Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zapptastic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Zapptastic

Final (24/13/3) Ended 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Zapptastic (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to nominate Zapptastic (previously Zappa.jake) for adminship. He has been with us since January of 2006, and has been an active contributor since February 2006. During that time he has fulfilled many roles on Wikipedia, including active new page patroling (something that makes his edit count much lower than it should be), writing many articles, and spending time in many other miscellaneous areas such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. He has also been active in the community side of Wikipedia, being involved in Esperanza, Concordia, and a very active member of the Welcoming committee.

By namespace, Zapptastic has made significant contributions to::

Full disclosures: Zapptastic had one previous RfA as Zappa.jake, which can be found here; it mostly failed because people felt he didn't have enough experience yet, something that I feel he has rectified since then. Also, many of his user talk edits involve games of chess or welcoming commitee tasks. However, I feel he has plenty of other edits which show that he can communicate effectively with other editors.

Needless to say, I feel Zapptastic more than meets my RFA criteria. I have never seen him be incivil, even in potentially stressful situations [14], [15]. Though some may consider his Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk edits to be slightly low, he has more than convinced me that he is well-versed in policy, including through a speedy deletion exercise we went through together. If you have any doubts about his policy knowledge, I urge you to ask him optional questions- I assure you he won't let you down. Finally, he has shown that he is willing to do repetitive, janitorial-type tasks, something that any administrator knows is necessary quite a bit. I feel that giving him the admin tools will help the project in many ways. Thanks in advance to everyone who adds their productive comments to this RfA. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very greatefully accept Eric's nomination. Thanks for all the hard work, you rock. -Zapptastic (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Speedying requested articles and also articles I see on newpage patrol that are obvious vandalism. Working with stuff at the admin noticeboard, just helping people out with whatever they needed done. I'd be willing to close AfDs and such, even though I don't have a ton of experience around there. Basically, my main couple of reasons are that on newpage patrol I see a lot of stuff that is obvious CSD, and it would be nice to be able to just delete that myself without wasting someone else's time. Also, I use VandalProof occasionally, and, although not often, I'll see a persistent vandal who needs blocking. I've done a lot of work, just slow, tedious, tasks, so I'd also be willing to clean whatever backlog needs cleaning. I feel that I myself, and the rest of the community, could benefit from me having the toolbox. Feel free to ask me any questions about this.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I said this at my last RfA - Trinity School at River Ridge is one of my greatest prides. It's where I go to school. I have contributed a great load of that article, and I think it's really well done. It's sorta hard to get an article about a high school with ~400 student to FA status, but I would say it's pretty nice for it's potential. Anyways, my main reason for liking this so much, is that it has served as sort of an ambassador to members of my school on behalf of Wikipedia. I've had multiple people come up to me at school saying they had checked out the article, there's been discussions about Wikipedia in class based on that article, and there have been more than a couple of contributors who came to know Wikipedia through that article. Basically, I think it's really well done, and it has introduced a lot of people to Wikipedia. That's half of it - my other particularly pleasing contributions have been those of my work at the welcoming committee. My user talk edit count is 2000+, more than my mainspace edit count, and the reason for that is all the new user's I've welcomed. When a new user comes to Wikipedia, it can be a scary place, not knowing what to do, how it works, etc. However, I've placed welcome templates on many user talk pages, and occasionally, they've came to me with questions or thanks. That's really a nice feeling, to know that you've helped someone out. So yeah, those are my big two.
Due to understandable concerns about mainspace editing, here are a list of ten diffs of pages I've created or significantly cleaned up or rewritten. If this isn't enough, I can post more...
Pusa Polytechnic
Village East Drugs
Joseph Carlino
Doug White (news anchor)
Basilica of St. Lawrence
David Thomas Dawson
Cissy van Bennekom
Metro Transit Routes
National Socialist Vanguard
and my favorite, Trinity School at River Ridge
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course I've been in conflicts before, but nothing too major. Wikipedia really hasn't been too stressful for me. (Maybe I'm not doing enough!) I believe in the minor conflicts I've had, I've handled them well, and I obviously plan to do so in the future. If anyone has any advice for me regarding this, please don't hesitate to tell me.
Question from Yanksox
4. Can you elaborate on your beliefs on CSD as opposed to the use of the PROD template. When should each be used? Also, can you expand on how you would believe consensus to be in AfD, MfD, RfD, CfD, or TfD discussions? Specifically, use of argument and new users. Thanks, Yanksox 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I can. Speedy deletion should only be used when the article in questions meets CDS, and when there would be a huge WP:SNOWBALL of consensus if the article went to AfD. That's my thinking when I nominate an article for speedy deletion (or when I wish I could use it myself). When there is question as to whether it meets CSD, or if I believe that there may be a disagreement with the decision, I throw a {{prod}} tag on it. Regarding consensus at XfDs, at first when using my admin powers, I will only close discussions with large, obvious consensus (=0 oppose votes). As I become more experienced with deletion, I would begin to recognize consensus like any other admin - whether it seems the community generally agrees on something. Regarding new users, I'd look around and see how long they've been here, how many edits they've made, what kind of contributions they're making. If I feel they're experienced enough to be taken seriously, if they're informed enough about both the article and the policy about deletion, then I feel that they're qualified to be part of the discussion. Regarding use of argument, I would let people argue it over then decide based on the arguments presented. People have heads, they can read arguments and decide whether they're worthy or not. I'm a small part of the consensus-making process, and I'm not going to delete it or not based on which arguments I like. Now, if I see an argument come up late in the discussion, and not many users have had time to react to that and possibly change their minds, that is something that needs to be considered. I really don't think it's that hard to see whether it's consensus or not. If you want, you could throw me at some type of consensus-judging excercise, just like Eric threw me on a CSD excercise. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, to be annoying but just a follow-up question: Is that suggesting that you believe an article can be speedied if the admin believes that the article (Which isn't a clearcut CSD) has no chance in hell of surviving AfD? Keep in mind there is no wrong answer. Yanksox 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem, it's not annoying, it's nice to see a user who takes RfA so seriously. When I first started out as an admin, I would make sure articles I was deleting both met CSD and would survive an AfD. However, as time goes on, with more experience, I can see myself using SNOWBALL to delete articles. But not at first, after a couple months of experience, probably. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Optional question from bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Why'd you happen to change your name? Thanks, bibliomaniac15 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't like my real name being my username anymore, as that had alreay lead to someone attempting to post my personal details on my talk page, and I didn't want it to happen again. Also some users, particularly the ones I was welcoming, were confused by the "." in my username. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Optional backlog-related question from Alphachimp
6. You mentioned that you are willing to help with backlogs that need cleaning. Check out the admin backlog. Five of those six pages are always there, and always need work. Interested in any of them? alphaChimp(talk) 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to help with whatever's needed. However, abuse reports and requests for investigation sound particularly fun, just because I enjoy playing detective, and speedy deleting stuff would be easy for me, as I have a lot of experience with it. I am also willing to help with images and copyright stuff, although it doesn't sound as fun as the other stuff. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Optional question from Konstable
7. Just related to your views on *fDs, I would like to ask a more general open-ended question. What are your views on consensus in general, and on using voting to reach agreement?--Konstable 06:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is really whether the majority of Wikipedia users thnk it would be good to delete the article. This isn't necessarily 50%, not necessarily 70%, not necessarily 99%, but whether there is a general feeling one way or another. If, as an admin, I can determine that most of the users, that, in general, the community as a whole, thinks it would be good for the wiki to delete an article or whatever else, then that's consensus, and I delete. If it's foggy, or if people generally want to keep it around, then there's no consensus, and I let it stay. As far as voting goes, it's not the perfect consensus-or-not-indicator, but it works pretty well. I know that generally the consensus-determining-level is ~70%, and that it probably where I would generally draw the line also. Of coure, admins must use common sense, yet not particularly favor their POV when deciding. I would probably attempt to stay out of XfDs that I had a personal opinion on one way or another, but I'm sure I could make a fair judgement regardless. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Support

  1. Merovingian - Talk 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nominator support. Goes without saying, of course. More than meets my criteria, and I truly believe he would be productive with the tools. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. third here suuport, ha! -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. Michael 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support A very civil user who is well versed in Wikipedia policies. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support, great editor, very civil and experienced--TBCTaLk?!? 09:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Looks good to me. Tango Alpha Foxtrot 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. 2 months since the last time, and there were no major concerns then other than "not enough experience"? Now you have 2 months more experience. -- RM 12:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Just for clarification for others, it's actually been three months since the previous RfA, which ended June 1st. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    One day I'll learn to count. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support :) Dlohcierekim 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Meets my criteria as well. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support A strong application and a good demonstration of a range of admin skills, especially the judgement shown in the mentoring exercise. (aeropagitica) 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support – I haven't actually seen you around before (not that I remember, anyway) but you seem like a good user to me. — FireFox (talk) 15:21, 05 September 2006
  13. Support -Terence Ong (T | C) 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong support. Based on the chess game we played, and a quick review of his contributions, I find Zapptastic to be a fine Wikipedian, and a good sysop candidate, even if he is a bit young (but we have plenty of sysops around his age, I think). His csd exercise with EWS23 shows knowledge of Wikipedia policies, and I think he has improved (mainly in terms of experience) since his previous (first) rfa as Zappa.jake. I hope he is approved by the community, as he will make good use of administrative tools. Picaroon9288•talk 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per nom. _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 02:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support meets my standards, just remember that WP:SNOW is to be used sparingly.-- danntm T C 00:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support Agree with the "Support" consensus. ---Ncrown23334
  20. Support, on the borderline of experience but answer to #4 suggests he has a decent head on his shoulders and would be capable of employing some common sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  21. Weak support. Not a big fan of using WP:SNOW to speedy delete articles, but otherwise looks fine. A bit more experience in XfD would get rid of the "weak" next time around if this RfA fails. BryanG(talk) 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Support. He'll do fine. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, I forgot I voted twice... :( . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 16:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  22. Weak support. As others have mentioned, WP:SNOW for speedy delete seems a bit shaky, but I think we can trust this candidate with the tools.--Konstable 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. Weak support. Trustable and good answers, + per BryanG. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. He seems to have a very good grasp on policy, though I agree with others that WP:SNOW should be used sparingly, if at all, in the speedy deletion process. -- DS1953 talk 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose: Sorry Zapp, but ~15 AFDs isn't really enough experience for me in that department. It's also great that you've started to post on WP:ANI, but you should also show a willingness to investigate incidents initiated by other editors instead of just reporting your own encounters. Apart from those issues, I'm willing to support a future RFA. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I will agree with you that I don't have a bunch of quantitative edits there, but I do think that I have a good understanding of the process, what happens, and what criteria for deletion are. And I really do have a lot of experience with deletion, just not at AfD - with speedys while on newpage patrol. You may want to check out my db excercise that Eric gave me during admin coaching, if you doubt at all my ability to judge speedy deletions. Regarding editing at ANI, I really haven't experienced a whole lot of need to report stuff there. It's happened before, and when I've needed to post there, I did. However, that just hasn't happened a lot. Sorry, I just can't see why you want me to post on a page when there is really no need. If you would like me to post some diffs of the few times I have needed help there, I can find those for you. As an admin, I guarantee you I will be spending a lot more time there. -Zapptastic (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, sorry, now I get what you were trying to say. I guess I'm willing to help out there when needed, as an admin or not, but I guess most stuff there really only needs the help of an admin - that's why it's the administrator's noteboard, not the regular user's noteboard. As far as helping out other users, I think I've done a lot of that, mainly helping out new users. Hope I've changed your opinion of me, Zapptastic (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Your db coaching link is dead so I can't see it right now. As for WP:ANI, I know there's a hesitancy for non-admins to contribute, but I myself started reading the reports there before being an admin so I could keep track of long-term abusers, and note that there's always cases being reported there that need investigation or mediation rather than blocks (which can always be recommended and acted upon by others). --  Netsnipe  ►  06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, here it is. Looks like I typo'ed when making the page. D'oh! Thanks, Zapptastic (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I'm convinced that you can handle obvious deletions, but I just don't have any real idea on how you handle researching borderline cases. So it's only a weak oppose. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    Same way I've handled them in the past - AfD. (Let me explain.) In the few cases where I have encountered borderline cases, I have used AfD. However, because the vast majority of my being involved with deletions is regarding obvious speedys, I haven't used AfD a lot. As an admin, I will, if I encounter a borderline case I'm unsure about, send it to AfD to see what other people think. Hope this helps, Zapptastic (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I was referring to how I just don't know how well you research and conduct yourself in AFDs. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. OPPOSE; according to edit statistics, user has only given 69 user warnings indicating lack of vandal-fighting experience, mainly only participating in CSD and not AfD shows they aren't that experienced in the entire deletion scene. Also spamming users talk pages in last RfA[16](13 of these). Edit count seems rather inflated from welcoming new users at very high speeds (8+ welcomes a minute)[17] and playing games. Not providing image sources[18]. I won't go on any longer, but I feel the user is best as an editor for now.--Andeh 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    I did not spam user talk pages during my last RfA - that was ShortJason, a new user at the time, attempting to help me out. He went around to different users I had worked with in the past, (people that had left messages at my talk pages), and let them know that I had an RfA going on. I did not ask him to do this, nor did I approve it. I did not know about his going-ons until he had posted those 13. I then went around to those user's talk pages, apoligizing for his behavior, and letting those users know that I did not approve of it. I appreciated him trying to help, but I realize it was an unacceptable action. I asked him to stop, and he did. He also ended up doing this for a couple other users. He eventually wrote an essay on the matter which grew into a large discussion - his proposal was ultimately rejected. While, yes, may of my edits are from welcoming new users and playing chess games, I don't see a problem with that - it strengthens sense of community with users I'm playing with, and it helps new Wikipedians figure things out - something that I don't see as inflation, but just as important as other edits. I do accept your criticism regarding my lack of AfD experience and lack of vandal warnings. I've just become a large vandal fighter in the last month or so, but I do do that regularly now when I see a vandal. I also promise to become more active at AfD. Thanks, 24.118.255.136 20:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Zapptastic (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, public computer.
    Sorry, but I get the impression the main difference since your last RfA is you've got a huge edit count from welcoming new users on a mass scale, instead of gaining the experience in the deletion scene and vandalism workings. And you did spam users talk pages, was such a long message really necessary? -
    I apologize for ShortJason's advertising. Normally most people consider it unacceptable to advertise RfAs (Requests for Adminship) on people's talk pages. I have asked him to stop. Regardless, now that it's here, if you do wish to vote, do so here. Sorry, zappa.jake (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    Surely you could've just posted a note on the RfA itself instead of re-spamming the users? Sorry, but edit count/time doesn't automatically equal experience.--Andeh 12:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    I wanted to make a personal apology to those users - I didn't want them thinking it was me who was going that. Is two lines really too long? (I'm using a low resolution screen, also.) -Zapptastic (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    I haven't decided which way to vote, yet, but for my part, I appreciated a personal apology from Zappa about the unrequested solicitation.--Josh Rocchio 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Despite the high edit count there appear to be too few substantive edits on articles for the editor to have got a sense of what Wikipedia is about, which I believe is key for the deletion side of adminship. Espresso Addict 11:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    If you'd like, I can provide some more diffs of substantive mainspace edits other than the ones Eric's provided in the nomination. How many would you like? -Zapptastic (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing this information for review. I'm afraid I stick with my opinion; most of these revisions, whilst positive, are on the minor side. Espresso Addict 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Few AfDs, relatively-low wikispace edits, and tricky answer to Question 4 all suggest candidate is a bit inexperienced in wiki-process. Speedy deleting per WP:SNOW maybe isn't totally evil, but it isn't something an RfA candidate should be thinking about before getting the mop. Xoloz 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    I don't understand how my answer to Q4 was "tricky" - please elaborate so I can clear things up for you. Also, I'm not thinking about deleting via SNOWBALL until at least a couple months into my adminship, possibly more. -Zapptastic (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose somewhat per Xoloz and somewhat per my general impression of the user. Sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Xoloz and Andeh. I'm concerned about the low *fD experience and snowball comments in Q4. As mentioned above, he was notified yesterday that Image:Northstar Commuter Coach.jpg did not list a source; the edit he responded with is imprecise, does not name the copyright holder, and does not convince me that that we can consider the image licensed under the GFDL. He's good editor, but right now there are still too many signs of inexperience for my comfort. ×Meegs 06:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Xoloz. Too few Wikipedia space edits. Participate more in AfD's and I'd change my mind. --Nishkid64 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Oppose per Netsnipe and Espresso Addict. At first blush this candidate looks ready for the mop, but on further investigation, including the examples given by the nominee, I was quite underwhelmed and did not see what I expected to see. While I believe this person may be trusted with the mop, I'm not quite convinced of the need or the ability to use it. Agent 86 22:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Oppose Zapptastic has limited experience in what the areas in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. That, plus the fact that I'm also a bit leery of those wanting using WP:SNOW to circumvent an AfD if CSD doesn't apply, leads me to believe that I'm not ready to support at this time. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Just as a comment, Zapptastic actually has extensive experience in the primary area in which he wants to apply the administrative tools. He is a new page patroller, and has used CSD criteria extensively in what he does. The funny thing about new page patrollers is that if you're good at tagging CSDs, your contributions will show very little of it because you correctly tagged the article and it was deleted. In addition, anyone who has a lot of experience with new pages and CSD knows that there are times when WP:SNOW applies because there are pages that don't explicitly meet CSD, but clearly fall under WP:NOT or other sub-guidelines. I hope people won't use his honest argument against him that sometimes using common sense is the best call. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sure thing EWS23, a good comment. To clarify, I am speaking not towards his abilities to clear the CSD backlog, but to his vandalism reversion and *fD experience. I understand what you're saying about the snowball clause, but it's just an essay and I've opinions on how it should and shouldn't be used/enforced. I hope that I am not giving off the impression for attempting to use something against the candidate, for I appreciate and respect all the work he's done. Per alphaChimp, I'm changing my opposition to a weak one, for his good work on Wikipedia should not go unnoticed or unfactored in my opinion hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response/clarification, Hoopydink. The above comment was as much a general comment to everyone as it was to you, and I hope other people who choose to participate in this RfA will read it. We certainly appreciate your opinions and conscientious statements. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose As much as I hate doing this, I'm a bit fearful that you don't have enough experience. It's good to let the deletion process run its course. It's possible that a lot of work was invested in the article proposed for deletion. Please don't take this RfA as a blow against you personally. You are a great wikipedian and have a lot to offer this project, just not as an admin right now. alphaChimp(talk) 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose per Hoopydink and Andeh.--Guinnog 11:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Xoloz - I'd like to seem more experience in the areas directly related to maintaining/writing an encyclopedia, which at the end of the day is what the mop is for. TewfikTalk 03:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak oppose I supported the first RfA but was disconcerted by a few issues that arose there, mostly apropos of the user's judgment relative to speedy deletions but also with respect to deficiencies in articles he adduced as representing his best work (for which deficiencies, of course, no one editor is solely—or even jointly—responsible); because I've not found anything here to assuage my abiding concerns, I must oppose per Xoloz and consistent with my RfA guidelines. Joe 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

My sense from a survey of contributions is that the candidate spends a lot of time engaging in social activities (playing games, welcoming users). It's difficult to plow through this to find contributions that would indicate a grasp of Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to consider supporting if the candidate (or anyone) could point me to some more articles to which the candidate has made substantial, high quality contributions. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'll start a list of diffs showing substantial work in the mainspace. I should have that within 18 hours. -Zapptastic (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. I ask you to please take a look at my updated answer to question two - I think it will quell your concerns. -Zapptastic (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved to support. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Falls well below my standard of at least 200 article-talk edits. Themindset 16:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Sorry, Zappa. I felt like I was a massive jerk to you on your previous RfA. However, the comments about speedily deleting per WP:SNOW is not a good idea for anyone to use, even for experienced admins. The rationale for speedy deletion is for blantantly obvious cases where an admin can act without needing a consensus of any kind. However, on anything that appears to be boderline, anything could happen if an editor saw the article. We can't always be sure, trust me, I've been listed on DRV four times, I need to be careful, myself. I think you would be a good admin, but in good time. Yanksox 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I don't have enough of an impression of this user to rate him. Scobell302 00:38, 10 September 2006 (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.