Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fan-1967

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

[edit] Fan-1967

Final (26/31/11); Ended Fri 28 Jan, 2007 20:21 (UTC)

• Withdrawn I feel it is everyone's best interests to withdraw my name at this time. Clearly, valid criticisms of my behavior have been raised that I need to address before thinking about pursuing this again. I think it's time for me to step back, get less involved and less stressed over various issues. I thank those who offered their support, and maybe in the future I can justify their confidence. Fan-1967 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fan-1967 (talk • contribs) - It gives me great pleasure to nominate Fan-1967 (talk • contribs) for adminship. He hails from Chicago, Illinois (and he's not Cplot!) and has been editing on Wikipedia for almost a year. With over 19,000 edits, well-spread in all user spaces, I feel that Fan has a great deal of experience and a deep understanding of policy. He has made valued contributions to the mainspace and talkspace discussions. He has actively been involved in effective AIV reports, participated in thousands of AfDs, and submitted successful requests for page protection. He has tagged thousands (yes, I'm serious!) of articles for speedy deletion, and I found all of his tagging accurate, and useful on Wikipedia. He also is one of the most civil, level-headed editors on the project. He is one of the few editors who is expresses kindness to even the new users on Wikipedia, kindly leaving notes about their inappropriate Wikipedia articles, and helping them out when they are in need of help. I feel giving the tools to Fan will bring nothing but great things to Wikipedia. Fan-1967 is a great candidate for adminship, and I feel he will make a great addition to the janitorial staff at Wikipedia. Nishkid64 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Whoops. I knew I forgot something. Yes. I accept the nomination. Fan-1967 22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: WP:AIV frequently backs up, and needs addressing, but the one I see most often is WP:CSD. The CSD backup sometimes runs to hours, just due to the volume involved, and the responsibility of the admin to check the article's histories and Talk pages. (I've seen more than one article tagged for deletion that was just an existing article that had been vandalized.) Authors need to be notified, if they haven't already, so it can't be done quickly, but it needs to be done. I notice there also seems to be a lot of image backlog. I would need to familiarize myself with those procedures, as I've dealt with them very little.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Overall, there isn't one thing in particular. I've tried to learn where I can contribute, or offer input that I hope is valuable. I think I'm much less likely to jump in with gut reactions than in the past.

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: More and more I've learned not to take it personally. Some conflicts I've had are with genuine vandals, that I don't take seriously. I've been called a few things (somebody insulted me by calling me an American) but I don't respond in kind. The vandals I tend to ignore until they require WP:AIV treatment. The others, I just try and explain the policies again and again on why we don't have articles on 15-year-olds.

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)}

4. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.

That's actually a few separate questions.

Most of the myspace, youtube and blogspot links tend to be more of vanity or fannish variety. Most of it's tied to non-notable entries that don't last anyway. The rest should mostly be deleted just as we have deleted fansites in the past. Anybody can put anything on a blog or myspace page, and it really has no more value than someone posting a personal opinion.

More and more companies seem to feel they gain legitimacy by having an article here, often starting with a blatant copy of their website. That needs to be very strongly discouraged. Possibly even tightening up the rules at WP:CORP should be debated. Notable, newsmaking companies that get articles created by uninvolved people are useful. Self-serving profiles created by the subjects are not. People may be misled into believing that, because it's on Wikipedia, it's neutral and unbiased. Better it's on the company's own website, where motivation is clear.

Third problem is linkspam. We get the open proxies adding material right and left, but that usually gets reverted pretty quickly as vandalism. The real problem is posting what looks like a useful link (some of these are blogspot) to an essay on the subject (for example IRA investment) and that page also has advertising for a provider. That needs to be monitored as closely as we can, even if it requires following every link to see what's actually there. If a Wikipedia article sends somebody someplace, it should be to useful content, not an ad. Fan-1967 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Fan-1967's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
• I am sure I have offended a few people. I hope I've done it less lately that before, but I'm human. I hope I can listen to advice and learn. I spend a lot of time on dealing with vandalism, as well as just nonsense, that gets created all the time. I may occasionally get short-tempered. I try to distinguish the vandals, and minor trouble-makers, from the sincere authors who are just creating inappropriate content. It's not always easy to tell.
• Long term, I think we may need to think about ways to keep school IP's on a shorter leash; not lock them out, because a lot of students are valuable contributors, but we spend a lot of effort dealing with petty, childish activities, and I suspect they're the single largest source of nonsense that we have to delete. I don't know what the solutions may be, but as the project keeps getting better known, the volume of these issues increases, and I'm sure the community will need to discuss ways to deal with them.

• See Fan-1967's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

1. Nominator Support. See my nomination for the reason why this guy definitely deserves adminship. Nishkid64 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. I first encountered Fan-1967 when on recent changes patrol. He kindly corrected a mistake I made. Since then I have observed his talk page (for entertainment and educational purposes) and he consistently responds to vandals and childish behavior with a cool head and utmost patience. He is also a workhorse and his efforts to keep Wikipedia on track is top notch. Stangbat 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment To those naysayers who discount his ability to be an admin because of a lack of "encyclopedia building": We need people who will hang out in the trenches and do the dirty work. You can contribute to Wikipedia in many ways. Vandal control and cleanup are just as important as article building and should not be discounted. Go back and read what Administrators are and what they do. Where are these "contribution/creation/work" requirements? Stangbat 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Support vandals beware. ~ Arjun 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. I regularly see Fan whacking spammers with the WP:COI stick (amongst others) when I'm clearing out CAT:CSD. Excellent candidate. -- Steel 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support all of my interactions with this user have been very positive. They keep a very level head when dealing with frustrating vandals, and always takes the time to do things right. Would clearly wield the mop well. Mak (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Thought he was one... is not something you will hear from me. I knew full-well the candidate wasn't one, but often wondered Why not?. Wikipedia will definitely be a better place with this guy having the extra buttons. Only thing is, I think their talk page will be a lot less busy (read:boring, if you like!) than it is now as admins probably get less hassle for deleting an article than he does merely by nominating it! Bubba hotep 23:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Great editor, will be great with additional accoutrements. —bbatsell ¿? 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support I did think he was one. Silly me. But with his all-round contributions and obvious skill in WP:NAMESPACE he certainly should be.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Support I see this user a lot at AfD, among other places. I'm sure he could use the tools. As for trust, I very seriously considered the difs and examples provided by the (at present) three opposers. I certainly understand their position, and don't object to their opinions, but the examples aren't as worrisome to me as they are to those who provided them. I trust the nominee will bear these concerns in mind should he receive the buttons. Agent 86 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support I'm not 100% sure, but I thought we were electing admins, not saints. This editor has proved to be 99.9% excellent, and, after all, we're all human and we make mistakes. Fan-1967 will make WP better with the tools. Good luck! The Rambling Man 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support seen a lot of good work and commitment, and the opposes aren't sufficient to sway me against what I think will be a dedicated admin. MLA 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Super absorbant support. Extremely valuable to Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support per the nomination by Nishkid. S.D. ¿п? § 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Support, no problems raised by opposition. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Support - prolific rc patroller. I frequently see articles he has tagged for a speedy when working in CAT:CSD. Some of the diffs below are silly ... others aren't and I strongly suggest working on some of that ... but there isn't anything I see down there that would make me oppose someone with an obvious need for the buttons. --BigDT 00:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support From my eperience with him on NP patrolling, he seams to be a very competant editor, and very respecful in his tags. He would do great work on CSD with admin tools RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. Adminship is not a reward for perfect conduct. Fan-1967 has demonstrated a need for the admin tools. Although some of the diffs below raise questions of civility, I do not see them as evidence that he would abuse the tools. Feezo (Talk) 02:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Support - Seen him around doing a lot of jobs that could benefit from having the mop. Hopefully the oppose votes are a learning experience in the long run, but at this point looks like a good candidate to me. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support. We need more counter vandalism admins, and that was a good answer to Eagle 101's spam question. alphachimp 07:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support. Fan-1967 has always struck me as a responsible contributor, and I was surprised to see all the "oppose"s. A look at at some of those diffs provided shows a certain level of testiness, but not any blatantly bad behaviour, and I find opposition on grounds of that unconvincing. In particular, the Hector Aldo Fagetti Gallego speedy tagging was on a sub-stub article, and deleting it would only have meant that I needed a recreation of a version where the real assertions of notability and citations were provided. I would hardly call putting a bv-template on a user who does this, and then proceeds to make high-speed blankings on large parts of the article nonstop "newbie biting". Keep in mind that anyone who volunteers the effort and spends time reverting vandalism and removing spam will experience frustrations and might at times resort to occasional terseness. There does not seem to be any systematic bad behaviour here people! THis is a prime vandal fighter and we would do good to equip him with the tools necessary to do the job. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support per needs deletion tools.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support this is the reason. Flyingtoaster1337 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support Great work with fighting vandalism / newpage-crud. From what I've seen, the work he's done for Wikipedia far outweighs the (minor) issues addressed in oppose votes. mikm_t 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. This user has both quantity and quality that I think Wikipedia needs to become better. --Wikipedier 01:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier(talk)
25. Support. I keep coming across him during new page patrolling. I have always agreed with his proposals (usually for deletion!). -- RHaworth 09:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't know what you were thinking here. An outsider? An absolutely unacceptable precedent? This is a wiki that anyone can edit. I would have thought a respectable user like you would have realised that by now. --Majorly (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment: It was a poor choice of words, that I didn't really give much thought to when I wrote that particular sentence. What I should have said (and did say multiple times in various of the Daniel Brandt AFD's) is that we cannot allow article subjects to dictate content. They have the right to require content be verifiable and neutral. They do not have the right to demand we remove content they don't like. Fan-1967 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   For anyone unfamiliar, I encourage you to read the entire page; this comment takes Fan's words incredibly out of context in my opinion. —bbatsell ¿? 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   It shouldn't have been said. End of. And I also oppose per the diffs from MatthewFenton below, biting is unacceptable. --Majorly (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Stop being a dick, Majorly. -- Steel 23:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   No need for name-calling here, Steel. I knew in advance that people would oppose this RfA because of the previous diff, and I feel Fan-1967 explained himself well. It was all a misunderstanding, but Majorly is entitled to his own opinion, so I won't badger him for that. Nishkid64 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks Nishkid. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but referring to people as outsiders is just unacceptable in my book. I truly wish you good luck with this, but I cannot support. I hope you understand :) --Majorly (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Strong Oppose You know, this is really funny and tragic when you get down to it. I noticed some decent work that Fan-1967 did and wanted to nominate him myself. However seeing the comments at this DRV, actually made me upset by his argumentative attitude and immaturity in defending a senseless redirect. He lost a tremendous amount of respect from me for the way he went about on it. Sorry, but this is something that is near the point beyond forgiveness, and I can't trust him with sysop tools if I can't understand the serious funked up logic and false determination he is using as displayed in that DRV. Thanks, but no thanks. Sorry, Yanksox 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   For reference, it's not like he is alone in defending the "senseless" redirect. -Amark moo! 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   So mob mentality is suddenly acceptable right now? That makes it even worse if he is easily swayed and can't make an informed decision. Yanksox 23:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   I truly believe there are people who might seek information on that subject who would not find it without that redirect. Fan-1967 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

   Mob mentality is not acceptable, and that's not what I said. My point was only that it is not so obvious as you imply. -Amark moo! 05:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Looks like a very minor episode. Beit Or 10:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose — Wikipedia is a Wikipedians only club now?, right. We don't need more trigger happy uncivil administrators, sorry. Nor ones that do not use edit summaries, or that capitalise everything, this was only today, please do more research next time, I also see no encyclopaedia building (this is the thing we are building at Wikipedia :)!), article creation/work is imperative to being a good administrator - in short you fail my criteria, big time, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Reluctant Oppose. I fully expect to be in a strong minority here, but that's not a surprise. Review of his AfD contributions shows an inconsistent understanding of our "notability" guidelines, in my opinion. Furthermore, this discussion seems to indicate that he prefers a broad interpretation of CSD A7 which causes many errors, including a rather terse and unnecessary dismissal regarding my personal feelings on the matter that does not sit well with me at all. Finally, the last 1000 mainspace edits, for the exception of maybe a dozen, are all either vandalfighting, AfDing, PRODding, or CSding. While those are important functions, where's the encyclopedia building? Trusting someone with the tools to remove information completely from the view of us lesser beings when they haven't really spent much time working on it doesn't sit well. Even 10% of the mainspace edits being constructive wouldn't bother me, but we're talking a tenth of a percent. I've had no major issues with this user that I can think of, but I don't yet feel comfortable with promotion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose Fan-1967 is constantly under attack from a torrent of vandals and uncooperative editors, but that is only going to be augmented as an administrator. Occasional missteps, like this just recently, make me uncomfortable recommending adminship. I think Fan is a valuable editor, and he has helped me in the past, but I don't necessarily see all the qualities of an admin. Leebo⁸⁶ 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per the DRV cited by Yanksox, largely. In our limited direct interaction, Fan-1967 has been argumentative and shown an attitude that, while not uncivil, doesn't strike me as appropriate for an administrator. And, while this is secondary, I question his judgment in supporting the restoration of an attack-page redirect. I'd like to see a more congenial approach when he interacts with other experienced editors (admins or non-admins). | Mr. Darcy talk 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Reluctant oppose: I don't agree with a lot of the reasons people are giving for opposing this candidate; unfortunately, I am quite concerned about the biting others above have listed, specifically these diffs: [1] and [2]. I don't see the temperament needed for an admin. Work on it a bit and come back and I'll likely be ready to support. Heimstern Läufer 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
8. 'Oppose : Based on the "trigger-happy" character of the candidate. Untrustworthy. Bad admin material all-round. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose based on the speedy deletion tagging from today cited by Matthew Fenton. Whatever else may be said about the candidate, he clearly needs more experience before being given the mop. Xoloz 03:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   I'd say that was valid, Xoloz; Fan explains on the talk page as to why he thought so. 24.64.165.149 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Whatever the explanation (it is not on the talk page here), the tagging was flawed. Mrs. Peron, and those who went "missing" under her regime, is a subject of encyclopedic interest, and has been in the news lately. Redirection or expansion would be most appropriate; an AfD, acceptable; but CSD A7 does not apply, as a claim to note is clearly present. Xoloz 18:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   The talk page of the article. A claim to note is present now. However, A7 is not about vanity or non notability in theory. Its whether an article makes a claim to notability- and when tagged, the article did not. It merely stated the person had vanished. 24.64.165.149 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   Check the diff provided by Matthew Fenton again (the tagging itself.) The mention of Isabel Peron was there at the tagging, and that in itself is a claim of note. The tagging was incorrect. Xoloz 19:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   With respect, I disagree. The mention of the president, in context, is that the man disappeared while he was in office. This means that the article merely states when the man went missing. George W. Bush may be notable, but if I say "I went missing while George W. Bush was president" that wouldn't make me notable necessarily. 24.64.165.149 20:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   I agree. This diff has been blown up out of all proportion. Not only was it correct at the time of tagging, the fact that he took the time to go back and converse with the author on the article talk page is proof of an inclination towards avoidance of trigger-happiness. Bubba hotep 20:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   At best, it looks like it might have been, which should have precluded the speedy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose per above. Heimstern seems closest to my sentiment.Just H 05:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Reluctant Oppose per the diffs above. Admins need to be civil at all times, especially with all the extra abuse they receive. James086Talk 10:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose per the evidence provided by Matthew Fenton, badlydrawnjeff and Kchase. Incivility and judgment concerns are simply too great, sorry. WJBscribe 13:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Sorry, the diffs above show worrying incivility at times. Trebor 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose per everyone. He bites way too much. Violations of WP:CIVIL can't be overlooked.--Wizardman 19:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per above comments. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose • I feel that this user does not have a full grasp, or respect, for Wikipedia guidelines. Their contributions reveal instances of biting newbies and incivility. Furthermore, their inconsistent application of the notability guideline seems to me to be evidence of a temperament of "rules only apply when I want them to." The rules do not simply apply when we want them to, and we should only ignore them when we truly believe we are improving the encyclopedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose I'm afraid the evidence presented by User:Yanksox and User:MatthewFenton indicates that the user needs to work on improvind his civility.-- danntm ^T _C 19:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
18. Oppose The strong detrimental evidence being presented by the above Wikipedians is a cause for major concern. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose Fan-1967 does jump in first and find out what's going on later. His attitude could easily put off newbies.--R613vlu 22:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose (recent) incidents of incivility are worrying. (Even without, trite non-answer to Q2 would have made me reluctant to support) --Dweller 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose per comments left by opposers above. This user is acting in good faith and attempting to improve Wikipedia, but I fear the user may act inappropriately (unintentionally) with the tools, so I cannot support. Please learn from this RfA and reapply at a later date. --Deskana (request backup) 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose I am sure that Deskana is right and Fan-1967 always acts in good faith, but he is not yet ready to be trusted with the tools. I am sure that he will learn.--Poetlister 00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Epitomizes the NPP newbie-biter - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Regretful Oppose Looks like this user has some pretty good contributrions, but an uncivil user is not a plus, and an uncivil admin is the worst. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Strong oppose I don't like to be critical of someone who has done so much work and I certainly don't want to put the candidate off the project, but I do want to say that he needs to learn more patience and restraint in the face of frustration, as well as the ability to express himself more politely. This sarcasm is completely unacceptable and the large bold type earlier on the page is not the best way to communicate. Help rather than dismissal would be the desirable response here, and it also shows a misunderstanding of the process, as test tags do not have to start with test1 if there is obvious intent to vandalise. I think it's necessary for the candidate to see the strength of community response over such issues, because, if he shows in the future that he has, he will make a good admin. I do accept his explanation over the speedy tag and the redirect. Tyrenius 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    Regretfully oppose (switched to neutral as explained below) I think very active recent changes and newpages patrollers are among users who could use admin tools effectively but they're also the ones likely to do the most damage if they do so carelessly. The diffs provided above are worrisome. The Daniel Brandt bit, I can excuse as a poor choice of words for an otherwise valid point about independence and the DRV diff is overblown. The biting concerns however are genuine and the db-tagging of Hector Aldo Fagetti Gallego is an ominous sign imho. Mistakes are human of course, but common sense should dictate that when the creator removes the tag immediately, it's more helpful to consider his history of contributions [3] and to reconsider. Instead, Fan-1967 chose to put a drm-speedy message on the creator's talk page. A7 is an important part of the effectiveness of speedy deletion but it's also one that can create a lot of frustration when it's not handled properly and with over-confidence. Sure, one can argue (as one did above) that the one-line stub did not technically assert notability but when the article is 30 seconds old and when the subject is a man that disappeared in 1975 during a notably murky political period of Argentinian history, elementary prudence should dictate restraint. Pascal.Tesson 05:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

26. Oppose, bad attitude, troubling incidents. Everyking 07:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Oppose This user has clearly contributed a lot to the encyclopaedia, regretfully however, based on the examples given by many above, I must say that I cannot trust him/her enough to support them receiving adminship. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 07:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose, per civility concerns. Really good editor but incidents mentioned by Matthew Fenton and Yanksox has made me doubt this editor is ready for the tools. Terence Ong 10:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Oppose, shows lack of understanding in policy. - Mailer Diablo 14:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Oppose Per Tyrenius and Mailer diablo.--Runcorn 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose per recent DRV behaviour, and per Jeff. Proto::► 15:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards oppose - seems to be experienced, but seeing the DRV on the redirect, I'm not comfortable supporting for now. Insanephantom(my Editor Review) 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Several of the diffs above concern me, but not enough to oppose. I think a little more time is in order for Fan to practice not biting and studying up on the various policies and guidelines covering the areas mentioned above. I think Fan is great contributor, and I would have no problem supporting in 2-3 months if improvement in these areas is shown. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral a good user, but I see very little article editing, and I get the impression he needs more experience before becoming a big deleter. I wasn't going to comment one way or another (I guess I'm still not, really) except that I'm surprised by such vigorous opposition for what appear to be relatively innocuous comments. "Outsider" is an unfortunate but not inaccurate choice of words, and there's nothing noticeably untoward in the DRV discussion cited above. Opabinia regalis 02:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
4. WP:OWN concerns, not enough to put me into oppose, but still concerning -- Tawker 06:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral Obviously a good candidate, but the diffs are concerning. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral leaning support. I was a little non-plussed with Fan when I handled a report to AIV about an editor going down a redlist of NBA players and creating stubs that said "(name) is an NBA player". Editors were tagging them as {{empty}} and sysops were deleting them, which I thought was a judgment call at best, but Fan labelled as vandalism. When I temporarily blocked the original account, the editor created Bat ears jr to edit the talk page, and Fan came at him with "I don't believe you. Vandals are vandals.", which escalated rather than de-escalated the situation. To his credit, when I essentially asked Fan to butt out, he did it. I eventually got the editor to stop creating the pages, which would have been the prohibitive (as opposed to punitive) purpose of the block anyway. Looking at some of the opposers' diffs, I see some similar things, but I think it's probably a normal number of minor mistakes for someone with such a long history. I'll hopefully come to a firm decision before closure.--Kchase T 13:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Shows a clear misunderstanding (or wilful disregard) of the speedy deletion criteria. This diff here illustrates it pretty well. Tagged a sourced article that asserted importance. Also didn't think to put a notice tag on my talk page. I have seen this user do the same thing other times, but simply offer this as an example because it was on my watchlist. To his credit however, he acknowledged the error and removed the tag himself and was quite civil about it. I won't oppose because of the large volume of work and the clear dedication to the project (and because I have some personal bias in the matter). Would be happy to support in 3 months with a clean record of speedy deletion tagging and civility. Irongargoyle 14:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Netural Carpet 14:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

   The neutral and even the support columns are not simply votes. Stating some reason would help the candidate improve on his deficiencies or feel positive and reassured about his strengths.--Kchase T 17:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

9. Neutral switched from "regretful oppose" above: upon further review I think I'm too harsh to consider one bad mistake as completely outweighing the rest of the contributions. It's difficult for non-admins to evaluate how well a user is using speedy deletion tags since the pages on which the tags were used correctly have of course been deleted. Still, the concerns prevent me to fully support. Pascal.Tesson 05:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral-Per nom and Yanksox. --TeckWiz^Talk Contribs_@ 14:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral Has lots of edits and seems very dedicated, and it pains me to not support, however the opposition has some great points. I'm torn. Ganfon 17:25, 28 January 2007 (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.