with the original interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, even if it was fixed later. I feel honestly bad opposing it, but I just don't think now is the time. What needs to happen is more admin work, and in the future I can easily see you with the mop. Kharkiv07 (T) 18:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Oppose for reasons given by Kharkiv07, MelanieN and Dennis Brown. (I'm puzzled why comments that the candidate isn't ready should be grounds for a Neutral !vote) Yes, a good editor, but insufficient experience so far. --Stfg (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) By the way, I don't see responding to requests for advice on one's own talk page as being examples of dispute resolution. --Stfg (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

   Moral support. It's more "not yet" than "never" and we get enough complaints about RFA being Hell Week without slamming a good editor who is having a bad afternoon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

   I understand, thank you. My oppose is also a "not yet" and not a "never". --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

3. Oppose: While you have good overall contributions, you still need more maintenance contributions. A major concern is that you plan to close AfDs and delete PRODs with no opposition; however you have only several edits to the deletion processes (CSD, PROD, and XfD). The last time you participated in an AfD was six months ago, two of your overall !votes were cast between 2006-2007. I suggest that you participate more often in maintenance tasks, make yourself familiar with WP:N and the deletion policy (I only see WP:NOTDICTIONARY-based votes), and try again in 4,000 edits or so. Esquivalience ^t 20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. The answer to question 2 is concerning: closing your own nominated AfDs is considered an involved closure and should never be performed. Question 8 is also concerning because the word ban is used freely: a [site] ban is a formal prohibition from editing where it is hopeless that the banned editor will participate constructively in the near future if unbanned - it is for long-term disruptive editing or abuse. A block is a less formal prohibition, where there is more than a snowball's chance in hell's chance that the blocked editors will constructively edit is unblocked. Esquivalience ^t 21:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose "... such bans could be reinstated..." in response to Q11. You don't appear to grasp the difference between a block and a ban. That, coupled with many neutral comments, leaves me here - for now. I don't think you've got the "all round" experience needed yet; however I'm sure this can be fixed and look forward to supporting a future RFA. Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Oppose as politely as possible. While voidxor seems like a great editor (and a nice person), they don't seem to have a great need for the tools. It seems like they're occasionally involved in tasks where they might save a minute or two if they had admin tools themselves, but requests for admins to make administrative actions on behalf of voidxor seem rare. They show no particular expertise in any individual area (e.g. AfD) and the only convincing argument they've made for needing admin tools would be to unblock IP ranges in Wikipedia meetups. I'm afraid unblocks for those events, where relevant, might just have to be organized with an admin in advance. However, voidxor's spotless block log and consistent positive attitude in discussions are encouraging and if they showed a bit more interest and activity in an area where the mop would really aid them, I'd definitely support them. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
6. Oppose I'm afraid the candidates comments above give quite a number of indications that he or she has vague (or in a few cases even wrong) ideas about policies and accepted practices in relation to administrative issues. No admin candidate can be expected to know everything relevant, but in this case there are just too many areas where teh candidate is unclear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Oppose Voidxor looks to be a good editor but as per the answer to the questions so far, an RfA/adminship should not be the place to learn fundamental policies. Perhaps retry in a few months.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Regretful Oppose per rule of 2 and Dennis Brown et al. Some recoveries make me more uneasy: e.g., I'm not sure candidate understands WP:INVOLVED. Glrx (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
9. Oppose reluctantly. This editor seems dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, is civil and patient in their interactions with other editors, and has done great work recruiting and trying to retain new editors. I have no doubt that this editor becoming an administrator would be a net positive to the encyclopedia once they get a little more experience. However, there are too many answers above where it appears there isn't quite as firm a grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I would like to see. Other than the examples mentioned above, I was unhappy to see that Voidxor would "not treat IP addresses any differently from registered users" when blocking, when the fact that IPs can represent multiple users does in fact require that they be treated differently (most importantly, the bar for indefinitely blocking an IP is MUCH higher than for a registered user). I would strongly encourage this user to spend some time thoroughly reading through the policies and discussions related to the various admin functions, spend some time at least reading through AfD and AIV outcomes, test the waters at AfD, and try again for adminship in a few months. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 21:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Voidxor seems a great editor but the lack of AFD & CSD participation is a bit of a concern to be honest, I'm also a bit concerned at the fact they didn't seem to know the difference between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN (I don't expect editors to know every single policy here but too me anyone should know that), Anyway IMHO there just doesn't seem to be any need for the mop at the moment so I have to oppose but I wish you the best of luck here and at future RFAs. –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
11. Oppose, very regretfully. Others have shared my thoughts very well, so all I have to say is that if this RfA fails, please stay on Wikipedia, get more familiar with the finer points of policy and how it is usually applied, read some past RfAs, and you'll do absolutely fine. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

    Also, your answer to Q11 was very unsatisfactory- not only did you not understand the difference between blocks and bans, you also said you would reverse a block marked as a CheckUser block, which is something you should never do without a CheckUser's permission. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

12. Oppose The question I made has no easy fixed answer. Situations like that can involve several delicate parts that must be handled carefully. I disagree with the solution you propose, but that's not why I'm opposing. I'm opposing because of your repeated use of block vs ban, which are not interchangeable. I'm not sure I feel a candidate is ready if they don't know the difference between those two. I also have concerns about your grasp of policy given some of the other answers. Going over your contributions I feel this RFA might have come ~6 months early. You should brush up on a lot more adminy stuff, frequent a few non-admin noticeboards (BLPN and COIN always need help), some more speedy tagging and AFD participation and paired with your other good contributions I'd have no problem supporting. I don't oppose so much as don't think you're ready yet, but I think you can be. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
13. Oppose *sigh* I'm the easiest guy to give out support, but then I read about your confusion between ban and block, you are a good editor, but certainly not experienced on Administrative matters hence your confusion, you are simply not ready to become "people who administrate". Don't be sad because many people opposing you, you just need to learn more about administrative matters.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 00:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Needs more experience across the board. I thank the candidate for their offer of service as an admin, and for their work done to date. Jusdafax 01:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I don't think he is ready to be an administrator yet. Having a look through the questions he might not understand the differences between a ban and block is. None of the following meet my criteria for administrator - EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 02:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
16. Oppose WP:NOTYET - I think the user has a great temperment and would be able to maintain a level head in heated situations, but it seems that a bit more experience on policy would be favorable. My initial concern surrounded the deletion issues, and then the ban vs. block situation. With just a bit more experience with and knowledge of policy, I would definitely support. Please do run again! Pax Verbum 05:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    • As someone pointed out to me last RfA, this particular RfA case here is not an example of WP:NOTYET, which is only to be used for No0bs. (On a related note, I'm thinking of writing up a new essay that I'd like to shortcut as "WP:NOTQUITEYET" for situations such as these, but heck if I know if I'll have enough time this summer to actually write it up!!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

    That crossed my mind even as I was posting, but since the Not Yet page does provide some useful links, and with no alternative, I used it. I think WP:NOTQUITEYET is a great idea! Do it! :) Pax Verbum 08:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

17. Moral Support The editor was advised to withdraw their RFA; I can only assume they've left it open as it's been a good learning process for them. They're getting one heck of a education and I'm very encouraged on the how the community treated this RFA. At this point I don't expect too many more to pile on but as an early engager in this RFA, I would be here. I think this editor absolutely has everything they need to be an admin except for some experience before they're handed the tools. If they were handed the tools yesterday, I think they would have gotten themselves into some hot water applying some of their understandings of policies. Mkdw^talk 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
18. Strong oppose mainly per Q8. I would strongly recommend reading WP:DOLT and WP:REALWORLD and realise that many people trying out Wikipedia do not use it often and have no idea of the "community" culture here. An admin should never reach for the block button without fully understanding all circumstances and AGF on all sides, failure to do so gives Wikipedia a very bad reputation. Q12 and 13 seem "non answers" that don't seem to show me how the candidate works. Add the lack of AfD experience as mentioned by others and it means I think adminship is not a good fit for you. I'd recommend focusing on content work instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Quite clearly not ready to be an admin. BMK (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
20. Oppose with regret. I would think another try in six months would succeed. But for now, a bit more practice and experience (as far as a non-admin can experience admin work...) is needed. And reading the policies, coupled with asking questions if not sure. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
21. Oppose regretfully this very well intended RfA. Based partly on Q8 but mainly after careful consideration and tweaking of these stats, like Peridon above I still can't find enough experience in maintenace areas that demonstrate sufficient confidence and knowledge to be armed with some of the tools and the level of judgement that go with Wikipedia mops & buckets. The comments from my colleagues in the Neutral section carry some excellent advice whch I wholly endorse and as soon as those boxes on my list of criteria can be more or less checked and after a thorough read of WP:Advice for RfA candidates, I will be more than happy to be up there in the Support section at the next RfA. Till then (and I look forward to it), do keep up the good work and don't hesitate to ask your peers for any advice on the way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Does not seem ready yet. From what I see, it appears that Viodxor has learned more from the RfA questions and responses than actual experience over certain administrative functions (such as deletion). I would be willing to support if Voidxor showed more experience and understanding in areas where a mop is really needed. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Waiting on question 4... Mkdw^talk 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Moved to oppose

1. Neutral I'm saying neutral rather than oppose, because I'd like to offer moral support to this candidate and to thank you for your work here. However, your experience in admin areas is nowhere near extensive enough to do the things you say you want to do. You want to do page protection, but you have made only seven six requests (sorry, apparently I can't count), and none in more than a year. You want to deal with Articles for Deletion, but you have participated in only five AfD discussions - the most recent in December 2013. And your comment above about deleting your own nominations for PROD and AfD makes me wonder if you understand the basics of administrator behavior, including guidelines like WP:INVOLVED. Please do keep on editing here, but if you aspire to be an administrator, you will need a lot more experience in admin-type activities. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. You can certainly apply for adminship again when you have more experience. But before you do, be sure to read the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and click on some of the "criteria" links at the bottom, where people spell out what they hope to see in an administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
   Additional concern prompted by the answer to question #10: you are still using "block" and "ban" interchangeably, as if you don't understand the difference. And your comment "I would not treat IP addresses any differently from registered users" suggests you don't realize that registered users can be blocked indefinitely but IPs cannot. Again, an indication you need to spend more time in the "backstage" areas of Wikipedia, so that you learn this kind of thing. --MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Neutral I'm with MelanieN here. When given the chance to correct himself and show an understanding of the policy in an in depth manner, the response came up flat and left the impression that he isn't ready yet. Unquestionably a good editor, but admins are required to have a more rounded set of experiences that Voidxor lacks at this time. Would love to see another RFA when you have more work at AFD and/or CSD and/or RFPP or mediation. I don't require perfection, but I do need to see experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
3. Neutral I'll accept that there are sufficient content contributions to satisfy my standard (all I really want is some skin in the game). But I really feel the candidate shot from the hip on #1, and I don't like that, especially since you aren't under any sort of time pressure to answer the standard questions. I'm also concerned over the lack of involvement in admin areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now. I am not seeing any strong reasons to distrust Voidxor with the mop (I don't think changing one's answers to the RfA questions counts as as a serious problem, and the answer to my admittedly broad question is satisfactory), but participation in the administrator areas is somewhat lacking. It's hard for me to gauge whether your sysoping would be a net improvement for the wiki. I'll see if there will be other information and will flip my vote appropriately if so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
5. Neutral Regretfully neutral, I was hoping for some really strong policy based answers to your questions to make up for the lack of experience, but it just wasn't there. There are no red flags here to make me cast an oppose !vote, but not enough experience to make me support. This seems like an RfA that is 6 months premature, sorry. For reference, question 12 was me fishing to see if you were aware of the practice of "COI extortion" which would have shown that you are more knowledgeable than many admins on dealing with G7s and COI practices (no offense to admins, not everyone specializes in COI), so I apologize if that wasn't a very fair question. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
6. Neutral. MelanieN, Dennis Brown and Jo-Jo Eumerus include points mentioned by some others and sum up the conclusion here well for me. I put myself in "neutral" rather than simply abstaining in order to offer encouragement for a good contributor to continue to contribute and to try another RfA after getting some more experience in some administrative areas. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
7. Neutral per MelanieN, Dennis Brown, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Donner60. You are a decent editor, but I think you need more time to familiarise yourself with administrative areas of Wikipedia. I am willing to support on your next attempt, on provision you have addressed the concerns above. Jianhui67 ^T★C 06:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
8. Neutral Don't be disappointed. Take the constructive criticism to heart, participate wisely in deletion debates, keep helping out and improving the encyclopedia, and return in "X" months. In my mind, "X" is a number you choose which is 6 or greater. I look forward to supporting you for administrator in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 16 June 2015 (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.