Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thespian

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] Thespian

FINAL (48/5/0); Scheduled to end 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thespian (talk · contribs) - I'd like to submit Thespian for your consideration as an Admin. I've noticed her work around Wikipedia, and she has struck me as having a level head, a good grounding in the ways and customs of Wikipedia, tried to be dispassionate about conflicts, and her priority was to improve content rather than to score points; a WikiGnome, in fact. I only discovered that Thespian wasn't an Admin when she mentioned about a week ago that she didn't have the needed permissions to cleanup the backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

A look at Thespian's record will show that she's been a Wikipedian since May of 2006, but only became active since March of this year. I believe that she will make a better Admin than me. llywrch 23:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am happy to accept this nomination, and thank you for your kind words. --Thespian 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement

Someone commented on IRC that I have a fairly low edit count for someone who has been editing since March; they're used to seeing someone who has 6-8 months of highly active editing be in the 3000+ range. However, I spend my time reading articles; when I decide to fix them, I don't just fix a spelling mistake and move to the next one; I'll sit down, carefully read the article, and then fix grammar, spelling, incorrect dates and conflicts in information, often in one edit. A recent example of this can be seen at the Two Fat Ladies article[1]. While I edited it a few more times after that, the primary work is in big meaty chunks. So I do ask people who might say, 'Oh, the edit count is good but not high enough,' to consider that I do a large amount of work in one or two edits, instead.

And before I get asked, yes, I'm willing to add my name to the admins available for recall. I think accountability is of utmost importance when dealing with a project as large and noticable as Wikipedia. --Thespian 02:11, 30 October 2007 (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: In the past, I frequently made changes that required the final step be taken by an admin, such as when I replace images (I create images and also, in some cases, have approached image owners asking them to release one in a series of pictures, or in the case of logos, to provide the project with marketing quality copies of their logos, instead of the ones we can grab from the web). I would replace the image, but I could not take care of the final deletion of the old version, instead having to simply mark it for deletion, and wait for someone to get around to it. This wastes the resources of the project, since it takes a few seconds to do this when you've been working on an image, but more time to have to check it when you come to the image anew. I am proud to be a wikignome, and there are many other mop and bucket issues that could be dealt with more efficiently with an admin bit.

(in rereading this, I also would like to note that what I would do for myself, I would also do for others; more people looking to clean things up, delete orphans, really *look* at things, etc., is something we need; lots of admins want to work new page patrol and such, but really, what I want to do is dive in and fix issues that have backlogged for months because they're in parts of the project that just don't get used a lot (see below for more on that!))

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am really, really proud of the cleanup job I did at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. The page had gotten really messy, with new entries being put all over the place; a wrong header level in the middle made things really confusing, and there were entries all over the place, in every part of the page. It took me a couple hours to sit down and sort it all out. I moved deleted requests to their own section, clarified the discussion area, moved all the current requests to the section they were supposed to be in, and then ordered them by date, as they were supposed to be. That left a backlog of 25 requests (it's now up to 30). I would *really* love to be able to finish that job, and indeed, it was my saying I couldn't that made Llywrch notice that I wasn't.
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: While I have had conflicts, I've tried to keep the needs of Wikipedia foremost. Llywrch said, in looking at my contribution to Dreamguy's arbitration case, that I seemed to be level-headed and concentrating on what was best for Wikipedia and not on any personal problems. I'm not a 'high profile' user, because of the gnoming, but Alison gave me my one and only barnstar because I worked very hard to bring an anonymous IP editor into the project and spent a lot of time guiding him into making some good contributions after he had been reverted dozens of times because his work was POV and unverified (people thought it was vandalism, but he just needed someone to give him a clue). I recently had an issue with Uglinessman on The R3-30, because he was deleting a large part of the entry and summarizing it because it was dominating the page. In the end, I came up with a solution that kept the information that he was deleting on the page, kept his new edits on the page, made the page much less 'scrolly', and made several of the regular contributors to the page very happy. Unfortunately Uglinessman believed that I was editing against him, despite the fact I was working hard to reach consensus and provide a solution to make the page and the editors of it happy. I do think that I'll deal with it in the future as I've dealt with it in the past; I want to make sure that everyone's experience editing Wikipedia is as pleasant as possible (including mine!). That's most easily done by making sure that when I'm right, I handle it with class, when I'm wrong, I apologize and handle it with grace, and when I'm not involved but able to help, I bring a level, neutral voice to bring consensus to the table.

[edit] Optional Questions

4. What are you views on rules in Wikipedia, and when would you ignore one? --Tikiwont 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia works, in part, because of our 'shared delusion'. This is a slang term, used sarcastically, but with an underpinning of earnestness, in sf fandom to refer to the shared space that we create when we have, say, a convention. In order for everyone to create a space that's nifty for everyone, you need guidelines. I really like the five pillars; they provide an excellent guide and goal at the same time, with room for detail work as needed in each case. The standard *rule* in the case I mentioned above of the IP editor who was adding a lot of POV items (not unfactual, just not verifiable) to a subject he cared about passionately (he was a Native, immediate relatives had been put in one of the 'Red Schools') would be to keep reverting him until he stopped, or eventually some admin had to block his IP from editing that page or indeed, Wikipedia because of COI and POV and 3RR and all sorts of good crunchy rules. Sometimes that's what needs to be done. But sometimes, like I did, you can ignore those rules; they exist for a darned good reason, but they can't anticipate everything that will happen. I'm certain I'll have to fall back on a rule or two, but but sometimes, you just go with an instinct that says, 'The small rules say Xxxx, but the Five Pillars lead me to try something else to make Wikipedia better.' I hope I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespian (talk • contribs) 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Question from SQL: If this RFA is successful, would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Administrators open to recall? Why / Why not?
A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by SQL (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I already answered this in my statement, before even opening this to the public ;-) Look up (way up, and I'll call Rusty.) --Thespian 10:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (who just freaked out any 30something Canadians reading this.)
Hah! Good catch! It's been a long night.... I'm 99% sure that I meant to post that to a different RFA :) SQLQuery me! 10:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Can you elaborate on your answer to question 1 and specify some areas you intend to work in? Lara❤Love 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A:
  1. I want to help maintain the whitelist; not only in terms of administering it, but also bringing my cite-finding skills to it; I intend to make sure before whitelisting that the information genuinely isn't anywhere else.
  2. I want to work more actively in image maintenance; a lot of the mop and bucket things that I believe, as a professional graphic designer, I am qualified to do (is it weird that I was looking at the 600 or so backlogged images to check for deletion because they are tagged as possibly being duplicated on Commons, and thinking, 'oooh, if I get an admin bit, I could do that...'? Probably, but well...)
  3. I would like to get more involved in dispute resolution; I think I have a knack for speaking reasonably and calmly, and finding consensus. I have done this in the past, and would like to 'move up a notch' at this point - I think the interpersonal skills I have could be used at an admin level in touchier situations, and the admin bit would help a little in enforcement (being able to semi-protect, mediate, etc). I'm not interested in vandal fighting, though I know I'll do that from time to time, but I'm more interested in helping settle disputes between the very passionate regular (both anon and named) editors we already have.
  4. (complete aside, and this is slightly off, because of the nature of the requests, but about 10 times in the 3-4 hours a night that I'm on IRC, there are 'are any admins awake?' requests. While I often guide people into where they should make their requests, sometimes they're getting hit by something hard, vandalism, edit warring, etc, and all I can say is, 'well, here's where you need to ask for help'. I'd really like to be able to provide more assistance in the middle of the North American night than I can right now ;-) )
  5. also, at the times that I'm active, Do You Know? is *often* an hour or more backlogged. Since I sleep different times than sane people, and really love DYK? and contribute to it every time I create an article, I would be really happy to get elbow deep in helping do those janitorial updates.
  6. To the above points, we absolutely need admins who police and protect, but we really need admins who guide using the tools they've been given. I appreciate the hell out of the people who make sure every 'mai skool is BEST!!!1!!!!' page hits the dustbin, but there is a place for admins who, on the 7th time something gets recreated, to explore why people think its important, and guide people into constructive edits and work. I think this is going to be vital with the IP page creation returning.
I could go on with this, a lot, but we'll wind up with 20 pages. I hope that even though there are many other things I want to do, this might give you more of an idea of my direction, as an editor and hopefully as an admin. --Thespian 03:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
7. (Optional question from MONGO)...You see that one administrator has blocked another editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by MONGO (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I frequently drop notes to users who are particularly experienced when I notice that they've made an addition that is incorrect, false, or otherwise problematic before I revert something that they've put on a page (I've also been known to leave notes of that nature for new users and IPs who I believe are editing in good faith). The basic policy on unblocking is very similar in nature, if not in scope, to things that I already do. Which is to say the actions of another admin, while not sacrosanct, should be respected, and I should make sure that regardless of disagreeing with them on the block, it was made with a cool head and can be backed up with things like edit differences, proof of abuse, etc. before I consider undoing.
Though this part isn't what you asked, I also am more than open to the idea that other admins, in disagreeing with blocks I might make, can approach me and discuss when *I* am wrong, too. I'm certain there will be times when I've missed something be it a subtle edit change or some checkuser info, and I want to be very open to *anyone* approaching me. Every admin is a person over there on some computer across the country or around the world, making a block decision based on the info they have, and taking time to give that person a chance to explain their side of things would ensure a lot less drama on AN/I, for certain.
8 Optional Question from SJP Should websites that attack, or are critical of the subject of the article be included in the article? If so, under what circumstances? Thanks for your time.--SJP 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Depends on whether they contribute to the information that's needed to provide a user with an informed and balanced view of the information. 'Attack' type sites are very rarely fully informed; they have a POV and they're pushing it. However, they can be useful if you then need to illustrate something about a controversy. Many POV sites about controversial subjects can be used if you say, want to illustrate something that works out to 'rightly or wrongly, many people have come to this conclusion', for example, as long as that's very clearly defined as why the link is included. On the other hand, articles that directly slander or libel a person should be avoided; any information on them is usually available more coherently elsewhere.
Articles that are, as you put it 'critical of a subject' are a different thing altogether; often they are necessary to give a user a good idea of that the arguments surrounding a subject (for example, say, a psychic takes the James Randi Foundation's challenge, and fails it, the article on the Foundation's site about the, while likely to be quite critical of the psychic, would be a valuable addition to a page on them). Context is very important in this case. --Thespian 09:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Follow Up Question Thanks for answering the first question:) In your opinion, if there are other sources you can use to verify some information, other than a attack site, should you not use the attack site and use the less biased sites?--SJP 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A: Absolutely. That falls in the same category, though, as 'I can confirm this in 10 blogs or in one New York Times article.' :-) I have worked as a journalist in the past, and I believe you should always go for the least biased, most verifiable source of information. I just think in some cases there are opportunities to illustrate certain subjects with sites critical to them. I would always prefer an article from a magazine that discusses the site that is critical/attacky, in the context of otherwise discussing the subject, that's just not always possible. But this veers off into Reliable Source issues to some extent, and what constitutes Original Research (ie, no *analyzing* the linked sites!) so I hope that suffices. --Thespian 10:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Support for the obvious reasons. -- llywrch 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support No reason not to! You seem calm, stable, and civil enough :) SQLQuery me! 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support A true WikiGnome - her experience is far more extensive than her edit count would suggest, if you have a look at her contributions rather than just number-count. Excellent candidate, and the fact that she is open to recall makes her all that more attractive. DEVS EX MACINA pray 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. Thespian knows her way around. She carries out many admin functions now, bringing them to an admin for the final step. Well deserving of the mop and pail. Sunray 07:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Thespian has been steadily contributing quality edits for 6 months now. The quality and stability is more valuable than the quantity to me. User page and statements show clear knowledge of the wiki. Particularly good answer on how to deal with conflict. (You should do a GA or FA some time, I think from your contribs that you'd be quite good at it and enjoy it.) --JayHenry 07:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have been taking a look at them, but I had a few other things that got in the way in the interim, like the seven pages I created this week for The Next Iron Chef contestants. But the stuff I did with Two Fat Ladies[2] does seem to be exactly what GA wants, and I'll add 'one GA/FA a week' to my goals; I really like going to pages on subjects I know nothing about and gnoming them up. --Thespian 09:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support nothing worrisome as far as I can see. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 09:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I have reviewed many of Thespian's contributions with a special view toward interactions with other users. I find these interactions calm, correct and very productive. I am confident this is a solid nom and should be approved. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support NHRHS2010 talk 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - trustworthy editor, lowish edit count offset by high quality contributions. Addhoc 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I see nothing that concerns me. I think Thespian will make a very fine, and useful admin. Good luck! Hiberniantears 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support - Rudget Contributions 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, should make a fine admin. --Kbdank71 17:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support As per JayHenry the quality in her edits is high and she has spent more time editing than an average user.Pharaoh of the Wizards 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support seriously, editcountitis is not a reason to oppsoe. I'm sure opposers haven't actually taken the slightest glance into the integrity of Thespian's contributions beyond the count --Pumpmeup 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Wikignomes rule! Seriously, seems well suited and able. Pigmanwhat?/trail 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. the_undertow talk 06:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support - Reasonable contributor. Aware of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also a good communicator. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Should make a fine admin as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, Wikignomes do rule, and I saw some good article creation in there as well. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
  21. Support She's got a good attitude, a good history of edits, a good history of edit summaries, and so a good risk for handling the mop. She will make a fine admin, probably better than me. Bearian 12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hey! That's my line! :) -- llywrch 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  22. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Per User:FayssalF and the WP:ANI thread where you clearly demonstrated your knowledge of policy whilst working politely and colaboratively. Pedro :  Chat  12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support. I trust this user.--ragesoss 16:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  25. I think Thespian will do well as an administrator. Acalamari 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  26. support --Rocksanddirt 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support a good Wikipedian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support I'm really impressed by this user's contribs. As many have noted, we always need more vandal fighters, but we can't forget that we also need some really talented 'pedia builders. :) Good luck! GlassCobra 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. STrong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, and not just because of the Cancon ;) --Paul Erik 03:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Get ready for November! east.718 at 05:59, 11/1/2007
  33. Strong user, will be a good admin. --DarkFalls talk 09:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support per all of the above. She'll do great work as an administrator, no doubt at all. PeaceNT 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great AN/I contribs! Phgao 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, low editcount causes no problem for me, you will be a great admin. Good luck! @pple complain 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. No major concerns brought up yet.--SJP 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    Due to how Thespian answered my questions, I am going to strongly support this user. Good luck!--SJP 10:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support John254 23:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support, always need more gnome admins.-gadfium 08:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - but of course. No concerns whatsoever here - Alison ❤ 12:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support because adminship is no big deal. K. Scott Bailey 13:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Deb 17:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Shock! Awe! Support! I almost never support a Wikipedian with so few Wikipedia namespace edits, but I've seen you around & I like what I've seen. You're very mature and I definitely don't think you'll abuse the tools. You took the confrontation with the user I Already Forgot (I like to call it "Fistigate"), and that shows a lot of professionality and maturity. I think you'll make a great admin. Plus you have a nice name... ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. Not only did she give good answers to the questions, but her edit history also shows that she behaves as she described above. To those who have an issue with a low edit count, I say that quality outweighs quantity in this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support - The answer to question 1 left me with a question of my own. The subsequent answer more than eases my worry. I am with Spawn Man in that I don't often support with so few edits to Wikipedia namespace, however, what edits are there impress me. I think this user will be an asset. Lara❤Love 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support--MONGO 07:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support -- Difficult to imagine that she will do something hazardly. --Tikiwont 08:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support Good answers. Good contributions. Cool in a crisis. Yup. --John 06:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support "Grace under pressure" isn't just an album by Rush. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support – seems to know what she's doing. WjBscribe 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose Just not enough overall experience...yet. Jmlk17 04:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    What areas would you suggest that Thespian concentrate on? Vague comments aren't as constructive as specific statements about how a candidate can best improve themselves. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    From what I've seen of Jmlk17's many many opposes, I think he means "edit count" when he says "experience". But I've also considered the possibility that he uses an {{oppose}} template. :) Of course, I may be wrong. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    It appears that I am wrong. He doesn't use a template. :) He does say something different each time although almost every oppose is every bit as vague as this one. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. But I guess I'm right about the edit count bit, as is apparent from the discussion of his oppose at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Edokter. - TwoOars (Rev) 08:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    TwoOars, there is no need to exaggerate the many, Jmlk17 has the right to his thoughts and comments on requests for adminship. Qst 21:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sure he has the right. Which is why I didn't summarily delete his opposes or ask a crat to ignore them, no matter how unreasonable they seem to me. We are just discussing here, as we are meant to. As for emphasizing the "many", well, I'm not exaggerating; there are just so many. :) - TwoOars (Rev) 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    TwoOars (and others), you may find this discussion (ignore the barnstar!) interesting in regards to Jmlk17's opposition. — H2O —  08:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    <---That is interesting but unedifying. He says people accuse him of editcountitis; so what is it then, when 3000 edits are insufficient for an assessment of trustworthiness, knowledge of policy and maturity? From the discussion at Edoktor's RfA, it appears that Jmlk17 feels that 3000 edits are not sufficient to assess someone. So, does he go through all 3000 edits to get to this conclusion? I find that hard to believe. I think I am reasonably thorough in assessing RfA candidates based on their contributions, yet all I do is sample the candidate's edits at mainspace and wikipedia space and go through all the talk page archives. I don't think even Pedro, who has a reputation for being thorough, would actually go through as many as 2000 or 3000 edits. So I ask Jmlk17 this: Do you ever look past the wannabekate report and the edit summary tool, at the actual contributions? None of the Jmlk17's opposes indicate that he does. All I see is figures about edits per page and number of unique pages. I may have overlooked something and I would be happy if it turns out that he is actually assessing an RfA candidate instead of just looking at the numbers. If this is all a misunderstanding, and if Jmlk17 means something much more when he says "lack of overall experience", that is more of a reason to explain his position properly. After all, this is not the first time that his RfA opposes have been considered unhelpful. I am not questioning Jmlk17's right to oppose. I have nothing against him. But the opinion should stand up to scrutiny. - TwoOars (Rev) 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    A reply, if you wish. Jmlk17 10:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    You're very kind Two Oars, and actually sometimes I do feel the need to go back over 2,000 contributions - per my question at this RfA below. :) Pedro :  Chat  12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    While I've stood back since I opened this nomination, I think I need to step in now. When I first discovered that Thespian was not an Admin, I was surprised because she had shown a definite maturity & a serious interest in the administrative side of Wikipedia. I think these qualities outweigh comprehensive knowledge of all of the dark corners & arcane features of Wikipedia, which one only learns about after a very long time (& which some of us are still discovering after 5 years of active participation.) Since I've misjudged people in the past, I took a hard look at her edit history to verify my impression: while the number was on the low side, the quantity was more than compensated by the quality (as someone noted above). While there definitely needs to be a minimum number of edits to become an Admin -- for various reasons -- it's an obvious fact that some people "get" Wikipedia faster than others, which is why I would set the number much lower than Jmlk17 seems to (at 500) in order not to penalize the fast learners. I believe in Thespian's case the content of her edits show that she is one of those fast learners, & that she "gets" Wikipedia. -- llywrch 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose While the editor seems to be a good copyeditor, I disagree with her attitudes to issues of verifiablity and to how other people deal with them. I understand the reasons she needs "power tools". It is high time wikipedia introduce an intermediate position of "power editor" who can do some technical stuff that does not involve judgement of other editors. `'Míkka 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    I'm wondering if you can show an example a couple articles where you disagree with me over verifiability; this doesn't tell me if you think I'm too loose with verifiability, or too strict with it, or if there's something completely different causing problems. Also, I believe that originally, admin *was* supposed to be the 'power editor' position, with bureaucrats above them, but we seem to have drifted away from that, resulting in adminship being much harder to achieve than it initially was (which I understand, because of the possibilities to *really* mess up with the tools), or than it possibly should be.--Thespian 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    I judged it from your statement in your user page. You are entitled to your position, but I disagree with it. The problem is not "messing up with tools", but "messing up with editors". IMO you just don't have enough experience to be judged from, that's it. `'Míkka 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    You'll find (per a brief perusal of RfA) that Mikka is making a point. He opposes all RfAs, based upon variants of his principle that WP doesn't need "professional police." He's now varying his "template" a bit, but the principle--and his point--remain the same. You'll learn very little from examining his oppose votes. And you needn't bother discussing on his talk page either, as he summarily deletes any questions regarding his blanket oppositions at RfA. K. Scott Bailey 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Answers one and two are poor, has only been consistently editing for 4 months.--Snakese 21:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Vote from blocked editor indented. GlassCobra 00:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    This editor is not blocked, please see this. I don't agree with his opinion, & I find it odd that someone who has been editting for a week doesn't think four months is long enough (anyway Thespian has been editting for longer than that), but he is allowed to express an opinion here. -- llywrch 03:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, not ready. Needs more NPOV experience and knowledge of policy. Humain-comme 09:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose - User supports indef [13] blocks even though wikipedia is not WP:CENSOR and has policy to back such position. Granted tact was not used in asking the question but vandals and real trolls are a %100 more abrasive. My opinion is the user needs more work in areas of vandal fighting and wikipedia policy. --Now anon user that ran the now blocked account I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.178.226 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
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.