Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WarthogDemon

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

WarthogDemon

Final (61/24/4); ended 08:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WarthogDemon (talk · contribs) - It's my pleasure, to nominate WarthogDemon today, for adminship. WarthogDemon, was my first real "interaction" with wikipedia. WarthogDemon, as far as I can tell, is always civil, and extremely helpful. He does a lot of CSD tagging, and AIV reporting. He's at 20016 edits right now (including deleted, 17167 without)[1]. WarthogDemon also makes a lot of reports at WP:UAA. He's a great communicator, and shows excellent judgment. I think the project would benefit from giving him the tools to do these things on his own. SQL^{Query me!} 04:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank SQL for nominating me and I accept. :) -WarthogDemon 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional statement? I'll just state for the record and for being politically correct: my username has nothing to do with Halo. I made the username before I even heard of the games. :) -WarthogDemon 05:25, 21 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: Mostly taking care of CSD backlogs, and tending to AIV. I will probably work with AFDs as well. -WarthogDemon 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

A: Well admittedly many of my edits have been gnomish and thus, I have not created an article that's anywhere near Featured-worthy. My contributions can be found here: User:WarthogDemon/Articles. I wouldn't say the Pokemon lists were my biggest contributions since after all, most of those edits were just formatting the pages and listing all the pokemon. I would say perhaps Innosense is the biggest contribution article wise. It took a while for me to find good sources for it, and after several days searching too. I'm also particularly proud of finding notability for the ghost town Calumet, Colorado.

Gnomish contributions? Well, recently I went and fixed 30+ articles that had wikilinks to the disambig page Inglewood instead of the appropriate city. I've also gone around inspecting lists of musicians for red links to deleted pages. I do the same for disambig pages. -WarthogDemon 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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: Three conflicts come to mind. The first was when I was a relatively new editor. A vandal decided to start tagging articles, that I had created, as AfDs for nonsensical reasons. (Doll Graveyard, for example, he claimed was a hoax.) After being blocked he created sockpuppets and continued trying to get various articles AfDed. That was somewhat stressful for me as I was wondering why the heck he was trying to hassle me. I removed one nonsense comment he made on a talk page...

The second conflict, I'm not sure how deep I actually was. I was briefly accused of being "in league" with User:Lucky 6.9 at: [2]. No one informed me of this until one admin told me. By then the problem seemed to have been discussed on without me, so I assume I was not seen as a part of the problem. One user did wonder if I was perhaps a sockpuppet of Lucky, but became convinced I wasn't before taking any actions.

The third conflict I declare myself at fault. It was at Ho-Oh. One user was reverting a redirect for reasons that made no sense to me. I thought the user (User:Kappa) was simply opposing the merging of Pokemon characters to lists. It was not until I hit 3RR that I realized the user was talking about Fenghuang. Had I understood what Kappa was trying to say before, I would've stopped reverting before I hit 3RR and asked the assistance of another editor about how to disambiguate.

In the interest of complete disclosure, there's a Cabal Case that was brought up that I was involved in, but the user typed my name wrong, so the notice never reached me: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content. I found it when I was bored one day and searched for mispellings of my name. By that point, the editor had disappeared so the case had closed. In this case, it was equally a misunderstanding and I had actually stopped messing with his talk page edits and had apologized to the user.

As for handling stress, if something gets too hard to handle, I usually just walk away and/or just give it for another editor to deal with. I'm never the only person on here after all. :) -WarthogDemon 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Jon513

4. One of the general criteria for speedy deletion is blatant advertising (spam) and applies to all the namespaces including the userspace. However the distinction between a valid userpage and a spam userpage has never been well defined. When (if ever) do you believe that userpages should be speedily deleted as spam?

A. At WP:SPAM it says Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Of course, this is not always the case as explained later on the page. Not all external links to userpages are bad, heck in my userbox page I have a link to my devArt page. (But I'm speaking around the question.) I am currently reading up on userpage policy, but as of current my answer is that userpages should be speedily deleted as spam when 1) The userpage is written in the form of promotion, 2) External links that further the promotion and particularly when 3) The username itself is named after the company (possibly the product) it is promoting. Band pages are not spam, but could be brought up with MfD if the user has not made any contributions for a long period of time. Finally, as I said, simply having a link to your devart page or facebook is perfectly fine if you contribute and are part of the project. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from ArcAngel

5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A. A ban is formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Whereas a block is used to prevent damage/disruption. Blocks are NOT a form of punishment. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

6. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? Why/when are/aren't you willing to use it?

A. My interpretation of IAR is when there is a problem and it becomes convoluted enough that there is no real solution that can be made without a (slight) breaking of one of the rules of editing. Another case can be when you must revert more than 3 times when reverting serious vandalism, such as libel. -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

7. What is your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A. I do plan on using it. Everyone works (or should work) as a team here, and I am no different. -WarthogDemon 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

8. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A. Absolutely never. You can't force somebody to calm down; time-out blocks would only make things worse. Plus as I said all editors here work as a team. It is unfair to treat one of us like a 6-year-old child. (The major reason why WP:SPANK is red, not blue.) -WarthogDemon 15:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from Irpen

9. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for edit warring, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on the editors?

A. As of now, no. My focus would be on WP:CSD after I read it enough times that I may recite it in theater. Then the same with WP:UAA after that. I feel delving into 3RR enforcement would be too much to take on right at the beginning. -WarthogDemon 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Seddon69

10. What is your wiki-dream?

A. Personally? To create articles that are least half-decent for each letter of the alphabet. -WarthogDemon 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

11. If you had to create a limerick about adminship what would yours be?

A. Limericks are not my forte, even though I am good with rhymes, but here it goes:

I sit here at my comp having a meal

Trying to give this limerick some zeal

If I take care not to mess up

I hope I won't have to dress up

For Jimbo says it's not THAT big a deal

12. If the IP address, 156.33.0.7, was vandalising the article Racism with defamatory comments, how would you deal with it?

A. Before I answer, is there a reason why you picked that specific number? Is that number similar to an IP at a college, for example? Or may I answer it as just any IP number? -WarthogDemon 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is imperative you become aware of WP:SIP Seddon69 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh no it's not. Almost no one knows about it, I only figured that out because when someone from Qatar ended up on AIV, the helperbot placed a noticed and I found the appropriate stuff in Special:Blockip's instructions. Maxim_(talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it be well known though? After faltering at this, I am actually considering taking DGG's advice and wait a while before trying a request again. -WarthogDemon 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not even an issue, since the list of sensitive IPs is included on the Special:BlockIP page. You'll see the list every time you try to block any ip so it's pretty hard to block one of those by accident. - Bobet 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should. As for withdrawing, see how it goes. Brushing on up and "practicing" a bit would be very good, but RfAs rarely fail about 75% (happened once or twice only), so I suggest ostick around for now. Maxim's JS test account (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I shall brush up. As for the answer to this question, well then I would contact another admin for assistance in this case since the special IPs are new to me. -WarthogDemon 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Or just follow the instructions in Special:Blockip as asking another admin for help will take time and someone else would block the IP. :-p Maxim's JS test account (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. :P I am at a disadvantage since I presently can not see that page. -WarthogDemon 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from TheProf | Talk

13. Once an admin, will patrolling WP:AIV be a major part of your contributions to wikipedia? And would you use your admin tools to block vandals you think warrant it? Also, how will you decide the lenth of the blocks? Finally, will you have different lenth blocks for IP users than logged in users?

A. Answered in parts:

1. Starting point definitely, as I get used to the ropes.

2. I would block vandals according to policy, not when I myself think they warrant it.

3. It would depend on the situation; but the worse it is the longer the block. A vandal who just inserts poop repeatedly into articles past final warning, I'd block for 1-3 days. Next block would be a week long. Third would be indefinite. Vandals who insert derogatory/defamatory/destructive content into articles would get an indef block after final warning. As you can see, I'd make sure everyone gets a warning. The only instance I would indefblock on the spot with no warnings would be extreme vandalism: a vandal rewriting the page of a political candidate, implicating him/her as the head of the Ku Klux Klan, and suggesting he/she had sexual relations with celebrities both living and dead, and replacing all pictures on the page with animal naughty bits would be such an instance. (And then I would probably check with ANI to see if something this serious had taken place before; possible even make note of it myself if I feel I should.)

4. Obviously indefblocks are never appropriate for IPs. It would work in increments: 12h, 24h, 48h, 72h, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month. Of course I would make my decision based on past blocks the IP had, if any. If an IP did something as serious as the most recent example, I would block for a month (at least; certainly no more than 3 months) and definitely report it to ANI. I might add that if it was the kind of IP brought up in Q12, I would hand it over to another admin. -WarthogDemon 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question by Mrprada911

14. An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep, although none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?

A: Something similar to this has happened to me before. It would depend. If the ten votes gave strong reasons to keep, none disproving the nominator's, I would close as keep if I saw those reasons as valid enough. If most or all of those keep votes were just "keep; notable" without any reasons why, I would close as "no consensus to delete." -WarthogDemon 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Optional question by John

15. Do you plan to enable the email user function on your account? I think it used to be a requirement but (presumably) no longer is, but it is certainly useful to be able to communicate discreetly sometimes.

A: I would rather have my email address private, so if I become admin, the first thing I'll do is create a second email account, use that for wikipedia email. I shall also request that those emailing me to please notify me on my talk page. (I'd put a message up at the top.) So, yes. -WarthogDemon 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for WarthogDemon: WarthogDemon (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/WarthogDemon before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support; the interactions I have had with him have been positive. Give this man a mop! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Detarder)} 05:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Per my nomination statement. SQL^{Query me!} 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Even though the user in question reverts Sinebot Hahaha sorry WhD, I just had to bring it up ;-) But seriousl,y great contribs and an overall well-rounded user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
4. With pleasure. Valtoras (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - seems a good wikipedian...will make an even better admin...good luck! --Camaeron (t/c) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Very strong support, excellent candidate. Rudget. 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - Generally a good editor. Just avoiding posting things (like the issues raised by Wisdom89) in Wikipedia-projects just for the sake of it. Two of the posts were unecessary. But otherwise, your work seems fine. Take note, and improve. Lradrama 11:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Over 5500 mainspace edits and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Looks great, and Wisdom's diffs are too old to be at all worrying. GlassCobra 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Good choice here. Spencer^T♦C 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
11. Tags for CSD correctly. Civil on talk page-- even self-deprecating. Eschew Username stuff for now. We can't all be big article builders. Dlohcierekim 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Support. He's not an admin already? At least one vandal thought he was! Reviewing deleted contribs shows an acceptable understanding of speedy deletion criteria. Good candidate. --Ginkgo100^talk 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Heard of WarthogDemon before. You'll do fine with the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Support iMatthew 2008 16:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Support I think the person who voted oppose below because of his involvement in UUA is making an !vote upon a weak position. Just because a person doesn't like an area of WP doesn't meant that is a valid reason for !voting against a candidate who works there.Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Support After some consideration, candidate seems solid enough. ArcAngel (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
17. I strongly support this nomination: I've had excellent interactions with WarthogDemon and I think he'll be a great admin. Regarding the concerns below, I glad he's corrected the rationales on those articles, and with UAA, as long as you plan to stay away from there you'll be fine, but I recommend reading more to do with the username policy if you ever decide to want to help in that place. Acalamari 19:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Support will make a good admin, from what I've seen Dreamspy (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Support After reviewing the opposers concerns I'm calling a net positive here. I feel the candidate has learned from that error and will tread easy. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
20. Support our interactions have been positive. A good faith minor error at UUA isn't enough to oppose IMHO. Plenty of edits show dedication to the project. Royalbroil 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
22. Iff you stay away from UAA and fair use stuff. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    I have no plans to work with images or UAA; even when I do finally understand those areas better. -WarthogDemon 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

    Then I have no plans to not support this. Good luck, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

23. No significant problems have been raised. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
24. Support, as the user generally does good cleanup work, a few mistakes aside (suggest brushing up on the relevant policies, nonetheless). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I trust this user will know where he needs to learn more. MBisanz ^talk 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Support It's not as if people can't learn... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 11:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
27. Support In regard to the mistake he has made with username policy, I have no problem with editors that make mistakes. Not learning from them is a different story. Jon513 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
28. Support: The UAA mistakes are nothing major and seem to have been handled well. I don't think WD will misuse the tools. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
29. Conditional support per UAA. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
30. Support Looks good, but I hope you really brush up on WP:U and WP:CSD. Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, every single of the reasons to oppose this RFA is completely irrelevant. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
32. Support, WarthogDemon has been a great help in fighting vandalism and is showing a positive and willing-to-learn attitude in this RFA. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. NawlinWiki said what my gut was trying to tell me. Tan | 39 05:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
34. Support I agree that the editor has made some mistakes in the past, but he seems to be consistently civil, respond to queries quickly and is willing to learn from and correct any mistakes he makes. I think he'd be excellent for the tools, especially if he'll consider asking first about anything he's unclear over. Shell ^babelfish 08:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
35. Support - All the issues raised in the oppose section are preposterous! Everyone makes mistakes, and remember, Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold! αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
36. Support He'll learn the username policy quite well should he become an admin, and the rest of this user's contribs are not worrysome. Good luck Halo player. ;) · AndonicO ^Hail! 14:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Other than the WP:UAA incident, I see no problems with this user, and I think that to deny him the mop because of such a small error would be making a mountain out of a molehill. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Everyone makes mistakes, but I think that he has learned from them and thus I support :).--Mifter (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
39. Support After the great answer to my question(s). I'm going to say, YES! Give this user a mop. TheProf | Talk 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
40. Hendry 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
41. Support, run into WD around the site and have to say he looks to be a very competent editor. His willingness to take into account mistakes he has made and learn from them is a fantastic quality in an administrator. Any shortcomings I see are small, and as AndonicO says, he'll learn as he goes. Small mistakes should not keep a good user from receiving the mop. FusionMix 23:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
42. Go the Zebras! Sounds great Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 00:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
43. Strong support I've had positive experiences with this user from day 1. He looks good to me. нмŵוτнτ 13:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
44. Support, a few borderline speedy tags, but in general an enthusiastic and thoughtful editor, I trust them to take things easy with the delete button at first. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong Support - per my criteria, I trust WarthogDemon with the tools. --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
46. Weak support - on the whole, trustworthy, but the opposing comments give me pause. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. Would be a fine admin. Lawrence § t/e 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Could have sworn I did this a couple days ago... Jmlk17 04:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
49. Support I trust WD with the tools. Will he make mistakes? Probably. Nobody is perfect. My suggestion to him should the RfA pass is that he take things slowly and carefully until he becomes comfortable with whatever admin activity he decides to pursue. When in doubt about an action, ask another admin for advice. In the long run, I think that he will be fine and learn from whatever he runs into. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
50. Weak Support - I only say 'weak' because I haven't read anything on this page, I am offering my support based on one fairly contentious issue on which WarthogDemon demonstrated humility and flexibility: Mistaking American Zeitgeist for Zeitgeist, the Movie - particularly with hot button articles, some editors can become so blindered that they refuse to give a quarter; WarthogDemon was the opposite. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    Making a comment to add a link to what Anchoress speaks of. (So when section gets archived, this RFA shall still link to it should anyone want to see it.) -WarthogDemon 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

51. Support Aw, freakin' awesome! I love this guy! Never had any actual interaction with him, but from his edits I could tell he was a nice dude. Anyway, I'm glad I can be on the support side. Yep, really good guy. too bad about that daughter, though... kidding... flaminglawyer^c 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. I've had many positive interactions with this user. Hardworking, conscientious, and friendly are just a few of the words I'd use to describe him. -Bwowen is now a Forgone conclusion! t|c 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
53. o'course. abf /talk to me/ 14:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
55. Weak support. Support because I believe the net effect of his adminship would be positive. Weak because although I disagree with DGG on what and what shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia, I trust and respect his judgement when it comes to trigger-happy people. If the RfA is successful, I encourage WD to remember that in the face of the slightest doubt, AfD is always the way to go. Careless tagging for speedy deletion can be and often is undone by responsible admins. Careless deletion usually isn't. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
56. Weak support somewhat à la Pascal just above. I am working on the basis that having been so thoroughly raked over the coals over username policy and speedy deletion policy, the user will have learned from his mistakes. We don't prevent otherwise-ok candidates from gaining adminship for having made a couple of mistakes. Making mistakes is a sign of being a human being. On balance I trust WarthogDemon will not make these mistakes again. I do hope I am right. --John (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. See him around, and am surpised that he is not already an admin. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 02:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. No reason to think the tools will be misused. --CWY2190^TC 17:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
59. Support based on recent interaction. He wasn't afraid to go out on a limb, ask a question and honestly listened to my answer and reasoning. He has my respect. I have read and considered the oppose reasons below, but I believe that he won't get in over his head - and if he does, he'll be smart enough to ask a question and listen as he did this time. - Philippe | Talk 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - I have confidence he will listen to advice and learn to use the tools wisely--Matilda ^talk 06:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
61. Support, strong answers to #14. MrPrada (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose- per this, you clearly do not understand policy very well, as the word "wiki" in a name is acceptable, where as "wikipedia" wouldn't be. A lack of policy and guideline knowledge tells me of a lack of experience and knowledge of how to assist sysops. It would be worrying if this user got the tools and blocked people for things like that, sorry. AndreNatas (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Warthog hasn't stated that he wishes to work at UAA, so I'm sure if any reports such as that are made, he will know the correct procedure to follow (i.e. not blockable). Although that doesn't really answer your oppose, I hope it makes a little change in your final decision. Rudget. 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   My oppose is based on the editors misunderstanding of policy in general, this is just one area. The editor could make many more mistakes in many other areas with the tools. AndreNatas (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Rudget is correct, I do not wish to work hard with UAA. If I do, I certainly shall brush up on username policies first. However, your concerns are noted and appreciated. I am taking what you say into consideration. :) -WarthogDemon 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose - good vandal fighter, however lack of meaningful article contributions. Also, the fair use images that he's uploaded are missing rationales. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Only some are missing (complete) rationales, yes? I have gone through and adjusted the rationals for the images. Hopefully they're complete now. -WarthogDemon 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Looking through those, all but one, were uploaded before we even had the rationale requirement. (And, we're talking about 2 years ago on almost all of those). And, the one that had an extremely weak rationale, he went back and fixed, it seems... SQL^{Query me!} 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Obviously WarthogDemon doesn't understand the fair use policy - at the time of his above comment, none of the images had rationales, which have since been added by SQL. PhilKnight (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   I changed the rationales to templated rationales (pet peeve of mine -- I find it easier to read the templates, than free-form text.) And, again, 2 years ago, before the rationales were even required, on all of them (Except one, I think). SQL^{Query me!} 05:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

3. Involvement in UAA is always a negative for me, but if you can't even do it right... :/ Sorry. -- Naerii 17:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Err, are you insinuating that you generally oppose if a user participates at WP:UAA? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   I wouldn't oppose solely on that, no. -- Naerii 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, just wanted clarification : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   Further to my oppose: I just saw that he got a CSD declined on an article I AfDd [3] and I checked through the rest of his CSD nominations - I believe that this candidate is too hasty to delete. In fact, I think all the issues here could be solved by a) re-reading policies thoroughly and b) less rushing. On the basis of this I'd be happy to support you next time around if you slow down and take more care in CSDs and UAA reports. UAA reports are of special concern to me because if you block a newbie that doesn't really need to be blocked, that newbie could be deterred from editing ever again. -- Naerii 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

   I shall keep from going too fast, however I wasn't the one who tagged that article: [4]. -WarthogDemon 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

   Jeeeez I was thinking of somebody completely different with that particular link LOL. I'm so sorry! Haha. The rest of what I said still stands though. -- Naerii 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per the poor UAA report of the name "Wiki Greek Basketball", as it shows a patent ignorance of the username policy. If you can tell me why this report was incorrect according to the policy, I'd definitely consider supporting however. The majority of your contribs are great, but that kind of misunderstanding of the policy could have seriously negative effects if you were granted the tools. VanTucky 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

   After going through the appropriate articles, I find my error lies with WP:IU. I mistook it for a "misleading username" thinking it suggested power. I would have to dig through my old contribs, but I think I was confused due to the fact that an account was usernameblocked that contained the word "wiki," but which wasn't the reason for the block. -WarthogDemon 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose Does not yet understand the basic speedy deletion criteria. Can therefore not be trusted with the buttons. Suggesrt coming back in three months after obtaining a better knowwede of policy. DGG (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
6. weak oppose per DGG. I was going to support and was looking forward to doing so but the speedy thing is too much of a concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose due to poor understanding of username policy [5] and speedy deletion policy [6] [7] [8] [9], poor edit summaries [10] [11], using rollback to reinsert misspellings [12]. The principal problem is with speedy deletion - a mere assertion of notability is enough to defeat a speedy deletion for CSD:A7 - and I am not convinced that this user, if given the power to delete articles, would apply the current policies correctly and consistently. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose – I’m sorry - you do great work. However, the misunderstanding concerning deletion policy, and the most recent incidents just a matters of days ago, causes me to be on the oppose side. However, these issues can be easily rectified within a few months, by brushing up on policy. At that time, would be more than happy to review and move to the support side. Good luck to you. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose per the diffs given by Stifle --B (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Considering many of his speedy delete tags were rejected as not meeting the criteria, I have concerns that if an admin such article might just end up deleted anyways. Similar concerns regarding username blocks. Also, not related to my opposition, but what does CAT:AOR have to do with team work? Is an admin in the category more of a team player than one who is not? _(1 == 2)^Until 17:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps I phrased that oddly. I meant to say that I am completely open to criticism from fellow editors/admins should ever there be a problem with my editing/conduct. Just wanted to show that I won't be disagreeable/antisocial. -WarthogDemon 22:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

11. Regretful oppose. I am persuaded particularly by User:DGG and User:Stifle that this contributor needs more time to fully grasp policies. This nom has good energy (and a good sense of humor!), and I think he does some great work for Wikipedia, but I can't support at this time in the face of evidence that the nom may not be as careful with CSD tags as he could be. CSDs are a big deal to me in evaluating RfAs, especially when the nom mentions specifically a desire to work in that area. Within the last month, we have these WP:CSD#A7 tags which in my opinion (and those of the editors &/or admins who challenged or declined them) asserted notability at the time of tagging: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. In 9 & 10, the nom himself agreed that the tags were wrong. It's great to catch your own mistakes, but the other A7s indicate that the user is continuing to make them. An assertion of significance or importance is, of course, much less rigorous than verification of notability. Since speedy deletions may go unchallenged unless the creators are able to understand WP:DRV procedures (and many of them can't even figure out who deleted their articles), I can't comfortably support somebody whose contributions suggest that they may be overzealous in flushing articles. If this nom does not get the tools, I hope he will continue new page patrol, since I believe he is a very valuable contributor there, but also slow down to consider more fully whether or not an article asserts significance/importance. If he does get the tools, I hope that he will be particularly careful not to delete A7s unless he is quite sure that the article qualifies. This seems to be an area where, with or without tools, he needs a bit more work. Given everything else I see from this nom, I am sorry I can't support. If this RfA is not successful (at the moment it seems it probably will), I hope to be in the top section next time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose We do not need administrators who mis-apply speedy deletion criteria. Catchpole (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
13. Very weak oppose I had a support post typed out but, once I consider the CSD and UAA stuff together (neither on its own would sink the candidacy - the CSD stuff in particular I think was mostly borderline, although Polbo stuck out as a little more egregious a tagging), I can't help but conclude that the candidate isn't quite there. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. If my criterion for an admin were editing skill you'd be home and dry, but it isn't, its a good knowledge of Wikipedia Policy's and Guidelines, and the concerns about your application of CSD is just a little to glaring to ignore. Do a little more CSD work to prove you know what your doing, and reapply, then you'll have my support. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 03:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose, due to grave concerns about recent speedy deletion requests. My two biggest requirements for an admin are care in deletion of articles and not scaring off potentially valuable contributors. While your communications look fine (if a bit terse), applying incorrect speedy tags within a minute of article creation doesn't improve the 'pedia at all, and can scare off new contributors needlessly. Sorry.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose this time, per problems with policy brought up above, lack of solid editing experience on articles, and a bit also the erratic contributions volume - under 50 edits Nov-to-Jan 08. More experience needed. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

    November to January was a time where I was having problems and real-life issues which I felt made me unfit to devote any real time to Wikipedia so I decided to take a wikibreak. Such issues have passed and I do not foresee any gaps of editing. Perhaps my edits will be in the 3-digit number range but it's unlikely to drop below 50. -WarthogDemon 04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Ok, fair enough, although there was a similar period last spring. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose There are enough questionable recent speedy tagging diffs above to make me uncomfortable at the moment. TigerShark (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Changed from neutral (see below). I'm sorry, but concerns just have not been alleviated. Good luck with the process though! And happy editing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose, per speedy tagging problems uncovered by Stifle and Moonriddengirl. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
20. I'm sorry, but the misapplication of speedy deletion tags really grinds my gears. There are enough admins who don't understand the speedy policy, and I am somewhat worried that this candidate could be another. I would advise coming back in 3 months with a better knowledge of WP:CSD. Regards, EJF (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose. This editor seems to have a bit of a maturity problem. Furthermore, most of the "articles" he created or contributed to are somewhat on the insubstantial side. I strenously object. Perhaps he should try again when he turns 17 or 18. Adam Pirolo (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    It should be noted that this oppose was made 102 minutes into this account's contrib history. Dorftrottel (bait) 21:03, March 26, 2008

    What maturity problem may I ask? And I'm in my twenties. -WarthogDemon 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

    The maturity problem you are demonstrating by bothering me here. I made my vote. Now leave me alone. Adam Pirolo (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Whippersnapper. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs, links, any sort of evidence? I'm not following you on the "maturity problem"... SQL^{Query me!} 20:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    And I'm at a loss as to whether Tim was joking or not. -WarthogDemon 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

22. Per speedy deletion concerns. Daniel (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Per speedy concerns, and UAA concerns. This user has a few things to work on, and once they do I will be happy to support next time. Tiptoety ^talk 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
24. weak oppose -- a little more deletion experience and I'll be happy to support. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Looks like a well rounded user, but I'm a little troubled by some of your reports to WP:UAA: [13] Has the word wiki in the name? So? [14] Non English Characters? Again, so what? Ask them to translate. [15] Name of living person. Ok, again, so ask them to change it. Besides, a matching name doesn't necessitate immediate admin attention. There were others that you cited as promotional, yet they hadn't made any edits. A little premature for a report if you ask me. I'm swaying on the fence for now, leaning towards support. I need to take a closer look at the contributions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that those are premature. As good as I am with policy in other areas, I do need to brush up on reading policy with usernames since, as you have pointed out, I have treated some with harmless names as if they were serious threats. I'm aware of my shortcoming here and until I actually know the policy by heart, will avoid giving out ANY username blocks unless it's obviously racial/vulgar. And on the promotional ones, have you checked to see if they made any spam articles that got deleted? I do not believe I've mentioned any being promotional unless they made an article, unless my midnight-tired brain is forgetting something. -WarthogDemon 06:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

On the third user, this probably warranted a block anyhow. SQL^{Query me!} 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The third one was quite a while ago, to be honest. I'm sure that WD has improved since then, aside from those other two which have been quoted. Rudget. 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The candidate says they want to work at WP:CSD, yet combing through the usertalk space I couldn't find any notifications. Can anybody provide diffs as evidence that the user has experience here? This is making me lean towards oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CommentHe did just two minutes before you saved this edit. Also these [16] [17] [18] [19] for starters. --Ginkgo100^talk 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, although diff 6 makes me worried. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup The #6 makes me very worried. could you explain your rationale in placing the A7 no claims to notability? this is pretty basic. DGG (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to be promotional, though I had a tricky time (upon its creation) telling if it was about her or her company. I should have paused for a few minutes more to figure out what it was. Also, upon research, some of the wording is very similar to: [20] at the About Us page. Probably not close enough to say "copyvio" but the mispelling of Eli's and Rudy's names is a bit too coincidental. But I'm not using this to cover my tracks. The better course of action for me would've at the least been simply watching the page for a few days and then either prodding/afding if (after like a week) I saw no improvement. -WarthogDemon 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, that's just it. A7 has nothing to do with promotion or notability. It's whether the biography indicated importance, which it did. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral: I see no evidence that the user will misuse the tools on purpose but, from looking at past UAA reports, (s)he may make some policy mistakes. I will switch to support if the (obviously well-meaning) user can prove that (s)he has brushed up on policy. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, FWIW... I actually expect WD to make mistakes. I know I made a couple doozies when I first got the bit. The important part is how one handles making mistakes. SQL^{Query me!} 05:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed to support: See support section. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - Good user, but the UAA diff's are worrisome. Cant support or oppose here. Tiptoety ^talk 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose, Tiptoety ^talk 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral. Digging through the article contribs gives me mixed feelings. You clearly have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but I think you jump the gun a bit on deletion. I'm not really worried about the UAA stuff - I think that's getting blown out of proportion - but I can't support right now. I'll continue to monitor this page and consider arguments... Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to support after further consideration and contrib reviewing. Tan | 39 05:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - I really like this user and was very happy when he left me a nice smile on my talk page. However, im not entirely sure he needs to be an admin at the moment. With a Twinkle and Rollback rights, vandalism fighting is a nice easy task (Twinkle to warn and report vandals and Rollback to revert their edits). As for his quick AfD closing. This to me is only a slight concern. I really do wish you the best of luck and i hope to see you around wikipedia soon! TheProf | Talk 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to support after answer to my question(s). TheProf | Talk 22:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral. The concerns expressed, regarding a somewhat lacking of ability in the WP:UAA area, make me hesitate at supporting here. I'm sure you'll learn the proper procedure in due course, but I'm afraid I can't support just yet. Good luck anyway. AGK § 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral pending answers to q14 and 15. --John (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Change to support

3. Neutral The user's editing history does not stand out in either direction for me, and enough issues have been already raised above to make me not reasonably comfortable with this user's judgment, but I have not come across anything egregious enough for me to register an oppose; thus the abstention. -- Avi (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Neutral - I can't really oppose here, because WarthogDemon is a very good and knowledgeable editor, and I hate opposing good editors. But I can't really support either due to the CSD issues, especially since that's an area he intends to work in. Sorry, good luck. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:19, 26 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.