Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fuhghettaboutit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Fuhghettaboutit

Final: (73/4/0); ended 01:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs) - I'm proud to present a prolific Wikipedian, Fuhghettaboutit, who has racked up 13180 edits in mainspace, 3642 in user talk, and 2527 in Wikipedia space. What caught my eyes, though, were some very good answers he gave on the help desk. I am surprised that he's not an admin already (yes, yes, I know), and this RfA is long overdue. fuhghettaboutit has contributed this project since 10 December 2005. A civil and helpful editor who readily admits when he makes a mistake, fuhghettaboutit is an active NP patroller and DYK participant, so he can really use some tools. I have no doubt that he will wield the tools responsibly. Let's give him the mop. Xiner (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Fuhghettaboutit is a fantastic Wikipedian. He deeply understands that this is an encyclopedia. If he has to find references from 1887 newspapers, he does it. This is no gnome, either - Fuhghettaboutit spends most of his WP time actually writing articles, and has created quite a number of them, straight into B-Class or better. Yet somehow also had not only the time but the understanding of how Wikipedia works to be the main architect of the books notability guideline. I interact with him a lot in a WikiProject. Ever-civil, always uses edit summaries (that make sense), does not revert war, doesn't pick fights, just generally makes sense most of the time. He is quick to fix vandalism, knows templating, is helpful to newbies and experienced editors alike, and has a well-founded understanding of policy/guidelines, XfD, consensus building, and how to build really good articles. I think it's time he got a bucket. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and thank you Xiner and SmMcCandlish for the nominations.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In the hope that no one will strain a typing muscle trying to avoid an improper pronoun, as I have seen in past nominations, please feel free to use he / him / his where appropriate.


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: I do a good deal of new pages patrol and contemplate continuing in that activity. The ability to delete clear WP:CSD candidates without a middle man would be immensely helpful in that enterprise, not to mention more efficient. Lending a hand at CAT:CSD would be a natural offshoot of this. I have participated in numerous afd debates (I would estimate over 500) and anticipate performing closes, though I would be leery of tackling controversial ones until gaining experience. I also anticipate assisting with requested moves, and at WP:ERRORS, where I have reported problems a number of times.
I am strangely attracted to fixing page histories and though I have no experience in the actual methodology (how could I), I have reviewed WP:CPMV. I've had twelve self-nominated articles listed on DYK and two for other users, so I am familiar with process there and foresee adding my name to available updaters. Another prospect is helping out with copyright violations which I have some experience with in real life. I've been interested enough here that I created {{nothanks-drm}} after noting the ubiquitous failure of users to read the text of {{copyvio}} regarding creation of a temporary page. Finally, though until now I have sparingly contributed at WP:AN and its various subsections, I do monitor at times, and would assist where appropriate.
I am a bit of a dilettante and it's a safe bet that I would expand into different roles over time. The rollback button may be occasionally useful, but I don’t think I will need it often. I dislike recent changes patrol so most simple vandalism I encounter is of the drive-by, rather than spree variety, and limited to my [ever-expanding] watchlist. Of course, there's no telling what the future may bring that will occasion more contact with vandals. I'm sure someone will note that I have only a few edits to WP:AIAV; this is the reason.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: This may come off as pollyanna, but I am pleased with most of my contributions. I don't do things if I don't think they’re worthwhile and doing things that I think are worthwhile pleases me. Okay, if you pin me down: I am most pleased with having written much of the non-stub billiard content on Wikipedia—numerous articles, including two GAs (carom billiards and Irving Crane); as well as balkline and straight rail (probably the article I am most proud of; a very difficult historical research project); cowboy pool; cushion caroms; bottle pool; kelly pool; the billiards glossary all these articles use and many others. I have two other GAs, Lope de Barrientos and Trabancos River, both translations of featured articles on the Spanish Wikipedia drafted with the collaboration of the Spanish language majority author (a real treat). I am also pleased by the promotion to guideline of Wikipedia:Notability (books) which I wrote with a good deal of help from Pascal.Tesson. I also enjoy helping out at the help desk, New contributors' help page, occasionally at various sections of the Reference desk and responding to {{help me}}.
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: Some minor conflicts—mostly shouting and hand waving because a user’s article that I tagged got deleted. There was this exchange at the help desk which led to this discussion. There was one rather unpleasant incident with an established user, now an admin, who accused me of tagging a user’s talk page with an improper blanking warning. After I pointed out the correctness of the tagging (the user was looking at the wrong article’s edit history because he didn't realize the blanked article had become a redirect in the interim), we had some words over his less than diplomatic manner and actions. I will provide further details with diffs if requested to, but I think it's of a let-sleeping-dogs-lie nature.
I've had few content disputes. The only ones that come to mind are here, when I was a new user, and the heated discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I don’t find this stressful. I enjoy debate (and do my best not to climb large German senatorial buildings in costume). What I find stressful is making harmful mistakes. For example, this should not have been necessary. There are other edits I regret—a few harsh edit summaries, one afd where I should have been more civil, and one over-the-top post at the village pump—but these few incidents loom large in my memory and I try not to repeat past errors.


Optional question 4 from ViridaeTalk
4. You stated you want to help out with CAT:CSD. Under what circumstances can an article be deleted for not being notable?
A: To the extent prod may be considered a form of speedy deletion (though it is not speedy per se, it shares lack of debate on the merits of the article), a prodded article on the basis of notability could be deleted after running its course. Otherwise, there are no such circumstances—at least not as you have posed the question. There are no speedy deletion criteria on the basis of notability. The only notability-related criteria, A7, has to do with whether there is an assertion of notability. An article that asserts notability, though one may think it patently non-notable, is not a candidate for speedy deletion on that basis. Please see the edit history of this article, edited by me earlier today.
Optional question by Gmaxwell
5. How would you describe, in your own words, the mission of the English Wikipedia and how does that mission fit into the overall mission of the Wikimedia Foundation? What actions have you taken as a community member to further these missions and what actions do you see yourself taking in the future to further these missions?
A: Wikipedia is about free dissemination of knowledge. A database that is capable of near infinite expansion, and with the resource of all people (well, those with computers) given free access to collaborate in that process. It's a great model. There's a bit of devil in the details, but we're working on it. I really am not sure how to answer the second part of your question. A free encyclopedia is one aspect of the goal stated above. The Wikimedia Foundation also oversees other aspects, but it's all about the goal of free and open collaborative access to knowledge. A free dictionary, species directory, news service, library, etc. They are all about the same thing. As for the third question, why I've helped to increase that knowledge. Along the way I've been also pruning and debating improvements to the structure to achieve that goal. I value my time and wouldn't spend one more second creating articles and helping here if I didn't believe in the goal.
5(continued): Thank you for your answer, I like it but I would like to drill in a bit deeper into your thoughts on this stuff. Going purely hypothetical here, if the goal is about the free dissemination of knowledge, why are we writing instead of just copying Encyclopedia Britannica and trying to battle it out in court? or why aren't we instead using all our man power to raise money to use to pay publishers to allow us to display their books at no cost?
A: I turned in my truncheon at the door. From a feasibility standpoint, we would never win either battle you've posed. The statement "free dissemination of knowledge" is not a mantra interpreted in a vacuum. We do have a structure; a particular type of software platform; particular policies that make this a tertiary source encyclopedia, and there is nothing about this that puts us at odds with intellectual property law; we are not a knowledge-at-any-cost-free-for-all-anarchy. In any case, why would we want to assimiliate Encyclopædia Britannica? It can't compete in breadth or in depth (certainly not in the long run). Regarding the second hypothetical, displaying books has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Wikisource of course does function in that sphere, but once again we function within the bounds of society and its laws. I would be more worried if the Wikimedia foundation was run by Pinky and the Brain.
Optional question from Kelly Martin
6. You have contributed 100 images to Wikipedia since January 2006 (and eight on Wikimedia Commons). Thirty-nine of these images have since been deleted. Could you please describe the circumstances surrounding the deletion of these contributions?
A: Sure. All but 3 of the following 14 images, were fair use dvd/vhs covers replaced by more desirable original movie poster images. When the images became orphaned, I requested deletion under G7: (deletion log entries) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] (<--replaced by a commons image) and [12] (<--and two others images relating to the same movie under similar names because I was dissatisfied with the images).
These 4 are in the same boat but I missed them on my watchlist, so they were deleted as orphaned fair use image + seven days: [13][14][15][16]
All 21 remaining deleted images were of dog breeds uploaded in one day (after a number of hours of work) my second month on Wikipedia. All contained fair use rationales but I learned from a kind user the problem with these images and fair use. Here is my response to learning all were to be deleted.

Optional question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk · contribs)

7. What does it mean to be too "trigger-happy", and is it a bad thing or a good thing for admin. canadates to be?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A: I can think of no usage of "trigger happy" (on or off Wikipedia) that would not have negative connotations. Users in general should think before jumping where some thought might modify the action. If everyone hovered over the submit button for a few moments longer much grief would be avoided. For example, an edit summary of "revert vandalism," where the edit is incorrect for whatever reason but not clearly vandalism, can cause hurt feelings in its wake driving away a good user. In the context of adminship, there are many places where being trigger happy could be a real problem (not the least of which would be for me, if I gain administrator privileges, to not carefully study policy and possibly to seek advice before performing actions on sensitive matters I have little experience with). Take blocking as a test case with which I have only peripheral experience. Both my sensibilities and a quick review of policy for purposes of this question leads me to believe that it would be rash to do so following a report of disruption, without: checking myself that the report is accurate; a careful consideration of the context and circumstances; whether the block would be punitive rather than preventative; if a range block, a consideration of collateral damage; reviewing suggested time periods; and so on. Likewise, deleting pages without one’s own due diligence is ill-considered.
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as co-nominator. Xiner (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I don't even need to look at this user's answers to the questions. I know this user will make a great administrator, and I look forward to seeing him out there, making Wikipedia a better place. Chickyfuzz14(user talk) 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support as co-nominator of course! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support well qualified, overdue HornandsoccerTalk 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. He was one of the first Wikipedians I encountered here, and it was the kind of interaction that made me want to stick around. Looking at his more recent contributions confirms my impression that he would make an excellent admin.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Everything looks good--$UIT 03:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Michael 04:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - bumped into this guy many times. Great editor & will make an equally good admin - Alison☺ 05:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support per answers to all questions, paticuarly my optional one. That was the answer I was looking for~ ViridaeTalk 06:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Changing to Super duper strong support per answers to questions. Candidate is polite, level-headed and knows his policy. Whats not to like. Good luck! ViridaeTalk 06:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Terence 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support I see no problems here. (aeropagitica) 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - long overdue. Addhoc 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support good, all-rounded user who can be very helpful with the tools in his hands. —Anas talk? 13:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. He'll be a very good administrator. He's been looking out for me since I was a newbie, patiently and courteously answering my questions and correcting my errors, and I've been quietly admiring his work expanding the billiards articles. I've never seen him other than civil; he knows Wikipedia policy and contributes in a variety of different ways. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support My collaboration with Fuhghettaboutit on WP:BK has convinced me that he/she is level-headed and I'm confident he will do well with the admin tools. Pascal.Tesson 14:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Plenty of experience. If problems were going to surface they would have done so by now. DurovaCharge! 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Excellent candidate; cliche moment. Xoloz 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support His mistakes with the fair use criteria seem only to have increased his knowledge of the policy, and I love the civil, thoughtful response. We don't need admins that never make mistakes, only ones that admit them civilly, deal with them, and learn from them. Dina 15:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support. Certainly. Retiono Virginian 15:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - Trustworthy user who understands process. Q5 seems more of a test, which Fuhghettaboutit passed. Q6 answer shows learning from mistakes. -- Jreferee 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Excellent candidate with an impressive range of contributions to the project. JavaTenor 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support I am getting annoyed by all the RfAs saying that they are "Amazed the user isn't an admin yet," but still, the user is definately good enough for adminship. Captain panda 17:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - user has not signed acceptance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Despite appearances, the above is actually a support vote (see HTML comments in it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support good one. feydey 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support no problems whatsoever Scottydude talk 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Seen him everywhere. (Been here much longer than me) Brilliant wikipedian.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Of course, long history of being a useful contributor. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support When I've seen him around he's a solid and responsible editor, Modernist 02:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Wow! This user is a great all around guy. I think he's ready for adminship. Gutworth 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Looks like another great candidate. Rockpocket 06:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great candidate who deserves a mop. KrakatoaKatie 10:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support I can't fault his level of support of Wiki and his constant work ethic.--VS talk 13:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Yes please. I've long been impressed with this user's sensible and well-reasoned positions on AFD, and bumping into Irving Crane on NPP was particularly welcome amongst the morass of copyvios and other speedies I'd been finding at the time. —Cryptic 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC), revised 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support per above. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. A valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. -- Satori Son 14:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support. I feel the above questions have been answered well and I am happy for him to be given a mop. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 15:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Wow, can we look forward to this loyalty test in future RfAs? Sheesh. --W.marsh 21:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Boy do I second that comment! Pascal.Tesson 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support More than 13,000 edits, and has more than the needed experiance in time.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. I'll admit I haven't scrutinized this user's history, but I like the answers to the questions. I especially like the response to the question about the deleted images: Fuhgehettaboutit cleaned up after the images he uploaded were orphaned, and in another case realized he didn't fully understand the fair use criteria and decided to focus his contributions on areas where he did understand the policy. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Moreover, I like his explanation of en.wiki's mission. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support I didn't even know what WP:ERRORS was! I want to say something clever here, but whatever. YechielMan 06:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, per (co-)nom, an experiment user and oppose arguments does not convinced me. Carlosguitar 07:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support, -LakersTalk 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. An impressive track record and a balanced and reasonable personality. What more could we want? semper fictilis 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Impressive candidate. I also find the opposition unconvincing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, the candidate's long-ago errors do not bother me, and the willingness to respond positively to advice and feedback when they occurred is a great sign. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support as an en admin of almost two years who got into a dispute over the copyright of several images I recently uploaded to Commons. Beyond a firm understanding and unyielding stance on behalf of the 5 pillars, it is far more important for a potential admin to demonstrate an ability to take criticism and move on constructively than to have a detailed knowledge of any particular procedure or policy. - BanyanTree 10:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Strongly support - in the last couple of months I don't think I've seen a single comment by this user in the traditional battlegrounds of AfD discussions & talk pages that hasn't been valid, even when I've disagreed with it. Judging someone by mistakes they made over a year ago is ridiculous. All the opposition thus far seems to be petty quibbling over technicalities rather than any good reasons. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support - I'm puzzled by oppose comments based on 13-month old, good faith confusion over the concept of fair use. --A. B. (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (PS. Thanks for all the image uploads.)
  55. Support - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Fuhghettaboutit demonstrates a strong knowledge of WP policy. Large spell check edit content is irrevelant. Kevinwong913 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. +1 --dario vet (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support. Candidate seems intelligent and dedicated. As to the opposition: I don't mind Kelly and Gmaxwell screening for ideological purity but they've got to hone that test a little better. The question "Why don't we copy the Encyclopædia Britannica?" naturally lends itself to a lot of down-to-earth answers (like this candidate gave) long before getting to free content ideology. Haukur 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support of course. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support - A very dedicated editor and he shouldnt be judged on things he did ions ago because he improved a lot since then and he deserves the mop...Good Luck..--Cometstyles 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support per Maxwell and Martin. If he does not know the details then share your knowledge. We are not trying to build an encyclopedia where only a select few get to call the shots. I have every confidence that this user will mature into an excellent user. If candidates such as this are being denied adminship, who can possibly have enough experience? Also, his response to Martin was tempered and showed the maturity of an admin. I see no reason why Martin would strengthen her oppose on the basis of that answer. Given the discussion i think it was correct for this user to give their view on the point being discussed. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support. I do think the opposes are not that relevant. Abeg92contribs 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Strong support, looks like a great editor, plus the opposes actually seem to be in bad faith.--Wizardman 19:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support - my interactions with him have been consistently positive, plus I've admired some of his work from afar. Philippe 05:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' rationales and find them wholly unconvincing. Newyorkbrad 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support Very good candidate, good answers to in my mind, will work well as an admin Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Strong support per Newyorkbrad. I do not find the opposes convincing either. Acalamari 18:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support Strong candidate, do not agree with opposes reasons. Davewild 19:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support, does good work. I don't think we'd get enough new admins if we required that they all be able to express our core mission articulately. Expressing the mission through action is enough. --Allen 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  71. support JoshuaZ 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support This guy needs a mop. Sr13 (T|C) 07:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. I do not find the arguments opposing Fughettaboutit's candidacy to be convincing. On the contrary, my review of his record and his response has left me with a favourable impression of a diligent, responsible, and courteous person. I will not hold against him mistakes or mistaken understandings from over a year ago which he has corrected. If it was a death threat from 13 months ago, I'd probably oppose; but a comment that essentially reads "Thanks for letting me know about my mistakes, I'll try not to make them in the future."? That's to be commended, not scolded! Best of luck, Black Falcon 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose due to unacceptable answers to questions regarding core policy on nonfree content. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    How on earth could his answer hae been any better? Mind pointing out for the rest of us where his answers are so unacceptable? ViridaeTalk 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I second that clarification request; Fuhghettaboutit actually demonstrates a very clear understanding of WP:COPY. User talk:Kelly Martin has been notified that a clarification has been requested here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Updated: 07:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to pile on, but I third that. What answer would you have found acceptable? Pascal.Tesson 07:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Fuhghettaboutit's response to Question 5, above, indicates that he believes the reason we do not use nonfree content on Wikipedia is to avoid being sued. Regretfully, this is not correct; that he gave this as the primary reason not to use nonfree material indicates that he does not support Wikipedia's principal goal of being a freely-reusable encyclopedia. Regrettably, Fuhghettaboutit does not appear to sufficiently support Wikipedia's core mission for me to consider him suitable for adminship, and so I have opposed his candidacy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am further strengthening my opposition in light of the subject's inappropriate response to my comments to Xiner, below. My comments were directed more to Xiner than to Fuhghettaboutit and were of a structural nature regarding the RFA process itself, but he took them personally and even took offense at them -- going so far as to call them absurd. I therefore strongly question whether he has the appropriate temperament to be an admin; admins will constantly be faced with such situations and if that's how he reacts... Kelly Martin (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect Kelly, your comment below was strongly suggesting that you had little respect for the bot-like contributions of Fuhghettaboutit. His response was firm but perfectly civil. Pascal.Tesson 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ms. Martin, before questioning the candidate's temperament and tendency of taking criticism personally, I suggest you read your own RfCs and honestly observe whether you are the right person to question his or anybody else's temperament. FlatGenius 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for asking; yes, I feel quite qualified to question the temperament of this, or any other, candidate. I suggest that you read some useful Wikipedia articles before you again question my good faith in such an egregious manner. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 3 is the most recent one. PS: I do not believe that questioning someone's ability to accurately gauge temperament or ability to accept criticism is an accusation of bad faith at all (nor is it fallacious, nor shooting the messenger). I would instead take it as a pointer to WP:KETTLE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, regretfully. I too was not satisfied with Fuhghettaboutit's responses. We need to have administrators who understand, are committed to, and can explain our core mission. At best, I believe Fuhghettaboutit's responses clearly failed to explain even if he really does understand. It is simply not enough that we can legally disseminate our content, it has to preserve the recipients freedom. Even this simple distinction between free-content and no-cost content which is fundamental for even understanding the tagline of our project was completely unclear in Fuhghettaboutit responses. I asked questions about Fuhghettaboutit's position on these matters because it was not possible to determine it from the fairly small number of project discussion edits that he's made. I will not oppose, and may well support, Fuhghettaboutit in the future if his future actions remove my concerns. --Gmaxwell 14:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Can an editor make 13180 mainspace edits without understanding Wikipedia? We're producing an encyclopedia here, and Wikipedia talkspace edits are but a piece of that puzzle. Fuhghettaboutit has not only demonstrated his ability as a theoretician through policy formulations (WP:N/books), but practical application through his mainspace contributions. Xiner (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Can someone? sure. Especially when a lot (most?) of the 13k edits are simple tagging edits made at ~10 edits per minute[17]. Even ignoring an editors occasional bot-like tendencies, it's totally possible for someone to have written a dozen featured articles and not have any understanding that Wikipedia is more free than "you can view it on the web at no cost". It's all of our fault that we don't, as a community, help people understand this stuff better but we're certainly not getting better on that front if we grant adminship to more people who don't clearly get it. --Gmaxwell 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    If I thought for a second Fuhghettaboutit is anything like that, I'd not have supported him. Xiner (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I should point out that I racked up nearly 4000 mainspace edits in just under two months doing little more nothing but spelling corrections; at best what this demonstrates is that I have an automated spelling checker and know how to use it. Quite a lot of Fuhghettaboutit's mainspace edits appear to be semiautomated tagging; such edits demonstrate only that he knows how to use a bot framework, or simply how to edit really quickly. I know it is tempting to rely on edit counts to judge a candidate's merits, but doing so really is not defensible -- and merely encourages people to pad their edit counts with fluff edits in order to win the "admin game". Please refrain from making such arguments; they only hurt Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I am not going to be the guy that disputes each oppose and I'd like to say that I appreciate your comments and respect the right of every user to oppose. However, there are a few things I'd like to clear up.
    First, I do not and have never used any automated tools whatever. Those recent film edits are done by creating the code for the template offline carefully checking the Wikipedia filmography for a film director against imdb. Once done, and after saving the template here, I open up the many screens in separate windows, tag each page with the template and minimize. Once all the article are tagged, I maximize ten screens (because that's how many can fit in my browser bar at one time), click save and minimize for each one, then I maximize them all, go up to the close "X", and click ten times shutting them all. Repeat and wash until the process is done. I have, in fact, made thousands of these types of edits—the majority when I first started here—but if you had hit "older 500" just a few times in my contributions, you'd see that I also have thousands of contributions that are not of this nature: [18], [19], [20], [21]. [22] (arbitrary stop).
    In the same vein, these are are just a few of my single edit postings of exhaustively researched and referenced to the best of my ability, complete articles written offline: [23] (about 20 kb), [24] (about 25 kb), [25], [26]. If written here instead of offline, just these samples from a larger article pool would translate to a huge number of edits. So if I was really trying to "pad...[my]...edit counts with fluff edits in order to win the "admin game", I certainly wouldn't waste all these 'valuable edit count inflators' writing this (non-fluff) material offline. On a less mechanical note, I find the implied notion that I or anyone would edit for 16 months and make 21,000 edits, regardless of their nature, all as a ruse to become an admin, frankly absurd.
    And to Gmaxwell: I'm not sure that I can assuage your concerns, though I think that a question which specifically asks "why are we writing instead of just copying Encyclopedia Britannica and trying to battle it out in court?" does not, even now, make me think a response involving the ability to freely redistribute material is reflexively invited. However, I think this post, where I advised a user of free distribution under the GFDL, might be of some interest.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per [27]. Such a statement is contrary towards the goal of Wikipedia, and also what is expected of an admin. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I read [28] as someone who recognized one month ago as of February 18, 2006 that he had more study to do on Wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema and would refrain from such posts until he had more knowledge. Administrators should inform themselves before taking action, particularly in the difficult area of Wikipedia's copyright/licensing schema, and should recognize areas of weakness and refrain from acting in those areas until they are ready. I am not sure how the statement is contrary towards the goal of Wikipedia or expectations of admins. -- Jreferee 19:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    That diff is from February 2006, two months after Fuhghettaboutit began editing, not from a month ago. —Cryptic 19:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I revised my post above per your comment. -- Jreferee 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry but opposing on the basis of a thirteen month old diff, and a fairly innocuous one at that is just unfair. RfA candidates deserve better than frivolous opposition. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Right. Grind axe too long, no axe. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Kelly Martin's reasoning. Singopo 06:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.