Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dantheman531 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Dantheman531

Final: (40/18/4); ended 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dantheman531 (talk · contribs) - I'm going to self-nom again. I have two previous failed RfA's, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123 2. Please note that I have changed my username since then, I am the same editor as User:Danielrocks123.
I am not the most prolific editor on the project; however, administrator tools would be quite useful for me. Much of my time on Wikipedia is spent using Lupin's anti-vandalism tool to revert vandalism and place warnings on vandals' talk pages. I have also been working with WP:MEDCOM as a mediator in Requests for mediation. I believe that while my editcount may be low by some people's standards (a little more than 3000 edits), I have demonstrated that I will not misuse the admin tools. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to be able to block vandals who continue to vandalize after I have warned them several times with {{uw-test}} or {{uw-vandalism}} templates. Because I spend so much of my time fighting vandalism, this would certainly be useful to me. I would also hope to help out with the backlog at WP:CSD, WP:AIV, and CAT:PROD as well as closing out AfD's (Only ones with obvious consensus at first until I have the hang of it more).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am either the creator or the main editor of the following articles: Gary Wood, Orange Sky (song), Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery (this is one diff that I'm particularly proud of); however, these are not the contributions that I am most proud of. I am most proud of my work on WP:MEDCOM where I help mediate disputes. I think that mediation is an important responsibility of administrators, and I have gained practice through my work on the mediation committee.
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: In all honesty, I don't think I have ever been in a situation where other users have caused me stress. I try to keep my cool all the time, not just on Wikipedia. I know that if this were ever to happen to me, I would take a brief break from editing to calm down.
4. In your March 4, 2007 RfA(#2), The Rambling Man wrote: Oppose sorry, but but less than 300 edits since November 2006 shows lack of activity, plus a lot of your recent edits seem to be using VandalProof and AWB, I'd like to see more real-life interaction with pages and other editors. ... Spend some more time making edits to articles, communicating with other editors, to show the community how you react in a variety of environments, and re-apply! Please describe your efforts to incorporate these suggestions into your participation in Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A: As you can see from my user contributions, I tend to edit in spurts a few months long with breaks sometimes of a month or longer in between. This is due to a schedule that changes often throughout the year. It is true that I use tools such as VP (now I use Lupin's tool more) to find vandalism frequently. Because my role has mostly been as a vandal-fighter, these tools are quite useful. I have tried, however, to increase my substantial edits to articles. Not long ago, I expanded Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery from a two-sentence stub into a full article. Also, my work on the Mediation Committee has continued to help me interact with other users in discussions of content. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Pheonix15

5. If you see a newcomer creating an article on his band or street etc, what would you do - Pheonix15 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Obviously, the first thing to do is check out whether the band or street is notable. If it is not notable (which it probably is not), I tag it with {{db-bio}} and place the {{nn-warn}} template on the author's talk page. I think that the nn-warn template is quite effective because it explains why the page is going to be deleted. Users should always be informed about why their articles are being deleted. As a matter of fact, my very first contribution to Wikipedia was an article about my street. Because I received a kind message from another user explaining to me why my article was being deleted, I became interested in Wikipedia policy, which is how I became involved in the project. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Septentrionalis PMAnderson

6. Your claim of experience is your work for MedCom. Was one of your cases conducted on-wiki where we can see it? Or is there a notable quarrel was visibly solved by your mediation?
A: Unfortunately, I am afraid that my answer might disappoint you. My membership in MedCom can be confirmed by looking at WP:MEDCOM; however, formal mediation is considered confidential and privileged. Because of this, it is not within my power to discuss specific mediations, as this cannot be done without violating that confidentiality. I am sorry that I cannot provide you with more information, but I will not violate the terms of formal mediation. --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I can confirm that this user has been a member of the Mediation Committee since December 2006, and from my internal investigating, has mediated at least half a dozen cases (which is a significant amount, given how time-consuming and stressful RfM cases can be - this would be more than many members took, past or present). More significantly, four out of these six have been closed as reaching a compromise solution between the parties (ie. successful), and one is still open.
The Committee, in discussion on our private mailing list, also supports Daniel's response in that it would be improper to discuss mediation efforts in an environment such as requests for adminship question, per the mediation policy.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123
Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123/2nd Nomination
 Requests for adminship/Danielrocks123 2
Requests for adminship/Dantheman531 3

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dantheman531 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Strong support. Dantheman has been around quite a while and is a very able mediator for MedCom. I trust him completely. Although his contributions may not be as consistent as is often looked for in candidates, I feel that Dan has many positive qualities to make up for this. He's shown he understands Wikipedia policies and is a decent recent change patroller. Can only do good things with the mop. WjBscribe 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - looks good to me. Mediation is never a simple thing, and experience has taught me it requires a cool head and patience. Excellent admin qualities. Contribs look good too. No reason to oppose. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support- if he is trusted enough to be able to mediate, then I can certainly trust him with the mop. Excellent vandal-fighting, good participation at AfD = no reason to oppose (except Mattew's) :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Matthew makes a good point, but I doubt he will abuse the tools. Politics rule 23:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support. Daniel 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support I don't have any previous experience with this user, but I have to say he seems like a good editor. Matthew has a good point, however I think that a wikipedian able to be on the mediation committee is a responsible one. And will not misuse the tools. -FlubecaTalk 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - Eddie hit it on the head; I highly doubt that he will abuse the tools, he is a great mediator, he's done his part fighting vandals and has contributed thoughtfully at AfD. Neranei (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - if he's good enough for User:WJBscribe, he's good enough for me. - Philippe | Talk 03:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Good Track and impartial.Harlowraman 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support ggod answer to my question. No reason to oppose--Pheonix15 10:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Matthew opposing is usually a good sign the RFA should be supported, as Matthew's trolling of RFAs is becoming more and more facetious (literally and figuratively). Participation on MedCom suggests he understands all he needs to understand. Neil ム 10:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - why not? Good enough answers, MedCom experience is awesome. I'm so not swayed, either, by the opposes here - Alison ☺ 11:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, candidate looks good and MedCom experience is a plus. First oppose is absolutely ludicrous. --Coredesat 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Some of the oppose comments are verging on personal attacks. I do wonder how long you'll stay with the project, but can see only limited risks in granting you sysop rights. Xiner (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Oh yes. Q5 is the deal clincher here. You show evidence of checking and understanding and that deleting a newbie's first effort without warning or coaching is a violation of WP:BITE in spirit - something I also feel strongly about. We need more admins with the capacity to check and double check, and who understand the community side of things and I see all of that here. Best Wishes. Pedro |  Chat  14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support. Opposers raise no valid concerns. WaltonOne 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support – Anthøny ん 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Opposers raise no real concerns, other then my pet peeve of citing using external link brackets. Please try to use <ref> </ref>. Otherwise, support. ~ Wikihermit 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to opposed. ~ Wikihermit 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Looks like someone who will take a good, measured approach to using the mop. Vadder 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support I can't find anything in Dan's contribs that makes me think he can't be trusted with the tools, but the lack of editing in the four months prior to August does trouble me somewhat. But support from people like WJB, Daniel and Alison, whose opinions I value has pushed me over the borderline to a support. If your RfA passes, and you have large gaps in editing again, please make sure that you are up-to-date on any policy/guideline changes before using the tools again because a lot can change in a couple of months. Sarah 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    You can be sure of that :-) --דניאל - Dantheman531 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. The lack of edits don't make me question the fact that he's responsible enough for the mop, and he's got good reason to have it. AR Argon 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support seems like a good user. Acalamari 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Nice to see a candidate who is active at MedCom can certainly go aways in dealing with disputes admins face. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - Level-headed and helpful.--Fahrenheit451 04:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. A good mediator who doesn't let Wikipedia dominate his life is, to me, a quality admin. I am distressed by the voters who oppose him for taking Wikibreaks, and by their microscopic passive-aggresive edit-counting ("If you really loved Wikipedia, you'd make 50 edits every month"). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Support. It's a testament to these RFA voters' complete idiocy that their ideal admin is a brainless drone with no life outside Wikipedia. Faced with this kind of reactions, I'm surprised that any admins still do their "job" at all, instead of letting these half-wits and morons to sink or swim. --Agamemnon2 11:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Please keep criticism constructive and polite. That covers everything, not just comments about the candidate but also regarding those editors contributing to the discussion. Best. Pedro |  Chat  19:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Duly noted. I have therefore withdrawn my support, as I lack the prerequisite qualities to be worthy of casting my vote. Oh well, don't worry, have some pulla. It's better than Support any day of the week. --Agamemnon2 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Good mediators make excellent admins. I'm confident in your ability. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support a member of MedCom is a trusted editor; however, I too am wondering why you self-nom'd (nomed? nomd?) so quickly after your last RFA (in terms of actual time editing, not the calendar). Unfortunately, we seem to have lost two prolific admins just this week, so we need trusted users to work with any time they can spare. I trust you. - KrakatoaKatie 08:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support: An editor on the MedCom trusted by WJBscribe and Daniel is not likely to abuse the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Has the potential, has the backing, but now must be able to produce as well. Good luck! Jmlk17 09:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support There are no real problems with this user. There is no reasonable reason not to grant adminship. Captain panda 13:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support He takes part in mentoring and mediation. Why not give him mop? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. None of the oppose arguments sway me to oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. A bit late, but exceedingly strong support. I trust Dan to make the right judgement when dealing with administrator duties. Sebi [talk] 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - this guy seems a good candidate. His ability to mediate also seems to be good, and I trust his judgement. I hope this passes. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support Though some opposers Black Falcon raises valid concerns, I do not consider them significant enough to warrant an oppose. But I hope the candidate takes the concerns into consideration. A good user overall and can be trusted with sysop rights. - TwoOars (Rev) 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support inactivity/editcountitis is not a reason to oppose for me. I trust this user with the mop, and each of us has a different level of activity, nothing wrong with that. Having more admins can't hurt. Melsaran (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support (changed from neutral). I'm confident he can catch up to recent developments. Mainspace editing experience is a bit of a concern, but not a valid reason to oppose an otherwise trustable user. —AldeBaer 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. He's the man. O.B. Haive 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support He will contribute when he can. I sense the requisite knowledge of policy to use the block and delete buttons responsibly. I believe he can be trusted with the tools despite the gaps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose — "I have demonstrated that I will not misuse the admin tools.", no... you've demonstrated you know how to click revert (but you haven't shown you know how to contribute... :-\).[1] Matthew 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Matthew, he's mediated a number of content disputes for MedCom - that's a pretty heavy involvement in the encyclopedia and involve understanding of content, policies and dispute resolution skills. Its not like all he does is revert vandalism. WjBscribe 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Big wow! He "mediated" for the "MedCom"... honestly I couldn't care less about that silly process. I care for contributions (aka mainspace edits), he hasn't demonstrated an ability to make them. Matthew 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Right - so how do you propose content disputes get resolved since ArbCom won't deal with them? If people like Dan didn't spend time helping people reach compromises over such disputes we'd end up having to lock down every controversial page. So much for the encyclopedia everyone can edit... I realise its contributing in a different way to you, but it might be nice if you showed a little more respect for other contributors even if they spend time in different areas to you. Dismissing the whole thing as "silly" was totally unnecessary. WjBscribe 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    You don't have to agree with my position, but you have to accept it. ArbCom is another silly process, which is filled with corruption (basically a disgrace to the project itself). I've honestly not seen a mediation that could be called "successful", either. I don't consider "mediating" a contribution anyway. Matthew 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Matthew, you're not helping. Go play your silly RfA games somewhere else. Maxim(talk) 22:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    "Have to accept it"? Where did you get that silly idea? Since when must we swallow everything handed to us? —Kurykh 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    You can all moan as much as you like and send threats, but yes, you have to accept my position. Matthew 11:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Matthew, your edits here, here, here, and here aren't mainspace contributions. (In fact, they look like four instances of inserting a personal attack.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    We're getting off-topic here. While I don't appreciate Matthew's comments, this isn't really the place to go on about it this way. I think we should leave this to the bureaucrats, who I've no doubt will take the relevance of Matthew's comment into account when determining how much it affects consensus. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sorry, you say you want to help with backlogs but you don't have very many edits per month. More frightening though, you've barely edited at all in the past four months, only to spring up again and then go for another RFA surprisingly quick. And comparing the months you edit in to your RFAs, you seem to be working extra hard to pass RFA, and then ignoring WP until you think you're ready to run again, this makes me think you either don't think you can contribute very well without a mop, or that you're someone's sock. I'm sorry, but even without these concerns you've got less than 800 edits this year, that's only 100 edits a month, not to mention long periods of inactivity, which makes me think you don't really care about cleaning out backlogs --lucid 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, I do have spurts of activity on Wikipedia. I have a schedule that changes frequently, meaning that I sometimes have long periods of inactivity. I am not ignoring Wikipedia during those times, rather I am not able to edit. I am certainly not anybody's sock. As far as clearing out backlogs goes, my being present to help sometimes helps more than my never contributing at all. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    And what are we to do if on one of your multi-month long breaks (I find it hard to believe you can't spare ten minutes a day to cleaning up backlogs, and if you can't, that you can actually give any real help on the matter) and someone has a dispute that needs your attention, or someone compromises your account? Shira below also said somewhat more clearly what I was thinking, that you haven't really given yourself room to improve since your last RFA, nor given us room to see that you have improved. Nobody is expecting admins to put in hours a day, but if you leave the project entirely for weeks and months at a time that brings up serious concerns both about your commitment to improving Wikipedia, and your ability to actually use the tools. And no offense, but just saying that you are not a sock does not make me any more comfortable with you not being one. --lucid 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Disputes can always be handled by another administrator, and account compromises are no more likely for an inactive account than they are for an active account. "Oppose, he takes wikibreaks" is a terrible argument and has no bearing on someone's capabilities as an admin. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Many of our best administrators leave for weeks and months at a time. Commitment to the project isn't determined by the amount of obsession you demonstrate by editing a huge amount every day. That just shows a lack of a social life and anything better to do. I recommend you re-assess your standards for adminship. - Mark 11:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose per lack of consistent, overall editing. Jmlk17 03:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Moving to support, per further examination. Jmlk17 09:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for reconsidering. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Matthew and Lucid. Also per q2, in the diff you showed you formatted the citations as embedded links instead of using inline citations which shows to me that you may be unfamiliar with <ref>...</ref> footnotes. T Rex | talk 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Struck out as it has nothing to do with being an admin. T Rex | talk
    Not using <ref>...</ref> footnotes is one of the lamest reasons to oppose I have ever seen. Neil ム 10:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Not really, it shows he's infamiliar with citing and probably doesn't understand WP:V, one of the most important policies. T Rex | talk 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Wouldn't the fact of his adding multiple references, even if improperly formatted and suboptimally clear (that is, without hovering over or clicking on a link, one may not observe what the reference actually is), suggest that he appreciates well that referencing is important? I probably hate embedded link citations as much as anyone, but it seems to me that one's using them over nothing suggests that he understands WP:V and the importance of our citing reliable sources (whether an admin should have knowledge of preferred footnote formatting is a separate question, but I'm inclined to think that just as familiarity with or facility in mainspace ought not to be understood prerequisites for adminship, unfamiliarity with footnote formatting should not be understood as disqualifying, or even as indicative of an editor's misunderstanding fundamental policies). Joe 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Dinosaur puppy, I think you've proved you don't understand WP:V, rather than Dan. References do not have to be inline to fulfil verifiability requirements, they just have to be there. Inline is merely a formatting choice, and embedded links are just as acceptable; I still use them sometimes when I'm feeling lazy, someone else will fix them if it bothers them that much - the important thing is the reference is there. Neil ム 09:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I'm not so much worried by the gaps in editing (as long as the editor has a strong password), but the lack of evidence of encyclopedia building and of discussion on article talk pages suggests the editor has yet to achieve sufficient experience for the admin role. Espresso Addict 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I am concerned by the low edit count regarding the amount of months you've spent here - especially the fact you've made a frightfully low number of contributions in the months running up to this. Has the significant rise in edit count been for the sake of this? Extremely inconsistent editor, with low mainspace and wikipedia space contributions. Not ready yet. Lradrama 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Lack of talk space and that 3 month gap looks weird. Also after reading the answers it looks like the candidate is only going to fight vandalism. That can be done without being an admin. More interaction with other editors would change my vote to a support. -ScotchMB 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Espresso Addict. I'd advise the candidate to get more experience building out articles past stub/start class. Majoreditor 20:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Lack of recent activity (only 4 edits made between 29 March and 9 August). Singopo 00:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Singopo. NHRHS2010 Talk 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose. Inactivity itself is not an issue for me, but the accompanying lack of familiarity with developments during that time may be. I bring this up because of two recent AfD nominations by the candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Almontaser and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's. Although sources were found and added in each case, that's not why I'm opposing; rather, the wording of both nominations suggests a lack of research on the subject prior to starting the AfDs. Normally, I wouldn't oppose for just two AfD noms, but there's also the fact that these two nominations constitute 50% of the candidate's AfD noms since he resumed editing earlier this month. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    I will admit that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kern's was a bad nom, but I am still convinced that Debbie Almontaser fails WP:BLP1E. The only thing that she is notable for is one incident. She is newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. The consensus was to keep, so I go along with it, though I disagree. --דניאל - Dantheman531 05:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, the case for notability is rather weak and I don't have an issue with the fact that you nominated the article for deletion. However, I just couldn't see from your nomination statement that you researched the article prior to the AfD. You wrote "I do not think that she is notable", but didn't explain why (Is it because there are no reliable sources about her? Is it that the sources provide only trivial coverage? Or, is it that the coverage is always in the context of another event?) If you did research the subject beforehand and this was merely an issue of failing to communicate the results of that research, please let me know so that I can modify my comment accordingly. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Before nominating an article for AfD, I always do at least a quick Google search. If it seems like the subject might be notable, I always follow up. Checking through each page on Google, I was really only finding articles about the incident where she was selling "intifada" shirts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman531 (talk • contribs) 14:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. I have changed my comment to "weak oppose" and may change to 'neutral' or 'support' after reviewing your recent contributions some more. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for reconsidering. --דניאל - Dantheman531 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per pretty much all comments above --Ben hello! 05:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Though you've obviously improved, you haven't contributed in the recent past consistently enough for me to be comfortable endorsing you. It's not a threshold of edit coutn you must pass, but you must have enough edits made for me to judge your contributions satisfactorily, and you don't imo. Also per Lucid's comments. VanTucky (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose - recent support voters don't appear to be making any sense - there's nothing wrong with taking wikibreaks - however reasonble concerns have been raised in regard to low amount of contributions since his last RfA. Addhoc 13:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - As per VanTucky - I am sorry, my friend. I do not believe you are experienced enough in terms of editing articles. (But other than that, everything is fine) ScarianTalk 00:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose, sorry. Too many concerns.--Húsönd 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Even if he is a mediator, his editing between RfA 2 and 3 conveys some power hunger. Maxim(talk) 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    Power hunger? What happened to AGF..? WjBscribe 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    Good question. ~ Wikihermit 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Maxim. We don't need sysops running around acting like they have a badge. ~ Wikihermit 23:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    "A badge" - sorry, what is this a reference to? WjBscribe 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Sorry but a long wiki-break very soon after the last unsuccessful nomination, followed quickly by a large number of minor edits and then a self-nom when the nominee re-appeared does raise concerns about temperament in the face of stress and obsession with becoming an admin at the expense of contributing. Also, for somebody who aims to focus primarily on vandal fighting, has very few edits to AIV and therefore too little exposure to the escalation process. TigerShark 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning on support - Lucid's got a point there. I don't think you'll abuse the mop, but I would like to see a little more active editing. I do support the fact that you've been a great med. --Hirohisat Kiwi 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral My basic problem here is not that you don't have a hundred edits a day and it's not that you've had periods of inactivity -- I myself had to absent for nearly two months and slow down the pace of my editing. My problem is that you had an RFA in March, you had almost no edits at all between March and August 14 -- literally a handful -- and then in the last two weeks there's a spurt of edits and then another RfA. And not only that, but this isn't even the first time. Something similar happened between the November and the March RfAs. Why not take the community's advice and edit steadily for a couple of months? You don't have to edit all the time, just enough to show interest and to show a (mostly) consistent presence. --Shirahadasha 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Please see my response to Lucid's oppose above. Thank you. --דניאל - Dantheman531 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral For a dedicated vandal fighter, the low number of reports to AIV makes me wonder if you're really qualified to block users, but I'm not going to oppose solely because of that Corpx 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral per Shirahadasha - basically a good candidate, however a few days after your last RfA you stopped editing and then only restarted this month, apart from about a dozen edits in between. Would prefer at least 50 edits per month between RfAs. Addhoc 19:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral [2], you made few edits after you last Rfa before becoming active within the last month. A more consistent editing pattern would be better. --Hdt83 Chat 03:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral per Black Falcon's reasoning. —AldeBaer 13:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (changed to support)
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.