Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikipedianProlific

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] WikipedianProlific

Final (68/23/8); Originally scheduled to end 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC). Extended for 48 hours to 3 September 2007. No consensus to promote. --Deskana (talky) 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WikipedianProlific (talk · contribs) - Hi everyone, I signed up to Wikipedia on July 9th 2006 after around 1 year of lurking as an IP editor. The first main article I contributed to was 1,3-Bisphosphoglycerate, at that time it was a stub. Alarmed at the sheer number of biochemistry stubs (an area that still lags behind others in development due to the small number of editors able and interested enough to edit it) I became involved in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project, primarily drawing diagrams for the monthly article improvement drive.

Since then my main contributions to Wikipedia have been mostly diagrams and artwork. I’m extremely proud to say that I presently have 3 featured pictures and many other pieces uploaded. FPs are here, here, and here, a fourth is presently undergoing FPC nomination. Typically, a drawing takes anywhere from 2 to 15 hours to create, research can take even longer, consequently, my main page edit count is low for such an active user. After all, it only takes 2-3 edits to upload and add a diagram which maybe have taken me over 10 hours to draw. With this in mind, I request that you give my RfA special consideration as I think you will see that my edit count does not do my contributions justice.

I would finally like to acknowledge Rama’s Arrow, who over the past 4 months has exchanged some 20,000 words via email with me as an admin coach. Due to a regrettable incident on his part in April he has been desysopped following an arbcom hearing. I believe that none the less his advice was useful and for that he has my thanks. I’m confident that I’ve demonstrated over the last year that I have the knowledge, consistency, reputation and requirement to be trusted with the admin tools. Thanks for reading ;) Any questions please go ahead and ask. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: There are several areas I want to widen my participation in and several new areas I want to get involved in. Of my current admin tasks I watch and patrol the admin notice boards (AN and ANI) helping out where I can. This is quite a new area for me but one I find suits my editing habits perfectly, as I am only online for fairly short bursts, but I can do many of these 10 minute bursts each day, as much as every one-two hours. I've actually found much of what goes on AN and ANI doesn't strictly require actual administrator involvement, so its been good to be able to get involved now. I hope I can expand on this and resolve queries where at present I am unable to. A new area I want to get involved in is images for deletion, especially copy-vios. I think its fairly clear why this would be appealing to me given my contribs. When I contribute to AfD, IfD and FPC I try to only do so where I have something new or alernative to add. I'm a strong proponent that these systems are not a voting process and are infact debates, therefore the best logical debate gets their desired outcome and not the biggest side. I hope as an administrator this is a concept I can continue to promote as well as expand on my participation in AfD. Another task I am looking forward to with the admin tools is the ability to add and remove protection to an image and also move it around while its protected, this also goes for page protection to although this is something I will enter into more gradually. I would also at some point soon like to try my hand at un-official dispute mediation though this doesn’t strictly require adminship but I think it certainly helps. On the few occasions I’ve tried to help resolve disputes I’ve found it enjoyable and the outcomes satisfying. Finally vandalism reversion, warnings and blockings, I patrol a fair number of pages already and some of my diagram contributions are vandalized on pretty much a daily-weekly basis, especially when featured pictures end up on the front page. I'm not a heavy handed person at all and so I wouldn't expect to see a high amount of blocks coming from me at all, I tend to prefer warnings, but protecting the integrity of the wiki is important, and in many cases I find vandals are actually often young individuals interested in editing wikipedia but are unsure of where or how to start and so they revert to childish contributions. Pointing these individuals in the right direction is very important in my opinion as some may go on to be genuine editors. I want to continue to expand on this as my contributions increase. However, in all honesty as I have suggested above, I do not foresee vandalism patrolling becoming the main part of my work as it has not been so far, I hope this will continue to be contributing artwork.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Unquestionably my proudest achievements are my featured pictures above. Of those featured pictures the first, a diagram of a wasp, holds a special place for me. I really got (and still get) a big kick out of the thought that somewhere maybe a kid is researching about wasps on Wikipedia and will come across that diagram. I can imagine them showing their classmates, teachers, parents etc. and explaining what they’ve learnt from it. Now if that isn’t the point of Wikipedia I don’t want to know what is. Another aspect of it is that to have your work displayed on the front page of Wikipedia is the community making a statement of satisfaction with your contributions. Now I don’t do what I do for recognition, that’s not my motivation, but it is such a great feeling to have, I’m sure featured article writers must feel much the same.
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: Generally my line of work on Wikipedia keeps me away from excessive conflict as I am actively contributing 99% of my work offline. I do frequently get requests to adapt, amend or otherwise alter my images which can at times become frustrating, as changes can often be trivial or just wrong, and to change a diagram can often mean effectively redrawing it from scratch – that’s 10 hours of work down the drain. But I try to listen to people’s requests and do what I can. I have at times been quite outspokenly unhappy about our extensive use of the SVG format. However, an important thing for me is accepting and understanding policy, and SVG is policy right now. It’s a bit like the law of the land, you don’t have to agree with it but you do have to abide by it. The closest thing to an out and out conflict is with an editor whose name I shall not mention here over some personal comments and article related disagreements. We tried dispute mediation following a period of stepping back from the problem which had some (in my opinion) good results. I’m generally (not all the time but most) a non-confrontational person anyway and this is the way I hope to keep things (after all that approach has worked fairly well for over a year).

Optional question from Pheonix15

4.Could you please give an account of how you would deal with newcomers with innapropriate usernames, especially this one
A: Investigation of the user in question (User: Engineroomrecordings) shows they made two contribs (under that name), one was the uploading of this audio recording image. The second was to create a page for an album associated heavily with engine room recordings. Our username policies are very clear on the naming of accounts and this clearly violates reason 4, one of the 5 reasons a username can be considered inappropriate. This is exacerbated further as the account was only used to add to an article that could be considered to be promoting the company/group that the user is named after. Worst of all in my opinion is the fact the album is actually unreleased and is not due to be out until the 4th of September 2007, making this fairly straight forward promotion.
Because the user has not made any beneficial contributions (their only 2 edits were clear policy-violations) an account block will be necessary to prevent them from making further edits until they are clear about our policies. Had they made some constructive edits I would be more inclined to take a softer approach, however, In this case I would add the substitued template template:Unb-c. The next step would be to block the editor indefinitely. What upsets me is that these edits aren't novice, the user has clearly edited wikipedia in the past, possibly as an IP or a different account.
Like I said above, I’m not a heavy handed person, but this is a clear policy violation and the user has not made any productive contributions. I would in addition to the template point out why their edits broke policy rather than just the template text. This is important in my opinion because otherwise they or associated editors are more likely to come back with a different username having not fully understood the problem to then carry on doing the same thing; such as they seem to have possibly done here. Adding the tracklist to the page in question but additionally adding comments to the oasis (band) page and others such as here which appear to be potentially promotional. If you check their latest contribs you will see they all refer to engineroomrecordings or associated artists. The next step is to clear up what they have created, establish if the article they’ve made is actually noteable and see if it needs to be removed.
P.S is anyone taking care of this? As the second user is editing quite a few articles, admin intervention is required on this second user (AddRadioReport) in my opinion as the breadth of their edits suggest purely promotional motives and a high chance of being the same editor as Engineroomrecordings.
I hope this answers your question, if you have any further questions please feel free to ask, and additionally if you have any suggestions I didn’t consider when answering this I’d enjoy hearing them.

Optional question from Giggy

5. You haven't been very active of late [1] - will this activity level change if this RfA succeeds? Giggy\Talk 01:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A: Personally I wouldn’t say I’ve actually been that inactive at all. If you look at my edit history here you can see I had a period of inactivity from December 2006-February 2007. This was because I had limited access to the internet for those months. At the moment I’ve actually been very busy and active in relative terms for me, as July-October is the part of the year where I have the most free time available for Wikipedia. I think the confusion may come from my generally odd looking edit history, which is a result of this business with the artwork. As said both above and below, its very hard to judge my contributions in terms of edit counts as 10 or more hours of work can amount to as little as just 2 or 3 edits.
For example, very recently I drew and uploaded this diagram. At the moment its going through the featured pictures candidate process and looks like it should hopefully pass next week. It took quite a long time as they go being my first animated diagram, and its taken even longer making changes and corrections to it over the last few weeks than it did to actually draw out the shape. I estimate its consumed a good 12-15 man hours, though its very hard to say.
So to answer the second part of your question “will this activity level change if this RfA succeeds” in a sense the answer is no. I’m not unhappy with my activity and as I’ve said before, my edit count isn’t in my opinion representative of my contributions at all. At the same time though, in another sense the answer is yes, and that’s because some of the admin tasks that I’ll be doing now that I wasn't doing before are more traditional edit count increasing tasks so I’m sure the level of edits will probably actually go up (though I’ve no idea by how much). But will I be spending any extra man hours on Wikipedia? No. I’m happy with the amount I’m contributing at the moment and I stand by what I’ve uploaded as proof of that. I hope this suitably answers your question.

Optional question from Hersfold

6. You mentioned above something about having to abide by, but not necessarily like, the law of the land. I realize that was in reference to image formats, but it does bring to mind a question for me. In the event something was reported on a noticeboard that was technically in violation of official policy, but you happen to agree with the person in violation, what would be your response as an administrator?
A: Unquestionably I would uphold policy and I would do so in a consistent manner. I hope the simplicity of my answer doesn’t come across as weak but really there’s nothing to discuss even, policy is policy and its an administrators task to uphold it. Not to enforce their own personal opinion. If each of the 1300 odd administrators was going about applying their own set of policies to Wikipedia… well, it doesn’t bear thinking about does it. If something was really bothering me to the point that it was severely disrupting my (and others) edits then my approach would be to try and change policy through the proper channels using sound logic, good debate and community consensus rather than by trying to enforce my own vigilantly policy. But to be honest, nothing really bothers me that much and my dislike of the SVG format is fairly minor.
6 1/2. Sorry for continuing on this, but what is your interpretation of WP:IGNORE?
A: Don’t be sorry at all, I interpreted the first question less directly than you meant it I think, and so applied it to situations like image formatting or user conduct where policy clearly applies for good reasons and to go around it is rarely a sensible option. I see WP:IGNORE as a fundamental policy which effectively provides us with a clause to not comply with certain parts of policies provided there is a good, sensible and logical reason to do so. It supports the idea that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that excessive rules inevitably lead to more bureaucracy. So the ability to ignore rules which may have become irrelevant or excessively bureaucratic is a useful thing. At the same time, I feel that it is certainly not a get out of jail free card and so realistically should be used sparingly, when it comes to using it for policies on behaviour and social conduct I believe it applies only marginally at best. Anyone using WP:IGNORE for any circumstance must be absolutely prepared to justify their reasoning for doing so if questioned, in effect if one feels they are unable to justify a reason for ignoring (perhaps bypassing is a better term) part of a policy then they should certainly not use WP:IGNORE.
As the original question linked in with what I said about the SVG format I shall answer this in reference to that as well and perhaps better explain my thinking. This is a topic I feel WP:IGNORE only applies to only marginally. This is because there are some very good sensible reasons for having a unified policy on graphic formats, whether its SVG or something else, and so it would be better in my opinion to go about changing that policy rather than have an uncoordinated mix of formats due to ignoring of the policy. If however a user has a beautiful diagram but only as a jpeg then yes of course, go ahead and upload it, although this is implied in the policy anyway so isn’t covered by WP:IGNORE.

Optional questions from User:Cuddlyable3

7. - 9.
I am removing these questions. They are an attempt to use an editor's participation in a Request for mediation against them. Per mediation policy, all communications during formal mediation are privileged and cannot be raised against people in later proceedings.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 15:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
10. What will be your attitude as an Administrator to personal attacks on talk pages? Have you recently been active in reverting attacks launched by a meat puppet of yours?
Please be careful when accusing users of using meat puppets. --Boricuaeddie 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Boricuaeddie your favoured candidate should have no difficulty answering, and you can give him all the help he is now asking you for. Do you expect to be involved in his administration too? Cuddlyable3 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A: No, I do not have a meat puppet account. My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks.
Not being an expert in the ways of puppets I am watching the remarkable surge in reversion edits happening this moment at talk:fuel_injection. Who is helping whom, I wonder.Cuddlyable3 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Most, if not all, are helping to build the encyclopedia, I should think. That is what we are all here for, isn't it? LessHeard vanU 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Hu12

11. In general, what is trolling? How should an administrator handle trolls in discussions that the admin is involved in?
A: My definition of a troll is “an individual who purposefully exploits certain aspects of our human nature to cause upset and provoke an often confrontational response”’. I feel that trolling is not necessarily vandalism, as trolls can make good contributions but often also enjoy inciting and fueling a controversial argument (as opposed to a productive debate.) or may perhaps feel their opinion is misrepresented on Wikipedia. Trolling can come about in many ways. Such methods often twist or bend our community processes, e.g. AfD, IfD, FPC, FAC, Talk page discussions and even RfA ;) in such a manner as to create more work for genuine editors and potentially start a flame war.
As far as how I would deal with trolls, it really depends on the situation. If for example we’re talking about a controversial article talk page discussion that has been brought up by a user with a history of trolling on the subject, I personally would advocate not feeding the trolls. That is to avoid contributing to the discussion if it will only feed the argument. However, there reaches a point where this is no longer viable and a troll has to be dealt with on some level, as many trolls have an amazing ability to suck good editors into bad behavior in a flame war. I believe that admins should attempt where possible to stay neutral with regards to trolls in discussions in which they are involved, if admin intervention is ultimately required then the involved admin should request the assistance of a neutral and unbiased admin to reach a conclusion, otherwise the troll may take any intervention personally or as a sign of repression of their point of view, which will only fuel their fire.

[edit] General comments

Comment: To my knowledge, I have not had any significant interaction with this candidate, and we do not know each other. Nevertheless, a quick review of some of the relevant background and comments being made here suggest to me that an important reminder is called for.

Edit count, by itself, does not necessarily tell the "full story" in terms of the time and energy people contribute to the project. A contributor with a low or moderate edit count may nonetheless spend considerable energy and capability improving Wikipedia; significantly enhancing both its credibility and professionalism. This can be done in many ways, such as through contributions of well-constructed images and multimedia.

Please consider this additional factor when reviewing admin candidates. dr.ef.tymac 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A few of the comments WikipedianProlific has put down to "edit counting" don't seem to be edit counting at all. For instance, Blnguyen said half of the mainspace edits were automated or semi-automated, mentioning the total number in passing. This isn't edit counting at all. Something like "I expect n edits that aren't automated or semi-automated" is edit counting. Saying "this user has too many automated edits" isn't at all. --Deskana (apples) 12:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just an aside, but thought I'd mention it: I use WikipedianProlific's diagram of Marsh's classification of celiac disease Image:CoeliacDisease.png every week or so to teach medical students and residents. It's really a fabulous image and better than anything in textbooks or review articles -- Samir 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/WikipedianProlific before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. VeryWeak Support - Seems to understand some of the admin work, but I think this user can do better with a bit more work with some inter-user work (You currently have 195 user talk edits). --Hirohisat (Apple) 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to Weak Support. Not enough reason to be Very weak support. --Hirohisat (Grapefruit) 06:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support; excellent answers to the questions, IMO, and very good participation with images. I'm also fairly satisfied with your mainspace work. I believe that your edit count is very low; it's less than 2000 edits in total, and you do not have much participation at the Wikipedia namespace. I suggest you get involved at XfD's and AIV and UAA and try again in the future, as I do not believe this RfA will be successful at this time. Yours, --Boricuaeddie 22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Of course, I've been known to be wrong before... :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Comment He makes a valid point in his answers, though - if you look at those edits, a lot of them are either huge single-edit complete article rewrites, or uploading of self-drawn artwork, each of which took the same time it would take you or I to AWB-recategorise 250 articles — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    That's why I supported. I think this user is an exception to the edit-count rule :-) --Boricuaeddie 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to strong support. Excellent answers, man :-) --Boricuaeddie 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Wikipedia space & talk edits may be low but in terms of mainspace content (which is what this whole project is about) about as close to a perfect editor as I've yet seen — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. I was impressed by this user's answers. Also, anyone who has the patience to produce, and then go through, the Featured Pictures process, is already showing several of the characterostics we look for in good admins. Talk edits are not a concern for me, of the 70 or so article I have written, I think about 20 still don't even have a talk page. If a user is not involved in controversial topics, than talk edits don't tend to be as important. Also, I don't think that user talk edits are that important either, I archive my talk page at 30kb, and even when I'm active, it only gets archived once a month or so... RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - I do not believe this user will abuse the tools, and support the adminship of qualified candidates from unlikely corners of the 'pedia. - Philippe | Talk 22:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support OK, I have re-read the answers to the questions and they are good. I've decided it's unfair to neutral based on edit count so I'll change to support. GDonato (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support per Philippe. Rlevse 22:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. –sebi 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    Weak Support Changed to abstain Sorry, your responses to the opposition seem a little bit too defensive, in a rude way, that combined with not having a ton of faith in the first place makes me unable to support This editor is right on that line between too new and experienced enough, but they're a fairly active contributor, and I'm sure they can help with the backlogs given their style of editing. As long as he agrees to take admin tasks slowly at first until he's got the experience, and he doesn't get an inflated ego from it, I'm sure he'll be fine --lucid 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support looks like a prolific Wikipedian. Majorly (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - You have a well rounded set of contribs. I would like to see you have been a little more active overall, but you have shown some good contribs. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - reviewed the contributions and the editor's time here, combined with the effort involved in the individual edits negates any concerns regarding edit count. The edits themselves show a solid understanding of how Wikipedia works, and I see nothing to keep me from having faith WikipedianProlific will make a fine sysop. Hiberniantears 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support It is perhaps a divine hand that led me to discover this RfA. My history aside, I express my full support for WikipedianProfilic. I deeply admire his commitment to Wikipedia (he is not a photographer, but someone who has to draw meticulous and "perfect" diagrams, which is a distinct and highly skilled and valued profession by itself). This place should be grateful that he even bothered to give his remarkable contributions. He was so sincere in becoming an all-round Wikipedian, with full knowledge of policy and ability to help out in any kind of chore, including those outside his interests, that I cannot praise him enough. This is the first time I have regretted my retirement, and the first time I will come out of it to give my most sincere support. His only flaw is to overstate my role in helping him (which I sadly, could not complete). I hope you will forgive me my friend. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy)
  13. Support I am confident that this user would make a fine admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Good track Harlowraman 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Why not? Politics rule 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Looks like a good admin candidate. (aeropagitica) 05:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support I once reviewed this user at WP:ER, a very good editor. -Icewedge 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    Giggy\Talk 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) - Gone neutral
  18. Support per Q4. I would like to have seen a warning though--Pheonix15 (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Impressive answers to the questions, in which he gave a fine excuse for the low edit counts. If those featured pics took that long to create, he has done a fine service to Wikipedia. And yes, he can be trusted with the tools. Lradrama 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support lack of activity doesn't indicate lack of ability. Should make a fine administrator. James086Talk | Email 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - You have excellent answers to the questions, which definitely supersedes the low edit counts. Edit counts aren't everything, and you have done great work with your art. Keep it up! Regards, Neranei (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Strong support fine user. Acalamari 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    Changed to "strong support" for the candidate's good answers and calmness here. Acalamari 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support Very dedicated editor,good answers.- STORMTRACKER —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
  24. Strong support Conscientious, open-minded editor & contributor who thoughtfully takes into account others' suggestions, requests, opinions, and preferences. Acknowledges his human foibles, strives for continual improvement, and cheerfully owns mistakes. --Scheinwerfermann 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Sorry, comment below meant for someone else. I think you are a good candidate. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - lowish edit count, however featured image work and good answers. Addhoc 12:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support --Good answers. An administrator's role is to make the encyclopaedia a better place for everyone to contribute. There are many ways to do this and this candidate has done some fine work for the project.--Hu12 12:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - no reason to think this user would abuse the tools, looks fine. Melsaran (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Per Melsaran. Also has created 4+ featured images. These aren't the "take a picture with a hi-tech camera," they are the "slave over the computer for hours" kind. Not everyone is strong in article writing. ~ Wikihermit 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. It's been said a million times before, but I guess I'll say it again: edit count is not a very useful tool for determining the value of a user's contributions or their familiarity with the project. I think this is a perfect example of a case where counting edits doesn't work. I applaud the candidate for not changing his/her editing style just to bulk up his/her edit count. Surely we can all agree that someone who does that is not a better admin candidate? delldot talk 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support, contributions are impressive, and user has shown dedication to the project. Administratorship need not be as political as some of the opposers think. (There are tons of guides for admins out there! If you need to do an admin-y task you're unfamiliar with, merely read one, and take a look at how it's done.) GracenotesT § 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support unlikely to abuse the tools and I have to give credit to images people - it takes much longer than one supposes. Carlossuarez46 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support per Carlossuarez46 et al. A long-time user, making lots of edits to pics rather than text, like one is unlikely to abuse the mop. Especially since his pics are disgusting. :-) Bearian 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Can't imagine him abusing the tools. Yes, there may be areas of policy which he's less familiar with but those gaps are not dramatic and I also trust him to be responsible enough to take this into account. The image backlogs could sure use an extra man and this is certainly an area in which WikipedianProlific has the required experience. Pascal.Tesson 20:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Could use a little more familiarity with policy-related issues but nothing serious. Appears to be a dedicated contributor. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Mainspace contributions are great, has a good demand overall for the tools. Shinealight2007 23:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC).
  37. Support I think the answers to questions and responses to opposers show me that this user should have the tools. Captain panda 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support I will not give in to accusations by users with an axe to grind. The candidate, whom I never knew existed prior to this RFA, nonetheless has demonstrated dedication to creating featured content and maintaining high standards. Shalom Hello 02:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    An axe to grind? Shalom, I respect you and your work (and forgive my arrogance, for I am led to believe this respect is mutual), but I would ask you to make less general accusatory statements. I for one have no axe to grind, I merely do not think WP is ready at this time (I would gladly support in a few months, I can say that with no hesitation). You cannot mean that users who are generally quite active at RfA, not to mention a member of the arbitration committee, all have some personal beef with WP? ~ Riana ⁂ 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, good point. Of course this does not change my opinion, but I should have assumed good faith. I won't strike out those words because it seems pointless to do so, but I should have simply said that I politely disagree. Shalom Hello 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    As a side point, I disagree with the implication that a member of ArbCom is somehow less likely to have a "personal beef" than the rest of us. ArbCom duties are not relevant to RfA, and I certainly don't think that being an arbitrator implies higher judgment or maturity than the average Wikipedian. (No comment on any individual arbitrator, just a point of principle.) WaltonOne 17:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support per (mostly) outstanding question answers --Ben hello! 02:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support I don't see his lack of mainspace contributions as a problem because his featured images are a direct contribution to Wikipedia. His wonderful answers convince me that he understands what is required by an admin. GizzaDiscuss © 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  41. I can live with this user. Probably not a crazy fascist, or anything nasty. Moreschi Talk 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. I have a suspicion many of the "opposers" below haven't actually reviewed this user's contributions. Clearly dedicated, clearly knowlegable, probably not a mental. Good enough for me. Neil ム 13:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good answers to the questions above, seems to have a full understanding of what's what around the wiki. He threw me off a bit with the answer to number 6, but as long as he is aware of and willing to acknowledge IGNORE when it's called for, we should be just fine. Good luck. Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - I'm convinced WP is ready to be an admin. His pictures and animations that he contributes are of extremely good quality and take far longer than a normal textual addition which results in a deflated edit count. I'm positive that WP would make a fine addition to the administration. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support, if we're supposed to assume good faith in general Wikipedia, why should RfA be any different? This user is sufficient enough. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support - I was decided by the answers to Q.5 - but the responses to some optional questions (possibly prompted by a Divine Wind) has made me more certain. 23:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)(now adding sig - I wonder why I missed a tilde first time?) LessHeard vanU 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Per the 48 hours extension - reconfirm Support I haven't seen much evidence that those opposing have understood the major reason for the percieved lack of edits; it takes some considerable time to perfect an image so that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You do not submit a work in progress, and then tweak it with several subsequent edits until it stops bleeding over the article page, and then go about resolving the texture issues... (actually, WP, you could do that in your userspace/sandbox. It would up your count) LessHeard vanU 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - overall, a net positive in terms of 'pedia building, so 'yes' it is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support I think his image contributions are superb, and he's struck me as a level headed sort -- Samir 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support I believe your record supports that you have an unusual contribution style in which your edit count simply doesn't reflect your level of contribution. I think you handled Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection reasonably well and you have interactions to suggest you would make a good admin. I wouldn't usually support a candidate with this few edits in Wikipedia space etc., but I you are an exception. --Shirahadasha 02:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support Looks good to me! --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support per Hiberniantears above Ealdgyth | Talk 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support: Three words: credibility; consistency; ability -- toss in a fourth: professionalism. Absent an obvious sign of misconduct, turpitude or dishonesty (which has yet to be presented here) there is enough evidence to enthusiastically support. dr.ef.tymac 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support good candidate for admin --rogerd 03:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  54. Weak Support IMHO, AWBing and fixing grammar is considered a mainspace edit that isn't vandal-fighting. You could rack up a little more edits and a little more time on Wikipedia (but your answer to your RfA questions are exceptional). The major thing is I trust this user with the tools. There are other minor flaws, but I'm not going to list them because it would not sway my opinion significantly.--PrestonH 04:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support per user:Pascal.TessonTaprobanus 13:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support. Though neutral before, I feel the answers to the questions show an understanding of policy here, and I feel this user is a nice guy who can be able to assist if he has the mop. AR Argon 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support. Thoughtful answers to the questions and clear dedication to the project. Contributions may not quite fit the typical RfA mold, but they show positive contributions, understanding of policy, and little risk for using the mop. IronGargoyle 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  58. Strong Support. Sounds like a good wikipedian, will make a excellent admin. Sinhala freedom 02:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support. His answers are thoughful and very honest which I respect immensely. The editor could have fudged and tried to offer answers people want but instead he told you that he was already spending as much time as possible on the project and did not anticipate spending more. His contributions are excellent giving him the tools will do nothing but help him to do an even better job. Adminship is not brain surgery -- its about trust and I see nothing, an no one has suggested anything, to suggest a future of abuse.--JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  60. Slade (TheJoker) 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support Many of the opposes seem to think you're inexperienced in wiki-space. Now true, there's a difference between reading the wiki-space and editing it. Close to 300 Wiki-space edits isn't trivial, so I think you know policy well-enough. Take heed of the opposes, exercise extra caution before delving into administrator tasks that are unfamiliar. I'm confident you'll do fine. --JayHenry 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  62. Supporthe just volunteered to help settle an article's POV issues and is using sound judgement. We need more like this.Sumoeagle179 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  63. Weak support. He has little experience and sporadic editing, true, but the answers to the questions were really good, and the only think the opposition can find on him is the experience bug. I mean, if he'll be a good admin in a couple months, why not speed up the process a bit? I mean, we need more admins, no denying that. Wizardman 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support based on record of contributions and answers to questions. I do not believe that a user must be prepared to use each and every admin tool (I, for one, do not) in order to contribute effectively as an administrator. Newyorkbrad 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - Seems to be a good editor from my experience and I see no reason that this user will abuse the tools therefore I'm going to support. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support Is an experienced user and I have no reason to think that this nom will not follow policy based on answers and editing history. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  67. I'm impressed by the quality of the work you've done. Your editcount is severely deflated, but a close inspection reveals the very valuable work you have done. I'd like you to be an admin very mucb. Maxim(talk) 19:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. Humility, willingness to take advice, and good intentions are more important than high edit count. - Jehochman Talk 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Insufficient experience in wiki-space, home to many admin-related tasks. A few more months of editing will do wonders, and ensure the candidate knows how to employ the mop when s/he receives it. Xoloz 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Looks to be a great, all around friendly, professional and intellectual user. However, he or she needs some more overall familiarity and/or experience with Wikipedia. I'm sure what they have now is great and constructive in the very sincerest manner, but just fewer than 2,000 edits isn't quite yet enough. Several more months will help wondrously, in which time you should return here for a most successful RFA. Regards, NSR77 TC 01:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, sorry. To be honest, I don't find this user particularly prolific. He's doing a good job alright, but I believe that more experience is needed before access to the admin tools may be granted to him.--Húsönd 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    The problem is I am already spending several hours weekly on wikipedia, this amount isn't going to go up. In as much as a year from now I doubt my edits will have gone up by more than 400 odd mainspace edits. The only way to change that is to change the type of content I'm editing, to start editing bulks of text rather than upload images, and that seems like a terrible thing to me, to change the way I edit to increase an edit count? its the height of editcountitis. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I understand, and I acknowledge that your contributions to Wikipedia during those hours are extremely commendable. You don't need to spend more time on Wikipedia, I think that you simply need (in that time) to be more involved in admin-oriented tasks in order to gain more experience in those areas where you'd be using your admin tools should you be promoted. With more preparation, I'm sure that a new RfA in a couple of months would be most successful.--Húsönd 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per below. VanTucky (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    You mean above? Giggy\Talk 07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Probably the comments in the Neutral section Corpx 08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Guess we'll never know... --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose lack of mainspace editing experience. About half of the 850 mainspace edits are AWB sweeps and many other of the edits are repetitive pattern edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm dissapointed you are using an edit count to base this on, as it reads as though are you suggesting my contributions are trivial? Like we said before, one-three edits could be equal to several hundred normal edits, its incredibly hard to quantify. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Blnguyen and Husond. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Riana, I have a lot of respect for you so please don't take this the wrong way, but I want to run a thought experiment. WikipediaProlific (WikPro) claims to spend as much as ten hours per image on his work. Let's say, conservatively, that he spends 5 hours on average. Now, a good vandal fighter can easily accumulate 100 edits in an hour split between main space reversion and user talk warnings and say 5 reports to WP:AIV. WikPro has 18 images displayed on his user page, they're all quite good and 5 hours each seems a fair estimate to me. That's 90 hours of work. Imagine he'd spent that 90 hours vandal fighting instead. That'd be an extra 9,000 edits. The numbers are remarkable because he'd have about 5,000 main space edits, roughly comparable user talk edits, 450 reports to AIV, a total of about 800 Wikipedia space edits. What's remarkable is that's almost the exact level of participation we saw from a recent RFA. I've not voted support, I've never encountered the editor before today. But if this editor came away with the impression that Wikipedia does not value featured image creators as much as it values people who participate in other ways, say fighting vandalism, I'm not sure that I could say he has the wrong impression. --JayHenry 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to jump in here, but I felt I had a pertinent comment. Much talk is devoted to the idea that users who contribute to vandal fighting will rack up edits more quickly than other users, because of the nature of the task. I don't think that rejecting a candidate on the basis of an aspect of their edit count shows less respect to the type of editing they do, however. This isn't a contest to see who is more valued or respected: it's a discussion about whether or not someone can be trusted with the admin tools. Image work, though very valuable to Wikipedia and worthy of commendation, does very little to demonstrate someone's suitability for admin tasks and responsibilities. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hi JayHenry, thanks for your kind words. I most certainly do not undervalue anyone's contributions (well, obviously apart from the vandals and the POV-pushing nutters, but that's a different discussion for a different venue!) However, I do believe that one who is applying for adminship should have experience doing administrative tasks, and doing them well. If someone had 200 AIV reports and they were all bad, I would not support their request merely on a numerical basis. I believe if WP spent just a little more time around the traditional administrative areas - policy debates, deletion discussions, perhaps RCP if he really wanted - he would have the necessary experience. I'm absolutely not disputing the value of his contributions, I'm sorry if it came across that way at all. Even if WP never used the tools to close a deletion debate, he would have the ability to, and I'd like to see that he could handle this responsibility. His current contributions, though fantastic, give me little to go with. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per issues raised above. Jmlk17 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. Some of the issue raised above are too recent, not enough edits in wiki-space, and I don't think this editor is active enough. Useight 06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what those issues are, as I cannot see any recent issues above? thanks. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sure. I think my sentence was worded a little funny, so I'll clarify what, exactly, I meant. When I stated, "Some of the issue" I was referring to the points brought up in Q7. Specifically, I really, really don't like your comment, "unless your one hell of a seasoned wikipedia-artist like myself then your opinion is of little interest", which is linked to in Q7. Wikipedia needs helpful and constructive administrators. Albeit that was in March, the magnitude of that comment (in my opinion) makes it seem like not enough time has passed since. Also not to be too strict on editcountitis, I'd like to see more mainspace edits; afterall, we are here to build an encyclopedia. Useight 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. Too keen on the disastrous WP:3RR. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Blnguyen -- Y not? 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm dissapointed your making a judegement on my edit count, as I believe above I've adequately explained why my edit count is low, due to the nature of my contributions. It's not like I'm uploading photographs or holiday snaps, these are custom drawn diagrams specifically for wikipedia, they take tens of hours to make. Do you feel these contribs are insufficient, or is it that my edit count is insufficient? - because its not going to go up significantly even in a year from now, as I'm not going to change my editing patterns simply to please my edit count. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Lacks experience with admin-oriented tasks. Singopo 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Lack of relevant experience and concerns about process knowledge. TigerShark 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose — Thinks this is a vote. Matthew 20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I believe you are showing a much deeper misunderstanding of the purpose of RfA by opposing his candidacy on such flimsy ground. As if the key criterion on what would make a good admin is whether he can avoid the word "vote"... Do you have any sort of evidence that WikiProlific misunderstands the basic idea behind consensus? This is exactly the kind of drive-by-shooting that has valuable candidates scared of going through RfA. Pascal.Tesson 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    He thinks it's a vote, I believe he'll take numbers as consensus. So no, I can not trust this user. It's quite simple: don't use the word "vote" (or "!vote"). PS: The word "discussion" comes to mind as an *excellent* alternative. Matthew 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't mean to badger by commenting here but simply want to put this to you, it is a sentence taken from my answer to question 1 above, right at the top: " I'm a strong proponent that these systems are not a voting process and are infact debates, therefore the best logical debate gets their desired outcome and not the biggest side." Its hard to talk about what we're doing here without using the word vote, purely a misnomer I can assure you. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, no, no! It is not hard at all. If you can only think of "vote", well that tells me you probably thinks it is a vote. Matthew 23:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    See, this is precisely the kind of summary judgment I'm worried about. You could have taken the time perhaps to read his answers or to dig a little bit into his contributions to see if there was any factual basis for "he does not understand consensus". Someone could use the word "discussion" because he knows how to jump through the hoops, yet be constantly arguing on DRV "there were 35% of keeps". By choosing to judge the candidate on superficial things like lexicon you are doing a great disservice to the project. Ironically, this is why we favour discussions and not votes: it's about substance, not apparence. Pascal.Tesson 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Shocking as this may be for you: I don't read the questions/answers. This user thinks RfA is a vote, that is enough for me to lose faith in him. Matthew 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    (unindent) Nope. This user doesn't think this RfA is a vote. He refers to an individual persuasion represented as a bolded comment as a vote, but this entire discussion is not a vote, and the candidate never implied that. You're putting words in his mouth. So, if "vote" as a reference to one of #'''These''' things ~~~~ (and a widely used reference, at that) is evil, what is a good alternative?
    The word "discussion" is clearly not a good alternative for this usage of the word "vote" (try "there were 50 discussions in support of the candidate and 20 discussion in opposition"). The term "comment" might work (an RfA candidate might say "please reconsider your oppose comment"), but it's too inflexible: comments (strings of text) are absolute, while "votes" (persuasions) are relative. It is difficult to word the phrase "change your vote" in terms of comments. The definition for "vote", as the candidate uses the word, is a "formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision". The definition for "vote" as you use the word is "ballot". Lost in translation, I fear. GracenotesT § 00:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, per Blnguyen and the candidate's aggressive tone in replying oppose votes makes me worry. @pple 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Riana. Sarvagnya 02:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Riana and blnguyen.Bakaman 02:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Mainspace edits/lack of activity. Miranda 03:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per all issues raised above --Ben 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    You already supported above. –sebi 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Blnguyen and Riana. T Rex | talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Just too little project space work with admin-related tasks. I probably would have gone neutral but I definitely don't care for the the user's tone when replying to dissenting opinions in this RfA. Trusilver 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Miranda, Blnguyen and Riana - Modernist 21:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Strong Oppose Inconsistent editing pattern over the past year. Poor understanding of rules and terminology (not sure applicant knows exactly what a meatpuppet is). And I have know clue what this candidate will do for the project except cruise around a few Rf whatevers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per lack of experience. --- RockMFR 02:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose mainly per Blnguyen and Riana. The image work is awesome but there isn't enough project or mainspace edits to get an idea of your aptitude as an admin, which is very surprising if you've just done four months of admin coaching. Also, the bitey concerns pricked me somewhat. Sarah 10:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per reasoning of Blnguyen, Riana, @pple, and Sarah. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Oppose looks a goodie, but I'm afraid there's insufficient evidence in his edit record for me to decide whether he has enough experience to be ready for adminship. As I cannot yet trust him with the tools, the oppose is regretful, but I look forward to a future, successful RfA. --Dweller 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Seems like a good editor with good mainspace work but an overall low count combined with a lack of WP and user talk work means I can't support. Keep up the great article work, though. GDonato (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral while trusting that important questions will be honestly answered and not be evaded.Cuddlyable3 18:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) But being called a "troll" by this candidate is now making that trust increasingly difficult to give....
    At this point I have to consider that WikipedianProlific spoke on my page of his dyslexia ("I'm telling you I'm dyslexic" - 15:21 20 March 2007) which may correlate with his indisputable graphic talent. That talent has just now been acknowledged by a featured picture promotion, possibly the fastest ever for a diagram in Wikipedia. I wished him luck in that bid for FPC but did not participate in the vote. However his bid for adminship will have to be supported by other qualities than good drawings, and his latest answer about his future attitude to enforce NPA is too unclear. We have to look at what he has demonstrated already in that area. A personality test that I find useful is whether a person seems willing occasionally to "agree to disagree". Cuddlyable3 13:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    With all due respect, Cuddlyable3, preponderance of evidence strongly suggests you would fail that very test, so while acknowledging that you yourself are not requesting adminship, I question the propriety of your applying this test to others. As for his latest answer, he has stated "My attitude will be to enforce no personal attacks." Whatever lack of clarity you object to is not apparent, and his answer is appropriate and fully aligned with what is expected of WP admins. That being the case, he certainly appears to meet your criterion of supporting his bid for adminship by qualities other than good drawings.--Scheinwerfermann 14:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Scheinwerfermann it is an interesting answer, and so is your protestation of respect. I shall mull that over together with your abusive exercise in mockery here [[2]].Cuddlyable3 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Keep in mind, Warnings to behave yourself remain visible even after you've tried to wipe them from your talk page, and you are overestimating the level of respect implied by "all due respect". This is not an appropriate place for you to grind a personal axe against WikiProlific. --Scheinwerfermann 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Scheinwerfermann please just vote as you think best and don't harass others. Cuddlyable3 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral leaning Change to oppose. While the majority of your work has been impeccable, and the talk of yours I'd seen prior to this was good, I am very concerned by your statements to an IP at Talk:Oral sex#Islamic views on oral sex. Not only are they patently BITEty, but the idea that information on the Islamic treatment of oral sex is trivial is just plain foolishness. The point of view of a religion that influences the lives of millions and millions of people isn't relevant in a discussion of sexual morality? It seems that at best, you were prejudiced against a content suggestion because of the messenger, which is unacceptable. VanTucky (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    With regard to the edit in question, it was made almost a year ago, my editing has changed much since then. I believe at the time I wasn't advocating what I appeared to be saying which does read off as a little bitey for which I can only apologise, it certainly wasn't anything personal. I was suggesting that the information may be better placed on a different article and not that one (I did not mean to advocate that the information was trivial, I did not then and do not now think that is the case - infact cultural views are one of the few encylopedic things that can go on a sex-technique related article). I believed at the time the comments would be better placed on either an article on Islam/Christianity etc. or a seperate article on Cultural views on oral sex. Infact, it appears that this has to a degree been done, by shifting it off the oral sex main article onto the fellatio/cunnilingus articles in appropriate sub-sections.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    If the largest number of your talk comments were made in an area you quit contributing to over a year ago, you're not active enough to need or understand the sysop tools then imo. VanTucky (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    VanTucky, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. You're opposing because he does not currently contribute to the talk page that's at the top of his Wannabe_Kate counter? Why should having had your longest talk page discussion in the distant past be a reason to oppose? Or why should no longer contributing to an area in which you were once quite active carry any particular significance? I don't think editors are obligated to continue contributing in every area to which they've contributed in the past. --JayHenry 04:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    I'm just saying that it is but one factor supporting my notion that he isn't active enough to reassure me that impertinent behavior such as that I mentioned above will no longer occur. It's not about whether he still contributes at that particular talk space or not. VanTucky (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well if you check the second article on my longest talk pages its fuel injection, and I have been civil there from the get go and discussions are ongoing. I appreciate your point of view and I wish I could highlight to you that I am spending around 4-6 hours a week on wikipedia weekly, but that doesnt come across in edit counts due to the nature of my contributions. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    His discussions at fuel_injector:talk became civil after offensive sentences were removed, and the "markers" (WP_RPA) can still be seen there where the expurgation was done. I remember he was quite unhappy about that.Cuddlyable3 15:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, Cuddlyable3, those WP_RPA markers with which you vandalised WikiProlific's comments on Talk:Fuel injection have been reverted to restore the text you inappropriately deleted. As has been repeatedly explained to you by multiple admins, WP:RPA is not policy and does not authorise you to vandalise or edit others' comments on talk pages. The difference between an attack and a comment has also been pointed out to you, and even if WP:RPA were policy, it would not authorise the vandalism or editing of others' comments. These attempted power grabs of yours constitute repeated deliberate violations of Wikipedia policy, which undermine your standing and impugn your motives and candour in criticising an editor who's guilty of no such deliberately repeated violations. --Scheinwerfermann 16:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Please just vote as you think best Scheinwerfermann and don't harass others.Cuddlyable3 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral Ah, my first ever comment on the requests for adminship pages! OK, I like the answers, which show a clear understanding of certain policies. However, I am unsure bout the image thing, and while they certainly are excellent, I don't quite see why I should fully support you on the credentials that you bring here. Therefore, I am neutral. AR Argon 07:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Changing to support per answers.
  2. Neutral Very polite posts on this page, but there are far too few interactions with other editors over editing, or with Wikipedia policies, for me to judge the candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiner (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  3. Regretful Neutral I'm dislike am ukneen on the way in which you have replied to oppposers above. Whilst reasoned argument and discussion is excellent, I'm afraid comments like I'm dissapointed your making a judegement on my edit count, as I believe above I've adequately explained why my edit count is low do not sit too well - I would assume that Y had already taken into account your replies but still decided where to place his comment. To badger him about it is not really on. I am sorry as I have no problems with your great work (I fully respect it), but I can't really trust you with a block button, and trust is what it come down to in the final analysis. Note - Moved to Neutral from Oppose. Candidate discussed on my talk page. I'm still not convinced I can support but the quality of his/her discussion there lends me to a rethink of my oppose as it was calm, fair and understanding, which are indeed admin traits. Best. Pedro |  Chat  18:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Changed from support - some of the responses to opposition and neutral worries me. I may change back, but I'll probably end here. — Giggy 08:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. Candidate shows great promise but could use additional experience before sysopping. Majoreditor 12:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Needs more experience. Strongly recommend that you return to reapply for RfA in 3 months time. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. WP explained to me what happened in the situation that was my main concern and reason to oppose. I have changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. I would still like to see some more activity from this user; there still haven't been three consecutive months with 100+ edits and I consider under 100 to be inactive. Just my personal definition of "inactive", though. If this editor becomes an admin, I would be comfortable with that, but I would definitely prefer more activity. Useight 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, per Mailer Diablo. Very strong answers, but in order to support, I need to see indications (via interaction with other users in real situations) of how the tools will actually be used. Dekimasuよ! 10:20, 3 September 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.