Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Captain panda 2

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

[edit] Captain panda

Final (50/22/10); Originally scheduled to end 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC). No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Captain panda (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to present Captain panda for consideration. He has been with us since October 2, 2006, and his first edit was on December 7, 2006. Since then, he has clicked the "Edit this page" link (and/or the section "Edit" ones, for any pedants out there) a total of 12,663 times, all in the name of helping wikipedia. Many of these edits are CSD-related, WikiProject Biography assessments, RFA participation, or edits to Zerg. I trust that CP would make a fine admin, and wish him the best of luck. · AndonicO ^Talk 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination and hope that the community will allow me to assist the project as an administrator.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to spend most of my time in Wikipedia's deletion areas. I have nominated a good deal of articles to be deleted using one form or another over the past 6 or so months that I have been interested in this past of Wikipedia. I have spent most of my time with speedy deletion, so I would probably spend most of my admin deletion time at CAT:CSD. As I admittedly have made some tagging mistakes in the past (as pointed out in my previous RfA) I would make sure to be conservative in my deletion of them. In addition, if I had any questions on the best decision, I would either leave it for someone else to take care of or contact a more experienced admin and ask him or her for advice in the best course of action. I would also spend some time checking the expired prod list as I have tagged articles for proposed deletion in the past.

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

A: I would have to say the my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my work in WikiProject Biography's summer assessment drive in which I assessed 7000 articles in the list of unassessed biography articles and helped to reduce the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 unassessed articles in June 1, 2007 to 56,237 articles in September 1, 2007 along with many other Wikipedia editors.

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: Most of the conflicts I have been involved in have been when I assessed an article in WikiProject Biography's summer assessment drive and another user disagreed with my assessment. Many of these times, the editor requested on my talk page that I change it. In nearly all of those cases, I either agreed that I had made a mistake in my assessing or that it was close enough not to get in a dispute over. If I felt that it should remain at the same class of article, I made sure to explain why it should stay. Another conflict that I have been in is a dispute with User:S@bre about the future of the article Zerg, which I have spent a good deal of time improving. He felt that there were too many issues with the article in its current state and that it should be replaced with article encompassing two other very closely related articles. A draft of this article-to-be can be found at User:S@bre/Species of StarCraft. I originally believed that the replacement of the article would be a bad idea and I thus I attempted to convince him otherwise. However, he actually ended up winning me over and convinced me that his course of action was the best one.

4. How did you amass 5,000 edits in a single month?

A: It actually wasn't that hard. During the assessment drive that I mentioned in question 2, I simply assessed 200 or 300 biography articles each day for about three weeks and before I knew it, I had 5000 edits in a month.

Additional optional question 5. by User:LessHeard vanU.

Q: It appears to me from my reading of the edit count that you have very few responses on your talkpage, which is fairly active. As I am very keen on communication as part of an admins remit would you comment on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Certainly. I respond to comments put on my talk page. However, I put my responses on the talk page of the user who commented on my talk page. I tend to think that responding on the other user's talk page is more courteous and more practical as the other person would get to see the large orange banner saying that the user has new messages after I respond. If you wish, I can provide you with some links to examples to instances where I responded on the talk page of the editor who left a message on my talk page.

No need. I would suggest a banner on your talkpage advising that you tend to respond to the other users talkpage, but that is entirely your choice. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I will go change my talk page template to have a message like that. Thank you for the advice. :) Captain panda 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Optional questions from Daniel

I'd like to think that these are all tough questions, and interestingly many don't actually have a "correct" answer. I'm more interested in seeing what your opinion is about the situations, and how you reached/justified that opinion. Apologies for my over-reaching curiosity :) Daniel 04:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

6. When you are asked to block a malfunctioning bot, you check its' userpage and read that it operates from the Toolserver. What, if any, special precautions do you need when executing a block on the bot account?

A: I would first like to point out that I know little about bots and even less about the Toolserver. Even after doing some reading about both, I still do not know very much about them. I don't think any harm could come of blocking the bot normally with precautions, but I would first ask an administrator who knows more about this kind of thing as my technical knowledge in the matter of bots and their aspects if they are operated from the Toolserver is rather low.

7. In your opinion, are principles created by the Arbitration Committee binding on Wikipedians and Wikipedia generally, or only the parties to that case? Namely, in the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 19#Julia Earl about the Arbitration Committee's role in that review discussion, in your opinion which opinion is correct and how should it affect the closing of the discussion (remembering that administrators are not required to enforce rulings, however are required not to stop those who do)?

A: I would have to say that when the Arbitration Committee makes a ruling, it is binding to all Wikipedians in the English Wikipedia unless the ruling specifies a certain user or users that it would effect. I bolded English as ARBCOM does not have jurisdiction in other Wikipedias to my knowledge. As for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs, the arbitration case cited in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 19#Julia Earl, I think it most certainly is binding on all English Wikipedians based on that Arbitration Committee principles are said to be binding, the idea of arbitration in general is that the decision made by the arbitrator(s) is binding, and the specific ruling in the arbitration case cited in the DRV begun with "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." I think the beginning two words, "Any administrator," make it fairly clear that that decision is binding across Wikipedia. Later in the sentence I quoted earlier, it does say "may," which would mean that should an administrator find a biography of a living person that should be deleted, he or she is not required to delete it, but the ruling says that he or she may delete it if it "significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." In short, yes, I think they are binding to all (English) Wikipedians.

8. In your opinion, do administrators as a group have a particular role in the dispute resolution process? Why or why not?

A: I do not think that administrators have a particular role as they take part in the dispute resolution process in many ways. They may be the one who creates a request for comment, a request for mediation, a request for arbitration, or anything else used to solve a dispute. They may also be the one that is complained about in the those pages I listed in the previous sentence. They may also be a casual observer who provides comments and evidence to the discussion. They may just look at the discussion, but not contribute to it. They be the mediator or arbitrator that directs the discussion and works to create the best solution possible. They also may have another role that I forgot to mention. The only thing that gives administrators a role in the dispute resolution process is that they have the ability to block someone if a user has done something that would get him or her blocked (for example, WP:3RR.) Besides their technical role of being able to block users, I think that administrators do not have any special role in the dispute resolution process.

9. An editor requests that you undelete Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Urartu, which was speedy-deleted by now-retired administrator Essjay. Their request is, "Can you please undelete the page so I can use it in a user conduct RfC as evidence. I have to ask you because Essjay has retired from editing." In your opinion, what is the best course of action, and therefore what is your response/reaction to the request on your talk page?

A: I would first check the deletion logs to see what the page contained. From Essjay's edit summary, "(Archived, rejected request)," I am guessing that it was a request for mediation that was rejected. After checking the logs, I would then make a decision: is there any thing in the page the should cause it not to be undeleted? If there was something in the page that suggested to me that it should not be deleted, I would contact the editor and inform him/her that I think the page should remain deleted. If, after checking, I think there is no reason to leave it deleted, I would contact a member of the mediation committee for their input on the undeletion of rejected cases. Should the member say that it is fine to undelete, I would undelete it and inform the original editor. If the member said it was best to leave it deleted, I would leave it as it is and inform the editor that I had left it deleted and why I did so. If, after checking, I think that it is a close call whether to undelete it or not, I would contact a member of the mediation committee to ask about their policy on undeleting rejected cases and what they think of this particular request, as I think it looks close.

10. Can an AfD be closed as "transwiki to Wikinews"? If yes, in your opinion should we be closing more discussions that way, to promote WP:NOT#NEWS?

A: I think that an AfD can be closed as transwiki to Wikinews as many other AfDs are closed as transwiki to various other wikis. As for the second part of your question, I would have to say that when closing AfDs as "transwiki to Wikinews", it should be fairly clear that the article was a news article rather than an encyclopedia article. I don't think we should dump Wikinews with articles that are obviously not news, but I can see benefit to closing more discussions as transwiki to Wikinews.

11. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A: First, I would double-check the name of the editor that was blocked. With over 5 million accounts on Wikipedia, I may have simply thought that the editor that got blocked was someone else. Assuming that the editor is who I thought he/she was, I would then contact the blocking administrator ask why the editor was blocked. If I have been convinced that the block was justified or it seems to be in the gray area of whether to block or not, I would most likely end there as I can see the rational for the decision. Should I still disagree with the block, I would go to the administrator's noticeboard and get input from administrators there. If I continue to think that the user should not have been blocked after getting input from other administrators, I would go on to one form of dispute resolution or another. I would adhere to the policy on disputed administrative actions should something like this occur.

12a You say the administrative roles that interest you are primarily closing CSD and Prod. There is almost never a backlog in CSD these days, (at present, there are only 14 articles and 18 images there in total) , and rarely one in Prod (there is none at present). Why then did you select these areas?

A I noted those areas as areas I would like to help out in because those are the areas in which I have the most experience. As these are the main areas I work in, I noted them as areas that I would like to help out in. The large decrease in the backlog seems to have only happened recently. One of the main reasons I have done non-admin work in there is that I often have seen a backlog of 200 articles or more in the past and it has often been named as one of the areas at Wikipedia that needs much administrator attention. I have most of my admin-area experience in CSD and thus I noted it as there I would like to work.

12b Suppose you are checking CSD and you find a well known experienced administrator has put a tag on an article for a reason you thing not covered by the speedy deletion policy. What do you do? DGG (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A If I see this, I will remove the tag if I think it is clear that it is not applicable under the speedy deletion criteria. I will then contact the admin and tell him/her that I did this. If the article still seems like it should be deleted, but no CSD criteria apply, I would add it to either PROD or AFD depending on what seems best for the article in question.

[edit] General comments

• See Captain panda's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Captain panda: Captain panda (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. Strongly. Great contributor. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Really strong support I thought I was meant to be nominating...ah well--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Having gone back to July 2007, I find nothing to oppose with. However, I am slightly concerned about the lack of non-automated edits. But that's just me. Support. Rudget _zŋ 13:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support unless some horror emerges. The most important uses for the tools are blocking vandals and deleting article that don't meet inclusion criteria. One does not need the tools to take care of BLP issues. Blocking is a last resort. Usually, education and firmness are sufficient in dealing with BLP problems. The same is true for NPOV. I much prefer an admin who has experience dealing with vandalism and CSD. That's where one really needs the delete and block buttons. User can be trusted in areas in which the tools are desired. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. The responsibilities of adminship relate to maintenance and (to an extent) enforcement, not article-writing. He may not be an active article-writer, but he clearly understands the deletion policy (as demonstrated by innumerable correct speedy tags and AfD comments), and is an active vandal-fighter (which demonstrates a clear need for the tools). There is no need for him to get involved in BLP as an administrator; I had very little involvement in that area during my 7 months as a sysop, for instance. He is more than ready to be given the tools. Walton^One 15:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Usually I try to add value to RfA through a detailed rationale. However in this case I'm happy to say per Walton, who sums it up nicely. Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Support per Pedro/Walton. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 15:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support – Definitely ready. —Animum (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support. Ideally, I would like to see more effort in article writing but this editor is quite active in the areas that he will most often be involved with as an administrator. He has participated in discussions across the breadth of Wikipedia and has shown an interest in and knowledge of our policies. He has a clean record and should receive our support. JodyB _talk 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - I supported in the last RFA, I will do so again. You have done some good WikiProject work and have shown high amount of knowledge and experience in key admin areas of CSD and vandal fighting. I like to see candidates writing articles and even have some experience with WP:BLP; but I do not agree it is essential for adminship, you can use the tools to the benefit of Wikipedia without needing to be fully experienced in every area. Camaron1 | Chris 16:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Experienced, friendly and trustworthy user, seems to be ready for the tools now. Furthermore, we need more admins under the will of the Overmind. :-) Húsönd 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Kerrigan! I shoulda known! Tassadar has failed us now, we're getting an infested terran for an admin! ;) Maser ^(Talk!) 18:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Siege tanks will solve the problem ;) Dfrg_msc 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    The dreaded siege tanks! No0w they're toast! Oh, no. AIR UNITS! Maser ^(Talk!) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    Darn! Must... get... Scourge... ♥ Fredil 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

12. Support. I have said this before and I will say it again. I have been both an article writer (I've written about 80 of them, 3 DYKs, including one last week, and I have nearly 7,000 mainspace contribs) and an admin (17 months now!) and I must say that I have found: Adminship has absolutely zero to do with article writing! RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support article writing != good admin. *Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support -- Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Support — Qst 17:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Support excellent candidate. Maser ^(Talk!) 18:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Support. Great contributor. Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC) - impostor acccount, now indefblocked - Alison ^❤ 18:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

    Just for clarification: The edit was made by the impostor account User:Ryuleng employing a false signature. |dorftrottel |humor me 19:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

17. Support - good, useful editor. Lradrama 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Support Fine user. Good luck!--SJP (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Sysops who specialise are fine - no concerns now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Article writing isn't important for administrative tasks. It's knowledge of policies that are closely related to article writing that is important. From the evidence here, I don't see any evidence of ignorance of those policies. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support Got the experience. GDonato (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Very strong support.Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 01:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I trust he will not abuse or misuse the tools. --Mark (Mschel) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Sure do! Great editor, which I trust very much. Dfrg_msc 05:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support A great editor who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Support Nothing had changed since last time I supported. Hopefully I won't have to support you again ;). Jmlk17 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Support - I see Captain Panda has branched out a considerable amount since his previous RfA and I'm now confident he understands policy enough to be an effective administrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support. Excellent answers to the questions, and looking at the above discussion (including the Nominator's statement) and C.P.'s contributions, I see no reason to oppose. Anthøny 22:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Weak Support - while I acknowledge Agüeybaná's significant point below, I don't see it as a huge impediment, given this editor's track record in other areas. I'm confident that they will wield the mop appropriately & everything else appears to be in order. I do hope you take the point about communication and listening to others on-board, though - Alison ^❤ 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Nominator Support Silly me, I forgot to support. · AndonicO ^Talk 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Experienced, shows he can use common sense. Daniel 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
33. Support Helpful editor. I'm sure will stick to core areas with which he is familiar before wading into areas such WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, and the answers to the questions 6 & 11 re-enforce my opinion that he will seek aid and clarification before getting into areas with which he is unfamiliar. ^Khukri 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
34. Support. The candidate is a helpful editor who knows his way around. While I'd prefer to see some more article-writing experience, Captain Panda has made substantial contributions to Zerg with over 160 edits, expanding content and adding references. I trust the candidate with the tools. Majoreditor (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
36. Support You're still a great editor even though you failed your first RfA (in which I nominated you). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
37. Support Easy support: civil, knowledgeable and trustworthy. VanTucky ^Talk 01:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
38. Support While I would ideally like to see a bit more article experience, the fact is that's not necessarily needed for the type of tasks the candidate excels at. I believe the buttons will help this user be more effective in his work for the project, and have no reason to believe he would misuse the mop. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
39. Support per above - an admin's job is to be a janitor, not an exemplary article writer. --Hojimachong^talk 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
40. Wholeheartedly support - I've seen his work, and the mop would be a great gift ;) ♥ Fredil 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
41. Weak support. Technically passes all my standards, but I can understand some of the Neutral Users' comments. This is an admitted Wikignome, which I find is not a problem. I'll leave it at that. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
42. Strong support I knew he would become an admin one day, despite his edit count, he is very busy on Wikipedia. Atomic Religione (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
43. Support - understand concerns raised, however think on balance he is unlikely to misuse the mop.Addhoc (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
44. Support, admin tasks don't require great article-writing skills. Wizardman 18:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
45. Support. Great editor, no reason to oppose. --Carioca (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
46. Support. I think the concerns of those opposing are well founded and perhaps Captain panda would benefit from further experience, especially of interacting with other users. But one of the things that has impressed me about this user is his willingness to ask for help and input from others. If I thought he were likely to go it alone I would ahve concerns but giving his readiness to ask questions and learn, I think the project will benefit from giving him the mop. Just take it slow... WjBscribe 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
47. I accept the concerns raised in the opposition, especially those by Agueybana and Everyking, but I think that Captain panda will try to work on those issues. He's improved greatly since his last RfA, and he'll be an even better Wikipedia once this one is over, regardless of how it ends. Acalamari 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. An active user who will help clean things up. Marlith ^T/C 06:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
49. Support Having supported in this user's first RfA, I see more improvement and I support per the same reasons as here. ♠TomasBat 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
50. Support. Seems like the good stuff. Greswik (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Strong oppose — I see nothing in your contribs that can show me that you know and are ready to enforce core policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. This is mostly because of your clear lack of contributions to the encyclopedia. All I see in the last ~500 edits to the mainspace is some stub tagging and vandalism reversions. While many others may see this comment as trash, I (strongly) believe that administrators must be clear on what our goal is here, and this user has not satisfactorily demonstrated it to me. I believe this issue was also raised at your previous RfA. Your lack of interest in making your work here better by listening to the constructive criticism you received last time also worries me, because it shows that just maybe you're not prepared to listen to others. This point only gets stronger by the fact that your contributions to the Talk and User talk namespaces show no actual interaction with users, other than your hundreds of "warn of vandalism" messages. I can't really trust you with the tools if you don't communicate, pal. Good luck! --Agüeybaná 13:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I oppose for many of the same reasons as Agueybana and many of the neutrals. Captain Panda is a well-meaning editor who devotes a great deal of time to the project, but I question his reading comprehension and communications skills. A Train^talk 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps you would explain that last comment? A diff or two to show what you mean about his reading comprehension would be nice. JodyB _talk 13:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   That's perfectly fair. I'm on my way to a meeting, so I'll have more for you later, but please refer to Captain Panda's previous RfA and some of his recent AfD keep !votes for a deeper understanding of my thinking. A Train^talk 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   I think one of the AfDs A Train is referring to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian H-8. I am not sure how it shows poor reading comprehension or communication, but for discussion purposes, I think that I should point it out. Captain panda 23:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   That is one, in fact, representative of what I was thinking about. Captain panda's comment in that AfD (one of the few where he didn't simply say "Delete per x", or "Non-notable y") betrays a lack of understanding of policy. Captain panda participates heavily in meta conversations, but his contributions rarely move the conversation forward and tend to be more than a little impenetrable. Captain panda has extensive contributions to one article under his belt (Zerg), but many of his contributions to it were fancruft and were removed. While he is not an article writer, and it is true that admins can be useful without writing articles, Captain panda also doesn't have any experience dealing with difficult situations: he rarely if ever communicates with other users outside of leaving vandalism templates.

   My intention here is not to character-assassinate Captain panda. He is a dedicated new page patroller and his enthusiasm is commendable. I hope he continues here at the project for a long time. But adminship is not a service ribbon you get after putting in a requisite amount of time, and it's not a trophy. Admins should be users of whose judgment there is little doubt, and I can't say that about Captain panda. A Train^talk 13:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   It does no good to register my oppose more emphatically, I suppose, but I just want to note my utter shock at the comment that Captain panda left below: "I quickly discovered that when assessing articles I would give the same assessment to an article that I looked at it for 10 seconds or 5 minutes." This RfA is the best argument for RfA reform that I've seen in some time. A Train^talk 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The most detrimental actions against users come from admins with less that 6,000 article edits, demonstrating no meaningul article writing experience. Technocrats may be useful, but the harm they do is immense in those situations where they unknowing make a wrong move than has devastating effects on the user and on Wikipedia as a whole as many good users withdraw. Ideally 10,000 mainspace edits would be requires but I realize very few actual contributors remain around along enough to reach this point, so that requirement is totally unrealistic. Mattisse 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not quite sure I understand you correctly... You're saying there shouldn't be admins with under 6000 edits to articles, and that's why you're opposing? (That's the only reason you give for opposing.) I only have 3000 in mainspace, and around 75% of that are vandalism reverts: I'm pretty sure there are only under 400 admins with over 6000 edits to mainspace, and probably under 100 with over 10,000. Or was it something else you meant? · AndonicO ^Talk 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   (response from comment on my talk page) Yes. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. In my experience, those of us who actually do the most writing get the worse treatment. I believe this is for two reasons. One, people who are primarily invested in writing are not skilled at pushing all the buttons to get Admins to see and evaluate a situation correctly. A writer's first response is not to rush to one of the Admins they have on file like the techies do (probably because they voted for him/her) and get in that request for a block. To put it bluntly, we writers are often technologically challenged and not savvy about internet/forum buzzwords, so we are the ones who are punished in any disagreement.

   Two, only someone who as put a large investment into writing can understand (I believe) the writer's point of view, so inevitably the person fascile technologically but usually with relatively little knowledge and little investment in the subject matter will be supported by the Admin over a valuable content contributor who is doing his/her best -- and I am not talking about cases of WP:OWN or WP:COI. Writers do not typically run to the AN/I board until they have been here six months or so and someone clues them in that they are constantly being brought up there repeatedly as a horrible person. Experience in writing teaches an Admin to evaluate the evidence a little more in depth than the average Admin does. Typically an Admin makes a very superficial evaluation of the most recent diffs and the techie nonwriter knows exactly how to set it up the required diffs so the Admin will react in a predicable way. I believe this is why writers are deserting Wikipedia. Techie types are attracted to the "tools" and the running around being policeman. But has been noted else where, Admins burn out quickly, because chasing vandals and such, BLOCKING even, although fun at first and is definitely a needed service, is really a very limited activity and few will be satisfied with this alone with out some combination of a true interest in writing, unless you join the endless arguments on various policy, AN/I, RFC pages for something else to do. (Further, Admins are notoriously unskilled in teaching -- and the block is experienced as pure punishment with nothing learned, or worse, increased timidity in editing, a refusal to edit unless under someone powerful person's protection who has acquired power by being affiliated with powerful Amins.) So there is a high turnover of these "Admins" (called "burnout" here) and few Admins acquire a body of sophisticated knowledge generated by experience over time dealing with a wide range of situations that good Admins ideally would have. Mattisse 23:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks for the response: makes your oppose clearer now. In a way, you're right, but (referring to your third point) then again these "burnout" admins would likely end up quitting even if they didn't have the tools... might as well make the most of it (IMO). · AndonicO ^Talk 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   Could not be worse if they were never there to begin with. I have never received help from an Admin. Granted, I sound angry and fedup now, because I am, but this is after over a year of constant abuse and never any admin help (except, accidently through the Arbcom the sock puppets were discovered). Everyone who has helped me, and there have been many, NONE of them have be Admins. Because, in reality, I am a nice, well meaning person who has done a lot of writing and copy writing for Wikipedia. It is just that in the Amin little black book I am a horrible person and that will never change. And I am alway surprised that someone like User:Mmarsh, who knows nothing about me, thinks it is O.K. to disparage me on his/her user page. Why is that O.K.? Mattisse 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   All this while I thought you were an admin... :P I'm sorry you've never been helped by an admin, but perhaps that's just a run of bad luck, as I--and many other users I know--was helped by many, many admins before I became one (and afterwards too). I'd offer to help you, but I'd assume that you're likely more knowledgeable than I. (And I believe Mmarsh's userpage was oversighted.) · AndonicO ^Talk 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   Actually, I amend my response. Admin User talk:LessHeard vanU has 8,000 edits according to one of the edit counters although less than 3,000 are in the main space. Therefore, strict edit counts is certainly not a good measure of an Admin's potential to be harmful to working editors. Perhaps mainspace edit count is more representative. Certainly there should be a way of preventing more of the LessHeard vanU types who offer flippant responses to sincere questions. Is there a way to determine if Panda 2 is not a LessHeard vanU type? Mattisse 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   If you have a problem with me it would be best if you sought some other avenue for resolution, basing your oppose to a third party application of adminship somewhat violates WP:POINT (although the basic argument that you prefer admins to have proven article editing skills is one you are perfectly entitled to) and may be considered disruptive. Also, having an possible ulterior motive in your oppose may taint the point regarding mainspace edits in the view of the 'crat who makes the decision regarding Captain panda. I suggest taking your concerns to the Administrators noticeboard or creating a Request for Comments. In the meantime I shall briefly answer your query at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   You mean, more than just correcting my spelling, the result of my last inquiry on your page? Dare I risk it? I certainly with not, rest assured, initiate an RfC as I has seen what farces those are. There is no recourse for a person like me, that is my point. And you have made that clear previously. Mattisse 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose, insufficient content work. Article assessment has very little value compared to actual article writing, and if your finest accomplishment on Wikipedia is participating in some assessment drive, then you haven't given me any reason to vote for you. That's like saying you're a millionaire in Monopoly money. You'd be richer if you had one dollar in real money. Everyking (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose switched from Neutral - to repeat what I said below: I'm of course familiar with the Captain's !votes here - usually "per nom" types, but the edit analysis, with only one article with over 10 edits, does not impress. I also take a rather jaundiced view of the biography summer assessment, not that I remember seeing any of the Captain's comments. I share some of the concerns of others above. Clearly a valuable contributor, but need for tools and policy knowledge are not yet really demonstrated. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Everyking, just too little in the way of acuall encyclopedia building This is a Secret ^account 03:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
7. You've indicated an interest in working specifically in deletion policy. However, your answer to Question 10 is fundamentally wrong, and this is a serious issue -- articles cannot be transwikied to Wikinews, because the licenses are incompatible. Ral315 » 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per lack of sufficient interesting to content writing. I elaborated elsewhere multiple times on why this matters. --Irpen (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Ral315. Clear misunderstanding of the finer points of policy is demonstrated at the answer to Question 10. From my familiarity with the editor, I also am concerned about his communication skills. Xoloz (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose, per answer to Question 4. Assessing 200 to 300 biographies per day, if you worked ten hours per day, means 20 to 30 per hour, or perhaps 2 to 3 minutes per article over a sustained period of time. Can you assess an article for NPOV, NOR and citations in a few minutes? Combined with your lack of article writing, this is just not the quality time put into Wiki articles that I'd like to see in the kind of experience an admin should have. You have almost no mainspace edits, and no articles that you have contributed significantly to building, and limited talk interaction with other editors. I feel you need more time working in areas of Wiki where you are likely to encounter the kinds of issues you will need to understand before you are given the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    I would like to point that saying that I have significantly contributed to no articles is incorrect. I have made 162 edits to the article, Zerg in hopes of improving it. I have actually done work on content building. Captain panda 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Everyking. Not enough work on content. The sppedy assessment drive is also a major cause for concern. --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose under the same reasoing as Sandy really. Admins need to interact with users who build the encyclopedia and encounter the problems and pitfalls that this involves. Judging the merits of pages at XFD is not something that you can do quickly, (apart from the obvious CSD ones). Some recent interactions with deletion trigger happy admins who do little or no basic background checks into an articl have left me disheartened and wary. Whilst I cannot oppose you because of my recent interactions with other users, I can oppose you because you have little actual content building experience and the interaction with other users that this entails. Your edits to Zerg, for the most part, could have been added in a few edits with the use of the show preview button. I would like to echo Sandy's closing comments, I think you are great at what you do, just that you need to spend some time working in the areas of this wiki where you will encounter the problems that article contributers have to face. Woodym555 (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Sandy and Xolox and Woodym555. Inexperience in general, especially its restricted/non-diverse nature. Not a wide-enough perspective with which to make the complex decisions the admin tools typically require. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. An editor who has done little content work should not be aiming to work on speedy deletes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I would like to see more effort to improve articles rather than to delete them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Oppose. In my experience, those who contribute good content make better admins that those who are preoccupied with removing it. — Athaenara ✉ 13:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Oppose. While he's a useful wikipedian, based on the above, I'm not sure he's ready to be an admin. Sorry. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Got seriously annoyed when this editor massively underrated quality, expert-written articles, solely based on pure ignorance of the subject matter. A slap in the face to people who actually do write things - if you can't rate, don't! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose, With no disrespect to the candidate; I must concur with Sandy and Le Grand Roi. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Too little content work. Singopo (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Good worker, but needs broader experience and interaction with other editors. Tyrenius (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Oppose clearly a good user who will gain from this experience. Modernist (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. Neutral for now. I have share some of the concerns that Agüeybaná presents in the oppose section. Looking through your deleted contributions, I see that your speedy nominations are correct. However, as an admin, not only do you have to be correct, you have to be willing to explain why you're correct once the creators of the articles come hunting you down. Right now I don't see enough evidence that you can feasibly explain it since you lack a lot of interaction with other users on here. Metros (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Neutral. This is a bit weird, since I normally don't hesitate to issue my support when I don't see sufficient reasons not to. But... I can't help a certain "doesn't-quite-get-it" feeling with this user. Since (momentarily, at least) I cannot place this on any particular actions, I cannot in good conscience oppose, but I just wouldn't feel comfortable supporting here. |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 15:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Metros. This user is a good user, so I won't oppose. However, I can't support either due to Metros' concerns. NHRHS2010 talk 19:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral I was going to oppose based on a lack of article writing, even after the comments at the last RfA urging you to do so, however I noticed that you'd made 164 edits to Zerg, which is at least some attempt at 'pedia building, though you haven't noted it above (?) You need to write more to appreciate the effort involved in deleting. Encouraging a separation of writers and admins is divisive and could lead to more disruption in the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Neutral per above. Jack 20:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral I'm not feeling entirely comfortable with the answer to Q1 that the user will spend most of his time in "Wikipedia's deletion areas". --MoRsE (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral switched to oppose. I'm of course familiar with the Captain's !votes here - usually "per nom" types, but the edit analysis, with only one article with over 10 edits, does not impress. I also take a rather jaundiced view of the biography summer assessment, not that I remember seeing any of the Captain's comments. I share some of the concerns of others above. Clearly a valuable contributor, but need for tools and policy knowledge are not yet really demonstrated. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral, leaning support. You aren't going to break the encyclopedia, and you're probably not going to go on a power trip, either. My request is that you go a little more slowly in general. If you had taken those five extra minutes before hitting enter the first time here (an issue brought up on your last RfA), you might have caught what was going on and never made the comment at all. With that in mind, how long should a single article be reviewed before assessing? You say you were doing over 200 a day. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   To answer your question, I quickly discovered that when assessing articles I would give the same assessment to an article that I looked at it for 10 seconds or 5 minutes. I simply learned that it doesn't take that long to assess the general quality of an article. I hope that answers your question. :) Captain panda 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   That doesn't really convince me that you're going to go slower. Good luck, though. (^^) Dekimasuよ! 11:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Neutral Your a good user, I just feel that you need to improve on your ability to communicate with others and to become more familiar with policy so you can explain why you may have made the actions you did. Also the 5000 edits gives me an ever so slight feeling that you might rush your decisions as an admin. Remember, quality, not quantity. Work on those issues, and I'll be glad to support you! Icestorm815 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral I agree with those in the Support section that have said that a lot of article work isn't exactly essential for adminship, but the concerns brought up about policy understanding are pretty detrimental. Not enough to oppose, though, so I'll stay neutral. GlassCobra 19:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral with some concerns. Most edits seem to be vandalism warnings to throwaway accounts or IPs, or reverts/Twinkles. While I have nothing against admins with low levels of mainspace contributions, I share Metros's concerns for communication and clarity. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 23 November 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.