Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stwalkerster 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Stwalkerster

Final (88/3/6); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) - Since January 2006, Stwalkerster has been editing Wikipedia. After observing his failed RfA, and his helping new user contributions, I believe he is ready for a mop. His vandal fighting is exceptional, he has Wikipedia policies on his shoulders, and while he may not have many article contributions, he makes that up elsewhere. I have seen very few civility issues, he is resilient, and quite able to handle the Adminship stress. This community can benefit from one more admin, and Stwalkerster is definitely a good person to fit the bill. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully and humbly accept. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had a previous RfA, which unfortunately failed. When Soxred93 offered to nominate me for adminship, I thought now was as good a time as any to run for it again. The main concerns ([1]) in my last RfA were really all related to experience of some form or another. I hope that I have addressed those concerns, and can move forward as a Wikipedian. I am not a writer by nature, so you probably won't see me actually writing articles, but I am more of a WikiGnome, helping to tidy up here and there, mainly in the form of WP:NPP and WP:RCP, but also going to a random article, and looking through seeing what needs to be done. I also like to help out at WP:ACC - so for all of those who think I'm breeding a large army of sockpuppets, think again, as I'm only creating accounts for those who can't create them themselves due to using a screen reader, or the similar name filter kicking in, which is the idea behind WP:ACC. Anyway, enough talking - I just want to thank Soxred93 for the nomination, and everyone else for their comments here. I hope that I can serve the community as an administrator soon. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:25, 24 March 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 intend to help out in several administrative areas, including CAT:CSD, CAT:PROD, continue helping out at WP:ACC (the +sysop user right allows for creation of similar usernames), might help out at WP:AFD if I feel I can do so, possibly WP:SCV if I can, and of course, WP:AIV. Vandalism fighting will undoubtedly continue, as I already have administrative rollback, which is very useful for WP:RCP. I have previously been on WP:NPP, so the ability to delete immediately will help greatly. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I don't really have a best contribution, but instead feel that each time I click the "Save page" button, I feel that I have contributed to possibly the best site on the internet, and certainly the best encyclopedia. All contributions count, whether it's a BOLD contribution, or a tiny punctuation fix, they all matter. For Wikipedia to be nearer perfection, it needs not only content, but a whole load of other things like punctuation, grammar, encyclopedic tone, and other things like that, which, as a WikiGnome, I try my best to correct. I also like helping other Wikipedians, via the CAT:HELPME system, and the help desk. As a bit of a programmer, I have also coded a backup bot to alert users on IRC that someone is using the CAT:HELPME system, and while this is not directly related to building the encyclopedia, I feel that it is important to help the newcomers, as some of our best contributions come from newcomers. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:24, 24 March 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: I'm not the sort to get into conflicts really. I try to keep things calm, and I like to leave a situation with everyone happy. Arguing and losing my temper is not my preferred tactic, rather a more diplomatic approach is my preferred. Having not been in any real conflicts on Wikipedia, I can't comment on how I dealt with it, but as I don't like conflicts, I feel that if I do get into a conflict, I hope that I can resolve the situation easily and quickly, by talking to the user(s) in question on the talk page of the article. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Thehelpfulone

4. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is when someone has all of their editing privileges removed, usually due to disruptive behaviour. A block is the actual way of implementing a ban, and actually prevents the user in question from editing. Blocks are usually used to implement bans. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
5. What is your opinion on administrator recall? Would you add yourself to that category if you became an administrator? Why or why not?
A: That category is a good idea, and I will be adding myself to it after a few weeks, when I've had a bit of experience as an admin. My plan is that any reasonable reason to give up, backed up by a few other editors, will make me stand down, but this is only first thoughts about criteria, so it's subject to change. If any editor has concern about me though, admin or not, I would ask them to contact me on my talk page, or drop me an email, and I'll be happy to talk about it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
6. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback, if any?
A: Urm - nice question. User should be trustable, with good edits so far, and no history of abuse. Account should be a few weeks old. Also, if the user has any tools such as WP:TW or fights vandalism on a regular basis, then that'll do. This may sound strict, but defining common sense is tough. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from ChetblongTalkSign

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: Leave out the material in the mean time (to be on the safe side), then ask the user who removed it why they believe it was a BLP violation, and inform them of my point of view, and attempt to come to some form of consensus. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
8. When should "cool down blocks" be used?
A: Put simply, never. Asking the users involved to discuss is a much better idea. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. What is your opinion on WP:IAR?
A: The same as the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's entry on Love: "Avoid if at all possible.". Really though, if common sense dictates the opposit of a rule, then follow your common sense is my interpretation of it. It has the potential to get messy though, as some users can misinterpret it, as I feel that a certain user did here. It is one of my least favourite policies, but I also feel it is one of the most vital too, as we are here to create an encyclopaedia, and IAR allows people to use their common sense when bureaucracy gets in the way. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions by Mrprada911

10.: An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep, although none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?
A: Go with the consensus and keep, because if the article wasn't notable, those the 10 'keepers' wouldn't have said 'Keep'. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up/10a.: If the 10 votes were "Keep" per WP:ILIKEIT, but the subject was non-notable in your opinion or did not meet the policy/guidelines, would you still choose to keep?
A:Unlikely, as the article would then not really have any real reasons not to delete. However, I might get another opinion from an adminstrator before going for it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Optional questions by lucasbfr

11.: What is your opinion on open proxies? Should registered contributors be able to edit through them (all registred users, some trusted users, admins)? If only some users, under which circumstances? (I don't think this is a tricky question, there are no right or wrong answers)
A: Open Proxies are a good idea, as it allows people to be more anonymous. Open proxies should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, but I feel that due to the small number of users who usually ruin stuff for everyone, there is no option but to prevent users from using them, as the amount of vandalism that comes from them is too great. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Stwalkerster Requests for adminship/Stwalkerster 2

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Strongy, beat the nom, #1 support. Stwalkerster's contributions to the encyclopedia are exemplary and I truly believe he's the sort of person who would make a great admin, and reduce the backlogs. Martinp23 17:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support - I also beat the nom ;). Stwalkerster has helped out in various places, and I have seen him helping out at CAT:HELPME, as he stated, also, the Wikipedia:Help Desk. Stwalkerster is frequently in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel on freenode - to help out users there. I have seen him many times at WP:ACC. When WP:ACC closed down into a mailing list, he has been working tirelessly to complete the large number of requests that came in, since the new method offers more privacy. All in all, Stwalkerster is a great user, and will make a great admin! Mirroring Martinp23, again.. Stwalkerster is the type of user, that, if becoming an admin would help to clear out the numerous backlogs that we have on Wikipedia. Good Luck, my friend! --The Helpful One (Review) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. I've changed my mind, my neutral was not on the best of basis. If you'll help clear out the backlogs and are dedicated, that's all I need to see. Good luck. :) Qst (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. I absolutely would trust you to use the tools responsibly. SQLQuery me! 17:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support, seems good. Wizardman 17:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Thank you for waiting a good long time before trying again. Good luck. Keepscases (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Seems competent. Will do well. Rudget. 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support – Yes, this will indeed stress you out, but you'll be a fine addition to the cabal. —Animum (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - Nom support. Soxred93 | talk bot 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. I supported the last RfA for Stwalkerster. I think he'll be a good admin. Acalamari 19:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. (edit conflict)Support. Would've beat the nom if not for edit conflict. Anyway, highly experience editor, plenty of mainspace and Wikipedia namespace experience. Lots of reports to AIV. Sounds good to me. Useight (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support. Seems good, could use the tools, etc... Anthøny 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Good user; I like your answers to the questions. :) Midorihana~いいですね? はい! 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support No concerns--Werdan7T @ 21:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Smells Sounds good. John Reaves 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Ooops. John Reaves 21:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    If only we had an m:Bash for hilarious quotes said on-wiki. :-D —Animum (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - I believer this user will not abuse the tools, and that Stwalkerster having the tool will benefit the project. KTC (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support -- (Most) answers to the questions are very good. I am confident this user will make a brilliant admin...--Camaeron (t/c) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Hi! I'd be interested to know to which question(s) you don't think the answers are good, and why if possible. Thanks - Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support It is time to give him the mop! --Siva1979Talk to me 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support. I have seen this user around, and I know that they will make a great admin. Malinaccier (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Sure. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support helpful user, will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Yes absolutely. Majorly 00:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Butter Sceptre (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. If Majorly says so. Snowolf How can I help? 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    Strong support → 'cause Martinp23 says so. Well, the candidate seems strong enough for me, no issue that I can see (and what's the problem with q10? It was a badly formulated question - what do the hell WP:SNOW has anything to do with it? - to which the candidate has given a good answer). Well, we don't see eye to eye on open proxies maybe, but I maintain that we don't act on opinions but on policies and I'm sure this user will do well. Snowolf How can I help? 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - I've seen him around and I think he would do nothing but good with the tools.   jj137 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support -- Stwalkerster is obviously here for the right reasons, and deserves the tools. Good Luck! Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 00:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  27. Support -- no concerns and anyone who follows the teaching of Douglas Adams is likely to have a good head on their shoulders ;) Shell babelfish 02:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    So long, and thanks, but not nessesarially for the fish. :P Stwalkerster [ talk ] 09:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support. After reading through the answers and a others comments I have no concerns that this user will abuse the admin tools. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 03:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support - per answers to questions and my criteria. ChetblongTalkSign 03:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. -- Naerii 04:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Weak Support would like to see more article development, but nobody is perfect and wikipedia is large enough to have people with different specialities/skills.Balloonman (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. Supper. Dorftrottel (troll) 09:57, March 25, 2008
  34. So long, and thanks for all the support. Or something like that. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, seems sensible enough, no evidence that they will abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  36. Support Able to be trusted with the tools. iMatthew 2008 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Nice and experienced user. Good luck! TheProf | Talk 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. 42. In other words, good answers above, as well as solid contributions. Supporting. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. Sounds Smells good. I agree with Camaeron that most answers are fine. The only one that stands out is number 10. If there is a solid, policy-based reason to delete an article, and ten people stop by and support their keep votes with anything listed here, the article should be deleted. In practice, though, I don't think it's terribly likely that someone would nominate an article, for example, based on WP:BLP1E, only ten people would come by with their BS keeps, and no other knowledgeable and experienced Wikipedians would comment to support or deny the nominator's rationale. WODUP 18:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. Need I say more. The only deficiency is mainspace edits but that is not a big problem. — Parent5446 (t n c e m l) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Good luck! GlassCobra 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - has the cabal's my support :) Nihiltres{t.l} 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support Ooh, I see prima facie potential here. Since I will probably forget, I am giving you (early) a nice, firm handshake, for when you take up the mop. Good job, young grasshopper. flaminglawyerc 00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support Another no-brainer. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support Over 2000 mainspace edits and has been around since January 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support - somewhat conflicted - the lack of concerted article building (even a GA or DYK) concerns me but no-one has pointed out any conflicts or confrontations or incivility for the length of time you've been here which is a big positive. I like the answer to section 10. Nice to see someone assuming good faith at AfD. Overall a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, absolutely. Plenty of experience and I know he'll do a great job as an admin. Will (aka Wimt) 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  49. support --.snoopy. 12:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support I view self referencing as a "Wikignome" as evidence that this applicant places the encyclopedia before their own contributions, and as such is prime sysop material. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support He wasn't one already? O_o Kwsn-pub (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  53. I've been waiting for this for a very long time, he deserves adminship, and I'm glad I kept an eye on RFA during my recent inactivity...--Phoenix-wiki 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support He's no fool! --Farosdaughter (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  56. Weak support - A bit more ineraction with other users would be nice. Although I like to see some article work, especially collaborative article work with others, I do understand that not everyone is a good writer, and that must be taken into consideration. The candidate and his nom have both understood the issue and this editor has made it up in other areas. Admins do have areas in which they specialise in, and he does lots of useful work elsewhere. Let's give it a go. Lradrama 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  57. Good guy, won't abuse the tools. Knows his way around. He'll be just fine :) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - an excellent user, no reason to oppose. tim.bounceback 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - Definitely support this user with the tool. A bit of Mainspace edits would be nice however. PrestonH 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  60. Hey :) - TwoOars 07:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support, per the nom and all other supports [is lazy =P] WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN I push my hand up to the sky 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support, although I would have preferred the answer "No consensus to delete" to my question, your thoughtful answers show you take the proper time necessary to make administrative decisions. MrPrada (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support works hard for the improvement of the project. No red flags that he will abuse the tools. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support History of being a great wikipedian. Gwguffey (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Trustworthy and knowledgeable. VanTucky 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  66. Strong support - an extremely capable editor who will use the tools extremely well. He's got experience in many admin related areas and he's just about always right. On a side note, I've found Stwalkerster to be one of the friendliest users here which is always a plus. All in all, an excellent chap. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support I trust this user enough. нмŵוτнτ 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support, duh! He even kept it away from me on IRC per WP:CANVAS! ≈ MindstormsKid 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    That's cos canvassing is bad. If others hadn't been talking about it... :P Stwalkerster [ talk ] 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  69. The Transhumanist    01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support I see no cons. Húsönd 01:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support. I really like the answers to the questions. #9 also amused me, having just seen Wikipedia compared to the Hitchhiker's Guide recently. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support. Worthy of the bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support, I've encountered Stwalkerster several times around the site, mainly through being beaten to vandalism reversions. His ability to be polite and keep a cool head is definitely a trait needed in an administrator. Definitely support. FusionMix 21:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support - Good candidate. --Hirohisat 初夏 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  75. 75th support Great candidate, after seeing him/her around many times, I believe that he/she is ready for the mop. And hopefully I don't get into an edit conflict when voting this RfA. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support - fine candidate. Much has changed since the previous RFA. The answers all look fine to me & he's been active in a variety of places. Should be just fine! - Alison ❤ 07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support - he's definitely improved since his last RfA. However, I do have some slight qualms due to the lack of encyclopedia-writing. Despite this, he's done great work in admin-related areas, and should do just fine there. However, I would suggest that he start slowly when involved in dispute resolution, as he (or anyone) could get in over his head very quickly. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support Based on history, I am reasonably comfortable thatthe user is worthy of the community's trust. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support. Good candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 11:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  80. Strong 80th Support - before I forget to vote for this outstanding candidate :) .. I have known Stwalker since he started helping out in WP:ACC and since then I believe he has what it takes to be an admin, he is very helpful, helping out via IRC and is always available when needed, no qualms about it, Good Luck ...--Cometstyles 12:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support - Because I can't see why not. James086Talk | Email 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support The user has been patient since his last RFA, values discussion before acting, it's all good. Though I'm sensible to the oppose and neutral votes, I think that he won't abuse the deletion tool and so his lack of article editing won't be problematic. CenariumTalk 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support - --Bhadani (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support Calm and collected editor, good admin qualities. Polly (Parrot) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support - —Reedy Boy 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  86. Strong Support Funny, I was just thinking about re-nominating Stwalkerster when he told me he was already up. Oops! Stwalkerster is an excellent user who is very deserving of the tools. He's very helpful on the IRC channels and always shows good judgement in everything he does. This is a definite example of how the quantity of edits is far less important than the quality thereof. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support. Zaxem (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose - Low mainspace contributions, almost no article building. Also, the user's AFD contributions are invariably delete and predominately short "per noms" within a span of minutes - [2]. Granted, that was in 2007, but still. I see nothing that leads me to believe that behavior or mentality has changed. I cannot support you at this time. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, AfD's weren't a strength at that time. I haven't done many/any since, but I still feel I could determine consensus required for these. I'm not a writer - it's not my strengths. My main aim for adminship is to help with cleanup jobs, and suchlike, which is what I like doing, as I said above. As far as I'm aware, writing articles is not needed for adminship - see Martinp23's comment below. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    There are no requirements written in stone for adminship, that is true. However, each editor will possess his or her own personal criteria. My criteria involves a degree of article maintenance and building since, as an administrator, you will invariably be sucked into content disputes, or other incidents which require similar intervention. Afterall, this is an encyclopedia. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Read over Martin's comments, please. —Animum (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have. I didn't mean to imply that editors needed to have a FA or GA under their belt, but, I certainly need to see adequate article work with discussion. My stance remains unchanged....sorry. Cheers. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. :-) —Animum (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Sorry, but the balance of non-automated to automated contributions is way out of whack. Looking through your mainspace contributions, I see *a lot* of vandalism reversions but little real article building. While I don't have real high standards for article building (read them here), at least a GA or at least an effort to noticeably improve a few articles (i.e. finding sources, copyediting, cleanup, adding information) would be nice. You also say you want to help at CAT:CSD but going through your edits I found thirty-five articles that you tagged for speedy deletion and were subsequently denied. These all were from June 2007 to January 2008. Thirty-five denied articles show that you need to brush up on CSD policy. The low amount of project space edits also concern me when it comes to policy knowledge. Xenon54 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I'm sure this is an excellent candidate, but I think that it is impossible to judge exactly how he or she will use the tools in content-related questions without having a decent-sized set of article contributions to examine. (Also, the answer to q10 bothers me too.) Relata refero (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    You've justified your oppose plenty, but just some food for thought: if the candidate is otherwise excellent in knowledge and experience, then the best route to go is to assume good faith n other areas. Besides, admins don't make decisions about the result of content disputes, they simply mediate them. If he knows the proper way to behave in a dispute (of any kind), then he should be fine. VanTucky 20:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral

Neutral. Don't get me wrong, I think Stwalkerster is a great, helpful user whom I know to be friendly after speaking with him on IRC, but with your highest number of edits to an article being ten, I can't offer support at the minute. This is mainly because admins often have to make attempts to help resolve content disputes, and I don't feel you could do that properly with few actual encyclopedic contributions, hence I must remain neutral at this time. Sorry. Qst (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to blow my own trumpt here Qst, but I've never been an article writer and I know policy in that area well. You say that someone must have encyclopedic contributions to mediate properly between users - I've been doing that sort of thing through my whole time on Wikipedia and I can't say that not having written a single GA or FA has stopped me from doing so. Martinp23 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I was cautious about adding this neutral at first, but I have no doubt Stwalkerster will make a good admin, I'm just worried about how he will cope in content disputes if not made any real encyclopedia contributions to an article (I know this sounds silly, but actually getting in to a content dispute helps one see how to resolve them and learn from them.) I may reconsider here, but I'll see how things go with other people who comment here. Thanks for your comment, and best regards, Qst (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's never hampered me. Martinp23 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Changed to support. Qst (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Read over Martinp23's above comments to Qst, please. --The Helpful One (Review) 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, done. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Is editing a policy now obligatory to indicate that you've read it and understood it? I must have missed that decree. Martinp23 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I've had good interactions with this editor, but a couple of things are nagging at me. One is a big concern over the answer to number 10. Another is that I'm not getting a good feel for how this user communicates, as most of the user talk edits I see appear to be template messages, and I'm not seeing a lot of solid communication on his/her own talk page.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please provide a diff to a situation where you didn't see solid communication, and if possible explain further? Thanks, Thedjatclubrock :-) (T/C) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
    Apologies for not getting back sooner; I hadn't watchlisted this page. User_talk:Stwalkerster#Help_on_Kids_Reading_Circle is an example of what I'm talking about. The answer is terse and a bit short of being truly helpful to someone who is obviously new to wikipedia. So much of being an admin involves dealing with frustrated newbies (at least, in the admin work I do), and I really hate to see potentially valuable contributors leave in frustration when that can easily be avoided. Yes, it gets old answering the same question a bazillion times, but that's part of the "job". --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Low edits and few namespace ones. I'd say come back in 5-6 months. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How does that affect one's ability to be an administrator? I don't think that one can deny that stwalkerster clearly is familiar with policy and will be a good addition to the admin club, whether or not 12.456% of his edits are in the Portal/Portal talk namespaces (to use a ridiculous example). Martinp23 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Answers to questions are short and lacking. I just don't get the feeling this editor has a full grasp of policy, which I consider paramount as an adminship requirement. I don't see any "negatives", but I still can't support when I feel the editor hasn't fully prepared for adminship. Tan | 39 21:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral: Though a good asset for WP:AIV, he has not had much editing activity with articles. If that improves in nine or so months, I'll support the next nod. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • 9 months?! How excessive. Martinp23 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. – Gurchzilla 22:02, 29 March 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.