Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TeckWiz 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] TeckWiz

Final (69/34/4); Ended 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

TeckWiz (talk · contribs) - I am nominating User:TeckWiz for administrator status. TeckWiz has been editing for some 15 months with contributions across a variety of namespaces. In addition to article contributions, TeckWiz contributes to vandalism fighting and regularly reports vandals to AIV after correctly escalating through the various warning templates. He has also been a regular participant in addressing alleged username-policy violations reported to WP:RFC/N, and in AfD discussions. He has also been one of the most active adopters/mentors in the adopt-a-user program, reflecting his commitment to welcoming new members to the Wikipedia community and answering their questions about our sometimes complex methods and processes. On the "teck" side, TeckWiz is the operator of TeckWizBot, a bot account currently approved and being used to "subst" user warning templates using AWB. This user is unabashedly enthusiastic about Wikipedia and his place in it, and I am confident that he would use the administrator tools prudently and exercise good judgment about where he can most capably serve the project as an admin. His two prior RfAs, (first) and (second), were unsuccessful with opposes based primarily on his then lesser level of experience. Three months and several thousand edits later, I submit his name for the community's renewed consideration and am pleased to record my support. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Thanks Brad for a well written nomination. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: As an administrator, I would help with what I mainly do now, vandal fighting. My main focus would be AIV, which I currently use a lot. AIV gets very backlogged when vandalism is high. I also currently patrol the new user log. Instead of having to report usernames in violation of WP:U to AIV, I would block them with the appropriate summary ({{UsernameBlock}}), and turn autoblock off, to allow them to create a new account. I would also help out at a modified RFCN. The current system needs fixing, but sometimes obvious violations are rejected at AIV. There are currently only about 3 admins assisting there. I also plan to help out with xFD debates. I will mostly help with AFD, which is what I have the most experience with. I'd also help out with speedy deletion, which sometimes has more than 200 candidates. Before going through CSD, I would probably check ASD first, since that causes the most damage. I don't see myself helping a lot with protecting pages, but would do it in obvious cases (edit wars, heavy vandalism, high risk templates).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've created Survivor 13 (which is now Survivor: Cook Islands), Survivor 14 (which is now Survivor: Fiji), Survivor 15, and The Amazing Race 12. Articles like the Survivor 15 soon become greatly expanded once the show starts airing. (Compare Survivor 15, which won't air for another few months, to Survivor:Fiji, which is currently airing. I also help out with the Amazing Race pages, as I'm one of the first people to see the show, since I'm in American EST. I update the page with the teams' placings, and write many of the Detour and Roadblock summaries. My main contribution on Wikipedia is updating pages, vandal fighting, and helping with the new user warning templates by participating in its WikiProject.
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've never been in any major arguments, such as those that would lead to an RFC. I try to stay away from disputes as much as possible, and prefer to solve them on a talk page, and not by edit-warring. My most recent problem has been at WP:RFCN. Many people, including me, are considering a user to be trolling and uncivil. He has already received one block, but persists. I also nominated an article on a cricket player for deletion about two weeks ago, because I believed that the player was non-notable. Another user showed me that this and similar players were in fact notable, and we solved the issue in about an hour, the nomination was withdrawn, and parts of the article were rewritten. Another minor problem was when I asked a user to change his signature because it had an external link in it, and he refused, though I showed him the policy saying it wasn't allowed. Though it seems some users get stressed over conflicts, I strangely do not, maybe because I haven't been involved in anything that major. As a sysop I would deal with users on their talk page (or mine), and if needed, would bring the conflict to the attention of other admins at ANI.

Optional question from Simply south

4 Of your contributions and articles to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why? Simply south 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A:That's a very good question. I've never heard that asked on an RFA. I would say I'm not that happy about my contributions to the now defunct Esperanza. Through possibly the biggest MFD ever, it was decided that Esperanza was good in principle, which is why I participated in it, but was not functioning the way it should be. Many editors were considered to be wasting time doing things such as chatting. Though I wasn't as active in Esperanza as that, and I never chatted about irrelevant things in the "Coffee Lounge", I still think that it was a waste of time because its goal was being reached at Wikipedia's expense. My main contribution there was probably one of the only, or only thing Esperanza did to help the encyclopedia, an article collaboration program, which also failed.

Optional question from Dev920

5 Your creation of this page was what prompted me to MfD Esperanza. In view of your answer above, how do you feel about that page now, and would you do it again? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
A:As Ryan said below your neutral vote, I was trying to start something to resolve the problems with Esperanza, so that it wouldn't be MFD'd, because like I said above, the idea of Esperanza in principle was a good idea, but it wasn't working. They way I feel about it now, is the same way that I said about Esperanza in general, which I said in question 4. As to the "would you do it again?" part, I would say no. It would probably fail again.

Question from Nichalp

6 You said that adminship has nothing to do with writing or adding to articles. Please could you expand on this, because I disagree with some points. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
A:First of all, that was an answer to one of the question on my last RFA. I said that because adminship gives you the ability to block, delete, and protect. I didn't see the need for writing in any of those. You of course don't need it for blocking. For deleting and undeleting, you need to know policies, notability guidelines, and be able to determine consensus. For page protection, all you need to do is spot heavy vandalism, and editing dispute, or anything else that may cause a page to need protection. If I'm wrong, please reply below and tell me where it would be needed.

Optional question from Naconkantari:

7. When is it appropriate to implicitly invoke WP:IAR? Explicitly? Are there times when it should not be invoked? Naconkantari 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A:IAR should be invoked for serious violations, such as making death threats or disclosing personal info. In that case, the user should be blocked on site indefinitely, without a warning, as this can cause security issues for editors and other people who don't even use Wikipedia. IAR should not be invoked to gain an advantage. For example, in an edit war, involving a user and an admin, if the admin protects the page saying they're using IAR because they don't agree that the addition is helping the encyclopedia. While part of IAR is about using it if policies keep you from doing something to help the encyclopedia, it shouldn't be used in an edit.

Optional question from Nick:

8. Is there any reason why you haven't mentioned in a statement that you requested to usurp the username "R" just days before accepting this nomination and you requested later not to have your username changed until after the end of your RfA ? I notice that a bureaucrat has since mentioned he wouldn't be comfortable renaming you after so soon if you were promoted as it could be confusing. Do you believe this is a correct assertion and do you believe you have made an error in not disclossing the fact you were requesting a different username ? -- Nick t 20:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A:No, There's no reason why I haven't mentioned it. I don't really know if it's that important either. I would of course tell everyone by putting something like (formerly TeckWiz) in my signature for a few weeks.

Optional question from Einar:

9.I am relatively new to the site and am finding difficulty in spending much time here but I would like to form a commitment if possible. I am interested in this nomination because several comments below seem to impact on one of my specialist subjects, which is History of sports. When I discuss history, I go back much further than David Beckham or Michael Vick or whoever is around at the present time. I am very concerned that a potential administrator is someone whose position on sport, and presumably on all other historical topics too, is to the effect that "no one is interested in stuff from the 18 and 1900s". This is an encyclopaedia and if you are going to study the subject of football, for example, its scope in geographical and historical terms is massive and every aspect of it is of interest to someone. I'm not satisfied that you have answered the criticisms below about your attitude to sports history and it is apparent to me that you are focused on the 21st century. This would indicate a bias that would be unhealthy in someone being asked to pass judgment on historical articles. Can you assure all of us who are interested in history that you will take an objective view of the material when you are asked to close a deletion discussion or will you simply dismiss anything "from the 18 or 1900s"? If I am to form a commitment to the site, I do not want to find myself having to defend the notability of my subjects against people whose specialist subject is a current TV program (as you have quoted below). --Einar 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A:I will assure you that I won't close deletion discussions related to sports that I don't know about, such as cricket. I don't know why you're asking me to do this though, since an admin just determines consensus, unless you thing that I may sway it one way. What I meant by the 18 or 1900's was that the cricket player had played a total of 2 games over a hundred years ago. Does that make him notable?
Q: See Notability:People and especially the section re athletes where the given criteria is:
  • Athletes:
    • Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis
    • Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports
Can I ask you if you would consider a baseball player who appeared in two major league games in 2006 as notable (and let us assume so that the hypothesis is about a completed career that he will never play again)? --Einar 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Though they would pass notability guidelines, I wouldn't consider such a person as notable. People who have played for many years or have been involved in a major event, such as Barry Bonds (21 years and steroid problems) are much more notable then someone who's played two games in their entire career (and will never play again). Also, at the top of the notability page, it says it's only a guideline and there are exception. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it both amusing and significant that your notable baseball example is a current player. Given the context of my questions, surely you could name a player from the distant past such as, say, Cy Young. No matter. What does matter is your evident misinterpretation of notability.
Notability is not a relative concept. It is absolute and permanent. You acquire notability by attaining a level of achievement in your field. When a cricketer makes his first-class debut, or a baseballer his major league debut, he becomes notable and that does not change. He does NOT become "more notable". True, Bonds became more experienced and more capable as time went by until he peaked; and he also became more famous. You are confusing fame with notability and I find that a serious failing in someone who expects to administer encyclopaedic articles.
As you say, the page does mention "guidelines" but I would expect an administrator to use common sense and see that what were originally guidelines have become usage. The guidelines are followed by probably every single project on the site and the majority of editors know what is notable and what is not, though no doubt some do "try it on". I've been reading your dialogue with NickMallory and I entirely agree with him that you wasted his time in a very persistent and meddling fashion. He is clearly a good and prolific contributer but I cannot see anything from you that compares.
Sorry, but I've decided to oppose your nomination on the basis of this exchange. I think an administrator must be able to "see the big picture" including the temporal and spatial aspects of encyclopaedic articles. It is clear that you have a "here and now" mindset: the world began in 2001 and it is called New York City. --Einar 05:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional jumble of questions from Nick:

9⅛. You mention in your answer to Question 9 that "an admin just determines consensus" and you also state "I won't close deletion discussions related to sports that I don't know about" - I feel bad in having to ask this, but, if your not going to close deletion discussions on things you don't know about, do you feel that you still need or want administrative tools ?
Also, how would you go about determining consensus on other issues, especially things you don't know about - isn't part of an administrators job in determining consensus by carrying out research and trying to see if some arguments are stronger or more relevant than others ?
Finally, why do you keep on asking about "Does playing 2 cricket games years ago make him notable" when it has already been established he is notable - do you disagree with the notability policy and if promoted, would it affect how you close discussions related to our notability policies, such as XfDs etc ? -- Nick t 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A:First of all, they are notability guidelines, not policies. Read the note on top of WP:N. It says it's accepted by many editors, but isn't set in stone and there are exceptions. As far as I know, there are no notability policies. I said I wouldn't close deletion discussions on sports I don't know about because an editor asked me to. I will still close things I don't about, it's just that I made a mistake about a cricket article and many people are mad at that, so I'll stay away from sports. And yes, I still feel the need for administrative tools because I expect to be very active at WP:AIV, as right now, I report there daily, where I could be helping out there instead of adding to the backlog. (Yesterday was a good example. There were over 15 reports at one time.)

Optional question from A.Ou:

10. Many users here have expressed concerns that you have maybe placed more emphasis on adminship and less on article writing than should be. Much of your efforts have been devoted to becoming an admin - thus, I would like to know this: Suppose if the position of admin never existed on Wikipedia, and you, like everyone else, would always be a regular user. Would you, if you could not become an admin, be as committed to Wikipedia as you are now? (I know this question seems somewhat odd) +A.0u 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
General comments
  • Is it just me, or does Q4 sound loaded? // PTO 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply south has been asking this question of all candidates for the last couple of days, see [1] discussing the idea of the question, so it may or may not be a good question, but it's not aimed specifically at this candidate. Newyorkbrad 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a wee bit off-the-subject here, but I think the question is an excellent one. It is obviously possible to give a good, thoughful answer. (TeckWiz does so.) Yet, since the question requires a little "diplomatic skill," it is a good measure for the ability of candidate to communicate (as well as, of course, the candidate's humility.) Xoloz 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. As nominator. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support per no big deal, exposure to many good examples of Teckwiz's contributions and per nom whose judgement is exemplary. The Rambling Man 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support -- Previously voted no on first RFA, due to lack of experience primarily. This former deficiency is just that; a former deficiency. Don't see any issues now. Yaf 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I had my eye on you since my previous comments on your last two RfAs but NewYorkBrad has beaten me to the line! I see no serious problems here, should be a good admin. (aeropagitica) 21:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - I remember your last RfA well and have seen you around a lot. You seem fair & the answers are all good. Third time's the charm :) - Alison☺ 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    I trust the nominator's judgment and from what I've seen of your contribs, you'll be a good administrator. John Reaves (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Good candidate. Third time's a charm, eh? // PTO 22:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Funny. I saw this user's sig on a list of about six or seven reports on WP:AIV and decided to look at his previous RfA. I expected to see another nomination shortly. I just didn't expect it the day I looked it up. I'm glad to see the user getting more articlespace experience but that wouldn't have been enough for me to oppose his last Rfa. So, I support the candidate his third time around.↔NMajdan•talk 22:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support for frustrating the vandals...--KZTalk• Contribs 22:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong support per Newyorkbrad's nomination; that is good enough for me. Acalamari 22:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - I've been watching his contributions for a long time. I believe he is a good candidate. May God bless him. Boricuaeddie"Deus, Familia, Patria" 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Ideal case of the way RfA should work -- editor took first rejections in stride, stayed dedicated, learned well, and is now very ready to be a fine admin. Xoloz 23:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support After opposing TeckWiz's first RFA and gone neutral on his second one, I think that he's ready now. Actually, more than ready. He'll make a fine admin.--Húsönd 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support This user is helpful to everyone who asks, and contributes in a variety of different ways. I think the mop will be safe with him! --Xnuala (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support, any interactions I've had with TeckWiz have been positive. He's a great vandal-fighter. Mallanox 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, got good interactions and edits. Looks fair enough. Simply south 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ~#~#~#~
  17. Support Good editor, good contributions, good experience, good interactions. Good.--Anthony.bradbury 23:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A person I would trust with the tools. Captain panda 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I checked a bunch of diffs and they all seemed fine. Would have liked to see more experience with images but you can't have everything. Haukur 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Looks good. -Mschel 00:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Having checked on his contribs and general conduct I see no problems whatsoever. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support He understands the system well. YechielMan 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support will do nothing but benefit the project, and I've had good interactions with him. Dar-Ape 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support. Certainly. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. Good AIV contributions shows clear use for the tools and when reading through WP:RFCN archives recently I was impressed by his well reasoned arguments and discussion. Very happy to give my support. Will (aka Wimt) 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Go for it, Teckie. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support, looks like a hard-working and dedicated editor. If anything Blnguyen's rhetoric below puts even further into the realm of support because the candidate handled the situation gracefully. --Mus Musculus 03:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support Yankees fandom aside, editor does a lot of underappreciated, behind-the-scenes-type work. Mopworthy. Caknuck 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support I'm satisfied that this user understands the role of an admin, and will do a fine job. Philippe 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. Looks like a good and responsible contributor. Responding to Blnguyen, I agree that the original AFD was a bit too hasty, but his willingness to dicuss it and correct his mistake is precisely the kind of attitude which makes a good administrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Been around a while, contributions look sensible. Willingness to admit faulty/hasty judgment, talk about it, and reach resolution with others major plus points here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support. Seems ready to me. MURGH disc. 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - holding the view that articles, for example Alfred Brown, should have better sources doesn't indicate a lack of understanding of notability guidelines. Addhoc 10:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. TechWiz is an excellent admin candidate. A really good natured chap, always looking out to help other users. I came across him at RFCN where he often contributes (No, not one of the I don't like it crew) and he always sticks firm to policy. He's also be an active clerk at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and again, has a firm grasp of policy. His AIV reports are always concise and follow after appropriate warnings. Giving TechWiz the tools would considerably lower the burden put on other admins! Now, to TechWizBot, when he first started operating it, my watchlist was full of the bot substing all my warnings from when I first started and didn't subst them! An admin with techinical knowledge can never hurt! I probably would have nominated myself if Brad hadn't stolen it off me ;-) Rant over - Strong support Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support - as per Ryanpostlethwaite and I believe he would do a pretty good job....--Cometstyles 11:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support Good user, firm grasp of policy. Tellyaddict 12:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support — normally, I'd have a few points of improvement, but this candidate seems a good all-rounder! anthony[cfc] 15:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - A good candidate; well involved in Wikipedia and a long standing contributer - would make a good admin. Camaron1 | Chris 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support- I believe TeckWiz3 to be a good and longstanding contributor, well suited to be an admin, with a good exposure to the tasks required of an admin- a great asset to the Wikipedia project. (this is my first vote in an adminship nomination!) Thunderwing 16:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support, as I thought you were an admin already. Abeg92contribs 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support the cricketers incident makes me uncertain of supporting, but your dedication compels me to support and overlook those few mistakes. —Anas talk? 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Dedicated and serious and willing to say when he doesn't know things. This seems to me to be a good candidate. Bucketsofg 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. An outstanding contributor who deserves something more than just a basic Wikipedia user account. A Raider Like Indiana
    I'm not challenging your support of the candidate, but just keep in mind for the future that adminship is not a reward from the community for editing recognition, just as being denied adminship is not an indication of poor editing. Leebo T/C 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support during my wikibreak. I helped with TeckWiz's most recent editor review. His occasional mangling of the English language shows his young age, but his technical skill is enough to give him admin tools. - Richard Cavell 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. I've seen him asking questions how things work and trying to help others with what he has learned. He'll be a help as an admin. (But don't stop asking for help when unsure...) Shenme 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, per Newyordbrad. Maybe he'll be the youngest Wikipedian who holds admin tools. AW 09:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support Seen this user on RFCN, very level-headed and trustworthy. GDonato (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support as above --BozMo talk 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support - TeckWiz demonstrated his deep understanding of how Wikipedia and adminship functions technically through his probably provocative but apparently elegant answer to Q6. It is true that the basics of article-writing does not require admin tools - it's just the problems caused by article-writing that make admin tools necessary for article-writing to proceed smoothly. --Deryck C. 15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support. I've looked at a sampling of his contributions, and concluded that he edits with a clear head and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I'd like it if he spent more time on articles instead of AfD, but that's just my own view of what's important, not a reason to oppose. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support If (aeropagitica) and Húsönd are supporting, there's no reason not to. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support After talking to the user, I've changed my vote from Neutral to Support. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support: From one deletionist to another, I understand the implications of every complaint about articles, which upon first glance appear non-notable. Come to think of it, I have in fact nommed an article about a Cricketer for deletion because I did not see the obscure "subsidiary" of the deletion policy which was the policy stating that Cricketers were notable, but enough with my anecdote, I Support.  ~Steptrip 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support, but I'm not a deletionist. I'm not a keepist, mergist, eventualist, or any of those thing either. :) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    You're a WikiAthiest ;-)  ~Steptrip 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  58. A solid editor who takes the time to learn things for himself but still isn't afraid to ask questions. He can be trusted with the tools, as he will use them carefully. Kafziel Talk 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support I trust the user to use the admin tools fairly and correctly. If I'm wrong, desysop him, but based on past history I'm pretty sure I'm right. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support? tz SIGN! 01:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  61. Strong support as a user I can fully trust with the tools. I would much rather have a user who might make more mistakes but is willing to accept that fact than a user who rarely errs but always thinks that he or she is right. —METS501 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support as I did on the previous two RfAs. Good luck TeckWiz! Majorly (hot!) 18:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support TeckWiz has adopted many users and is very creative with his userpage. I think he should definitly be an admin.--Furon 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support. While I don't care much for his userpage his overall editing style on wikipedia seems eminently suitable for an admin. I don't understand the objections regarding a lack of significant mainspace contributions - it seems to me those who spend their time writing 'compelling prose' ought not to be admins so as not to distract them! |→ Spaully₪† 16:50, 15 April 2007 (GMT)
  65. Support. PeaceNT 16:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  66. Weak Support - although the opposers have raised some valid concerns about his understanding of AfDs, I don't think this user would be likely to close AfDs inappropriately. I also don't think that it's necessarily essential to have good article-writing contribs in order to receive the admin tools. Possibly TeckWiz is not the ideal admin candidate, but he seems good enough - remember that adminship is no big deal, and I've seen no evidence that this user would actively abuse or misuse the tools. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  67. Strong Support I'm taking time out of a suddenly very busy offline life to support a candidate who's mature beyond his age. Everyone makes mistakes; I'm sure he'll have learned much - and TeckWiz has remained civil throughout. Xiner (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support TechWiz has a massive amount of experience in vandalfighting, and as a fellow merkan I must forgive him for his naїveté in the field of cricket. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support - this user has a lot of experience and has improved since the past RfAs. Although a few valid concerns have been raised, I think a slight mistake is forgiveable and I can't find any other evidence that this user will abuse admin tools. Insanephantom 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. I'm hoping to find diffs for this, but I remember having quite a few situations which made me question your judgement. I don't think I'd trust you with admin tools. -Amarkov moo! 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything; maybe I'm confusing you with someone who has a similar name. Anyway, oppose stricken for now. -Amarkov moo! 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose not ready yet - [2]. I don't think Teck Wiz has enough understanding yet, and wanted to have a group of articles on first-class cricketers deleted, and appears to be unaware of WP:BIO, which these articles pass easily. Also, in his previous RfA, he stated that article writing is irrelevant to being a good administrator. Here is a case where lack of experience in working with main text content is revealing. Also, since he made that comment, he has not edited any articles in the sense of writing/re-writing the content, so I'm not convinced there is an attitude change unless it is backed up by action. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I also note his comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alfred_Brown, which seem perplexing "However, many articles you've created are on people from the 18 and 1900's. That part is probably meant for people that played under 50 years ago, or who are really notable (ex. Babe Ruth). In other words: is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's." - I think that being biased against historical topics is a bad thing, Wikipedia is already way too heavily biased towards TV shows etc from the last ten years, and I am somewhat rattled that people think that older things should be obliterated from the historical record. I might also note that the articles TeckWiz cited, in the case of most of them he only contributed about 1kb of the article.
    About the cricket article, see question 3 of this RFA. The article was also poorly worded. Since I made that comment in my last RFA about writing, I haven't wrote any entire articles, but I have added parts to articles. I'm currently working on the currently running tv show, The Amazing Race 11. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I did take a look at your 2000 odd mainspace contributions. Approximately 75% are machine edits. The rest are mostly small tweaks to the TV competition shows, with small tweaks like updating the scoreboard and tables, rather than any prose. The bits of prose are not very much, mostly 1k chunks in a handful of articles. Combined with the awkward judgment, I think more solid prose article editing would be beneficial. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    And you said yourself the articles were worded poorly: [3] --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I noted that the articles had a high level of editorialising and peacock terms. For example, this cleanup job [4] was to remove hagiography. The article which you nominated had no problems in regards of hagiography or notability, as it stated "Alfred Brown was a first class cricketer who played 2 games for Yorkshire County Cricket Club in 1872". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not going to respond to many comments about the nominee, but it strikes me that nominating a player of any sport whose notability claim is having participated in a grand total of two games in 1872 would on its face be a defensible deletion nomination. When the candidate's attention was drawn to a guideline suggesting per se notability for a cricketer at this level despite the athlete's limited playing time, he withdrew the nomination. It seems to me this is how the process is supposed to work. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. As Blnguyen - Y (Y NOT?) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Blnguyen. Dorange 10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose I don't have much experience with TeckWiz. Most of it is restricted to WP:RFCN. But this question on WT:AFD perplexed me. It just gives me the impression that he doesn't have a firm grasp on our deletion processes. Leebo T/C 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    To elaborate, it surprised me that a user who has submitted a good number of AfDs would be unfamiliar with the status of anonymous users' comments. TeckWiz hopes to assist with AfD, presumably closing discussion. This comment was only 5 days ago, and it would make me more comfortable if I knew that he thoroughly understood how to evaluate a deletion discussion. Leebo T/C 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    First of all, I knew valid anon comments would definitely be accepted at an AFD, just as they are to allowed at an RFA. However, on an RFA, right before the discussion header there is an HTML comment in caps saying that only registered users can vote. Since RFA, and AFD have turned into votes mostly, I was wondering if IP "votes" should be turned into comments, as no where on the AFD page (WP:AFD, not the discussion page) did it say who can vote. Since I'd never seen an IP in an AFD discussion, I asked the question that day, which was the first time I saw an anon edit an AFD. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Well, this also relates to Moreschi's concern over the word "vote." There's no difference between a "vote" and a "comment" in an AfD discussion. The results of an AfD are not tallied, so saying "Delete" or "Keep" serves to summarize the comment, rather than cast a vote. Leebo T/C 21:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    It depends on how they're closed. If there are no strict policy concerns, admins often close them by the numbers, completely disregarding anons. If policy arguments are weighed, an anon's thoughtful contribution could be important to the result.--Chaser - T 11:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also, I know it's possible for anons to contribute constructively to AfDs, because I did it a lot before I started using an account [5][6][7][8][9][10] =) Leebo T/C 21:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Despite his/her high edit count, TeckWiz has virtually no significant mainspace edits & their mainspace history consists almost entirely of bot reversions, eg [11]. The "Survivor" articles quoted in the question answers were short sub-stubs, expanded by other users. This user has confined themselves to the technical side of things, but has made a number of very odd calls for someone experienced in admin procedures (viz Leebo's comment above). As someone (marginally) involved in the "delete cricketers" saga, although I concede that yes, TeckWiz did concede that they were in the wrong, their discussion of the matter was faintly offensive, particularly their implication that the rules of cricket should be explained on every cricketers' page otherwise people wouldn't understand their career stats; I have no knowledge of the rules of American Football, but were I to make a similar request on an American footballer's page I'd (rightly) be laughed out. Sorry, but I don't feel someone with so little experience in contributions, and with what seems to be a tendency towards systemic bias, is appropriate for an admin at this stage. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    As I said above, these aren't bot edits, and my account isn't flagged as a bot. Those edit are made using TW, and the revert button and warn buttons must be manually hit. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Conceded - but doesn't detract from my basic point that all your mainspace edits consist of the creation of a very few sub-stubs - which should probably have technically been deleted as crystalballery since they were about future events - and all the rest are just minor corrections and reversions; putting someone with no experience of content creation/deleting/editing raises the same sort of problems to me as does a male gynaecologist. I'm also very put off by your statement below that "AFD has turned into a vote", which seems to me to indicate a serious lack of understanding of one of the most important admin functions. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I would definitely not call it a sub-stub. Those article were about 5-6 sentences. Stub, yes, sub-stub, no. Also, those pages were sourced with the official cbs.com applications. All information in those articles were directly from the application. About AFD, it's definitely not as much as vote as RFA, but having to put either Keep, Delete, Weak ...., or comment in bold at the beginning of the statement makes it seem like a vote. Like I said, it's a discussion mainly, but the bold face makes it seem like a vote. (Though it's note and usually from what I've seen, admins are good at judging consensus (and not just by whats in the bold) --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Userpage leaves me with the distinct feeling that TeckWiz is here at Wikipedia more for social networking than to write an encyclopedia. The large number of inappropriate userboxes (ranging from the totally inappropriate "This user is 12" and "This user supports the Democratic Party" to the totally irrelevant ones relating to popular television programs) combined with a long list of "adoptees" (basically a "friends list" a la MySpace) leave me quite unconvinced that this candidate has more than a superficial commitment to the goals of this project. Having "become an administrator on Wikipedia" as a life goal next to "travel the world" and "become a teacher" also suggests that this candidate is status-seeking to fulfill personal interests. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. We need admins who understand this, and I fear that this candidate doesn't. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Most of this oppose can readily be judged on its merits, but I want to disagree with the characterization of the "list of adoptees." These were or are new users, with no social or other connection to the candidate, for whom the candidate volunteered to answer questions they might have concerning how Wikipedia works. Excessive use of Wikipedia as a social network can be a valid ground for opposing a candidate but I don't see that concern as applicable in this specific instance. Newyorkbrad 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Kelly, please look at this prefix index. This shows all my adoption page. I promise you that you won't find any socializing on any of them. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    If I may, I would like to disagree with your assertion that the This user is 12 userbox is "totally inappropriate". A very large proportion of editors on this site decide to put their age on their user page, not least because if you are writing a brief description about yourself, your age is one of the first things that comes to mind. I am willing to agree with you that it is often not be advisable for minors to identify themselves, if this is your concern, but I don't think that it indicates in any way that TeckWiz is here to use the site as a social networking tool. As far as the other userboxes are concerned, I agree that listing interests is pretty irrelevant but I don't see it as a cause for concern, and it may highlight to other people visiting the page what topics this particular user is likely to be seen editing. I honestly don't believe myself it shows the user to be approaching Wikipedia like a social networking site, though I can see that it could be interpreted in this way. Will (aka Wimt) 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    You are opposing over his user page, Kelly Martin? By your argument, many users have inappropriate user boxes; including several admins. I do not care about TeckWiz's user page; it doesn't bother me. All I care about is his work. Acalamari 22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    This is not the place to revive the userbox wars. // PTO 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed; and I personally think a "userbox war" would waste time anyway. Kelly Martin wants more encyclopedia work; talking about user pages and user boxes is not encyclopedic. Acalamari 22:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Reluctant but Strong Oppose - Concerns over judgement in relation to deletion debates - TeckWiz took Alfred Brown to AfD despite clear notability and appears to have carried out little or no research before deciding to tag the article. This isn't uncommon but I find undesirable in an administrator candidate. What forces this into a strong oppose is the attitude I perceive on TeckWiz's editor review. I have replied on the AFD. Also, as you said, since I'm not that knowledgeable about cricket, I AFD'd it, and asked you about all the other cricket pages you created, instead of speedying them all. Thanks for commenting. Perhaps it's just me and I fully expect 300 different interpretations of the quote by close of play, but this statement, to me, shows TeckWiz will not do any research on an AfD nomination, rather he will just nominate articles when he doesn't know about the subject and presumably feels they might need to be deleted - this attitude, coupled with a total lack of research being carried out prior to nominating an article for deletion, makes me think I cannot trust TeckWiz to use the deletion tools properly and more importantly, responsibly. In short, I can rule out abuse, which is great, but I cannot rule out misuse. Sorry. -- Nick t 23:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. With respects to the nominator, I don't believe this candidate is at all well-suited for adminship, largely due to his own views about article writing as (un)related to adminship. The diffs and rationale provided by Blnguyen better illustrate my own notions about this candidate, as they demonstrate his lack of knowledge about some of our most important ideals and policies. I was also a bit unsettled at the importance and/or status the candidate places on having extra buttons to click on a website, as first mentioned by Kelly gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Just for the record, I placed that on my userpage when I was pretty new here I believe. I don't really read through my userpage that often, so I guess I forgot about it. I'll try to find the diff. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Oops. I had my userpage deleted once, and it was put in before that deletion. If an admin wants to search the deleted edits of the page and find the date, thanks. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose on the basis of the user's strange policy of adopting as many users as possible, then doing next to nothing to help them, except for astonishingly rude edits such as: here Thedreamdied 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I don't consider it that rude. I was just trying to keep the user on topic. About the many adoptees, I brought this up on my editor review when someone asked about it. I have so many because all except 2 really aren't active. The reason they're still there is because you're not really supposed to be delist them in case they come back. It's really as if I have one or two adoptees. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) now Neutral. Thedreamdied 01:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. As much as I'd like to offset the opinion that people should be opposed for not thinking article writing is relevant to adminship, I share all the concerns except that one. And reactionary votes are stupid. -Amarkov moo! 01:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per Iridescenti. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to the concerns highlighted above, especially the article-writing one. Also – no offence intended, but I'll be honest here – I simply don't feel that a 12 year old child, no matter how smart, is suited to hold that sort of responsability. To function effectively in the longer run as a Wikipedia admin, one needs a certain minimal level of life experience, judgment and emotional stability that – although I can't say I've observed TeckWiz lacks these traits – are simply not associated with people in this age bracket. I'd be glad to support you some years later. Sandstein 05:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Do you have any diffs that would lead you to think I wouldn't be able to function effectively? If you can't this vote, is based on agism, though you have no proof. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose An increasingly useful member of the community, with visible maturing during his time here, I still don't believe Techwiz is ready for adminship. I share some of the concerns of others above. The cricket dialogue was worrying - the cricket WikiProject is used to these comments, but not from admin candidates and I firmly believe that admins should have some article writing behind them, not just stub creation. Age is no issue for me; as a 12 year old, Techwiz will be able to contribute with expertise to all sorts of articles that I wouldn't know what to do with, whether constructing them, expanding them, or POV bashing. If this RfA fails, I fully expect to see you as an admin some day; you're not far off, but for now this is an Oppose. --Dweller 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. This user does not appear to understand how AFD works, and as such I would not trust him with closing them. >Radiant< 09:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Because I AFD'd one article by mistake? What about all the other articles I've nominated and discussion's I've participated in? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    No, because you've recently said that AFD has turned into a vote. >Radiant< 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    In fairness, a lot of AFDs have turned into votes. Techwiz didn't say he did AFDs that way. Thedreamdied 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that whether or not users "vote" at AfD, administrators should not think of it that way nor treat it that way. Users may contribute how they wish, knowing that not justifying their opinions with basis in policy may mean having their comment ignored, but whether or not the discussion actually concludes like a vote is entirely up to the closing administrator. Leebo T/C 15:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    As said in another place on this page: It make itself seem like a vote because of the fact that every comment has either "Keep" or "Delete" bolded at the beginning. I should have been clearer originally. AFD isn't a vote, it just seems a little like one. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 23:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I'm afraid that the issues raised above (per Blnguyen, Kelly Martin, and others) are enough for me to oppose at this time. TeckWiz is clearly a dedicated and well-meaning user, however I don't believe he's ready for adminship yet. --kingboyk 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose -- I'm afraid you got the concept of Wikipedia mixed up. The encyclopedia revolves around content, not adminship. People come to wikipedia for the content it offers, which is built by the thousands of editors; not because of admins, who are really the support team. An admin is supposed to have the basic working knowledge on how wikipedia functions, and I don't see any demonstrative knowledge in the mainspace in the recent past other than reverts. On a related note, your handling of the cricketers' notability criteria is most disheartening. It clearly indicates that you were not in tune with core criteria and standards set in place on wikipedia. An admin functioning without this basic knowledge is bound to run into opposition from several editors over an extended period of time, which is not good for the project. I'm afraid that I don't have any confidence in your capability of handling admin-related tasks pertaining to article handling. My advice to you is to work on your mainspace contributions for a few months, if possible get at least one article to good article status and then try again. I rarely opppose an RFA, but this time I am compelled to do so to get the above points across. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. I oppose George Bush and support his impeachment too, but these polemical statement are explicitly not the kinds of things that userpages are supposed to be used for, per Jimbo's explanations and what's in the best interests of the project. Userboxes like this aren't even allowed to exist in template namespace anymore. Keeping them around in userspace just shows bad judgment. --Cyde Weys 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong Oppose - per Blnguyen and because the nominee has simply not contributed anything worthwhile. How can he/she have contributed anything when "article writing is irrelevant"? What an immature and irresponsible attitude! What exactly has he/she done for the benefit of the readers? Nothing. It appears that he/she inhabits the AfD and suchlike pages but does not give any impression of understanding what the site is about: i.e., providing meaningful information for the readers. If appointed, we will simply be left with yet another pedantic admin who is an admin for the sake of being an admin. The sort of person who will perpetuate Wikipedia's poor reputation among academic circles. --BlackJack | talk page 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    You are of course free to oppose the candidate on any grounds you deem appropriate, but those comments are much too harsh and strident a personal attack on a dedicated, good-faith Wikipedian for my taste, and exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided on the RfA pages (or anywhere else in the project, for that matter). Newyorkbrad 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    We are here to provide information to the readers, not to indulge in political correctness and politics. If you don't like people speaking frankly when you make a poor nomination then don't get involved in this forum. --BlackJack | talk page 09:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't say article writing wasn't important for Wikipedia. However, I don't believe much article writing is needed to become an admin, as long as you know policies and guidelines. Of course article writing is important to Wikipedia. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    There is a direct quote above that you did write that. The site is all about article writing and providing information to the readers. There is too much political clap-trap already and it has alienated many good editors, some of whom are experts. Your attitude to cricket in particular indicates yet another admin candidate who is more interested in making a point than in creating a good, readable and informative article. Besides, if you have little experience of article writing, how on Earth do you know if an article should be kept, should be tagged, should be rated GA or even FA? Once again it seems we have someone who does not understand the site concept. --BlackJack | talk page 09:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Blnguyen. I find the Alfred Brown incident worrying, and don't see how someone can be entrusted with the tools to enforce the rules when they appear uncertain about what makes, or doesn't make, real content. Johnlp 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose without prejudice per kingboyk's summary above. AKAF 06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I'm sure TechWiz is a very bright and keen young man but he's not ready quite yet to have more editing powers. I was the original writer of the Alfred Brown cricket article discussed above and I did find his reasons for deleting it, and continuing arguments about it with me, rather silly. The subject of the piece was clearly notable and TechWiz could have discovered that if he'd bothered to do a minute's research before tagging it. It wasn't a one off either, he said he wanted to delete a good many similar clearly referenced and researched articles as well. It wasted time I could have put to better use on Wikipedia. His argument that only sportsmen like Babe Ruth should have pages was unusual in a discussion about cricket to say the least. His assertion that people from the '1800s and 1900s' were of no interest was again a little bizarre, as was his belief that nobody from more than 50 years ago might be of interest to anyone else. I bear him no malice and can only admire his energy, but, on another point, if he's going to make an issue of his age then it's only fair if other people bear it in mind too at this point. Nick mallory 12:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    As part of my bot tagging for WP:WPBIO, I've been constructing lists of people by century of death, and living people. Whilst the living don't quite outnumber the dead on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, there is a tremendous bias towards the recent past. I see that as quite a problem for Wikipedia and the "1800s and 1900s" comment particularly unhelpful. --kingboyk 13:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Blnguyen. Good user but still not ready for adminship yet. Wait a little while more before running again. Terence 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Not ready to have the delete button or be a closer for XfD. This is an area he explicitly intends to help with. No evidence that he needs the other buttons, so no reason to grant adminship, plus strong evidence that we shouldn't. GRBerry 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    No evidence? So me reporting mant users to AIV everyday isn't evidence? --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose This user is not ready, though may be someday. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I must say I fluctuated constantly on this RfA but only from neutral to oppose. In the end - with respect to an obviously keen editor - TeckWiz's return comments to people's !votes are what pushed me to decline supporting him. IMHO they show an argumentative and less than mature approach that does not make me feel confident of his gaining adminship. (I also will be very interested in his answer to Optional question 9 from Einar).--VS talk 12:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Oppose It doesn't seem to me that the user is ready to be an administrator. -- Scorpion 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Note to closing b'crat-This oppose was made right after I reported the user to ANI. Please see here. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    So? I would have said oppose no matter what because I do not feel that you are administrator material. I just happened to notice this because you said you were reporting me and my vote should not be discounted because of that. -- Scorpion 00:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, yet another question - I would normally ask this on ANI but since it's relevant to you at this time, I'll ask it here, and apologies for not asking it in the question section above, but how would you deal with someone making inappropriate edit summaries if you are promoted ? -- Nick t 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    No problems with asking them here. I like it better :). Vandals usually get around 3 warnings, so if the user isn't doing something like using profanity in it, but is using false edit summaries, I would probably tell the user to stop kindly while AGF, tell him again, tell him it's his final warning, and then block for around 24 hours. In this case I didn't wait that long because this was from a previous incident where both users were blocked for 3RR on the same topic. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose I hate to hear the story of the cricket AfDs above. But my opinion comes from the following: On The Amazing Race 11, in this talk page post, TeckWiz wanted to include a link to an online article that contains leaked spoiler information for that season based on a message board posting. At the time in March, only 1 out of 7 respondees (myself not included) agreed, the others said don't. Then in response to an anon in April, TeckWiz again supported the link because the finishing order happened to be correct so far. I opposed the link with a very strong opinion (and another user agreed with me). TeckWiz made no comment after that, so I think he understood the consensus and reasoning. This is where I think immaturity may lie. Therefore, if the judgment to include that spoiler info is made by an administrator, I could not trust the credibility of that admin. (But I admit I would be shy to report that.) So I reluctantly oppose. However, this user has demonstrated a firm eagerness to control Wikipedia vandalism, more than the normal user. That is an important WP function. Tinlinkin 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. My decision is based on several factors, which may not have been enough to sway me individually, but do so when considered together. I will list them in order of increasing importance to me. Let me note in advance that my goal is not to pile on criticisms of some of your actions, but instead to note the issues that I think you should work on if you wish to try for adminship once again.
    1) The poorly-researched AFD nomination of Alfred Brown along with a comment about "speedying" other similar articles here is a little worrying, but not so much that I'd oppose you on that alone.
    2) I won't state an opinion on the use of political userboxes by regular editors, but I cannot support an admin candidate who has them. Given that admins frequently interact with new users, they should take extra care to appear (in addition to actually being) unbiased.
    3) this comment here (from the Alfred Brown AfD) suggests to me that you either do not yet know or do not agree with the notion that "notability is generally permanent".
    4) My last issue is with your edit here: please never confine an AFD rationale to just "not notable". Instead, try to provide a developed argument as to why the article ought to be deleted and also provide proof that you attempted to find sources before nominating the article for deletion. It's true that AFD rationales are not necessarily applicable to admins, but when proposing or performing something like a deletion, I think admins should always clearly convey their rationale in detail. -- Black Falcon 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't plan on speedying the other articles. I said I would not do that. Please check the diffs. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, that was my mistake. I've stricken that part of my comment. -- Black Falcon 04:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose due to both lack of article writing and deletionism ("is anyone likely to search for some guy from the 1800's"? That's a totally outrageous sentiment; I don't care how much a person may like to de-emphasize inclusion/deletionism on RfAs, that's unacceptable.), which lead me to believe this user is not seriously interested in building an encyclopedia. Everyking 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Too many concerns - maybe later--Docg 09:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Oppose sorry I do not trust this editor as yet.Bec-Thorn-Berry 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Oppose That comment was troubling. — MichaelLinnear 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Oppose On the basis of Q9, I totally oppose this nomination. I am very concerned that Wikipedia should consider giving administration status to someone who is so self-evidently unprepared and who does not have any clear idea of what an encyclopaedia is about. Indeed, I rather suspect I have hit the nail on the head with that word "status". It appears to me that this site should carry out a serious review of its administrators to see which are actively supporting the development of the site and which are basking in the supposed glory of their "status". --Einar 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose mostly per Blnguyen. Also, some of the replies make me a bit concerned about maturity and the sorts of replies you might make to newbies and trying people if you were under stress or pressure as an admin. Sarah 08:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Oppose mostly per Sarah. The cricket thing shows a certain lack of maturity. While I feel fairly confident that TeckWiz would not abuse the tools, I'm not so confident that he would misuse them. Pascal.Tesson 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I am satisfied with Techwiz's commitment to the project, but the question I have asked above and Blnguyen above is currently giving me pause for thought. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Might I ask how creating Wikipedia:Esperanza/Rebuilding was a bad thing? It showed initiative in my eyes to resolve the problems with Esperanza. Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    It came just as everyone on the main talkpage came to the conclusion that starting "rebuilding programs", like the overhaul and the charter discussion, were a bad idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Likely to flip-flop: I was going to support, purely because, well, articles would be nice but I don't insist on it for RfA and it's not really my business, but the diff cited by Leebo gives me pause for thought. The actual need to ask such a question is less perturbing - one cannot know everything about every nook and cranny of wikiprocess - than the presumption that AfD is a vote, which is, for want of a better word, evil. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 20:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    General observation: On RfA talk the other day, someone asked "why do people type the word ' !vote' (with the exclamation point) instead of 'vote'?" This is why. Newyorkbrad 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    I guess that was part of my concern, but it was mostly that, were he an admin 5 days ago, I'm not sure how he would have evaluated the comments in deletion discussion. I may move my comment in the neutral section, given the fact that it could have just been a small lapse. Leebo T/C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Moreschi, as I said above in response to Leebo's oppose, AFD has turned into a vote, though I don't believe it's worse because there seems to be a little more discussion in AFD then RFA. Since you cited Leebo's oppose as a reason, I would also suggest you see my reply to Leebo's vote. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm. I'll think about this one some more. Has AfD really turned into a vote? Certainly plenty - though not all, and I wish there were more - of competent closing administrators close on the basis of arguments rather than numbers, and those decisions are usually upheld at DRV. Excessive gloom? Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 21:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thought I already said this somewhere else, but, AFD isn't a vote, but it seems a little like it. The fact that people put Keep or Delete in bold at the beginning makes it seem like a vote. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 22:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    Claiming your 12 bugs me. Its not ageism, but I wonder how you would react to older users who oppose what you have done as an admin. Also, [12],[13],[14], [15], [16]. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC) Changing to support. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 00:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Try as I might, I just can't come to a definitive conclusion about Techwiz (I've been thinking about this off and on since I blanked my last comment here). On the one hand, I see Newyorkbrad, a Wikipedian I highly respect, making a great nomination. He brings up excellent points. I've seen Techwiz all around Wikipedia. He seems extremely dedicated to learn and contribute. His grammar isn't completely perfect, but whose is? On the other hand however, I can't shake the image of Techwiz being immature and 12 years old. My interactions with him have left me with the impression that he might need to grow up just a little more. Much of his Wikipedia existance seems dedicated to becoming an admin. I don't necessarily have a problem with children editing and becoming administrators, but I just really don't like the feeling I get on this one. That's not a valid reason to oppose, and there are certainly good reasons to support. Therefore, I will be Neutral. Coincidentally, whatever the result of this RfA, I have no doubt that Techwiz will continue to contribute productively. alphachimp 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. I've been on the fence with this one sicne the start and was hoping to be able to support before the final whistle. But I can't, sorry. Alphachimp's view sums up some of my dilemma. I like Techwiz and have good experience of him. I have the utmost faith in Newyorkbrad's jugdment. But the issues brought up by the opposers are just too great, especially Nichalp. So I'm going to stay on the fence, but I look forward to working with Techwiz whatever the outcome. WjBscribe 22:07, 17 April 2007 (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.