Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Poeloq 2

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

Poeloq

Final (50/12/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Poeloq (talk · contribs) - After my first self-nomination failed and I had got some good feedback, I decided to act on it and improve on some of the areas mentioned, for example participation in the project namespace. I believe I have come a long way since then and have been successfully vandal fighting for quite some time now (just over 100 reports to AIV) and have also done editing work in other areas. Apart from my online participation I decided to organize London Wikipedia Meetups, which I believe to have been a great success and the next one is just a few days away. I believe I would be a good admin and that me being able to use the tools will benefit the project. Poeloq (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have been mainly involved in vandalfighting, I will be checking AIV regularly and trying to keep the worst of the worst vandals as soon as possible - letting them cool down a little and think about what they have done ;-) I also take an interest in Speedy Deletions and other areas and am sure you will be able to spot me doing this, that and everything.

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

A: Keeping Wikipedia a little tidier. I also try and improve many articles by verifying and sourcing statements, dates and other facts as well as adding infoboxes where appropriate. All this together, additionally to the articles I have created, make up my contribution and I wouldn't want to say which one is "the best". However, organizing the London Wikipedia meeting was fun and rewarding and it was nice to get together with likeminded people, maybe that is my best contribution to the community so far.

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 been in some heated debates, but I believe that I always remain civil and calm. I don't take my online stress back into the real world and vice-versa and can understand that some people are here to just make trouble and annoy others. My general rule here is: ignore and move along. However, I also assume good faith at all times - which makes life here a lot easier.

4. How do you pronounce "Poeloq"? (just curious as it could be interpreted as a lightbulb joke waiting to happen...) — CharlotteWebb 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A: Sadly, I have no grasp of IPA, so it is kind of hard to explain how to pronounce Poeloq. However, I originally spelled it with the German Umlaut ö, rendering it as Pöloq. Maybe that makes more sense, however could you explain "the joke in waiting on my talk page :) Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

4.5 How many Poeloqs does it take to screw in a lightbulb? — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAO... that is so politically incorrect that it's not even funny... or maybe that's why it is funny?Balloonman (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Do you feel that your lack of edits to other areas in the Wikipedia namespace apart from AIV, may affect your judgement? Rudget. 15:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A: It depends on what I am supposed to judge on - I'm not going to go power hungry and try and take on the role of an universal admin that works in all areas. Basically, I am going to be sticking to areas I am familiar with until I have enough experience in others to use the tools and rights granted by the community. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

6. Per WP:CDB, "cool down blocks" should never be used. Ignoring for argument's sake that this is policy, do you think "cool down blocks" could be useful in any circumstances? If so, what kind of circumstances?

A: A cool down block as per WP:CDB is not very useful in my opinion. I used the words "cool down" in my initial statement in a different meaning, specifically to vandals that have been warned several times, received a final warning and were reported to AIV. An angry user should not be blocked, unless he has been warned for disrupting pages and here the same rules apply as to any other block. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

7 How do you distinguish between a "content dispute" and an "edit war"?

A: A content dispute arises when two or more editors have a dispute about the content of one, or sometimes several, article. Ideally, these editors would go to the talk page of the article and discuss this with the help of other editors (3rd opinion) and then try and reach a consensus - a very important element in Wikipedia. However, some editor seem to think that by reverting the disputed editors of the other editor(s) they will win the content dispute without a healthy discussion and resulting discussion. If the other editor decides to take the same tactic, i.e the brute force method of reverting, a edit war has started. Edit warring is prohibited by policy (see Wikipedia:Edit_war and is supported by other policies such as WP:3RR. Several places exist to help in resolving disputes, and a good starting point is obviously WP:DR. Poeloq (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Would you ever intervene proactively in one of the above without trying to understand the intellectual or ideological origins of the disagreement?

A: If by proactively you mean blocking, only if rules such as WP:3RR have been ignored and this then makes a block necessary. Otherwise I would try and solve the problem by pointing out the problem on the users talk pages and seeing if it can be resolved in such a manner. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

9. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A: Good question, however not quite sure how it makes it easier to judge my ability to use the tools in an appropriate manner ;). Still, if I could change one thing it would probably be the standardization of infoboxes (size, layout, parameters...), making it neater and easier to evolve into a semantic web in the future. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

10. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?

A: I must admit, I am not a big fan of IAR, but only because it is misused by a small core of editors in discussions on AfD and similar discussion pages. Otherwise, of course it is correct: anything that will improve the project is a good thing. The snowball clause only applies if the discussion is obviously going in one direction only and it isn't going to change, this is not just a question of numbers (1 vs 100 or similar), but also a question of the arguments used. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A: In my introductionary paragraph I mentioned that I try and not become stressed on Wikipedia. However, if I should ever become stressed and start banging my keyboard furiously, I would not long until I drag myself away and read a good book and voluntarily cool down. Never hurt the project, a simple rule I follow.

12. Do you consider the amount of questions potential admins are asked excessive? (Asking this since there's been some negative sentiments over the amount of questions that RfA candidates are requested to answer.)

A: Possibly, however somebody who is wanting to become an admin should be able to take the time to sit down and answer the questions to him once. It shows dedication and willingness to think about points raised by other editors. Poeloq (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Keeper:

13. Do you find question twelve to be ironic, and if so, do you find this follow up question to be pointy? </bad humor>

A: No comment ;-) Poeloq (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

14. You're NC patrolling and a user reverts a typo correction. You revert this user's 'bad edit' (keeping in mind WP:AGF) and give the user with a vandalism1 note. However, the typo corrector spots the user reverting your reversion and reverts the vandalism (still with me!?) and finally breaks WP:3RR. Would you block the typo corrector in this situation? Why or why not? Littleteddy (roar!) 10:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A: Is this a trick question? First of all, I presume you mean RC patrolling, as patrolling naming conventions doesn't sound that exciting ;-) Secondly, as far as I can see the user (in your description) doesn't break WP:3RR. He only reverts once, not three times in 24 hours. However, if your meaning was that this goes on and on during the day (pingpong style) and 3RR is broken, I would not immediately block the user if a) the typo is obvious and is not a regional spelling and therefore b) reverting the typo correction is vandalism (as you said). However, is reverting back to typos simple and clear vandalism, which is one of the cases where 3RR can be forgotten, or not? I'm not sure, which is why the user should be warned and if it happens again, one might have to block.Poeloq (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Majorly

15. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. How do define irrelevant? If they are irrelevant in being able to decide if the candidate at hand can be trusted with the tools, then yes they are stupid. Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

16. Why do you think that?

A. Because not only will it cost the candidate time to answer them, but it will also make it more time-consuming but not more beneficial for other editors to make up their mind. I think, in the long run, this will discourage participation of many editors in RfAs - who wants to read page upon page of irrelevant questions? Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

17. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. No, I don't. If I did I wuld not strive to not ever edit the Violin article. Why? This question is trying to determine my knowledge of Conflict of Interest and Neutral Point of View policy - of which I believe to have quite a bit.

It's quite simple really: The main point in WP:COI is "Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". If I play the violin and edit the article, will I become a better violin player? No, so in my opinion a COI is not present here. Will I be writting that the violin is the most amazing sounding instrument and is only played by the most cultured and sophisticated of mankind? Well, maybe if I am a little bit immature and silly. However, this is prohibited by the other policy mentioned: WP:NPOV. In summary: As long as one abides by all policies and no COI exists: be bold. Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from OhanaUnited Inspired by optional RfA questions on Chinese Wikipedia

18. What are your views on admins who are not of legal age?

A. Adminship is not a big deal and anybody who can be trusted and is reliable and gets backing from the community is ok, no matter what age. However, maturity is an issue and if an editor seems immature community consensus will be unlikely - this can apply to 14 year olds as well as to 24 year olds. In summary: I'm not ageist. Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

19. Should a mentally ill editor become an admin? Why? Do you think this would affect the creditability of Wikipedia?

A. I'll be honest: I'm not sure. If they have the required trustworthiness and other abilities demanded I don't really see a reason why not. If something goes wrong: desysopping is always an option. Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Ozgod

20. What is your stance on WP:BLP and how will you treat editors who insert poorly sourced information into biographical articles?

A. WP:BLP is extremely important for various reasons: legal reasons and reputational reasons. We can't afford having problems on either side really. As the policy states, we must get it right and I would deal with users who don't follow the policy in the following way: a) First I would tell them why their edits were removed/reverted and give a brief outline of the policy (BLP is ... and exists because ...) and a link to WP:BLP. If they insist on continuing beyond a normal level and I can presume they have read and disregarded the messages and warnings, they can be blocked in accordance to blocking policy (see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption). Poeloq (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Poeloq's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Poeloq
• Requests for adminship/Poeloq 2

• Links for Poeloq: Poeloq (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I think you forgot to answer Q7. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In deed, I oversaw that. The amount of questions makes navigation a little difficult. I've answered it now and hope you are satisfied with the answer. Poeloq (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I like his style. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - good edit count, seems a good and trustworthy user. Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Nice answer. Rudget. 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak Support. An excellent editor, meets my requirements. Useight (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to weak support in response to his constant questioning of the opposers. Sorry, it just comes off as complaining. That's one of my requirements listed in my standards page, linked above. Useight (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Support. Great answers, especially some of his thoughts in #9. Royalbroil 18:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Support per answers to questions and overall goodness of candidate. Whoever asked question 13 though should be blocked. I would do it, but I'd end up in a wheel war with the bastard. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hey, I got 16.  ;) _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Support, fantastic editor. Has a great knowledge of policy and would be an asset to the project. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - Good edits and good answers. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - will help fend off the unconstructive edits. EJF (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - Good user - Great user! Definitely needs the tools... even though he self-nommed himself... yeah, that's a terrible, evil, and pugnacious trait in a future admin... coughs... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support No reason he'll abuse the tools. Spencer^T♦C 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Edits and Deletions look good, and the responses to questions fit with his experience. Looks good overall, --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support This guy looks like an admin already! -- Carerra^"Chatter" 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. I view appropriate self-nominations, like this one, as prima facie evidence of good judgement and initiative, but so what? Seems like a level-headed guy with quite enough experience to handle the stuff he's planning to do (A1) to start with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
17. Support - a change from last RFA, due to big improvements all around. Now ready for the mop. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support - much like RC-0722, I like his style. Prodego ^talk 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - Meets my standards, good editor. Soxred93 | talk bot 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - If for no other reason, I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of being BOLD! ArcAngel (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Strong support Wanted to nominate this user before. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Support. Looks good to me. Best of luck. Malinaccier (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Has my support for answering all of those damn questions, Jesus... John Reaves 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Got my vote. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support. Has improved greatly since his last RfA.--TBC!?! 10:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Great commitment and has improved since last RFA as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
28. 'Support...an' if he turns bad....ve know vere he lives....in London somewhere...and some London WPers can ID him (unless it was a disguise...oh no...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. I love the answer to question nine (he used the words semantic web and I'm a geek, what can I say?) and none of the opposes mean anything to me —αlεx•mullεr 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Yeah he's good. Majorly (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. I was impressed with the user's ability to apolgize when wrong; something that is extremely important when acting as a sysop, because every single one of us is fallible and will make mistakes. I believe that this user is worthy of the community's trust and expect him to function admirably with the mop. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - use the tools wisely! --Abrech (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Looks good. нмŵוτнτ 21:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support, no reason to believe that they'd abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
35. a little weak because of some warning's going astray, but I think the knowledge is there. Just be sure to slow down a little and check carefully. Dlohcierekim 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
37. To cancel out Shoessss' totally irrational comment (oh gosh, we get 4 months admins all the time!), and because it really is no big deal. Yeah, really. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    LOL – Since it is no Big Deal, why not automatically give the tools to all editors after say 3-4 months, who have no reports of vandalism, and just de-sysop when a vandal is found? It would eliminate the necessity of this process. Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  11:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    That's a much better idea on your part than the opposition here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

38. per Ral. —Dark ^(talk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Seems fine. Acalamari 17:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 21:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I've changed my mind. Wish you well. Belanidia^Hey! 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. I see no reason why this editor would not make a good administrator. According to my RfA criteria v1.0, Poeloq gets a score of 95.5%. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of wanting to improve yourself and wishing to better Wikipedia. I see abuse of the tools as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support Good answers to questions, excellent understanding of policy and always very civil. Will make a good janitor and deserves the mop, Osmanjunaid (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - changing from oppose. Thanks for answering the question, excellent contribs. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. Smart answers. Good edits. Great strides since last RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Would prefer a leetle more time served, but insightful answers to questions and strong edits otherwise, convince me. Good luck! ~ Riana ⁂ 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Was on the fence, but you have you stuff together it seems. Good answers to the questions. Jmlk17 11:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
49. sv-- Naerii · plz create stuff 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I am happy with edit total, edit spread through various areas of project, and with answers to the questions, of which I think he has more than any previous applicant. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Kurt, to make you feel better: I have been asked in the past by editors if they can nominate me, but I declined at the time for various reasons, including improving on the suggestions made in my last RfA. Check the talk pages of people before copy & pasting your "self-nom" statement. See you around, Poeloq (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   There's no point trying to reason with Kurt, in my RFA, I passed 70/1/0 with Kurt being the only oppose. Unless you're George Washington, he's not going support. My guess is that he has a text file saved on his desktop from which he copies and pastes. Useight (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   I wouldn't support George Washington. Not enough Main space edits. And who stands up in a boat? That's just silly. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hmm, standing up in a small boat, that's probably not a sign of good judgement. However, being that that is just a painting instead of a photograh, it could be original research. Useight (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   To be honest, it just doesn't look like Kurt is going to take any notice. These opposes of his, which don't even appear to prove he's even looked through the RfA /contribs aren't worth consideration. Lradrama 10:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   ...which is exactly why I've responded with levity and dismissiveness. :-) Go colts. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

   Isn't responding to Kurt, like standing up in a boat, now an offense punishable by trout slapping? Dlohcierekim 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Seems like a well-intentioned editor, however, I'm more than a little concerned with his/her lack of experience outside WP:AIV in the project namespace. WP:AFD participation is pretty good, but other areas are just as vital, if not moreso. I'm also concerned by what seems like a myriad of mechanical reversions, and barely any extensive talking or article building. These two things I consider (with only small exceptions) absolutely essential for adminship. Sorry, but I must oppose. Good luck with the RFA though! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Wisdom89, thanks for your comments. As a quick reply: I do believe to have quite some experience in article editing, having worked on many articles corrrecting small mistakes, adding info and citing sources. I have also created more than 20 articles. I mentioned above that as an admin, I will mainly be active over at AIV and other areas (e.g. AfD) I am familiar with, and with time will possibly expand my horizon. However, I will not be venturing out into unknown territory just to satisfy the "has experience in all areas" criteria, as I believe it is better to stick to what one is good at and knows. Still, I believe to have a very good understanding of most policy and you'll probably see me around other project space pages soon enough. Hope that explains, Poeloq (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose No need to be sysop to take care of projects. Belanidia^Hey! 21:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Belanidia, I think you got something confused. When I refer to "the project" I am referring to Wikipedia, not Wikipedia Projects. I am "a member" of the WikiProject China, but don't get involved much. I hope you reread my statement and answer to my questions and reconsider your vote, as the reason given obviously doesn't apply. Have a nice day, Poeloq (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

   Also worth noting that RfA is a question of whether the prospective admin will use the tools badly (or abusively), not whether the user "needs" them. None of us need them, the project (and I do mean Wikipedia) needs users to have them. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I’m sorry, but looking at your edit history, well over 4,000 of your total 5,500-edit count are just in the last 4 months. For me, that is just a little too soon to really familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia and sorry to say I would hope for an individual with more experience in dealing with policy situations, before giving the tools to enforce policy to that individual. Little bit more experience and try again. Good luck! Shoessss |  Chat  00:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose - low level of Wikipedia namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I'm sorry to add another oppose despite fighting against Kurt Weber's silly reason to oppose, but I don't feel you are ready to become an admin just yet. Give it a few more months. Lradrama 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose per not sufficient interest in content writing. Seems like a nice person and hopefully he won't be discouraged from doing useful work. --Irpen 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose 2 months of solid edits isn't enough to gain an adequate understanding of how things work here. I'm also not comfortable with your answers above.Balloonman (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Balloonman, do you mind elaborating on which parts you weren't comfortable with so I can get some constructive criticism I can work with? Would appreciate it, Poeloq (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

   It's hard to put an answer to. I believe that during an RfA, the questions are the candidates chance to shine. To put their best foot forward and to demonstrate a thorough and complete understanding of wikipolicy/guidelines. It is our chance to interview you, the prospective candidate. I felt as if your answers were incomplete or lacking something. But my main concern is that you have just recently become active on wikipedia in December... thus you have about 2-3 months or recent history. I believe that candidates should have a solid 6 months of history---I'm also a little concerned that you will disappear like you did last spring.Balloonman (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose not for the sake of the fact that he nominated himself, but for the fact that I am concerned that even though he said he'd be involved in vandal fighting, it doesn't mean that he will delve in other facets of of administration without knowledge of policies. Familiarize yourself with the policies first.  — master son^{T - C} 19:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I'd like to see more than four months involvement, please, and some evidence of behaviour in dispute resolution of some sort. Relata refero (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I'd like to see more content contributions. I'm also concerned that the bulk of the edits were made in January and February. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Sorry dude hate to say this but 5000 is a bit low for me. You're quite new and I rekon you should get some experience under your blt first. Anyway don't be in such a rush to become an admin - you can just ask a admin (nicley) to do whatever you need for you. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose pending answer to the rest of the questions. Sometimes I feel that if a adminship nominee does not answer certain questions they might have something to hide. I'm not accusing you of having anything to hide, I'd just like to see answers please, if possible. Littleteddy (roar!) 09:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Littleteddy (roar!) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've answered them now, they were actually added quite late on in the process (more than 40 votes). Poeloq (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose WT space shows inadequate experience with policy. DGG (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - a little too new here, plus slightly nebulous and 'standard' answers to questions. Try again soon when you've been here long enough to know precisely what you want to do! —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Weakly per Stifle and Irpen, the answers weren't inspiring enough to be able to ignore these concerns. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - A few more months of experience would be ideal. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2008 (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.