Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mind meal

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] Mind meal

Final: (19/16/8); Ended unsuccessfully at 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mind_meal (talk · contribs) - self nomination Mind meal (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am particularly interested in WP:AFD, where I could help to close out nominations that have been voted on. I would weigh the arguments openly and, when a sound consensus is reached, I would close them out accordingly.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I helped to bring Seung Sahn to WP:GA status. I have also contributed substantially to articles relating to my interests, i.e. jazz and Buddhism. The number of new articles I have added to Wikipedia I have lost count of. I would estimate it is in the high hundreds. I have an extreme desire for article accuracy, and will not edit an article or create one without proper referencing. As one can see from my sandboxes, I currently do not create new articles until I have brought them to completion there. In addition, I recently helped to improve the article on Toni Packer, which was in dire need of a new layout and references. If one looks at the talk page for that article, they will see it was a challenge. I participate sometimes at WP:AFD and consider my votes to be open-minded. Notability for me is not something I decide upon depending on my interest in a subject. It is demonstrated by the presence of reliable referencing. I spend so much of my free time editing on Wikipedia I thought I'd ask to become an administrator. I also started WP:CINCINNATI, and have worked on Cincinnati related articles in the past. Generally I edit and create articles that interest me, as I am sure most editors here at Wikipedia do.
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: Very few. The last one I can remember was on the Nhat Hanh article. I had obtained a freely licensed image of Nhat Hanh at Flickr and became embroiled in a miniature edit war with another user who insisted on reverting back to his old press photo. So I brought the matter to the Mediation Cabal and ultimately the press photo was deleted from this site. Incidentally, I have obtained many photos from Flickr by contacting photographers there and then uploaded their relicensed works to Commons. I did have another issue on the use of flag icons in infoboxes. I have since aligned myself with the guidelines on the use of flags, however, and no longer insert them into infoboxes.
4. Thanks Mind meal for submitting your RfA. I see a lot of deleted articles and images amongst your contributions and a number of deleted image notices on your talk page. Can you tell us how this relates to your understanding of notability and image use, et cetera? Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 05:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A. Certainly. Most of those were from a period when I had little understanding of fair use and Wikipedia's mission of bringing free content to the encyclopedia. I also did not start out referencing much of my material when I first climbed aboard this site, which likely comprises the majority of those deletes. I no longer upload images to the Wikipedia site unless it is for the rare book or CD article I am doing. When doing so, I always provide a fair use rationale for album and book covers. I do upload a good amount of photos to Wiki Commons with the proper Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 or Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 license today, however. My philosophy has evolved a lot during my time here editing. So today, as I mentioned above, I do not edit without proper referencing and do upload most of my photo uploads to commons. I have replaced non-free images several times in the past when a free picture presented itself. So I've learned what is acceptable and not acceptable over time, often through trial and error. I hope this helps. (Mind meal (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
5. Thanks for your reply. I am still concerned by the creation of this article, Counterpoint LLC, for which the only sourcing is the company web page and in which there is no clear assertion of notability. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 13:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A. If what everyone wanted was the "perfect candidate", I'm not your person. I'm just a guy who tries to do his best with the time he has. I never expected this level of criticism, and don't see now why anyone would humiliate themselves in this way. While I would never have abused my powers as an admin, it isn't worth this level of scrutiny. Every editor can be cast under unfavorable light when information is cherry picked. (Mind meal (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
Ouch. Certainly not the response I was hoping for. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 17:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sure it was not Dlohcierekim's, or anyone else's, intention to hurt you through the RfA process. Your contributions to the site are clear and you have obviously invested and volunteered your time to helping to assist the site with no compensation. I, and I would guess the community, thank you for this work. I also want to commend you on wanting to help the community further by asking for the tools. However, no matter how good one's contributions are, they do not necessarily guarantee one the tools. And in order to try and find this out, we have to use the RfA process. And while you would not be alone it saying it has its faults, I think its allowance of question asking is a strength and I think this question is relevant. As such, I encourage you to answer. If not, happy editing and cheers anyway, SorryGuy  Talk  01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Followup reply I made the Counterpoint LLC article when it was very early in the morning one day, and only did so to accentuate another article I had been working on (i.e. Robert Baker Aitken). I had little interest in the Counterpoint article as a whole, and figured that the breadth of publications from the company would hold up to any later scrutiny. It was an error in judgment, to be sure—but imo this should not be used as a disqualifier given my body of edits as a whole. (Mind meal (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
  • COMMENT: I see alot of opposes because of his response to this question. How would any part of his response make one believe that he is not any of this: 1)knowledgeable of WP guidelines 2)knowledgeable of HTML applications 3)Able to handle himself within the guidelines of WP:CALM when involved in a debate that has become heated 4)Able to help newcomers with understanding WP 5)Conduct himself as a respectable Admin? The fact that he verbally stated that he "..never expected this level of criticism..." or that he's "...not your person..." as far as being the perfect candidate is probably just that. I would suggest that we all look more on his contributions rather than responses to admin questions.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mind meal, were you aware of the heat of the kitchen known as RfA? This can be a brutal process. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. Sometimes when an editor becomes troublesome in their editing of the site, such as engaging in vandalism or persistent edit warring, a temporary block might be placed on that user preventing them from editing further. A software-based protocol, it is designed to send a message to the individual at fault and, more importantly, to insure the integrity of articles and the health of the community at large. Bans, on the other hand, are instituted by WP:AC or by Jimbo—restricting a user's editing access of specific areas of editing space. It is not software-based, and as such users must comply with a ban throughout its duration.

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A. If I disagreed with the decision, or if other editors raised questions about the decision, I would first contact the administrator on their talk page to discuss their motives for having removed the material (per WP:BLP#Preventing BLP violations. If the portion of text was incongruent with the offered source, or if it had no source, I would leave the information out. If we were not in agreement, I would seek out the source in question to see if it is unreliable or implies something different than the portion removed. If possible, I would also seek out secondary sources of information to try and prove or further disprove the removed portion. If I could find them, I would consult with the administrator and then reinsert the material. Otherwise, I would leave the portion out in agreement with the other administrator.

8. What is your opinion on administrator recall and do you plan to add yourself to the category?

A. Administrators are not above fault, and sometimes cross the boundary between acceptable to unacceptable use of the tools granted to them. If I were ever to abuse my privileges, which seems unlikely considering the trend of votes, I would like to think I would resign if I was aware of having done so. So, yes, in this kind of scenario I would add myself to the category.

9. What are the policies most crucial to your role as an administrator?

A.' Apart from notability (which I've already covered) I would say image policy, without a doubt. A pet peeve of mine is photos that have strict copyrights not being accompanied by a fair use rationale. And, with the exception of unreproducible historical events or important historical figures, book and album covers, I see little reason why they should be on this site even with a fair use rationale. Many think that since a free alternative does not currently exist, that fair use is acceptable. But I think that if a free alternative could reasonably be produced, that this makes use of such images with restrictive copyrights unacceptable for the site. The mission of Wikipedia is to provide free content, and copyright images are not free—no matter what way you slice it.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Mind meal

CURIOUS OBSERVATION: I am genuinely mystified as to why a, "low edit summary count" would disqualify someone as an admin. Some things just don't require an edit summary (e.g., sandbox edits and minor (m) edits. It must have some reason because so many people are opposing or staying neutral solely on the edit count issue. Can somene explain how that would make someone not rate to be an admin. This is just based on my personal thoughts and Jimbo Wales' stance that being an admin is not a big deal. Even though I think it is a bigger deal than Jimbo thinks, but not big enough that it should include the edit count thing. Thanks for the input!--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 03:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Historically, edit summary usage has been seen as communication-- essential for an admin. With the volume of info the admins and all the patrollers-- sift through, it's a lot easier with edit summary use. I for one would not fill out an edit summary without the software reminding me to. I'm forgetful at times. In this instance, the nominee did a lot of sandboxing without filling in an edit summary. One needed to look at beyond that as mathbot does not distinguish. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

  • Mind meal, perhaps it would help reassure people about your edit summary use if you would agree to turn on (and leave on after this RfA concludes) forced edit summaries in "my preferences"? I don't have an opinion yet about your RfA as I do not know you myself and have not reviewed your contributions but poor edit summary use is a rather unfortunate reason to be picking up opposes and neutrals at this early stage of your RfA. Looking at your edits to the mainspace here, there does seem to be a problem with lack of edit summaries in the mainspace, it isn't just in your userspace as you suggest below. Poor edit summary usage can be very frustrating if transferred to admin-related edits, so it might help allay concerns if you would switch on, and leave on, required edit summaries to help you get into the habit of always providing an edit summary. Sarah 06:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have saved the preference to prompt myself when editing with a blank summary, and will make it a habit to provide at least some sort of edit summary from now on. When working in my sandboxes, I still do not see much of a need. I have such a large number of edits in my sandboxes because I am constantly correcting minor prose problems and adding or subtracting new material. I should probably try to get in the habit of previewing more than I do before saving to alleviate this. (Mind meal (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support, I see nothing wrong with this user. Contributions indicate a strong grasp of verifiability policy on AFDs and image licensing policy, which are important aspects of the type of work he discusses in his responses above. Looks like a fine candidate. — CharlotteWebb 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I should clarify that I'm not particularly disturbed by the candidate's response to "Q5" (granted, I know what it's like to stare down the barrel of an obviously loaded question). But this one isn't even phrased as an actual question, so it's difficult to determine even what type of "answer" was expected. But something along the lines of "Umm, what about it?" or "Well, they can't all be pearls..." probably would have pleased everyone and no one, all at the same time. — CharlotteWebb 16:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Looks like a fine candidate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - doesn't meet my criteria of Pi42 edit summaries per minute. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    You do realize that pi to the forty second power is more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, don't you? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think that's why dhmo's contribution is ironically labelled Oppose: to indicate that high rates of edit summary use are unnecessary. I could be wrong, but the vote was originally placed in the Support section and should stay here until dhmo moves it or the closing 'crat has to make his/her mind up. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I know, I was trying to be ironic as well. Sorry, I didn't remember that sarcasm is a really great idea. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    If ever asked what policy I live by, I'm going with WP:SARCASM. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Sarcasm? We ain't got no stinkin' sarcasm! <<stolen from Abd.>> Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I think we have a consensus now that this is in fact a support. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Heh. Anybody who needs a bureaucrat to figure that out probably shouldn't be here. — CharlotteWebb 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - trustworthy editor, and has turned on the prompt for edit summaries. Addhoc (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Switch to strong per F/U rresponse to Q5 Support Meets my standards. Reviewed talk and contribs. Believe the one example and response Q5 were aberrations. PS I'm pretty sure that DHMO's !vote was intended as a support. He's to experienced to put it in the wrong column, and the criterion he cites would be impossible to meet. It's called a "joke oppose". Probably seemed funny at the time. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Provided his commitment to start using edit summaries regularly sticks, I see no reason to Oppose. Keep cool though man, Q5 was a valid concern, a more civil answer wouldn't have killed you. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Mønobi 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support I am supporting because he is a great editor, but come on, opposing him for just having not used the edit summary that often is something I do not agree with. I would like however to see him using it more often. Good luck. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment The majority of the opposes do not center on this user's lack of edit summaries. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment-No, many are. the rest are per Q5. Λua∫Wise (Operibus anteire) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support, encourage more use of edit summaries but it's not a failure criterion. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Generally good answers to questions, willing to assume that initial answer to number 5 was an aberration related to the difficulty of RfA. Avruch T 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. SUPPORT good answers to questions; many, varied edits around wikipedia. Has conducted himself with dignity. Q5 answer is irrelevant to RfA. The edit summary debate is way overrated. Definately NOT a valid sole reason for opposition.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support per above. New York Dreams (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support, also per follow-up reply to Q5. -- Iterator12n Talk 14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. The answer to Q5 is "off topic", not "wrong". If giving an off topic answer is reason to oppose, perhaps we should rethink the question-answer system. User:Krator (t c) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - I'm not a fan of the answer to question 5 but balanced against the extensive high-quality contribution and demonstrated understanding of the workings of Wikipedia, I'm perfectly comfortable giving support to this nomination. I'm a bit concerned at the exponential leap in RfA standards - it sometimes seems an editor needs a perfect record of creating multiple FA-class articles with nary a typo, adding penetrating insights to every policy page, preserving the grace and gentility of a saint at all times, and maintaining a 100% edit summary record even in the sandbox. On the specific issues - the article on Counterpoint LLC is a one-line stub that doesn't assert notability, but that surely isn't a heinous crime. Out of 17,000 contributions, a single minor mistake in creating an inoffensive non-notable stub is nothing. Edit summaries? Yes, do something about that, like turn on the automated prompt. The answer to question 5? Too aggressive, and not the right approach, but is offset by the rest of your record. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support. With the critical issue of edit summaries now resolved, can't see any problem here. Comment on fair {ab}use images is heart-warming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. Objections based on edit summary usage seem to be based on bean counting rather than serious examination of contributions. Mind meal uses edit summaries when they are useful, and not when they are not. In general has a great record of encyclopedia building and an understanding of what Wikipedia is about. As regards the objection to creation of an article without cast-iron sources, would we regard the creator of Mzoli's Meats as unfit to be an admin? There was another objection based on supposed incivility in an AfD; I don't see any incivility there - only a robust insistence that arguments should be based on policy and guidelines, demonstrating a good understanding of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support – a hard working editor who will definitely do more good than harm. With regards to question 5, I am in Agreement with his answer. Shoessss |  Chat  14:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. Your editing pattern and your use of edit summaries seem rather spotty, to say the least. Would you not agree that a reasonable edit summary is both polite and helpful? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Reply It depends on the editing being done. When I am working in my sandboxes, which constitutes much of my current editing, I simply see no need for edit summaries; it is my userspace. Anyway, thanks for considering me. As for my editing pattern, I've done a lot for this site. I'm not sure what you mean by that. (Mind meal (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
  2. Oppose. Edit summary usage is too erratic. Also, good editor, likes discussion, but at nearly 18,000 edits, only 650 in the Wikipedia namespace? Wisdom89 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Reply Not to keep replying, but doesn't my Mainspace count indicate 10724? If you could break down what all the stats mean in the my user count, that would be helpful. If I don't become an administrator, no sweat off my back. I'm a fine editor, and I know that. (Mind meal (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
    Don't worry about replying when you require clarification on something I've said. Yes, your mainspace edits are 10724, hence why I referred to you as a good editor. I was referring to your Namespace: Wikipedia edits which are "Wikipedia:658". Wisdom89 (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I would consider 650 to be a fair amount... if the candidate had only 4000 overall edits but still the same number of edits in Wikipedia namespace, would it be better? – Sadalmelik (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact, for my criteria of balance, yes it would. Although it would matter what and where those edits were. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I have no real issue with the lack of edit summaries: you have said that you'll turn this option on and in any case I agree, sandbox edits hardly need a summary. My problem is with civility and a cool head. This edit from last year is old enough that I wouldn't let it sway me now. But a much more recent AfD discussion saw some remarks from you that I felt were intemperate. Even though you were right and the article stayed - perhaps especially because you were right. You could have let your rational arguments speak for you and even win over your opponents. If you were to be an admin you would get into much more stressful situations than an AfD, and coolness under fire is one of my essential requirements for an administrator. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per edit summary, sorry! A man of honour (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC) — A man of honour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Oppose for now. I would expect someone seeking the mop to clean out AfD to not create an article of questionable notability and only sourced by the company's web site to not make a snappish response when asked to explain. Believe me, people do question admin actions. One must handle such questioning with a certain degree of aplomb. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    I switching to Support. Reviewed his edits and talk, and I believe that one example and his response were aberrations. 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose Seems Janky and Junky —Preceding unsigned comment added by AIdolRocks (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    User blocked for disruption. - Philippe | Talk 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak Oppose per answer to question 5. Sorry. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose per answer to Q5. --ChetblongT C 22:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per Q5 answer. I know you can easily get scrutinized during the Rfa process, but I never took it as anything less/more than a learning experience to know where I could improve my work around here. Jmlk17 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Q5. Tiptoety talk 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I'm sorry, but like most of the opposers, I can't really appreciate your answer to Q5, to put it gently. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose - The answers to some of the questions and the lack of Edit Summary on Major Edits is of concern. PookeyMaster (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose As above. Wexcan  Talk  15:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Just out of interest, why do so many people copy Pedro's signature? WaltonOne 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. A good contributor, but per above, not quite ready to be an admin yet.Vice regent 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, for now - will be glad to support with more experience. The Transhumanist 06:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Reply More experience with what specifically? I have experience. (Mind meal (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
  14. Oppose - Regrettably, I’ll have to agree with some of the above comments about your experience. You seem to be a fantastic article writer and editor, however I don’t see very much experience in the admin areas of the project. I encourage you to spend some time reviewing Special:Newpages and to submit some reports to WP:AIV. In other words, get some more para-admin experience and you’ll be much better prepared to be an admin. —Travistalk 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose As above. Gary King (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - per TravisTX. Rudget. 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
  1. Neutral - good editor, but low edit summary usage concerns me.   jj137 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, I really want to support, but the lack of edit summary usage really does concern me. Not opposing as the user is obviously a high-quality contributor to the project. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
    Further Comment, the huge number of edits you've made to your Sandboxes in user space ([1]) worries me a bit too. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
  3. Neutral per jj137. SpencerT♦C 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Further Comment Q5 also raises some eyebrows. SpencerT♦C 11:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Great user. Edit summary use is too low, bump it up and I'll be glad to support you. Burner0718 20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral solely off of edit summary? Why not a weak support? Malinaccier Public (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral The image thing was soptty for me, but you seem like a great editor! Shapiros10 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - I really can't oppose, since you have such great contributions. The things holding me from support are the low edit summary usage, and the answer to Q5. Regarding the low edit summary usage, I would strongly recommend turning on that setting in the preferences. It saved me, it should save you too. Regarding Q5, I kind of disagree with the comments other users gave. Those questions aren't mandatory, so you can respond like that. However, the problem with your response was that it contradicted one of the tips to RfA, that your edits will come under constant scrutiny. Don't be discouraged, just keep working harder! Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Good user, I wanted to support, but I also have some concerns from the oppose section. NHRHS2010 02:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral Can't support, but the opposes over the edit summaries are rather silly. GlassCobra 07:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral (to avoid pile on). I first met this editor yesterday. See here for information backfill. Anyhow, Caitriona Reed is now back in mainspace and the subject still isn't obviously notable and the article still doesn't assert notability. I'm not persuaded about calmness, judgment, or understanding of procedure. --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I can't make her a football star for you. She is what she is: a Zen teacher. Nothing special. Not to rub salt into a wound, but you were wrong to speedy delete that article in the first place. To put it as kindly as I can put it—you do not understand how notability is established. (Mind meal (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
    Your comment "She is ... nothing special" rather explodes your argument, I'm afraid. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. The argument is clearly that merely being a Zen teacher is nothing special, but the fact that multiple reliable sources have written about her makes her notable by Wikipedia standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    The context here is CSD, where the criterion is whether the article "indicates why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it's distinct because it's supposed to be a less stringent standard than the one for notability. WP:COMMONSENSE, if you have any, should tell you that the article is not a speedy deletion candidate. The references are the indication of importance/significance. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Stop – I believe this page is a discussion on whether or not this candidate should be an administrator. If you cannot keep your comments to this discussion – Do Not comment at all. 23:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
  10. Neutral leaning towards support - strong editor and I don't think the editor would abuse the tools, but the Thomas Ponniah incident left a bad taste to me, specifically this, and other similar incidents to other users. Plus, I don't find the answers to the questions particularly satisfactory, but it's only my opinion. Jd027chat 03:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
As to not be vague, I am referring to Q1. "I would weigh the arguments openly and, when a sound consensus is reached, I would close them out accordingly." I am concerned that, since a sound consensus is often not reached, this could be an area of concern. Also, the user has some articles that have had some "bad" experiences at WP:AFD. Jd027chat 03:44, 18 February 2008 (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.