Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thadman2

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

[edit] The Thadman

Final (30/25/6) Ended 19:00, 2006-08-15 (UTC)

The Thadman (talk • contribs) – (To avoid confusion: The Thadman is Steve Caruso in real life.) When RfAs are rejected, candidates are frequently told to spend a few months getting involved in the community. Few, however, take this as seriously as Steve Caruso did. After being forced to withdraw his first request for adminship due to concerns over his low edit count, he volunteered to take over from Rebecca (who was retiring from the post) as co-ordinator of the AMA. I have been astonished by his efforts. He has restructured and reorganised the Association's pages, introducing a far more structured process for requesting advocacy and for case assignments. In doing this he has shown himself to be conscientous, able, organised and polite, with a good understanding of how things are done on Wikipedia. I have never known him to be anything other than totally courteous and helpful. To give another example of his consideration for other users, when DPeterson, a relatively inexperienced editor, joined the AMA, Steve left a message on his talk page, giving him some advice on advocacy, and assigning him a case which he thought would be suitable for him. It was clear that he hadn't used templates, but had taken the time and trouble to make a new member feel welcome. If anyone on Wikipedia deserves the mop, this is he. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to Co-Nominate Steve. He has taken charge of the AMA and has fixed many issues that the AMA has been having. He has ensured that all requests get assinged to an advocate and get replied to. Also he is willing and has helped out numerous Wikipedians with there problems. It is an honor to co nominate him Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: With great honor, I accept. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 19:33, 8 August 2006 (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 voters:

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

A: Well, going over what I listed before, as well as what I have actually been up to recently, I think I'm best suited for:

• Monitoring the Administrator's noticeboard
• Specifically 3RR Violations with followup to ensure that parties involved are properly following WP:DR
• Page protection, which is a sensititive issue usually entangled with WP:DR.
• Helping fellow Administrators calmly through potential Wheel Wars.
• Helping enforce Copyrights and deal with reported infringements
• Wikification (I've always had a knack for that :-) )
• And whatever else comes my way. I'm sure there'll be more, but these are the ones that jump out and bite me. :-)

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

A: Well, I would have to admit that my biggest contribution thusfar would have to be my work on the Association of Members' Advocates, and there is a lot more that I'm planning to do. :-) I've tried to streamline Advocacy requests with new templates, create and streamline Advocacy procedures for upkeep, bring inactive Advocates back to the group, bring in new Advocates, work on re-writing the manuals, added the AMA Alerts system (which has had stellar success due to the dilligence and hard work of our members :-) ), and I'm sure a few other things that aren't coming to mind. :-) I am particularly pleased with how all of our members have come together under the new system to work towards helping fellow Wikipedians resolve disputes. :-)

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

A: Many conflicts over editing, but it comes with the volunteer work at the AMA ;-) Only three users have given me any personal hint of stress in my editing here at Wikipedia, and it was brief and never really got under my skin. Where necessary, I followed Dispute Resolution (I know I sound like a broken record, but it tends to work :-) ) and things went smoothly. I'm generally not very easily bothered, it's just how I am. :-)

Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. As usual, optional questions are . . . optional. Answers provided give greater insight into nom's knowledge of Wikipedia policy and other qualifications for adminship. User:The Thadman, thank you for taking the time and effort to submit your nomination.

Q: One task you have mentioned in question 1 involves copyright. You had a fair use image removed form your userpage in March. What has changed since then? :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A: When I originally added the userbox, it was a simple cut and paste from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing at the time. I assumed that the image used was fair game and was actually quite surprised when it was removed. Since then I've tried to be more careful on my user page. :-) Everyone is capable of making a mistake, and in that same vein, one should always be as accomodating as possible to fix one when it it discovered. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

1 Of your edits in main space, many have been to contentious topics such as Messiah. Could you talk a bit about your experiencing editing those articles and what you have learned from it?

Well, religion always seems to be a "contentious" topic, especially in a medium that anyone may rightly voice their opinion on such as Wikipedia (as most of my mainspace edits had to do with religion). :-) (I guess it would also be appropriate to bring up that I completed my B.A. in Information Technology & Informatics with a double-major in Religion; ITI to pay the bills, the academic study of Religion as a life's work.) With my edits on Messiah and Jesus and other related topics, I've had to use my capacity to listen and to reason with editors who did not agree with me (and came from significantly different backgrounds, faiths, and education) and find workable solutions. These experiences were ultimately my "gateway" into the AMA where I could help other users through my own personal experience, so in a sense they tempered my problem-solving abilities, among other things.

2 After your initial RfA did not pass, you then volunteered to run the AMA. How would you respond to concern that this looks like you were interested in a position of authority?

Volunteering at the AMA was more of a consequence of my dealings on the Jesus article, as I had to extensively work through WP:DR with some editors to reach a workable compromise (which in the end was made). In looking for resources and help, I was rather thrilled to find that there was an organization dedicated to helping other Wikipedians through tough spots in their experience, so I immediately volunteered hoping to help others through the process that I saw frustrate so many people. I wrote some messages, sent some emails and found that the group was not only in a state of disarray and that unanswered cases were piling up at a rediculous rate, but that the Coordinator had resigned a few weeks previous and no one had even so much as acknowledged her resignation. In real life, as an IT Manager, when I find a problem I tend to try and just fix it, and I merely applied that same paradigm to the AMA.

As for my first RfA: My motivation for self-nomination was a result of seeing the Wikipedia backlog, and experiencing an extended wait period for a page protection that ended in a full protect rather than a partial (which was requested), followed by another long wait before the protect was properly set. From what I saw, I believed that the Administration could use more help and I, at the time, thought that I was qualified to lend a hand. When I get started on something, such as a backlog or a case list, I tend to slog right through it, getting big chunks of work done at a time and seeing that Wikipedia had big chunks of things that needed to be done it seemed like a workable match. :-)

Overall, I guess one could say that the motivations between the two were related, but not for authority's sake: I wish to fix things that are in need of repair. :-) The only reason that I am here now is that David and Aeon nominated me, and if they did not, I probably would have waited some time before seeing if I could be of service again; however, I figured that if both of them believed that I was ready that I actually might be and simply not be aware of it. Sometimes other people see you faster for who you are by your deeds. :-)

3 Is there anything you have gained from your experiences running the AMA that you think would help if you became an admin? On a related note, is there anything in your AMA duties that would be helped by having admin tools?

The AMA has gifted to me a wonderful knowledge of what to expect from fellow Wikipedians of all kinds, a invariably strong knowledge of Wikipedia Policy and the nuances of our Guidelines, a strengthened ability to resolve disputes and help people work together, how complex templates work, and a dozen other things that I could list along with finer hues of eccentricity. :-)

As for admin tools helping with the AMA: I've tried to make it a point that it is a good idea that if an Advocate -is- an admin that they do their best to check their sysop abilities at the door. An Adovcate advocates, which only truly involves a sense of how to listen, and a steadfast knowledge of how Wikipedia works. :-)

4 How would you respond a concern about a lack of mainspace edits?

I see that my edits are a bit low in comparison to others, but I have been told by other Wikipedians that they have always been of very high quality, are of more than average depth and are to the point.

I also understand the criticism that Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia; however, I also understand that Wikipedia is made of people. One can't, as a person, be everything at the same time, and that's why we all have our strengths and weaknesses and why disputes occur. As such, if I wanted to and had the time, I could have contributed much more to the main space, especially within the field of Religion; but, helping the AMA and working out disputes that detract from us building this encyclopedia has taken top priority from me. Overall, I've always been more of a "behind the scenes" sort of person to ensure that infrastructure is in place that allows for a proper framework to build upon.

5 Related to question 4, in your answer to the standard question 2, you did not note any of your mainspace edits, even though some of them such as your wikification and partial clean up of D.T.E.A. senior secondary schools were extensive. Could you discuss what, if any, main space edits you are proud of?

I'm rather fond of what I've been able to do with the Son of Man article (from a state which Gareth Hughes had termed "scruffy" to something more scholarly with copious examples). I started an article on Dice notation which has now become something actually useful to fellow roleplayers due to it's breadth, and I completely re-wrote the Personal name section in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. My wikification efforts and tracking down copyright infringements before my AMA days earned me a barnstar and pat on the back from Where. I'm sure there's more I could talk about, but this is mostly the gist; I'm mostly "proud" of my support-based edits and some of the diagrams and images that I have contributed.

I hope that this helps! אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 19:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• See The Thadman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

Edit count using Interiot's tool

Total edits 1755
Distinct pages edited 459
Average edits/page 3.824
First edit 22:07, June 30, 2005

(main) 335
Talk 293
User 261
User talk 349
Image 15
Template 105
Template talk 13
Category 48
Wikipedia 324
Wikipedia talk 12

Support

1. Support as nom. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Support as co-nom Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Support As a entirely green advocate, Steve handled my nervousness well, and pointeed me in the right direction. From my poking-around at the AMA, I've seen how well he has organized it, demonstrating a knowledge of Wikipedia that his edit count may not completely show. The question, if I understand it from my observations of RfA, is "Do we trust him with the tools?" and to that I have to say yes wholeheartedly. --Wslack (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Wslack, who states quite succinctly that which I think to be the only relevant question in adjuding a prospective admin (as on my standards page) is whether we trust him with the tools (viz., whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive or negative); I've confidence that the candidate can be trusted with the tools and will be likely, in the completion of admin tasks, to benefit the project. Joe 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. DarthVader 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Support No reason to doubt this user. Maybe low on the editcount, but that should not be an issue in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per above.--Andeh 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Full Support. This user is obviously a mediator, and thus my typical 2k edit requirements do not apply. I am waiving them in this case. A glance at the user's talk pages and other contributions seems to confirm civility, and as mediation, levelheadedness, and dedication (per nom's excellent examples) are important skills for any admin, this candidate gets my full support.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I'm not at all concerned by Thadman's editing statistics, since he's demonstrated his ability in other areas - while we're here to write an encyclopedia, you don't have to be a writer to contribute to the project. It might be preferable for you to increase your mainspace editing, but I'm satisfied that you'll do a good job anyway. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support as has shown responsibility and trust. —Xyrael _{/ 18:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)}
11. Strong Support The Thadman has exhibited exceptional civility with contentious users in high pressure situations. His activities as my advocate while simultainously organizing and developing AMA programs were nothing short of remarkable, exhibiting a great capacity for "multi-tasking" in multiple high-pressure zones while remaining personally involved yet neutral and friendly to everyone involved. This exceptional service in developing the community sector of Wikipedia should more than qualify anyone for an adminship. Amerique 19:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Support The Thadman makes sincere, positive contributions to Wikipedia. Low edits in the main space are made up for by a lot of other work he's done in other places. Good luck! DrL 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. We could always use another mature, rational, and stable administrator. alphaChimp ^laudare 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Support if edit count is what it takes, I should be an admin! Steve's work with the AMA has kept him pretty busy, if you aren't a member it might not be so obvious, but to me it's clear that he can be trusted with a few extra tools. He has shown an energetic devotion to the task he set for himself coordinating and revamping the AMA. His mainspace edits, though low in quantity are high in quality. Pedant 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Per excellent answers to my questions. He wants the tools for the right reasons, giving him the tools will benefit the Wiki and I see no reason that he would misuse the tools out of malice, incompetence or inexperience. JoshuaZ 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Support although it would have been nice to have and "edit section" button for the "Support" section, especially for us dial-up users =). — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 22:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Steve appears to be doing yeoman's work organizing the AMA, and someone who deals calmly with disputes has exactly the kind of qualities we need in an administrator. I'm very disappointed to see that virtually the entire opposition to such a contributor is based solely on edit counts. --Michael Snow 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Support. User has demonstrated the qualities necessary for adminship in the important ways, and has more than 1000 edits, the threshold (barring absurd distribution) above which I believe edit counts cease to be a meaningful statistic. --Aquillion 02:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Switch to SUPPORT per JoshuaZ. Why didn't you say so in the first place. :) Dlohcierekim 03:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    Further rationale Mediators need to protect pages, read deletion histories, and sometimes block to function as mediators. :) Dlohcierekim 20:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

20. Support to fight the pointless editcountitis below. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Support I had a good experience with an advocate and wanted to contribute by becoming an advocate. He made me feel quite welcome and helped me with my first "case." I appreciate the encouragement. DPeterson^talk 12:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Support Moved to support, because I think the involvement in AMA demonstrates intimate knowledge of the encyclopedia and its workings. AdamBiswanger1 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Support I had about the same number of edits when I was promoted, so what?  Grue  19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Support. No one has said anything negative except no featured article work (not a requirement) and low mainspace edits (not a requirement either). Wikipedia needs more admins who can help with various backlogs; let's give this guy the tools. John Broughton 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Support Jeffklib
26. Support I see no reason to oppose a rfa based on writing a FA, or on which namespace you edit on. As part of the AMA, he'd have lots of experience for other areas, like protection, and warnings. -Royalguard11^Talk 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Support: I am very impressed by the answers to JoshuaZ's question as well as with the candidates experience with the dispute resolution process. Would make an excellent administrator. --Hetar 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Support An extremely competent Acting Coordinator of the Association of Member's Advocates and a very helpful and considerate user all round. My full support. Wikiwoohoo 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Support. I like your areas of work, and you don't seem hesitant to dive into contentious areas of Wikipedia. I trust that you will be motivated to learn what you might have missed out on by not having more edits. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Seems sane, calm, and reasonable, and is willing to do the unglamorous sort of work required of adminship. Has sufficient edits to be able to have informed judgment. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose although little doubt Steve does great work, the 1700 edits makes me a little jittery, the fact most of those occurred only since last month tilts my vote this way. Maybe 3 more months to be certain? - Glen 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This user has done great work, and should be commended. But less than 350 mainspace edits shows little experience in the writting of an encyclopedia... which is what we are here for, after all. I will be anxious to support once the nom has truely gotten his feet wet (by writting/editing more articles). Themindset 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. What part of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, prevents people from making valuable contributions in other ways? Or, rather: how is one's ability to write an article related to their ability to perform behind-the-scenes maintenance? RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I think that experience in article creation should be paramount when considering a potential admin. Would you hire an umpire who had no experience with baseball? Or a traffic cop with no experience with driving? The most common RFA standard is 1000 article edits (which happens to be my standard as well) which is in fact not that difficult to achieve. With even just 5 article edits a day one would achieve that in just over 6 months... to me this is a rather low bar, one that simply ensures that the potential admin has the basic amount of experience in the primary activity on Wikipedia. Themindset 18:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Strong oppose based on lack of needed experience editing and talking with other editors. The bit in nom about being "forced to withdraw" on prior RfA shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Constructive critique-- Needs many more AfD and RCPatrol related edits to handle most pressing of admin tasks. Needs many more article edits to establish that he understands Wikipedia policies. Needs many more user and article talk edits to show he has the critical thinking skill to be an admin. Claims expertise on copyright, but I find no related edits in last 500. Does not need admin tools to Wikify. I did find ~280 AMA related entries in edit summaries. Wikipedia is about building an Encyclopedia. Please come back when you have broader experience. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to neutral to offset oppose based on 0FA. :) Dlohcierekim 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Main space edits really low. That is the core of the encylopedia.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 22:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Reluctant oppose - I doubt you'll harm the encyclopedia and you've done a terrific job at AMA (I've considered signing up at AMA myself this week and may do so yet), but I think you need broader experience before becoming an admin. Spend some time with us at RC patrol and decide if you really want the mop - you may change your mind, 'cause it can get... emotional. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. 0 FA -- Миборовский 22:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hello Miborovsky but how does 0 FA factor into this? There are some Admins who have no Article at FA. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I also must say that I really despise this voting criterion. There are currently 1062 FAs and 981 administrators- I can't imagine that they've all written featured articles. I stand firmly by the belief that people may vote on RfAs however they feel, but I think that completely ignoring one's entire body of work and merely looking at whether or not they've had major contributions to a featured article is absolutely ludicrous. -- Kicking222 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   I have never seen Miborovsky back up this argument, or even respond to anyone's pleadings for an answer. AdamBiswanger1 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hi, If the above (0FA) refers to User:Mailer_diablo/1FA, that standard does allow for alternatives to having written a FA. Of course, requiring 1FA of every admin would be an unrealistic standard. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

   A user's RfA is not the place to call another user's opinions ludicrous. As RfA is a collaboration of opinions amongst the community in regards to a candidate, we should strive to remain respectful of differing opinions at all times. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   I read Diablo's 1FA criterion as "helping get an article to FA", not writing an FA single-handledly from scratch. FA's, even more than most Wikipedia articles, are usually written collaboratively between many editors. If a candidate has made a number of significant contributions to an FA (even without being the FA's main author), I'd count that as 1FA per Diablo. I personally do take this type of contribution into account when evaluating RFA's. Phr (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Please see User:Miborovsky/1FA. :) Dlohcierekim 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Wikispace edits. AdamBiswanger1 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Moved to support

6. Oppose per low main space edits. Michael 00:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to lack of experience concerns. Jkelly 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think you are on the right path; however, your low main space edits force me to oppose this nom. Wikipediarules2221 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose Please wait for a few additional months, Mr. Caruso.--Anglius 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose per main space edits. G.He 02:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Per all of the above. --Masssiveego 02:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose No doubt that this user is a valuable contributor to this project. But the low main space edits is a major concern. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose, 0FA. Or more to the point, I'd want to see you being involved more actively as an editor in articlespace. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose, sorry, but your mainspace edits are too low. --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose for insufficient experience especially article edits.--Jusjih 05:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose for clear lack of experience. --Deenoe 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose Low mainspace edit count. -Teryx 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose - not enough mainspace experience. Should come back in a few months, when I'll be happy to reconsider. Metamagician3000 04:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Would prefer broader experience, particularly in mainspace. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Not enough edits in the main space. We're an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose, reluctantly but nonetheless. This user is off to a great start: good contribution to the community, and definitely has heart in the right place. However, not enough experience overall, and as many said above, not nearly enough experience in namespace. In particular, the second and third reasons Thadman gives to question #1 would be helped immeasurably by experience editing articles themselves. Anyway, like I said, off to a great start, show me 2 or 3 months of the same sort of activity and I'll be very inclined to support. -- Deville (Talk) 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose not enough experience. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
23. Oppose Fails my criteria due to the generally low amount of edits, to both the main article space and to the wikipedia project space. --Wisden17 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per Mackenson Bastique▼^parler _voir 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose criteria and signature advertising - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I don't think you'll hurt Wikipedia, but it seems like you still don't have enough broad experience. All your work appears to relate to AMA, despite the fact that you want to work in many aspects of administration. Also, I feel it would have been better if you had waited a bit longer since your last nomination. Perhaps in mid- to late-October I'd support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. Looking through this nominee's contributions, I don't see many in areas where this editor could have gained the necessary insight into important wikipolicies an admin must know. Could benefit from more participation outside the AMA. Get to know the ropes, and I'll have no hesitation in supporting. Agent 86 21:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral per concentration of WP edits on AMA. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral - a trustworthy user, but I feel the amount of mainspace edits is a tad low. Kalani ^[talk] 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning Support I appreciate the enormous contributions to AMA as well as the fact that he/she seems like a very eager and trustworthy editor whose only goal is to help Wikipedia. Having said that, I would like to see more experience in the areas where the candidate wishes to use the extra buttons (as per Q1) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Switch to neutral per JOSHUAZ AND to offset oppose based on 0FA. I believe requiring a Featured Article of RfA candidates is overly strict but does not accurately gauge their suitability to be admin's. It artificially raises the bar for their editing ability while not addressing suitability in the areas of containing vandalism, *fD, or copyright. The backlogs in WP:AFD and WP:DRV are affecting the quality of Wikipedia. More admin's are needed to deal with the backlogs. The greatest threats to Wikipedia are legal-- litigation has been brought or threatened because of libelous content added by vandals, notable subjects having articles about them removed as not notable, and use of copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder. The need for admins with demonstrated knowledge and expertise in these areas outweighs the need for more Featured articles. Hopefully Bureaucrats will discount "oppose" votes based on lack of a Featured Article in RfA's where the candidate has demonstrated suitability in these areas.. :) Dlohcierekim 13:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   Users that include featured articles as part of their RfA criteria should be given as much respect from both bureaucrats and other RfA partcipants as users that include other variables as part of their critera. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Neutral to offset the other oppose based on 0FA, per Dlohcierekim. Featured articles are not relevant to adminship. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

   That's your opinion and standard, but other users have different standards (which include FA's) and they are just as valid and should be just as respected as yours hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

   a Neutral vote doesn't offset an oppose, FWIW. User:Pedant

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.