Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hamedog

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.

[edit] Hamedog

Final (12/19/12) ended 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamedog (talk · contribs) – Today is the 365th day since I joined Wikipedia and I thought its probably time to "take it to the next level". My main contributions are to Rugby union related articles - I'm a member of WP:RU. Whilst you may see in my contributions I haven't done much RC Patrol or reverting of vandals, this is first and foremost an encyclopedia, one which I am committed too. If I fail, I won't be dishearted in anyway, so please express your true opinions.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated co-nom: Hailing from Australia, Hamedog has been an editor at Wikipedia since October 23, 2005 -- one full year. He's made a number of contributions with WikiProject Rugby union, most notably getting Scotch College, Perth and Super 12 champions to good and featured status, respectively. As we can see from his contribs in the Wikipedia namespace, he's frequently involved in both peer reviews and discussions of Main Page content. As was mentioned, he's been around for a year, and has in my experience been an active, civil, and helpful member of the #wikipedia IRC community. E-mail's enabled, he's responsive to other editors. Thanks to his geographic location, he may be of additional use, being able to cover admin tasks in the late night hours when fewer of the active admins are available. To be honest, I've thought he was an admin for some time, and just a humble and quiet one. He manages to mostly stay out of disputes, but generally manages to keep a cool head, from what I've seen. Luna Santin 10:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I live in Australia, but hail from New Zealand. Moving back to Wellington in Jan next year!
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Look up and you will see this is a self nom--HamedogTalk|@ 10:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawal

  • I wish to withdraw this RfA. I will come back after reviewing and doing the suggestions of fellow Wikipedians. Thanks. To be honest, all I wanted was the admin "badge of honour" originally, but now I want to take on advice, become involved in other parts of Wikipedia and come back and be a proper admin.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I will be happy to help in all of them. Variety is the spice of life as they say and I think it is extremly important to spread your roles around in Wikipedia, otherwise things can become tedious. Administrative backlog would probably be the first area I would seek out to help in.
In saying that, there are also other areas which I take glee in wanting to help in. Areas such as {{unblock}} are pretty much restricted to admins and have always interested me. The closing of AfD's, which any user can do, is something admins are better "equiped" to do, and this interests me.
Other areas I am interested in is Today's Featured Article, WP:ITN and the DYK section.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, and its actually a list. Super 12 champions, my first featured subject. I love the table in it, I thinks the only table I've done on Wikipedia that looks good.
Scotch College, Perth and 2007 Super 14 are other articles I also feel are good, although the latter needs continual updating.

I am also happy with the new front page of WP:RU, which I did, although I copied most of the code from WP:CRICKET :P

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, the naming of North Korea/Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In the several articles we have on North Korean missle tests, I changed North Korea to DPRK. This was opposed by many editors so I ran a Requested Move. It failed. Later this year I did a similar edit and was informed it was against the majority of editors, so I proceded to stop.
An other conflicts in editing arose today in Scotch College, Perth where admin Harro5 reverted me for giving to much information. I reverted in the interest of NPOV.
Questions from Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs • count)
4. Have you, in the past, contributed to many articles for deletion debates? If so, please provide some links to the more recent ones.
A:No, not really, unless they are of personal interest to me. Last one I can remember was probably about Brian Peppers, but, I don't generally visit those. However, if I was admin, I am sure AfD's would give me interest, as they are of course an area admins must be present in.
5. You indicate you are willing to do a variety of things. Have you got any experience in a variety of tasks, like tagging CSD, closing AfD's (per the non-admin procedure) and AIV?
A:Yes, I have tagged one or two articles for speedy deletion. Never closed an AfD but if I was to gain adminship, I would take more interest in these areas. Never been to WP:AIV before, seems admin specific. As an admin, I would take more interest in these activities, because admin must do these. However, I feel that {{unblock}} is more interesting and I would be more interested in helping in this kind of task, such as replying and reviewing.


Questions from Terence Ong (talk · contribs):
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

6. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
A: Is this before or after a check user? That changes the whole situation.
If before, I would request a check user, in order to confirm the sockpuppets. If there is a match, I would personally email the user if the had the feature, asking them if they want to vandalise Wikipedia or edit Wikipedia. If they so remorse, I will block the socks, and watch the user closely for the first weeks back.
7. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
A: Reinstate the article and put it up for AfD to achieve a better vote. Inform the admin of this decision. If the admin opposed, I would talk to him/her about there decision. Hopefully this would work.
8. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
A: Block them, there is precedence of them going against the majority. Also, if by anon you mean an IP, they can't create articles.
9. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
A: Would support the other admins decision and comment on the RFAR. I would then attempt to create a dialog between both parties, attempting to understand both sides of the arguement. If one continues to ignore, I will talk to them on their talk page.
10. You're closing an AfD where 7 (including the nom) of the 11 people want to delete, most delete people cite that the article does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N. The people wanting to keep dispute this, and cite some evidence. How do you close the AfD?
A:I'd let it continue for a while longer as there is evidence. Before this, I would make sure the evidence is relevant. After perhaps one more day, if there is still a similar concensus, I will close.
11. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
A:In theory technical, in pratice political. So political.

Question from Imoeng (talk · contribs)

12. Will sysop tools likely reduce your mainspace editing?
A. My perecnt of mainspace editing will go down, but the raw number of edits will remain constant or go up.
13. How would you balance your contribution as an admin and as an editor?
A. Well if I was admin I would see myself as Wikipedian first, admin second. So I would probably go some thing like 60/40 or 70/30 to edits over admin jobs.
14. Your edit summary usage is pretty (very) low. How would you explain that?
A. I rarely use it if I am editing a page I have editted a number of times before. If it is a page I am new to or haven't contributed to more than 5 or 6 times, I will probably use it so users can identify the edits. I pretty much work on a supply and demand basis. If I have editted lots on that page, demand of summaries is low, but, if I am a newbie to that page, I will probably use the summary.--HamedogTalk|@ 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

15. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ignoring all rules is policy I have come across several times before. While it is offical, I believe this should be last resort rather than one taken on early in a dispute or other conflict. I believe this policy exists so the encyclopedia doesn't come to a halt if there are loopholes or overlapping policy.
WP:SNOW is an essay I am familure with. I think it means that while you should WP:IAR, you shouldn't ignoring the majority of users/editors of Wikipedia.
WP:SNOW is an offshoot of WP:IAR. I would tell a new user about WP:SNOW if they cite WP:IAR for something abit suspect. I will cite WP:IRA if a debate or similar is failing because of other policy but the majority are against.
16. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: I assume by punitive you mean an inflicting punishment. I don't see how this is posible, unless we track a user down and write a letter to them. Seems weird.
New Answer: Sorry, but I thought by punitive it meant that we punish someone already under a block. WP:BLOCK states blocks for events other than vandalism should not be done, so No.
17. How important is it for an administrator to keep a sense of humor?
A: Very. We don't want Robots. I have humour!--HamedogTalk|@ 13:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
18. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A: If the article is larger than most stubs and appears to be in non encyclopedic format, I would delete, especially after checking a users previous contribs and find a history of this kind of editing. I would make sure it just wasn't a page which need to be wikified as well.
Thus, the criteria I would use is:1. Writen in non encylopedic tone. 2. User has history of corperate editing. 3. Was larger than stub. 4. Has several links to a company website. 5. POV.

Question from MatthewFenton (talk · contribs)

19. — Okay, is this an RfA or a AfD?
A: RfA.

Question from ST47 (talk · contribs)

20. - In question 10 you said:

- ::A:I'd let it continue for a while longer as there is evidence. Before this, I would make sure the evidence is relevant. After perhaps one more day, if there is still a similar concensus, I will close. - :How do you define concensus? As a plurality, or would you weigh the points? If weighing the points of each side, and found that your point of view was interfering, how would you proceed?

Concencus is both. Weighing the points is important, especially in AfD's about internet sites and such what, where people turn up just to vote. Plurality is very important as well because it can give you evidence in what the majority is thinking. If I found my point of view interfering, I would probably cast my view and leave the closing to someone else - otherwise it looks bad on your part.

Question from Konstable (talk · contribs)

21. Do you think there is a problem with asking a candidate so many questions?
No, why? Kinda annoying but no other problem.
General comments

Hamedog's editcount summary stats as of 13:55, October 23 2006, using wannabe kate's tool. (aeropagitica) 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Hamedog recently closed two AfDs as delete. [1] [2]. After a short conversation at User talk:Hamedog#AfD, I ended up pointing him to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. This user has absolutely no idea what he's doing. -- Steel 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hamedog did not appear to know what an AfD was before today. See question 10 and here. --Alex (Talk) 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In reply to both the above comments. To Steel, from the sounds of things here, it seemed from editors replies that I should be getting involved in AfDs, an area I hadn't done much work in before. It seemed to me that anybody could close AfDs. To Alex, I said I don't know which AfD is being talked about. The AfD wasn't specific. This AfD is. It was confusion in wording.--HamedogTalk|@ 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Considering he started the sentence with "You're closing an AfD where...", what else would "the AfD" refer to? -- Steel 14:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't see the fact that I didn't understand a question relevant to this RfA.--HamedogTalk|@ 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It troubled me when you said "Are you talking about this AfD?" because this is not an AfD. --Alex (Talk) 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes, same here. -- Steel 14:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I am talking about the one in the question. Neither of you have the abliity to understand human error. "This AfD" refers to the AfD in the question. I was thrown off by the "the".--HamedogTalk|@ 14:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see it never actually said "This AfD"... --Alex (Talk) 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thats what I wrote. "Do you mean this AfD" as opposed to "the AfD". By this I meant the AfD in question.--HamedogTalk|@ 14:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry I don't understand you at all. "The AfD" referred to any AfD at all. I think you thought that the question meant this RfA, am I right? There was no AfD in question. --Alex (Talk) 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No, you are wrong. WRONG! Look here. I didn't understand what the question was asking.--HamedogTalk|@ 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Woah, attitude. Calm down. -- Steel 14:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
          • "Are you talking about this AfD? It says "the AfD". Not very specific." What did you mean by "This AfD"? --Alex (Talk) 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Asking if it was refering to the AfD in the question.--HamedogTalk|@ 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
              • All it asked was how you would close the AfD with seven people wanting to delete. Of course "the AfD" referred to that - what else could it have referred to?--Alex (Talk) 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Ok, enough of this now. This discussion is going nowhere. -- Steel 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend that the beuracrat guy ignore the opposes that only reference the RfA/AfD mistype ST47Talk 10:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting use of the plural there. I only count one. -- Steel 23:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support cool first! this guy needs to be an admin Jeffklib 10:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support as nom. Luna Santin 10:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Have seen a lot of him through WP:RU. He communicates very well, is friendly and overall, a very valuable contributer. I feel he would be a great admin. Cvene64 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Support. I am satisfied by the user's answers and conduct through this point. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I don't think he'll go insane and start deleting swathes of pages at random, which is pretty much my only criterion for adminship, since adminship is no big deal. Seems genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia and doing maintenance. Not to attack other editors, but most of the opposition below seems to hinge upon niggling minor points, like the wording of messages on his Talk page or the number of edits he's made to AfD pages. --Slowking Man 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. It is refreshing to see somebody who has been around a year before getting into adminship. This shows somebody who is willing to take the time to try to learn how to do things right before jumping in and messing anything up. It shows long-term commitment to the community. We need more of this. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Fabulous user. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support I think you mean well, and I like that you waiting for an RfA. However, I suggest you withdraw and get more experience in the Wikipedia: namespace.-- danntm T C 19:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support He's a dedicated Wikipedian and is definitely to be trusted with the buttons. Admin-related experience is certainly a concern, but I think that given the opportunity to learn on the job, so to speak, he will certainly rise to the occasion. I'd be willing to keep an eye on him, as well, as sort of an enhanced admin-coaching hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Moral Support. No one should ever have to answer 20 questions for an RfA (LOL, I'm an admin and I almost just typed AfD there). I feel bad for you. Talk about pile-on. Good luck with your future editing and don't let all the oppose votes discourage you from coming back to RfA in a couple months once you have more experience. Irongargoyle 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Although opinions may differ, 9/14/8 isn't typically considered a "pile-on". Also, I don't think that 20 questions is prohibitive in this case since there's genuine concern about the candidate's familiarity with policy. I do agree that Hamedog should try back in a few months. SuperMachine 23:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Err, I meant pile-on with the questions, not pile-on with the oppose votes. Sorry that wasn't clear. I see your point, but RfA (now I am always typing it AfD after reading this... haha...) is jacking up the number of questions a lot. I don't want to pick out specific examples because I don't want to offend individuals or single them out (I assume that they were posted in good faith), but quite a number of these new questions don't belong on RfA in my oppinion. Best, Irongargoyle 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support. I agree with Irongargoyle, no one have to answer 20 (its 21 now) questions and discussing a pointless point about typos on RfA (oops, I almost typed AfD too). In my point of view, based on some reading, admin tasks in not just about AfD, and I reckon some people have not understood that. Come again after sometime, and I reckon it will be better if you have been reviewed on WP:ER. Good luck -- Imoeng 11:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Good honest user who isn't afraid to make decisions, is forthright and is obviously willing to and I believe can learn from errors (show me one admin who has never ever made a mistake). On the issue of WP:CIVIL, there is no issue. Brusque answers to know-it-alls should be quite acceptable IMHO. Many admins are brusque in their replies, 'tis human nature. --Bob 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. This RfA and its 21 questions is an utter disgrace. (See my comments on the matter currently on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.) Just take a few months and prepare your RfA better and you should be fine. Grandmasterka 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very strong Oppose You admit having little experience doing adminly type things, so what would be the point in giving you the extra buttons? Per answer to Q10 - doesn't know what an AfD is... that worries me a lot. --Alex (Talk) 10:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    I said I will increase my admin related edits if I was to gain adminship.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    It is best you had more experience in those areas. --Alex (Talk) 10:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps it is, but perhaps this is an encyclopedia, which is where I have focused most of my edits. Building, not reverting.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Then you should stick to what you are best at. --Alex (Talk) 11:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps straight up editing is what I am best at but, I feel the time has come to take on more responsibilities.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Then for right now you should stick to what's best for you. Aristotle states in "Nichomean Ethics" that it's necessary to gain the right pleasure for the right activity. You don't know what being an admin entails, and you don't understand the concept of it. You presume it to be an award or an evoluntary step in an editor's life. It's just another role on Wikipedia, that in reality does not make your opinion worth more or anything along those lines. Take on my responsbilites when you understand what those responsbilites are. Yanksox 11:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Please take the time to form the RfA properly and answer the questions before you add yourself to the main page. Grandmasterka 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have done this.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Moved to support. Grandmasterka 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — "Are you talkimh about this AfD?" – Seriously, was that a joke? thanks/[User:MatthewFenton|Fenton, Matthew]] Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    A typo actually.--HamedogTalk|@ 11:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose per answers to questions, which are very vague and don't indicate a need or even knowledge of what admins do.. Q1: "I will be happy to help in all of them" - please, the only people who would say that are people who don't know what admin chores need doing. Mainly though, because of "Never been to WP:AIV before, but as per previous sentance, this is something I can look to be contributing more to.". Some of our newer vandal reporters are really lousy, and I really wouldn't want someone reviewing AIV requests when they've never been involved in that area before. -- Steel 11:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Changed to strong oppose. See discussion section. -- Steel 14:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Drat. I was all prepared to vote support based on edit count, time with Wikipedia, some of the answers, and reivew of talk page. Then I saw the comment on the talk page chiding anons to "log in to engage in meaningful discussion." Merciful heavens, anons do a tremendous amount of work for Wikipedia. Those restrictions on anons that exist are regretable but necessary to protect Wikipedia. It is unfair to treat the many constructive anons as second class citizens beyond protecting Wikipedia. Yes, I wish every constructive anon would get an account. Maybe it would simplify RCPatrol, maybe not. One need not have an account to engage in meaningful discussion. I would also recommend taking greater part in XfD discussions and RCPatrol and reverting/warning/reporting vandals. Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment per Steel's discussion comment above, non admin closing a delete AfD. I recently made the same sort of mistake. Fortunately, not during an RfA. I would strongly suggest user take part in more AfD discussions for a while, then ask an admin about closing AfD's as a non-admin, and then re-apply after gaining more experience.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hamedog has addressed the concern I mentioned in the above rant. Now, opposing based on needs more hands-on in XfD discussions (per steel).Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Switch to neutral.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The problem is that the nominee doesn't have enough experience in admin-type areas for me to be sufficiently sure that they wouldn't make mistakes in using the administrative tools; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hamedog for a list of pages that the nominee has edited at least 5 times in the last 2000 edits (for instance, in AfD subpages there are two !votes and one nomination, much less than I would expect for a user who wanted to close AfDs). --ais523 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Only now have I realised I am interested in taking it up a step. Closing AfDs is an admin role in my mind.--HamedogTalk|@ 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose. Per conversation in this RfA where he told two other editors "Neither of you have the abliity to understand human error." and "No, you are wrong. WRONG!" Comments such as those will ceratainly inflame a situation and leads me to question his ability to handle confrontations. SuperMachine 15:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above replies on RfA and general need for more experience. With more time and experience with areas of admn duties I would support with reservation. Doc ♬ talk 16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I am concerned about your replies and conversation in this RfA. Does not deal with confrontations well either, based on your response here. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to oppose, the user doesn't seem to grasp WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA based on this RfA, spelling issues (A: Reinstate the article and put it up for AfD to achieve a better vote. Inform the admin of this decision. If the admin opposed, I would talk to him/her about there decision), answer to #11, #14, mis-quotes in #15(IAR is a rule, IRA is a terrorist group), answer to #16 shows misunderstanding of WP:BLOCK, per User:Slowking Man, User:Alex9891, and edit summary usage. ST47Talk 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. From your RfA I truly worry if you would go sideways with your mop. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Steel, and answer to question 16. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    I asked what punitive means in this circumstance. Whats wrong with that?--HamedogTalk|@ 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Still oppose, there are plenty other reasons than vandalism why people can be blocked. Also opposing because of picking arguments with most everybody who opposes. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per answers, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, weak editing demonstration, lack of experience. Wryspy 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    I have been around here for over a year - how much more experience do you want?--HamedogTalk|@ 23:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Experience is not measured by calendar time. It is measured by knowledge and intuition gained by doing things. Some people gain that experience in 3-6 months. Others may take more than a year. Some may never gain that experience no matter how long they participate here. This is the concept behind the various recommendations for you to get more experience doing admin-type things (e.g. XfD and AIV) so that you will use the admin buttons wisely. --Richard 05:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I didn't mind him not knowing what an AFD is because he could help out in other areas. However, "No, you are wrong. WRONG!" struck me quite a bit. It's something that I wouldn't want any admin to say to me. They should be good role models of civility. zephyr2k 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. My dealings with this user have shown him to be rude and aggressive. —Psychonaut 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hi, Psychonaut. Can you provide dif's? Are you referring to this unfortunate exchange?. As much as I hate that thing, I can see why hamedog might be upset about you editing his talkpage. I'm not sure he was the one who was rude and aggressive.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 10:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, per above. Jonathunder 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per the reasoning of others above, particularly SuperMachine, Siva1979 and Stifle. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 23:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Behavior on this RfA tells me loads about potential behavior as an admin. Regarding your answer to question #17, your "sense of humor" seems more like cynically mocking the opposers more than anything else, which is essentially shooting yourself into your already-bullet-ridden foot. Regarding your answer to question #7, I find it strange that this candidate never mentions WP:DRV. Reinstating the article will only start a wheel war and may be equivalent to spitting in the face of two admins who arrived to the same conclusion. Regarding your answer to question #11, I want more elaboration on "political." On your answer to question #14, edit summaries should be used most, if not all of the time, regardless of edit count on that particular page. And while I will not nitpick you about this, please do correct your numerous spelling mistakes, as a mistake can lead to an awkward and can escalate an already tense situation. --210physicq (c) 00:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  17. Very Strong Oppose as per Alex and Yanksox, and others. Dionyseus 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Insufficient experience doing adminly things. Insufficient answers. Someone who wants to be an admin should really beef up the edit summary feedback to explain your own actions and teach others. A "brusque" editor is likely to become much more so as an admin. I recommend a fresh editor review before taking on an admin application. Wryspy 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    FYI, this is this users second vote here. 12 &19. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 02:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose somehow I find it hard to believe that typing AfD instead of RfA was a "typo." More experience needed. KazakhPol 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see you're good faith then not assuming a typo. A editor of 1 year can establish what the difference between AFD and RFA. Also, I see editors that have been here 4 months promoted to admin, so not enough experience when he has 3 times that amount seems odd. semper fi — Moe 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose enough playing 20 questions; it's already clear that this user needs more experience and better communications skills. Opabinia regalis 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, I have a good impression of this user and his attitude and abilites. However, I must reserve my judgement until the answers have been filled in, so I can make an informed decision - currently, I'm not 100% sure, but good answers could sway me. Daniel.Bryant 10:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC) I still have a good impression of this user and his attitude and abilites within Wikipedia. However, I require a high level of understanding and experience in admin-related tasks, which you unfortunately don't meet as of now. I would love to support, and would be more than willing to in a few months' time if you have engaged in some more admin-related activities, but I'm afraid I can't at this stage. Cheers, and sorry, Daniel.Bryant 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Done, sorry about that!

Neutral, looks like a good guy. But I can't support due to some doubts raised by the above user, I am not sure yet, will see first. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing to oppose after considering his answers. --Terence Ong (T | C) 10:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. I can understand why people are objecting, but I kind of like his honesty. Maybe he could learn a little more about admin duties and come back in a couple of months. Deb 11:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral You are a good editor and I think that you have made a brave move in stepping up to expand in to the admin areas of WP. What stops me from giving a 'yes' opinion is your apparent lack of knowledge of what it means to be an admin. Do you patrol the new pages or recent changes at all? If so, these are your opportunities to revert vandalism, warn vandals and bring them to WP:AIV for admin attention. Get involved with the XfD discussions and do some admin-related tasks such as those mentioned and I may well change my opinion in two or three months' time. (aeropagitica) 14:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. User's conduct is confusing. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 16:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    Examples? I don't think I am confusing as such.--HamedogTalk|@ 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. 'Neutral Don't know him well enough to support or oppose, but love the honest replies. Tintin (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I would like to see more admin.-related experience. Michael 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Mike | Talk 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Swirch to neutral. Please heed my advice and then try again. I would recommend an editor review prior to submitting another RfA. You are a good editor. Adminship requires additional skills to those of editor. Don't let this RfA discourage you. Not every nom passes on the first go.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I also suggest an editor review, try again in a few months with more admin-related activity. Hello32020 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Would have supported normally, but for [3] and [4]  Doctor Bruno  03:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral leaning to weak support, good answers to questions - you obviously have a sound knowledge of policy and politics. However, I do agree with some of the oppose !voters. riana_dzasta 04:10, 24 October 2006 (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.