Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fribbler

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

Fribbler

Final 56/14/4, Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 17:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Fribbler (talk · contribs) – Greetings fellow wikipedians! I would like to nominate myself for administrative tools access. I've been a wikipedia contributor since July 2007 and an active participant since April 2008. During that time I've enjoying adding my contributions to many different areas of the encycopaedia. I have considered running the gauntlet of RfA for some time, but due to an extensive travel schedule over the last half year, decided to wait until I had sufficient time to do my nomination justice. As the issue is sometimes raised in RfA discussions, I am in my late 20s and work in the Medical field. (And worked for seven years as a cleaner part-time to fund my studies so I know my way round with a mop and bucket ;-) ) Fribbler (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-Nomination

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Speedy Deletion primarily. It is the only thing that I find frustrates me; a long backlog of articles eminently eligible for the bin, this becomes problematic if this includes attack articles or blatantly ludicrous hoaxes. I would also be interested in granting Rollback to those who qualify.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I spend a lot of time contributing to the reference desk, and I would hope that many questions have been answered which have helped to correct and improve articles. I have also created 5 DYK-qualifying articles on subjects that interest me. I've also rescued a few articles from the chops such as Omar Al Issawi and helped to wikify and reference articles appearing on the New Pages list. The task of finding reliable sources is a penchant of mine, tying in as it does with my Reference desk work.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have not been involved in any conflicts that have flared up, as far as I remember. I would not shy away from correcting bad behaviour, but nor would I seek to make a disagreement worse.

Additional question from decltype

4. Could you select a page currently in CAT:CSD and explain why it does not qualify for speedy deletion under the criterion it is tagged with?

A:Jason Schmidt (photographer) has been tagged with A7: no assertion of notability. However, the article describes a man who has had his work published in several major publications, and who has produced a book. General and specific notability guidelines aside; an assertion of notability has been made.

Additional question from A new name 2008

5. In your answer to Question 4 above you stated that Jason Schmidt (photographer) did not meet the A7 criteria. Could you explain why when you found the article you did not remove the CSD tag?

A:Initially I left it so as people could see an incorrectly tagged CSD "as is/in the wild". Partly I believed it to be a bit of a conflict of interest to remove a CSD tag from an article that I was using as an example of an incorrectly tagged article. It would presume I was correct; the wrong attitude to take when I'm being evaluated.

I was actually considering whether I should mention this in my question, but I felt that would change it from a question into an exercise, and I don't think one should hand out exercises to RfA candidates. decltype (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Amorymeltzer

6. You said that CSD is an area where you would work should you be given the sysop bit. Can you name an aspect or two of an administrator's potential workload you know very little about and would be one of the first things you'd research, should this go your way?

A:Absolutely! Image policy is an area I have poor knowledge of. So much so that all my articles use my own images or ones that I am sure are free. I would study the image policy meticulously before entering that arena; be it File CSD or Images for Deletion. I admit to being weak on the Fair-use policy etc.

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

7. Since you intend to work at CSD, in your own words, what is the difference between no context and no content?

A:"No Content" is a page that can't quite be called an article since it contains nothing but a link, for example, or text that gives no new information to the reader e.g. "Jumpy Kangaroos are Kangaroos that jump.". No context however, is an article in which the reader can't identify the subject. e.g. "Eggs Sample is often red and always tasty. Sample is great at archery.". While providing "information" on the subject, the reader would be at pains to identify what the article refers to.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A:If an article meets the General notability guidelines, then I welcome it's inclusion, without exception. In addition, I believe some hard-science topics such as those in Genes on chromosome 7 should not have to be the subject of significant coverage. Verifiability should be the standard for important encyclopaedic subject.

9. Would you support a CSD criteria for "madeup" articles? Why or why not? (Again I'm more interested in you thought process than which side you land on.)

A:I can see arguments for both views. I have come across articles such as a new board game in which the article specifically and unequivocally states that it was just created today at school by two friends. At present there is no suitable criterion under which it would be "CSDed". A new criterion to complement A7 could be helpful, but it would have to be applied strictly to those articles which make no assertion of notability; much like a person, company or website at present under A7. The wording of any new criterion would take time to construct in order to avoid incorrectly tagging viable articles.

10. I looked through your deleted contributions and I noticed several made up/neologism type articles that you'd marked for speedy deletion as G3. For the most part, the reviewing admin agreed and deleted the article. However, I am unconvinced that several of them were really vandalism as opposed to good faith attempts to right about some non-notable "invention." (I can supply examples if you want, but its not really relevant to my question.) Please explain how you go about determining if something that sounds made up is vandalism or not.

A: Neologisms go to AFD/get PRODded by default. However, sometimes a neologism is more vandalism that "madeup". Sometimes a neologism is a micro-thinly-veiled joke (rather than hoax) article, or something which is close, but not quite, an attack page.

11. As an admin doing new page patrol, what is the minimum amount of time you would let an A7 candidate sit before deleting it? I.E., would you delete "Joe Smith is physics professor" on sight or would you give it a chance to develop?

A: Certainly not on sight. People should be able to write an article over a reasonable time-period. The amount of time one should leave the article would depend on the exact contents. After allowing reasonable time for expansion, I would do what I do now; "get my Google-on" and see what references and coverage I can find. Only at that point would I delete.

General comments

• Links for Fribbler: Fribbler (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Fribbler can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. Plastikspork (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Prodego ^talk 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Oh, why not. You're slightly inactive for my tastes, but you seem to know what you are doing. I was tempted to oppose per edit count, but perhaps my standards have simply grown too high. 4000 edits, several DYKs, good CSD knowledge, ref desk work, etc. would have been fine for me last year; I don't know why I'm so skeptical now. NW (Talk) 18:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. While you are a bit inactive, I can see that you are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to do a good job as an administrator. Your work at the reference desks and the help desk looks good, and like NuclearWarfare said, you would have passed an RfA using standards from a year ago (probably more like a year and a half, but you get the drift). Your answer to the fourth question was good and it shows that you understand A7 much better than most (the whole "assertion" deal throws them off for some reason). Therefore, I can't do much less than support you. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Support You have a clean block log and a nice combination of article building and janitorial work. I don't think that adminship should be restricted to those who edit here daily, so the fact that you've taken quite a time to get to four thousand edits is OK by me. I trust Balloonman's judgment of your CSD nominations and I liked the answer to q4, but weak because your answer q1 left me concerned that you might be tempted to stretch the boundaries of CSD and delete stuff that would be bound to fail AFD even if it didn't really qualify under CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   I was actually kind of expecting people to support based upon my oppose for just that reason ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Support per NW—4000, DYK work, CSD's ok, ref desk = okay for me. Cheers, —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, overall I like what I see, with a nice variety of smart contributions. Certainly more regular activity would reassure me further, but I've seen nothing to suggest your somewhat sparse contributions result in being out of touch. Best of luck. ~ mazca ^talk 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support; nothing to suggest user would misuse the tools, therefore I support. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Moved to support per the good CSD and DYK work. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
9. iMatthew ^talk at 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Not concerned about activity levels. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Weak Support Slightly inactive, but contributions seem good to me. Good luck :) Aaroncrick (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
12. My question was actually made in response to Q1, which seemed to imply that everything in CAT:CSD should be deleted on sight. Your answer was good, except that A7 is not about notability but an indication of importance or significance, a lower standard than notability. You seem to understand the distinction even if your wording wasn't spot on. As for your other CSD work, apart from the taggings pointed out by Balloonman, there were a few more I wasn't happy about, but overall it seemed good. Lastly, you do not seem to have had anything but positive interactions with other users. I think you will make a good administrator. Regards, decltype (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Your policy knowledge is fine and you seem to have enough experience, so the inactivity doesn't concern me. Timmeh (review me) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Wish he had more experience, but clearly would be a net positive as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I am not without concern, basically per the inestimable Balloonman (although the candidate's response to Bm reassures, evidencing fine thinking generally, an appreciation for the presumption against speedy deletion specifically, and, quite significantly, an inclination to be circumspect in using the tools, especially at the outset) but I find that the candidate's record is sufficient, if just, to provide a basis on which to rest the finding that he possesses the sound judgment, deliberative temperament, civil demeanor, and conversance with policy and practice that one hopes to find in a prospective admin, and so I can conclude with the bare requisite degree of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Clear, correct answers above, and your contrib history shows wide-ranging, methodical, undramatic work to improve Wikipedia. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Fine work; no problems here. As I've said on many occasions, inactivity does not mean that the user is bad. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
19. Support We need more good CSD taggers who aren't afraid to make tough calls. Nothing here gives me any pause. Good to have an expert look at medical articles/debates too. Shadowjams (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Support How active a candidate is has no weight on my decision. If the user is trustworthy, he/she can have adminship. I don't think that Fribbler will abuse the tools. hmwitht 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Good enough for me. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support: why not.. South Bay (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support Collegial. Respectful. Seems to be quite reasonable. I don't see anything to cause concern. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Support No problems here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
28. The contribs create an impression of someone who is hardworking, mature, intelligent, and here for the right reasons, with expert knowledge to contribute. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Helpful, fair-, open-, and encyclopedia-minded editor, in my experience. Absolutely trustworthy. I don't see low or irregular activity as a problem, on the contrary: it could indicate a lower risk of burning out while performing the thankless duty of adminship. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good to me. (unsigned by user:Res2216firestar)
31. Support Thoughtful responses to questions. Good track record. No cause at all for concern. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I think you definitely need to be more active to be an effective sysop, and I hope success in this RfA will spur some activity. Your RD work is very impressive, and I think you'll do great with the tools. All in all I have very high hopes! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support, and don't listen to the people who tell you you need to be "more active". Do what you can for Wikipedia, when you enjoy doing it, and don't get pressured into burning out. rspεεr (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good luck. No issues. America69 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Good luck with the tools... You obviously have knowledge in CSD. SparksBoy (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Weak Support Keepscases (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Tan | 39 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Low activity is more than counterbalanced by mature, self-aware attitude evidenced in statements like this.[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, a sensible person who only occasionally uses the tools is still an asset... Fribbler seems sensible enough to me, so I have to support. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC).
40. Support You seem to be active in the needed areas. The fact that you've overcome great odds to edit this is also a plus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per reasoned answers to questions and level-headedness. I see no reason to oppose at all. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, I am convinced that the candidate has good motives for seeking the administrator privileges. Further, his collection of work indicates that there is no significant reason to oppose. --Matheuler 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I've come across Fribbler on a couple of occasions recently and contributions have been level-headed. This combined with a clean block log gives me every indication that the candidate deserves adminship. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Support, seems to have enough time, the needed skills and the drive to do what is needed. Jamesofur (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I feel he has enough experience based on the accuracy of his CSD tagging to be a capable administrator. If this RfA is successful (and it looks like it will be within at least the discretionary area), I would recommend you take it slow at first with admin tasks other than CSD, but I have no doubt you will be as excellent at that as an admin as you are currently. Also, I'd like to compliment you on your excellent answers to the questions. Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - while I respect the concerns below, I don't see sufficient cause for me to oppose. --B (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Seems to be clueful and knowledgeable. Would recommend that the candidate start out slowly to get a feel for the tools. Good luck! GlassCobra 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Weak support – looking briefly at the mainspace contribs, the user definitely has some sort of clue, even though I would have liked to see more individual content building. However, that's not a sure reason for me personally to oppose. I also get a good indication that the user does a good job with CSD. MuZemike 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Having someone help with CSDs would be helpful, I see nothing to disqualify you as an admin, and your answers to questions are well-put. -- Atama^chat 00:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Weak support. Not very active, but I don't really see anything wrong so I'll take a gamble. Wizardman 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
51. Acalamari 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I see periods of limited activity as no big deal. Looks like good CSD work from here, and I think the user seems trustworthy. Cool3 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Yes, Fribbler looks trustworthy and is doing some good work so should grow into the role. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
54. Support per Wizardman. I would like to see a little more activity, but that alone does not warrant an oppose. LittleMountain5 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
55. Support as per Little Mountain 5. GoldDragon (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

#Weak oppose - You meet most of my criteria, though your inactivity tips me to oppose - according to WikiChecker, on most of the days in the past two months you either had few or no edits. Once you become slightly more active, I will likely support. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be wary of a candidate with such a potted contribution history too. Allow me to clarify: I was travelling in rural Ukraine and Poland at the time with no internet access. The active days represent trips to Internet cafes in larger centres such as Lviv and Rzeszow. I have since returned home, with no major "outings" planned. Fribbler (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have struck my oppose and will reconsider my !vote. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose The good: Your CSD work is definitely above average. You might want to reveiw WP:NONSENSE as you've mistagged a few articles as G1 when they weren't (but in both cases they needed to be deleted.) You might also want to review WP:WIHSD. I also liked the fact that you help out at the help desk/reference desk. The bad: Over the past nine months there have only been 3 months where you've made 100 edits---and you used twinkle to do so! I can appreciate the fact that you might have been travelling, but the fact that you have such a sparse edit history for the most recent nine months and what you do have is mostly cosmetics, I can't support at this time. It's not a matter of not enough edits, but rather not enough subsinative edits to let me assess your temperament and knowledge of wikipedia. For example, looking at your last 250 talk page edits, I would estimate that 90%+ are templates via Twinkle or Friendly. Since January 1, you've made a total of 10 edits to wikipedia talk space, and 5 were to one RfA. Most of your communication is in the form of templates and via automated tools, which considering how little you've edited over the past 9 months makes it hard to assess. And for a person with the explicit desire to work at CSD, there is surprisingly little input at AFD. Give us a few months of solid edit history and I strongly suspect that your RfA will fly through. What I see I like, unfortunately, there just isn't enough to make a valid assessment.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Just a small comment: I count 10 months where he has made over 100 edits.[2] NW (Talk) 18:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Six of the past nine months he has not (Dec - 64 edits, Jan - 61 edits, feb 64 edits, apr - 19 edits, and july 34 edits.) In only 3 of the past 9 did he have more than 100 edits, and that is with a heavy usage of Friendly/Twinkle.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, my apologies, I missed the "Over the past nine months" part. NW (Talk) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Would you mind giving a few examples here or on the talk? It's not that I don't trust you, it's just that I'm lazy. decltype (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   A few examples of what?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   Mistaggings. decltype (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

   The only two items that were mistagged were two G1 items... one should have been tagged G3 as it was clearly vandalism, but it was coherent vandalism. The other should have been tagged for lack of content as was just a word. Again, his CSD work is DEFINITELY above average and I would not oppose him on that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose: I think that his edits show that he doesn't have enough experience. He isn't that active and most of his edits are automated. Joe Chill (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. You do some very good work around the project - namely CSD taggings. However, I must agree with the above opposes that you don't have enough experience in interacting with other users or edits in the Wikipedia namespace. Not only that, a significant portion of your edits are all automated which indeed, does not give me an adequate assessment of your knowledge of policy and whatnot. A few months more experience and a more personal level of interaction with other users wouldn't hurt. Hope to see you here again in several months if this rfa doesn't pass. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Maybe if you had waited one more month I would support. WP:NOTNOW--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Not yet. Firstly there's the ambition to work in CSD; I think of all the areas of Wikipedia, that's the one that requires the most care. Even a small number of recent mistaggings is enough to give me pause. Secondly, there's content contributions, and while I appreciate Polish minority in Ireland as a workmanlike basic article, there's really not very many other examples. Now, I've often said that adminship shouldn't be an award for prolific content creators, and I also think process-focused people tend to have more need for the tools than content-focused ones, but, I think at least a basic grounding in article creation has to be a prerequisite for someone who's working in CSD. If you decide on another RFA later, I'll be looking for a few more articles of your own and a near-flawless recent tagging record.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   As much as I hate to reply to opposses: I don't want to be a "badger", but I must comment; The polish minority article was the easiest to write. My Thomas Duff article involved 3 trips to the local Refereence library to uncover Victorian newspapers; and the article about Thomas Clarendon; an important "state architect" of the victorian era, required trips to the state archives in Dublin. They may be short, but genuine effort was there. Fribbler (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   I've no doubt whatsoever of the effort involved!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks S.Marshall! My contributions mean more than the RfA. Fribbler (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose Per Balloonman, would like to see a bit more interaction with other editors. Dean B (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per Balloonman. BrianY (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
8. OpposePer Balloonman. I seem to be late to RFA's now. I wonder why?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Per Balloonman. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

   You four are starting to scare me... --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose not consistently active enough, and the lack of experience will lead to possible errors. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - I judge RfA candidates on three criteria: their commitment to Wikipedia/experience, their clue level, and their interaction with other users. While I see no major issues in any area, Fribbler's relative inactivity is bothersome. Additionally, the answers to the questions were accurate but failed to demonstrate an understanding of why policy is the way it is. I don't doubt his intelligence, nor has he made any serious errors in the past. However, the culture and expectations of Wikipedia change over time and I don't see someone of his activity level being aware of the changing cultural standards. That relative inactivity combined with a desire to work in speedy deletion causes me to oppose. Practically speaking, there are nearly no checks and balances on an admin's speedy deletions. A bad speedy can scare away a potential contributor and it just isn't worth the risk giving that ability to someone who has so little use of the tools anyway. (I.e., because he won't be around that often). --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry I couldn't reassure you. I thought about the point of missing policy changes or changes in the application of existing policies ("Common law" policy I suppose) before you brought it up. I would contend that while my edit count is plodding, I have never been "absent" (in terms of edits) for more than a day or two. And even then, I'm an everyday reader. As such I would prefer to think of myself not as "inactive", but rather as "not prolific". I will never be the 100 edits a day kind of user; my lifestyle precludes this. However, the chances of me disappearing for a few months then returning after a change in policy and going on a deleting spree are very low/nil; barring a prison term ;-). Fribbler (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Balloonman's cited inactivity. I think that while sticklers can debate G1 vs. G3 taggings - the result is the same, so I don't see a significant problem of mistagging. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - Partly because of the rationales provided by Balloonman. Also, while such heavy participation at the various reference desks shows diligence and competence, it is rather removed from any direct involvement in building an encyclopedia or gaining the pivotal experience for handling future admin tasks. Based on your answer to question 1, I recommend coming back in a few months of increased activity in the deletion area so that it is easier to assess your edits. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

    OpposeI feel this user is a little inexperienced in the way of the wiki, and I feel admins should have a higher level of involvment. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) on second thoughts moving to support.Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

14. Per Balloonman. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral You are clearly an asset to Wikipedia, but there is very little evidence that demonstrates how you will interact with other users and resolve problems as an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Switched to weak support. Keepscases (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Your answer to Question 5 is a bit troubling to me. Your first reason for leaving it is not a good idea. An admin possibly could have come along, not looked closely and deleted it. Other editor’s don't need to see it "in the wild". They could look in the history and see if they agreed with your assessment. Your second reason makes it appear you do not want to look bad while being evaluated. Nothing bad comes from removing a CSD tag that you believe is wrong. You say you are ready to make the decision as to whether that article should be deleted or not, but when given the opportunity to take a stand and do what you believe to be the right thing, you don’t. Since you didn't stand up for what you thought was right when people are watching, it makes me question if you will stand up for what you think is right when people aren't watching as close. This isn't enough for me to oppose but I am not sure you are ready. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral per Keepscases. If positive behavior continues to be exhibited in the next few months, then I'd be happy to support a second RfA. One two three... 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Definitely a suitable candidate, but spend some more time learning about different nooks and crannies of Wikipedia. —harej (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral May well do just fine if this passes, but a couple of things keep me from supporting. The answers to question 4 and 11 make me wonder if Fribbler understands that A7 uses the lower standard of importance rather than notability. Normally that would put me in the oppose column, but the actual CSD tagging seems good. Also, I'm not seeing a lot of non-automated communication with other editors. The little I see is good, but I'm not getting a feel for how Fribbler handles frustrated editors, which you encounter every time you pull out the mop.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:53, 12 August 2009 (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.