Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NASCAR Fan24

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] NASCAR Fan24

(talk page) NASCAR Fan24 withdrew (42/21/10); effective 11:00 UTC, 22 January 2008

NASCAR Fan24 (talk · contribs) - When I originally stumbled upon this editor, I was very impressed with his demeanor and contributions. I thought of nomming him a couple months back, but he was too new just yet. I do think he's grown enough in what is admittedly a short time to be a very capable admin. His edits are very, very balanced across the main, talk, and project spaces. He's got a buttload of barnstars already, and helped with making Super Mario Bros. a GA. Needless to say, he's been around everywhere, and also helps out at the help desk a lot (seems like I find a lot that do). If anyone says he's too inexperienced/his account's too young, remember that you once promoted someone who was actively engaged for less time than this user. Quite simply, a great candidate. Wizardman 02:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept and would like to thank Wizardman for taking the time to nominate me. NF24(radio me!) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)I would like to withdraw the RfA, effective 11:00 UTC, 22 January 2008. I am absolutely astonished at the amount of support I received during this RfA, however, with 67% support, there is no realistic chance of this passing. I would like to thank everyone who participated, whether you supported, opposed, or were neutral. I especially thank those who provided constructive criticism - your comments will not go unnoticed. Also, I am very humbled by the venerable Wizardman, who took his time to nominate me. I am going to file a usurpation request just after I post this (I agree with DHMO and others about my username; it is too long) - hopefully I will be back in a few months' time as Xenon or Xenon54. NF24(radio me!) 23:11, 21 January 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've tagged hundreds of articles for speedy deletion and think that I would like to stay on that road. I've also had experience participating and closing noncontroversial AfD's. I also may help out at AIV and RFPP if I have time or there's a backlog. However, I'm willing to learn about the other admin processes and take part in them as necessary. NF24(radio me!) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Like Wizardman said, I helped get Super Mario Bros. to GA. Unfortunately, I don't have many other mainspace contribs to my name as my edits are evenly split between mainspace, Wikipedia, and User talk space. I'd have to say my best contribution to Wikipedia space would be reporting all those vandals to AIV. NF24(radio me!) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
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: Unfortunately, yes. Probably someone here knows about the First-person shooter link dispute. For those who don't know, a webmaster thought that they could repeatedly insert a link to their site (which violated WP:EL and more importantly WP:COI) simply because they thought their site was a good resource. When the link was repeatedly removed, they began edit warring. After refusing to read policy again and again, they were served with a 1 month block and haven't been seen since. I got involved in the dispute by reverting the webmaster's edits whilst on recent changes patrol. I didn't know that 3RR didn't apply to reverting vandalism at that time so I took it to the talkpage. In the future, I probably will do the same thing even though I know that 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. NF24(radio me!) 12:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Questions from Avruch
4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: Bans are, to quote the banning policy, "a formal revocation of editing privileges". That is, either the community, the ArbCom, Jimbo, or the Foundation has told a user that they are no longer allowed to edit either the entire project or a certain group of articles. Blocking is a feature of MediaWiki that prevents a user from editing for a certain amount of time. Blocks are used much more often than bans. Blocks can be used to enforce bans. NF24(radio me!) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow up question. Blocks can be used to enforce bans.? I'm confused. Please amplify if you'd be so kind. Pedro :  Chat  21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Gladly. What I meant by that (and I apologise if I was unclear because I had just arrived from school and seen that question) was that if you get banned, you are blocked to enforce that ban. If you use socks, you are blocked to enforce the ban. NF24(radio me!) 21:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I'm with you now. I was a bit mystified why a banned user would need blocking, but the use of a WP:SOCK would be a case as such. Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
5. 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: I would take a look at the material very closely and see if it has any semblance of a BLP violation. I would ask the admin their reasons (if needed) and then attempt to find a source (or a more reliable source). If no reliable source could be found, then I would leave the material out. NF24(radio me!) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
5.1. Where, specifically, would that discussion take place? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 02:54, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
A: Most likely on the article talk page so others can input their opinions. NF24(radio me!) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
6. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
A: My first action as an admin would be to add myself to that category. I believe that it is very important for the community to be able to revoke my admin tools if I do anything unbecoming of an administrator. NF24(radio me!) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nasty but utterly sincere Question from User:Pedro
7. I have to admit that your contributions, though heavily automated, seem fine on a brief review of the last 2,000. However I'm unsettled by your Secret Page and various bits on your talk and user pages that make me think you feel Wikipedia is more of a social networking site and maybe adminship is just part of that game. Why am I wrong? Pedro :  Chat  21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A: I think that it's important to have a little bit of fun around here. I take the purpose of Wikipedia very seriously, but feel that taking a few minutes to find someone's secret page is always a good way to relieve stress from a heated discussion. And besides, if I thought that WP was a social networking site, I probably would be sitting in the sin bin or have become inactive in about a week and not here today answering your question. NF24(radio me!) 21:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional Question from User:Keepscases
8. Where were you when you received the news that Brad Renfro had died?
A: Well, he was found dead at 9am on 15th January which meant I was in 2nd period PE class at the time. However, I heard about it whilst reading the newspaper on the bus this morning. NF24(radio me!) 00:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Question from east718
9. What is your interpretation of ignore all rules? east.718 at 02:56, January 17, 2008
If common sense gets in the way of a guideline or policy (for example, you find a source that is normally in violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources bu can prove that it was written by someone related to the subject of the article) then ignore that guideline or policy for the time being. Of course, Ignore all rules is not a way to consistently ignore guideline or policy. NF24(radio me!) 11:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow up on this-- do you mean you would insert it because it was written by someone related to the subject, or that you would include it if it was not written by someone related to the subject? DGG (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be a was. I didn't do a great job of explaining my example there. Suppose that there was an article about Bob Roberts and you were attempting to find sources. Suppose that you found a blog entry about Mr. Roberts' childhood that you could prove was written by Mrs. Bob Roberts. That could be a situation where you ignore the clause of Wikipedia:Verifiability that prohibits blog entries as sources. NF24(radio me!) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from JodyB
10. There is some concern about your CSD tagging. Can you explain why you tagged an article at the very same time it was created here? Also, please explain your understanding of how broadly A7 should be interpreted in light of this entry which saw the CSD reversed. -JodyB talk 12:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I admit here that I may be a bit too fast on the trigger at times. However, I think that the first was a valid G11 - just take a look at that stunningly high resolution picture, hmm, might make me want to go there. As for the second one, that was an article initially about the CD but turned into an article about the singer midway through, so I thought that an A7 was valid there. Again, I admit I made some mistakes, but we're all human, aren't we? NF24(radio me!) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up question. Do you feel that stunningly beautiful, high-resolution photos that might make someone want to go somewhere are inappropriate in Wikipedia?
Yes. While I wouldn't mind a web-resolution picture (250x250 pixels, perhaps), a 400x600 pixel high-resolution aerial photo of a Greek resort (that was uploaded by User:Fkokotos, likely related to founder Spyros Kokotos) plastered at the bottom of an already somewhat spammy article can be construed as advertising. High-res photos like this belong on Expedia, not Wikipedia. However, the size of the photos in the article have been reduced since my speedy to what I consider an acceptable size for encyclopaedic commentary. NF24(radio me!) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up question. Would you mind clarifying: did you think A7 was valid when you were reading the first half of the article, or when you were reading the second half, or when? What do you think now about the fact that you speedied each of these two articles in the same minute they were created? How do you plan to act differently in future? --Coppertwig (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I always read through the article through before tagging. I am now rather mad at myself for tagging too fast. In the future (whether I am promoted or not) I will slow down and tag articles that were created about ten minutes ago or so instead of the newly created ones. NF24(radio me!) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Royalbroil
11. Your name is NASCAR Fan24, eluding to being a fan of 4-time NASCAR champion Jeff Gordon. I don't ever remember seeing you at WikiProject NASCAR. I'm puzzled. Please explain this situation. Royalbroil 17:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably pure ignorance. I am a Jeff Gordon fan but just didn't think about the fact that there was a WikiProject. NF24(radio me!) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from Revolving Bugbear
12. I remember coming across your name on this day (I was looking for something specific, not voting, there that day, so don't look for interaction with me there). Three part question: What, if anything, does that page say about your approach to deletion? What, if anything, has changed about your approach to deletion since then? What, if anything, do your answers to the first two parts of this question say about what kind of administrator you will be (vis-a-vis deletion and in general)? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that users who read that page will think that I am a deletionist, but I have higher standards for articles than some (and, as a result, may interpret policy such as Wikipedia:Notability a bit stricter). Anyway, as for the second part, I don't think that my opinion as to deletion has changed; I still believe that, for example, articles on people have to show clear notability for their subject in order to be kept. That being said, I think that as an administrator, I will continue to hold articles to higher standards (and, who knows, maybe become a bit of a deletionist). NF24(radio me!) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from EJF
13. Do you believe candidates are asked too many optional questions at RfA, and how does this balance with your interpretation of WP:CREEP?
A:It is important to know the candidates well before commenting on them, in my opinion. This may involve asking a large number of questions. While I think that 13 questions in the first 24 hours of an RfA is a bit much, if it is necessary for you to use the questions to get to know the candidate, then I'm not opposed to optional questions. NF24(radio me!) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional question from Daniel, posted 03:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

14.What is your understanding of the current process for undeleting articles where the deletion cited biographies of living persons concerns, and you disagree with the assessment by the deleting administrator? What steps would you take (please be specific if possible)?
First I'd check the AfD to see if the subject of the article requested deletion. That's a sure sign of a BLP violation. If not, then I would talk it out with the other administrator (and ask other administrator's opinions if need be) as well as attempt to find a source. This will take place by e-mail. I would avoid going to DRV because we are talking about libelous material here. Finally, if the discussion establishes a consensus to endorse deletion and I cannot find a reliable source that backs up the material, I will let the article stay deleted. NF24(radio me!) 12:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Optional questions from Spebi
15. Under what criterion (or criteria if many apply) of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion would you delete an article tagged for deletion with the summary "Non-ntoable car-park, probabyl a hoax, Wkipaedia dus not acept dictionery defenetions"?
A: I hope the spelling is intentional. However, depending on the text of the article, I will probably refuse the speedy because there appears to be an assertion of notability and WP:HOAX and WP:DICDEF aren't valid speedy reasons. NF24(radio me!) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
16. You come across a redirect tagged for speedy deletion under criterion R3; do you a) delete it straight away without checking the history, b) check the history to see when the redirect was created and delete it regardless of when it was created, or c) check the history to see when the redirect was created and delete it only if it was created recently?
A: Ah, good one. Option C is the answer here. CSD R3 reads: "Recently created redirects..."NF24(radio me!) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
17. When would you delete an article tagged for speedy deletion under criterion G11? If the following were in an article tagged as such, would you delete it?: "MegaBucks Software Incorporated is a corporation situated in Los Angeles, California. Founded in 1987, they produce various different types of software and have received multiple services awards. Several company biographies have been written about MegaBucks, and were named Discover magazine's Software Company of the Year 16 consecutive years in a row. Please keep in mind that G11 specifically states, "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".
A:That's not advertising. I consider G11 to be articles written by a PR person that isn't entirely truthful; this is a statement of fact and it may only need a few sources to become encyclopaedic. NF24(radio me!) 23:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/NASCAR Fan24 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I find ALL CAPS usernames a bit annoying. Would you consider changing it? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, technically NASCAR is an abbreviation that is generally in caps :-P Avruchtalk 16:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
He's right, DHMO. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I might change it to NF24 or something completely different (usurp Firefoxer, perhaps?), still contemplating. But yes, NASCAR is technically correct. NF24(radio me!) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies - I'm not aware about these sort of things. Don't worry about the change. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 20/26=76% support. Thinking about withdrawal if things don't perk up. NF24(radio me!) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't been that long, patience grasshoppah. Avruchtalk 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm below the 75% support for likely pass but above the 70% for likely fail. Would it be up to the 'crat if the RfA were to close right now? NF24(radio me!) 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the 'crat makes the decision based on consensus. The 'crat will analyze the comments to determine consensus, so it's not strictly a numbers decision. I would hang in there if I were you and keep biting my nails. It's very close at this point. Royalbroil 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Support
  1. I've seen NF24 many times and have interacted on at least one occasion. Always impressed with demeanor. Rudget. 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support Definitely, with all the help that the user has provided, where I have seen at Wikipedia:Help Desk and more. Very helpful and am quite sure that won't go crazy with the tools! (P.S Beat the nominator!) The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 20:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    I beat the nom with questions - beat that :-P Avruchtalk 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. (I was at class :P) Wizardman 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support the caba...I mean, the Wiki could use him as a cab...uhhhh, Admin. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Well, I've got to admit that there's all the reasons here that often get my alarm bells (read lack of WP:AGF on my part!) ringing. Secret Pages, garish user and talk page (with wonky code in IE for your user page, just to let you know) heavy use of automated tools.... but actually your WP:HELPDESK work shows great WP process knowledge, sensible WP:AFD and C:CSD calls re-assure me, and you have article work on your area of interest as well as vandalism reversion. I was going to be hard here, but so far there is simply nothing I can see that makes me think you'd abuse the tools, or make more work for other admins through poor use of them. I think you're doing a great job and the bit will only help further. Good luck, and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    This comment finally motivated me to spruce up my userpage. (And it works fine in IE too!). NF24(radio me!) 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support As per track and the fact Wizardman is the nom(who has nominated some good users before)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support How can I phrase this gently... uh....let's see.... DUHHHHHH!!! Jmlk17 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support I've seen this user's work, and with his knowledge, he will make a great admin.-Mastrchf91- 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support, but with a caution. There were many appropriate CSD taggings, so the three questionable ones out of the last 500 edits are not sufficiently concerning for an oppose. Dlohcierekim 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support, and not just because he has great taste in drivers. Especially impressed with what I've seen at the Helpdesk. Gladys J Cortez 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Seen him at the help desk. Malinaccier Public (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. the_undertow talk 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Editor is able to read newspaper. Keepscases (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Helpful and polite; will make a good sysop. -- Mentifisto 01:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support I've seen him around; good experience. SpencerT♦C 01:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. User:Krator (t c) 13:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support. Great contribs, especially on the helpdesk. Good job! WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Needs the mop. NHRHS2010 talk 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support Wish to cancel out oppose I don't agree with.--Phoenix-wiki 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Add my support. Avruchtalk 22:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not responding to anyone in particular, so I'll put this beneath my support - I don't find opposes based on age to be inherently unreasonable. I think its a valid concern that should be weighed against an editors contributions, like any other concern. In the absence of contributions sufficient to allay the concern, I could see opposing an RfA on an age basis where I otherwise would not. Avruchtalk 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    I realize you probably weren't responding directly to me, but I'd like to respond. I think there's a difference between inherently unreasonable and generally so. (The latter is what I said.) Age may in fact be a reason for concern, and concern can be either allayed or confirmed by what is seen. I think opposing solely on the basis of age is unfair. However, in a case where borderline judgment has been displayed by the candidate, age may be a "dealbreaker" for some !voters. I would be far less opposed to that kind of thinking. - Revolving Bugbear 23:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Good user from my observations. Regarding recall, if NASCAR Fan24 wishes to place himself in the category, I see no reason to hold that against him. People used to get opposed if they said they wouldn't place themselves in the category. Age is not a factor either, especially if the candidate has proved to be an effective and mature editor. Acalamari 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. Hard working Wikipedian who seems ready to use the tools. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support I've observe this users edits in long periods of time and I believe he is trustworthy for the mop. You may have a few flaws here and there, but it shouldn't hinder your performance when going backlogs and dealing with trolls. Opposing based on age is wrong, as there is minimal proof of this user's immaturity. I trust this user with the tools. PrestonH 03:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support I think NCF24 deserves the tools, he won't abuse them. Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
  26. Support He's a good guy. I've seen his work and I found his secret page...haha. But seriously, I personally hope someday I can have enough common sense as this guy. Best of luck to you. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Even with the concerns raised within the opposes in mind, I don't see anything that indicates NASCAR Fan24 will misuse the admin tools (intentionally or not). There is a lot to be said for on-the-job training, and I suspect this candidate will have the foresight to take things slowly if granted adminship. Good luck! - auburnpilot talk 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. I've had a few interactions with this editor and while I don't agree with all his interpretations I believe he knows what he is doing and is trustworthy. Hey there are a couple flaws but we're all human here. I am concerned this user has a bit of a quick trigger finger with CSD tags, which I can relate to because I have the same problem, but he has been sufficiently open to discussion and removals of these tags in the past so I don't see this to be a large issue.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support No real problems here. Oppose votes not concerning enough, especially the ones regarding age. GlassCobra 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Minimally qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support Good user. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Recall willingless allows me to AGF on this one. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Positive, uncontroversial contributor with a temperament well suited to the thankless, truly administrative functions of an admin; his less-than-perfect understanding of certain policies--which will improve over time--are more than offset by his substantive experience patrolling pages and helping new users. Would not misuse sysop tools.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  34. Weak Support, I am concerned at some of the stuff brought up in the Oppose section, but not enough to make me think this user is unsuitable. Uncontroversial, solid editor, should be given a chance. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
  35. Support. The isolated reasons to oppose which have been found have been accepted by NASCAR Fan24, and s/he has not tried to justify mistakes but has given assurances that they will not be repeated. Shows a mature response to the questions and criticisms that are an ievitable part of this RfA process - bodes well for admin duties. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - needs the mop.   jj137 ♠ 17:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support No concerns. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support I've seen NF24 around, and he is a great vandal fighter and editor overall. STORMTRACKER 94 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support Will do just fine on the job. :) ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 19:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. Changed from neutral below. I think that although this user may have made a few slip ups, NF24's responses and discussion here has convinced me that he will take care when given adminship. Overall NF24 has a strong record and deserves the mop and bucket. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Will be useful for the AFD's - seems that I have seen his involvement often there.--JForget 23:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. From my experiences with the user, I don't feel that he or she has an adequate understanding of Wikipeda procedures. I'm sure that with a few month's time this user would be ready, but I don't feel that the user is ready now. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Any diffs?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes. Here I attempted to write an update brief for the WikiProject U.S. Roads newsletter on a project-wide arbitration case. The only problem is that I don't know much about the arbitration process. I thought I knew enough to write a few sentences, but I guess that was not the case. NF24(radio me!) 01:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    [1] - User was not supposed to nominate him/herself by any means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I thought being bold was encouraged.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Not nominating yourself for the featured editor story in the newsletter! That's going too far! --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I have to agree here - that was just plain stupid on my part. NF24(radio me!) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    No no, he wasn't asking you for diffs! Clearly you haven't done this before :-P Avruchtalk 01:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I thought I knew what Rschen7754 was talking about. I think that the first step to not making a mistake again is admitting you made the mistake in the first place. NF24(radio me!) 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Only been here as a user for a few months. In addition, his age in real life (which I assume to be early teens since he is taking PE) may conflict with some of the things he does on Wikipedia, leading to poor, immature decisions. --Niyant (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - Clearly that was an opinion of mine, and one that probably should not have been on here since it is not really constructive - see-Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions-, nonetheless no reason to 'lash at me.' My apologies. Niyant (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Youth does not preclude maturity, and it would be useful if you could point out any "poor, immature decisions" the editor has made thus far. All the best, Steve T • C 15:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    That sounds like a bad case of ageism to me. I was an admin on the Scots Wikipedia at the age of 14. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool.. The above oppose sounds like ageism, which is prejudice against a certain age, which is not good. I don't like the idea that users are opposing young admin candidates because of the age. NHRHS2010! 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd urge the closing bureausrat to ignore this comment. I'm sorry, Niyant, but many "teens" have proven to be excellent admins. Have you any evidence to back up the fact that this user will make poor and ill informed descisions? Look at Anonymous Dissident and Animum — two of the best users we've ever had are 13, whereas UtherSRG, who recently did something silly with his rollback, is an adult. So is Robdubar. I do recall reading a piece in my English book...."We are not a sub-species" I think it was called. Anyway, it made a very good argument against such patronizing of young people. Also try to avoid incorrect generalisation of large groups of people. Members of those groups, such as myself, can find it insulting. You might like to read Arguments to avoid.--Phoenix-wiki 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Even if you strike the part about the candidate's age, you still have the "only been here as a user for a few months", which, while controversial, has been a long-standing acceptable reason to oppose. - Revolving Bugbear 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Let me clarify -- I agree with Phoenix-wiki that young age is generally (with caveats) an unfair grounds for opposition. - Revolving Bugbear 22:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Age has nothing to do with suitability for adminship. Ilyanep (bureaucrat) was promoted to admin at age 11, if I'm not mistaken, Anonymous Dissident and Animum were 12 and 13 (I think, respectively), and there are several other excellent admins and users who are still in their teens. Therefore, people should be judged on the basis of what they do, not who they are. If he didn't say that he was in PE, would you have known? That's really what matters. I've honestly assumed adult users to be young people (i.e. 10-11) and young users (such as Anonymous Dissident) to be adults with college degrees. Best, Keilanatalk 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, they were both 12, but I always assumed animum was about 20 untill he told me.--Phoenix-wiki 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Would you want somebody still of the PE age to be instrumental in the deletion of your (presumably) learned article? I don’t think so. All this reminds me of the dot-com and “new economy” manias – the invitation to suspend reasonable disbelief. Sure, there are the Mozarts etc. but for every prodigy there are a zillion wannabes. Not for me. BTW, is Eprb123 some kind of serial nominator? What’s going on here? -- Iterator12n Talk 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note: Age shouldn't be a factor in an RFA, there are probably many more 11-16 Year-Olds that help the project than 40-50 Year-Olds, Thedjatclubrock :) (T/C) 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Sure you have the right RfA? Wizardman is the nom in this one. Avruchtalk 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    The vast majority of our admins are under 25. Can you please provide me with evidence that's this useer's judgement has been somehow impaired because he does PE at school?--Phoenix-wiki 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Even if Epbr123 was the nominator, why would that matter? There isn't a limit on how many users you can nominate (at least none that I'm aware of). Acalamari 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    "PE age?" What a horrible argument. I've said it before, we've at least one 'crat who is "PE age". Age is not necessarily a determiner of readiness for the tools. Dlohcierekim 06:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    And yes, I would want someone of this age to be instrumental to the deletion of our articles if they had proven they could be trusted with it, which they have.--Phoenix-wiki 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose, but I might be willing to reconsider given better sensitivity to the issue I tried to raise with my question. I will explain. The timestamps on your comments on that day (all deletes/speedy deletes/strong deletes except for two) are: 15:41, 15:45, 15:47, 15:49, 15:50, 15:51, 15:53, 17:36, 17:37, 17:38, 21:30, 21:35, 21:36, 21:37, 21:38, 21:44, 21:46, 21:55, 21:58. I have no problems with people with serious deletionist leanings. My problem is that these decisions seem to have all been made within a matter of just a few minutes -- some in a minute or less. The decision about whether to keep or delete an article should involve careful thought and, in many cases, the willingness to do a little legwork (or at least review what others have produced). Three consecutive delete votes in three consecutive minutes indicates an unwillingness to do this kind of legwork, or an attitude that it is not necessary. This kind of pell-mell AfD'ing is usually counterweighted by the fact that several or many users are taking part in any given AfD. But only one admin gets to close it, and if he makes such a decision, it's a much bigger deal. - Revolving Bugbear 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Change to neutral - Revolving Bugbear 13:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Now that's the kind of constructive constructive critism we need, not blind opposing due to age.--Phoenix-wiki 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Keep in mind however that many types of XfD debates fall into general categories. For example, on TfD I see a lot of "orphaned template" deletion rationales. This type of debate can take less than one minute to process through to deletion. Time doesn't mean anything. What if it was a group of comments on very similar articles? I agree with Bugbear that this kind of evidence is on the right track, but some context might help us determine its worth more accurately. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    The context is in my question posted above. Follow this wikilink to the day's AfD page. Also, this AfD, not TfD or db-attack or that sort of thing -- the instances where it only takes a minute or two to assess a debate should be very rare. - Revolving Bugbear 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Your statement about admin recall strikes me as only an attempt to give socially acceptable answers. If you did actually believe it was "important for the community to be able to revoke my admin tools", you would be aware that simply putting your name in that category is completely meaningless, as people can (and do) remove themselves from that category at will whenever it becomes inconvenient to them. Political correctness does not score you any points with me. >Radiant< 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. When there is a situation involving BLP and/or OTRS, it is certain that the material being discussed is sensitive. Therefore, if a discussion was occurring on-wiki and subsequently deleted because of BLP, that's an indicator to switch the discussion to private places, such as IRC or email. Furthermore, these discussions (on-wiki) also must be oversighted due to the sensitivity. Besides all that, I have a feeling that this user is strongly prone to jumping the gun when he does not understand a specific situation; one example would be volunteering to write a newsletter story about an arbitration case when understanding is minimal. If this principle is coupled with clearing CSD, creators of perfectly good articles would yell at the user, potentially escalating to ANI, and worst of all, ArbCom and desysopping. With that, it's okay to be bold, but there are other times when being bold is not a good idea. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (GMT)
  6. Oppose due to concerns over CSD tagging. I've encountered (and sometimes overturned) speedy requests a number of times from this user, often tagged within a minute or two of creation. (This comes to mind, and this was overturned by another admin.) I would hope that someone who wants to be an admin would be taking the couple of extra minutes to read the criteria. However, I see a lot of good contributions, and I really hope NASCAR Fan24 will work on the issues brought up here and come back for another try in a few months, because I think there's potential here.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Please note, that of the two diffs shown, the first one was a correct speedy at the time it was speedied, and the second one is currently prodded. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree with Brewcrewer that either was an appropriate tagging. You should not tag an article about a "British artist" that includes a reference within a minute of creation [2], and the proof is what the article has become. Phyllis Modarelli - Such A Time As This - CD may be prodded now, but the speedy (the same minute it was created) was not the right route to go.[3].--Slp1 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    In defense of the candidate, note the candidate's response to the 2nd follow-up question to Q10, indicating an intention to tag after 10 minutes or so in future. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Not good on understanding the procedures. Sorry...MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Which procedures (if it's something other than CSD)? NF24(radio me!) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. "First I'd check the AfD to see if the subject of the article requested deletion. That's a sure sign of a BLP violation" — no, it isn't. "I would avoid going to DRV because we are talking about libelous material here" — no, not always. "If the discussion establishes a consensus to endorse deletion and I cannot find a reliable source that backs up the material, I will let the article stay deleted" — sources don't mean undeletion; articles with sources can be deleted per the biographies of living persons, and just because you have "a reliable source" doesn't give you the ability to undelete it. I cannot support this user for adminship. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Sorry, the speed of deletion concerned me, but this comment in another RFA pushed me to oppose.[[4]] High schools consistently pass AFD due to article improvenents in the afd period. The suggestion that it might be speedied (although qualified in the comment) leads me to oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Like Daniel, Q14 troubles me. east.718 at 04:23, January 19, 2008
  11. Oppose. Weak oppose.
    From the support comments I gather that the candidate is a competent contributor and a valuable member of the community. My main concern is a user talk page which is, in my opinion, relatively un-welcoming, combined with an interest in speedy-deletion and a tendency in the direction of deletionism (based on comment above "That being said, I think that as an administrator, I will continue to hold articles to higher standards (and, who knows, maybe become a bit of a deletionist).")
    Re the user talk page: We want to encourage new users to join and contribute. This page is not what I would hope a new user would encounter as their first experience with a Wikipedian user talk page. Yesterday I saw a big stop sign displayed at the top of it. Now I don't see it displaying, though I can't figure out why, since the link to the image file is still in the wikitext. Regardless of the stop sign, the next thing is a list of rules one has to follow before posting a message, with a threat of having your message deleted unread if some of them are not followed. The tone of the following wording seems to me to be quite contrary to the intent of the carefully-designed, gentle, welcoming user-warning templates we use on Wikipedia: "If you're here to yell at me for reverting your vandalism, your post will probably be removed without further discussion." and leaves me wondering how carefully the candidate checks for cases of good-faith edits mistakenly labelled as vandalism. Somewhere after that is a friendly-sounding link: "Welcome! Ask questions, get answers" which, however, navigates the user away to post at the Help Desk or someplace rather than the user's talk page. This talk page, along with the tendency towards deletionism and the interest in CSD work, spiced with the inevitable occasional misunderstanding, is a recipe for the sort of unfortunate experience(this example is not connected with this candidate) that drives away new users before they really get started.
    Re a tendency towards deletionism in itself: It's fine if deletionists vote in AfD's, as the result is a balancing of various views. It's also fine if a deletionist has access to the delete button, but only if the candidate has a demonstrated record of using it carefully and in line with the consensus of the community rather than the user's personal views/tendencies. The candidate's stated intention to start tagging articles after ten minutes or so is one good step towards developing such a record for the next RfA (although I think it's fine to tag attack pages and copyvios immediately).
    Re images: The answer to question 10 gives me the impression that the candidate believes in deleting articles simply because they contain high-resolution images, which seems completely contrary to the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria and also ignores the possibility of removing the image but keeping the article. I don't know whether Wikipedia should have an article on a particular resort or not, but if we do, I would prefer that it contain a stunningly-beautiful, high-resolution, featured-picture-quality image that makes people feel like going there -- I don't think we need to send someone out to take another picture on a smoggy day or something to satisfy NPOV. Possibly the candidate is confused about the requirement to reduce the resolution of Fair Use images; or possibly there's a misunderstanding between me and the candidate about the difference between the resolution at which the image is initially displayed and the resolution available to the reader who clicks on the images for a better view.
    I appreciate the candidate's rapid and friendly response to my (numerous, annoying) questions and wish the candidate an enjoyable and productive time editing Wikipedia regardless of the outcome of this RfA. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'd like to clarify some of my responses to questions that are cited in this oppose. First of all, this comment finally got me to remove that ubiquitous warning box - I was beginning to think it was too large and harsh anyway. As for the image, it was not the image itself but the context it was used in. (I know this sounds contradictory to my answer, but keep reading.) A high-resolution image combined with a somewhat spammy and speediable article is not good. However, a high-resolution image, thumbnailed and used for commentary, not advertising, is okay. I apoligise if my answers were unclear. NF24(radio me!) 15:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to "weak oppose" based on the candidate's reply (thanks) and the removal of the talk page template (thank you very much for that, too.) I still have some concerns re degree of carefulness on speedy tagging, and I'm still not completely convinced about images -- I'm not sure there's any context where a low resolution image is preferable to a high resolution one; though I'm not very knowledgeable about image policy. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Daniel. His very confused answer to Q. 14 is a sure sign that he isn't yet ready for the mop. He certainly is unprepared to handle the complexities of BLP cases. Xoloz (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Q9. Nakon 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Q14. --Veritas (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose particularly about BLP. that the subject of an article requested deletion does not prove a BLP violation. DGG 03:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Per Daniel — DarkFalls talk 06:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, problems with CSD. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. A thorough understanding of BLP is important if you are to deal with deletions. –Pomte 00:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, I was brought here after viewing this help desk response advising against citing a youtube video. Although citing a video may not be the best option, both the wording and the lack of "here's what you can do instead" options make me feel the need to oppose. --omtay38 00:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    Also, this edit caries neither the tone nor respect that any wikipedia user should ever have. Especially an administrator. --omtay38 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Q14 Callmederek (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Knowledge of the BLP policy is absolutely essential if you want to deal with deletions (and even if you don't want to deal with them). Your answers to the some of the questions demonstrate that you don't have this. I can't support. Spebi 23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Something feels off here. I'll need to do further study on this, but for now I definitely can't support based on prior perceptions, sorry. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Moved to oppose. 22:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. I'm sorry, and realize that these were almost three months ago, but I also have some concerns, having noted some difficulties with knowledge of CSD criteria, [5] and rapid referral to AFD without much research [6], though give the editor credit for rapid withdrawal of the nomination. Unfortunately, I also note a number of more recent declined CSDs [7](see January 8th 2008 for example) which cause me concern that full understanding of speedy criteria has not yet been learnt.--Slp1 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral changed to support (above)As above, I'm not sure I could support this RfA, again on the basis of CSD tagging. NF24 has recently tagged articles the minute they were created, e.g.[8]. The mistake was acknowledged however (and the article was eventually deleted). CSD does state Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete, and this is either evidence of a lapse of judgement (which happens to all, some more than others), or a lack of knowledge. I'd like NF24 to take care not to bite newcomers if given adminship. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Well, tagging csd articles if they look bad upon creation isn't bad necessarily; that's what the hangon tag is for, as well as admin eyes on the other end an hour+ down that road. I'm curious as to the diff you pointed out, which was an afd that closed as delete that User:Alexfusco5 tagged for speedy deletion, not my candidate. (The article certainly wasn't a speedy candidate when that other user tagged it though, I'll admit that). I see what you're saying though, I'm sure he'll slow down a bit if he become an admin (plus he'll be on the other side of judgment, where the articles have sat there over several hours, ideally improved). Wizardman 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Are you sure? In this case, the candidate said it was themself. In any case, I tend to agree with you about the responsibility that adminship tends to bring, and I don't think this is reason to oppose. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    I did tag that article - it may have been removed and tagged again. If the tagging was during the AfD, then it is definitely incorrect as an entire section titled "On Notability" was added which is at least an assertion. As for my tagging, I realise that there was an assertion of notability now, albeit a very small one. NF24(radio me!) 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. As much as I'd like to support, I cannot do it at this time, for much of the same reasons as Rschen7754 above. I have had several positive interactions with the user, but I've also noticed, on a few separate occasions, things that do not positively demonstrate the users knowledge of some policies, guidelines, and procedures. Looking for the diff's now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Not yet there. Not active long enough for me to tell whether he might mess up with the mop. Good job so far. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral per concerns raised in the oppositions (except the age-based reasons); I've seen this user around and like his edits, but I can't give my full support yet. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I think that this editor will make a good administrator, but not yet. I don't consider age to be an indicator of maturity...you can see that just by the vast volume of vandalism that comes from IP addresses registered to colleges. However, I find that Revolving Bugbear's argument in opposition of this candidate is too compelling. Making a decision on AfD's without first weighing the information provided is an abuse of the system, and if this editor is going to make a small abuse here, I simply cannot trust that he will not make larger abuses once he has the tools. Trusilver (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I was satisified with the answer given to my question above and it was a non issue in determining my comment. I would recommend changing names no matter what happens because it misled me about the nature of your contributions. The name NF24 to match your signature would make sense if it available, but of course it's entirely up to you. Anyhow, there's a few things that don't totally add up yet in my mind. The main reason for my neutral comment is that I think he needs to be around here longer. I probably would support in around three months. Another concern is being too fast at commenting 'delete' might mean he would delete too quickly without thoroughly assessing everything. I see a lot of stuff at listed at WP:CSD that should run through the full process instead of speedy, and I'm concerned that he might delete almost everything that's nominated without thinking enough about it. On the positive side, he has contributed a lot at WP:AIV and helpdesk which are very commendable. His high number of user talk contributions with a maximum of only a low number shows that he does lots of talking with lots of contributors. Ability to talk to contributors is extremely important to an admin, so keep it up! Keep you head held up high if this RFA fails. All you probably have to do to pass is make a few minor changes and keep on doing what you've been doing. Royalbroil 02:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral -- good potential but not ready yet as evidenced by the oppose comments regarding rapid deletions. For instance, on an AfD, I'd hope you'd take at least several minutes to read the article, its talk page, check out its refs and do a 30-second Google search. --A. B. (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral (for now) The rapid deletion situation is something that concerns me.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral (changed from oppose, see above): NF's comments on other people's RfAs have actually reassured me that he's taking people's comments to heart and realizes what he needs to do differently. I'm still not quite ready to support until I see these changes go into practice, but the apparent good judgment takes the wind out of my inclination to oppose. - Revolving Bugbear 13:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral He has much under his belt - I can see that - he is a self-starter (see the USRD newsletter - where he has taken on some duties on his own), but some of the actions taken worry me. First the CSD-G7 actions he took - yeah - he may not have known better, but - and I admit I don't know either - fair use? There's much to work with here as lots of policies and guidelines exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 January 2008
    oops  — master sonT - C 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral - a little too green. I once read a wise comment form long-time admin User:Centrx. Learning the ropes of being an admin takes time. It's not an indication of character, but of human nature; 4 months is probably not enough, IMHO. I say wait another two, and show more knowledge of the deletion procedures. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:34, 21 January 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.