Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cgoodwin: Difference between revisions

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

Cgoodwin

Final (39/44/10); Closed at 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) by ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan!.

Nomination

Cgoodwin (talk · contribs) – A volunteer since 2006 with more than 13,000 edits, Cgoodwin is a tireless contributor. Focusing mostly on Australia and agricultural articles, they've created 81 articles and helped several make it to FA, GA and DYK. In discussion and debate, Cgoodwin keeps a cool head and knows how to keep the focus on the content at hand. In short, Cgoodwin is a longtime editor that I trust to be helpful to others and act judiciously with the sysop tools. Right now the 'pedia is failing to attract new talent in admins like we should. Successful RfAs are roughly down to 2003 levels. With that in mind, I hope you can join me in supporting the nomination of levelheaded and dedicated volunteers like Cgoodwin. Steven Walling 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A:Initially I would get more involved in spam and vandalism fighting, something I only do in an irregular way at the moment. Later I would hope to assist with some deletions.

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

A:Difficult to answer, but Australian rodeo is one that comes to mind, along with Tranquil Star, and along with more input from other editors, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, Walcha, New South Wales and the List of Thoroughbred racehorses which is still being constructed owing to the need for much research on this subject. The first 4 articles also required copyfree images which I also supplied, as there were few, if any, elsewhere.

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 had disagreements with an editor of British Horseracing Hall of Fame and the Geier Hitch and took it to the talk pages there. Other conflicts would be dealt with in a similar manner as I’m not interested in slanging matches.

Additional optional question from Andrensath

4. Why do you have such a high number of edits to the User namespace (over double the number of edits to the Talk namespace, and more edits than all other namespaces bar Project combined)?

A:Many of the articles that I contributed to had little or no previous interest in them.

Additional optional question from Begoon

5. Looking at your edit count, one of the first thing to strike me is the very low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace (41). This gives the impression that you haven't had much involvement with policy, or process matters. You do, however, have an enviable number of content contributions, seemingly over a long period, showing great commitment to the project over several years (although opting into the edit counter would make that a little easier to judge). Possibly your actual knowledge of admin processes and policies is therefore far higher than this number suggests in terms of involvement. Would you like to comment on that?

A:I started editing mainly to improve articles that needed a good deal of input, but now have been improved and I will now have more time to devote to admin processes and policies.

Additional optional question from Jimmy Pitt

6. You have a fine record in the areas of article creation and improvement, but don't appear to have done much in those areas that require the admin tools. Could you expand on why you think you have a need for them?

A:

Additional optional question from Rockfang

7. Why is there such a large gap between when your account was created and your first edit?

A:Unknown - No particular reason

Additional optional question from Avenged Eightfold

8. You want to be an administrator, yet just 0.31% of your edits are to the Wikipedia space. You seem to have little to no experience in admin related areas. Why do you deserve to be trusted with the tools?

A:I am mature and not ruthless.

Additional optional question from Kayau

9. Someone creates a page about a kindergarten. You've never heard of it before and it has only one google search result apart from its own website. After looking through the article you notice that the username of the user who created that article is the same as the principal of that school. Do you delete that article?

A:No, I would tag it.

Follow-up: tag it as what? Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One short and simple question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

10. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A:I support Wikipedia and wish to assist in any way possible to improve it.

Additional optional question (in three related parts) from ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣}

11. According to you, should the practice of leaving well defined edit summaries (for example, greater than one word) be considered considerably important by/for Wikipedia editors? How well would you qualify on such a parameter? Finally, does such an editorial quality (of leaving well-expressed editorial summaries) or lack of it, have any correlation with the performance of any administrative responsibility?

A:

Questions from —fetch·comms

12. Explain, in your own words, CSD criteria A1 and G3.

A:

13. When, if ever, is it OK to block any user who has not yet been warned, or received a sufficient number of warnings?

A:Have not struck such a situation, yet.

14. What is your opinion of the current BLP policy? Is it sufficient, or could it be improved in any way, and how?

A:I agree with Wikipedia's three core content policies on these biographies.

Additional optional questions from Allmightyduck

15. Have you held any accounts before this one?

A:No.

16. It appears you have never made a report to WP:AIV. Since you said you wanted to fight vandals, is there anything you want to say pertaining to this?

A:No

Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano

17. When, if ever, would you indef an IP user?

A:

Additional optional question from Nsk92

18. Could you explain, in your own words, the difference between a block and a ban?

A:

Question from WFC

19. What is your response to people who have opposed (or are considering opposing) based on the fact that you have given us no idea what sort of admin you would be?

A.:

Additional optional question from Shirik

20. I reiterate question 13, pointing out that it does not ask if you have ever encountered this situation. When, if ever, is it OK to block any user who has not yet been warned, or received a sufficient number of warnings?

A:

Additional optional question from Groomtech

21. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A:

General comments

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

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at talk page. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 20:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice if you opted in for X!'s edit history tool, so we could have a bit more history to use to judge you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Admin Quiz above is ridiculous. I personally will not hold it against the candidate if he declines to answer some or all of questions 4-17. Townlake (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some are relevant to the candidate (such as Q4), but most are just bog-standard questions found in most RFAs - questions designed to trip a candidate up. Aiken ♫ 23:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what it looks like. I count three question-askers who have already opposed; while they're not breaking any rules, I don't understand why they're asking these general-knowledge questions. Townlake (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Timewasting? Aiken ♫ 23:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't normally condone such an excess of questions, but in the case of a trustworthy candidate who has not demonstrated judgement, it's the correct approach. --WFC-- 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm on the same lines. I'm pretty sure I've never asked a question 20 before, but in fact, I didn't even ask a new question. The lack of information being provided would lead me to oppose if an answer isn't given, simply because it seems to me almost politician-like right now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please clarify your answer to question #4 above? Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest closing this RfA already now as failed. The numbers have turned opposite today; the opposers lead over the supporters, making it pretty obvious this user will not be chosen to be an administrator, mainly because this user has not convinced us exactly why the user in question wants and needs the admin tools. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better to wait until at least the next time the candidate comes online and resumes editing as they might want to withdraw this RfA anyway. I left a note at Cgoodwin's talk page about this. The raw numbers here are at the moment not in the NOTNOW/SNOW range, especially since the candidate is a veteran editor and the level of support is significant. I note, however, that the candidate has left several messages at the talk pages of some of the supporters[1][2][3] indicating that in the candidate's own view this RfA is not likely to succeed. Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 21 questions - get real, the page looks like a public beating! "Is there anything you want to say pertaining to this?" East of Borschov 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO, this user doesn't have enough knowledge and edits in the Wikipedia namespace required to be trusted with the admin tools. In other words, this user has very little to no knowledge about the admin related parts. I believe his acception of this nomination was not serious, even though he was nominated by an admin user. I am also wondering whether the nomination itself was serious. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. Steven Walling 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Very unusual for me to be this high up the list, but this is a candidate in my timezone. I was rather amused by the restraint that the candidate showed in relation to this and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Long-time productive contributor. Not all admins need be "professional admins" in the sense of being well-versed in backroom policy wonkery. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   To an extent I agree, but blocking and deleting are not what I consider to be "backroom policy wonkery". --WFC-- 10:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   But can we trust him to be well-enough versed and competent if he decides to become active in those areas? I can. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support - I've seen Cgoodwin around and just now spend quite some time looking through the contributions history. What I see is a mature and serious editor who clearly has the betterment of Wikipedia at heart - certainly an editor who is sufficiently possessed of time here and common sense, to get the proper use of those few extra buttons. PS: Andrensath the answer to Q4 is lots of sandbox edits polishing drafts. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - We need more admins who still edit content. I see no reason not to give this editor admin rights. He or she seems bright enough to figure out how all the details work once they have the ability to use them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support candidate is a longterm editor with a clean block log. Judging from their 78 created articles, and looking through their deleted contributions, the candidate was ready for the Autopatroller flag, and I've just actioned that. As for knowing whether articles should or should not be deleted we can only judge them from their proven ability to create articles that don't get deleted. Many of us are used to judging candidates by their record of identifying what should be deleted, but that is to an extent the other side of the same coin. Looking through the candidate's contributions I did see the occasional reversion of vandalism, though without the follow through of warning the vandal. I noticed the concern about their large number of user space edits - but looking at those edits they are clearly article building in their sandbox before copying articles into mainspace. If this RFA fails, and I hope it doesn't, I would suggest that in future when a draft is ready, moving if from sandbox into mainspace rather than copy pasting its contents into mainspace would prevent future misunderstandings of that nature. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. So they haven't been active in admin areas yet. Usually, I'd be concerned, but they're clearly trustworthy and I have no problem with them receiving the tools. ceranthor 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I see nothing wrong here.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Absolutely no concerns. Cgoodwin builds the encyclopedia, and that is a good thing. Many people are given the mop because they prove they are good at tagging things that should be deleted by hanging around the right message board, but this creates a systemic bias wherein we promote people who want the mop for the sake of having the mop. This is an editor who doesn't show a great deal of motivation to have the mop, but who just enjoys working on Wikipedia. There is no harm in granting the tools to someone like this, because there isn't a quota for admin actions because you want to have the tools in the hands of trusted and committed editors to allow them to take admin action when they see it, rather than waste time calling one of us. Personally, I've barely used my mop recently, taking the opportunity to simply enjoy reading articles for the past few months, but I'm ready to take action if the need presents itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Long term contributor with the good of the encyclopedia at heart. No way will he/she mess things up. While I understand the concerns of the opposes, I do feel that 'need for the tools' is overrated. In fact, I could argue that if someone has a need for the tools it may not be desirable to hand them over! In addition to professional admins, we also need content builders who are willing to lend a hand where ever necessary. In general, many admins doing light work will make this a better encyclopedia than a few admins doing heavy work. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Never heard of you, but if the (pretty much universally ridiculous) "arguments" in the oppose column are the worst anyone can find to say, I'm sure you'll do fine. – iridescent 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please talk about the candidate and their attributes, not the other participants in this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Spare me the lecture. When there's a reasonable oppose rationale, it'll be treated with the respect it deserves. Until then, the nonsense below ("Oppose, only 17 deleted edits"?) is being treated with the respect it deserves. (For the record: number of RFPP reports at the time of my RFA=0 and I'd never once even considered recent changes patrolling.) – iridescent 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll spare the lecture after you read what arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. You could have said exactly what you said in your opinion in a respectful way and I hope you decide to redact your opinion and following comment to make it more respectful, otherwise i'd ask the closing 'crat to take that into account in their decision regarding this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What Doc said. I respect your decision to support. But while disagreeing is one thing, dismissing 19 good faith (and on the whole justified) opposes as "universally ridiculous" is a pretty weak "argument" too. --WFC-- 10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is little need to repeat again and again that you disagree with the people who support, a fact which should already be apparent from your signature under the "Oppose" column. Ucucha 11:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What I disagree with about this opinion is not what it is, but how it was made, and I think it is necessary to comment in situations where inappropriately incivil opinions are made in xfds. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that "arguments" in the oppose column are weak. However calling them "universally ridiculous" is not very respectful and this has now become the issue. Not helpful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Support Clearly a user who has their head screwed on straight. Why not! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Our very raison d'être is to write and maintain an encyclopaedia- everything else we do is subservient to that overarching goal. Candidates who are good at advancing that should not be prejudiced against at RFA for not actively involving themselves in the behind the scenes activity of the 'pedia. (Further, there are several good uses of the tools on the content side that will never generate logged actions; being able to look at deleted content being the most obvious.) Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. The opposition is utterly unconvincing. You don't have to spend years on Huggle or requesting page protection to make a good administrator. Cgoodwin already has extensive experience as to what warrants deletion based on his solid and extensive mainspace work. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt he's any more unfamiliar with the various admin policies. This is definitely a net positive. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please talk about the candidate and their attributes, not the other participants in this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support. I've looked through his contributions and talk-page interactions and I find him to be calm, level-headed, mature, and an excellent content contributor. These are exactly the kinds of people we should be promoting. This isn't someone who is going to abuse the tools. Antandrus (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support as nominator. Clearly a trustworthy user & we don't have enough successful RfAs.David Ludwig (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Cgoodwin is evidently someone who knows what he's doing at Wikipedia, and he's been doing good work for a while. Calls that he needs "more experience" are unconvincing; he will administrate the encyclopedia he is helping to build himself. Ucucha 20:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support No real issues here. It's refreshing to see a candidate more interested in working with articles than anything else. Aiken ♫ 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Fine candidate; oppose rationales are idiotic. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to badger, but that sounds like a ridiculous support rationale. "Oppose rationales are idiotic"? I don't think so. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. I would ask the 'crat closing this conversation to ignore this opinion in their decision. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like the bureaucrat to ignore all the opposition, but really, I think they're able to make their own mind up. Aiken ♫ 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They can make their own decisions, but we can point out inappropriate comments that should be given less weight than others. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support - Looks fine, overall. Lack of project space edits aren't that big of a deal for me. Knowing how to write articles and keeping your cool goes further than racking up edits to AIV, in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support The high ratio of User: to Talk: namespace edits was initially worrying, but looking into them, most are sandbox article drafting and polishing, which is a good thing. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to Neutral Weak Support On balance, I trust that such an experienced long term contributor would be initially circumspect with the tools in new areas, and seek advice or thoroughly check precedent when uncertain. The point made that creating many good articles will help in determination of what should be deleted is a good point, although not quite the entire story - content in areas with which the candidate is unfamiliar would still need understanding to assess. It's clear to me, though, that this is a sensible, mature, dedicated editor who would certainly not abuse the tools intentionally, and is intelligent enough to take the necessary steps not to do so unintentionally. A net positive result from granting the tools seems apparent to me.  Begoon^talk 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting I changed to weak support, because I do find the lack of detail in the answers to the questions a bit discouraging. As others have said, interaction is a big part of the admin role, and the answers do make me a bit concerned on that score, since I'd expect candidates to make an effort to show their best interactive skills at RFA. I'll consider if I need to move to Neutral when it's clear whether those were just rushed answers to the many quick questions, which will be expanded upon later, or not. I also note that I agree that there are now probably too many questions (some quite similar), but clearer, and in some cases even less seemingly dismissive answers to the ones selected for response would make me less uncomfortable. I'll AGF however, that these were rushed, and not move my vote yet.  Begoon^talk 06:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23. Support Yeah - Dwayne was here! ♫ 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support per Hiberniantears. The opposes are unconvincing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I'm leaning to Neutral but I have no reason not to trust you with the mop. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support — I know that Cgoodwin should be punished for focusing on content creation rather than content removal (tagging, obsessing over policy, hanging out in WP namespace to make new rules for everyone)...but geez, I can't find it in my heart to do it! His edits on his own talk and in article talk show that he understands policy perfectly well, and is capable of working with others. He also has the trait of being short and to the point, which is rare among WP admins (and will apparently remain rare, from the looks of where this RFA is going). Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sure 90% of the opposers couldn't care less about whether he has ever used CSD tag ZP–17g. Indeed, his approach to the questions would actually have gone some way to winning me over, if the candidate was able to back it up with a contribution history giving some idea of how he would approach blocking a user or closing an AfD. Any old idiot could become an admin if we solely judged editors on content production in their comfort zones. We don't, and there's a good reason for it. --WFC-- 08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28. Support I appreciate how much work this user has done to the encyclopedia, and therefore understands wikipedia policies. Minimac (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Weak support. Weak because I would like to see more detailed answers to some of the questions (not all of them, the number is getting ridiculous, but more than a sentence for the ones you opt to answer would be nice). However, you're clearly trustworthy, unlikely to bugger anything up and, contrary to popular opinion, the best way to get to know core policies etc is not CSD tagging (yes, I know this may surprise many people), but actually getting out there and writing which you clearly have vast (enviable, in fact) experience in, so I support. If the RfA passes, just be careful and you'll be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Long-term editor with strong content contributions. Judging by created articles, appears to understand policy fine, despite a lack of edits to project pages. I too find the opposes unconvincing. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Great candidate, although I'd like to see a little less terseness in the answers to the questions above. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Weak support: A great editor who is not quite there. The good news is that the concerns that have been raised below can be easily remedied. Thanks for making yourself available. Please work on your issues (most are minor) and have another go in a few months. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Weak Support Not very detailed answers but can still be trusted to the tools. Derild4921☼ 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Great content building, no reason to think youd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Per Courcelles and answer to Q8. --Harthacnut (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support: I can't believe the comments in opposition! Not enough involvement? Au Contraire! Here we have a contributor who does good work, knows good work from poor work, and most of all, is a master at staying OUT of the drama wars! For crying out loud! If Cg HAD gotten into every drama on wikipedia that crossed the bow (like I, unfortunately, have tended to do) then the opposition would be running along the lines of "getting TOO involved," "overinvolvement in the dramas," etc. This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Sheesh! We have a PERFECT candidate here, no real enemies other than one known nutcase, proven level-headedness, ability to not get hooked by the nonsense. Cg is quiet, but very responsible, I have worked with this editor since Cg first appeared on wikipedia and if nothing else, Cg has survived the gauntlet of my trout-slappable approach to quality control over at WikiProject Equine! I mean, just putting up with ME alone should quality someone for adminship! This is a true grownup in a world where true grownups are needed. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please describe what was "grownup" about the answer to Q16? Vodello (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cg is like this, quiet, a person of few words who avoids drama. Actions speak louder than words. Cg was nominated by someone who thought this editor was sufficiently skilled to do a good job. It wasn't like Cg went out and solicited the nom... Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

37. Support CGoodwin has shown clear dedication to the project with content work. I highly doubt will misuse the tools. We have processes in place (such as arbcom) to deal with this should it occur (which is unlikely). Realistically is unlikely not to be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak Support - The answers to most of the questions are weak or non-existent. I see nothing that would indicate that CGoodwin would be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 05:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I have no reason to believe that he would misuse the tools or venture into any territory that he is unfamiliar without seeking advice. Dedication to the project is unquestionable. J04n(talk page) 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Reluctantly (more certain of my decision to oppose given the nominator's subsequent comment) Cgoodwin is a fantastic content creator, but the DYK/GA/FL/FA processes are considered rewards until themselves. By contrast, adminship is not a reward or a status. You haven't made a case for why you need the tools, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that you understand how to use the block and delete buttons, both of which you state an intention to use. --WFC-- 10:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No one needs the tools. Wikipedia needs volunteers who are experienced and trustworthy to be willing to step up and use the tools where appropriate. Clearly Cgoodwin is calm and experienced enough to not use the tools rashly, and Wikipedia sorely needs new blood in admins. I would ask that you assume good faith in an experienced mainspace editor and help Wikipedia out by reconsidering. Steven Walling 18:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The fact remains that he is asking for two primary functions (block and delete) that he has shown absolutely no experience in. I reject the implication that pointing this out somehow means I am lacking in good faith. --WFC-- 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Steven, I respect your comment, but I would ask that you remove your third sentence, particularly because I think the first sentence is very apt and that no non-admin has experience with blocking or deletion. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed with Walling. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Uncivil and gratuitous insult commented out. --WFC-- 08:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose - I don't see why this user needs the tools. He or she has tons of mainspace edits with high quality articles, but he or she is inexperienced in other areas. For example, even his or her userspace edits are more than his or her project space edits. He or she is not a rollbacker, which means he or she seldom does recent changes patrolling. His or her lack of deleted edits shows his or her lack of experience in new page patrolliong. All in all, if there's anything that this user needs, it's the autopatrolled userright, and not the admin userright. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose - Overall the candidate seems to be a positive for the project, but I don't see enough experience outside of article writing to warrant adminship (only 41 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace for example). I would recommend gaining experience in areas such as RfA, AfD, AIV, etc and come back in 6-8 months. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sad Strong Oppose. You're a great content contributor; however, I don't think you have the experience I'd like to see in an admin candidate, yet; too few project space edits, only 17 deleted edits - which means almost no new page patrolling experience - and as far as I can see almost no vandalism fighting. If you're sysopped, you'll be able to block people and delete pages; I'd really like to make sure you know your way around those areas... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Clearly Cgoodwin is experienced in editing and is trustworthy. I would suggest that if you have a question regarding competence in a specific area, such as blocking or deletion, that you ask a question to make clear the candidate understands the policy. Steven Walling 18:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I've taken your advice and asked a question and will attentively read this candidate's answers (especially those related to deletion and blocking policy); I'm open to changing my mind about a candidate. For the moment, however, I remain deeply unconvinced and I've switched to strong oppose, per this candidate's answers; Shadowjams says this best, so I'll borrow their words: the terse answers are insulting at worst, and naive at best. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose You don't seem to need the admin tools, your answers to the questions are lacking depth and/or nonexistent, and almost all of your edits are to article space, and almost none to projectspace, so I can't be sure you have a deep enough understanding of Wikipedia to be an admin. Changing to Strong Oppose after blunt and/or nonexistent answers to questions. Access Denied^(t|c|g|d|s) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose - Excellent work on articles and I disagree with people working off of percentage (for example, I have about 75% article work, but a few hundred edits to wikipedia space, but this would be judged badly). However, that flies out of the window when the user only has 41 edits to wiki space. Moral support, but more experience is needed. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Exemplary content building, but with limited experience with vandal fighting (you don't even have rollback), CSD, and other assorted admin tasks, I just can't yet see how you will use the tools. Also, with less than 50 projectspace edits and less than 20 projecttalkspace edits, I see very little involvement in discussions, whether they be about policy, AfD, or really anything else. Sorry, but I'm looking for much more diversified experience. —fetch·comms 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose – You are undoubtedly a great content creator/writer, but you have not shown any need for the mop, as echoed above by the other opposers. With only 41 edits to the project namespace, this shows that you do not have enough experience with the admin areas you plan to work in. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Changed to strong oppose after reading the answers to the questions above. The answers are simplistic and uninformative. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose clearly an asset to the project, I feel bad opposing, but Wikipedia adminship is a queer beast that takes much familiarity to understand. I do believe that extensive contribution to, and collaboration in the article space is indicative the the best qualities that an admin can have but experience is still a requisite. Just as in the way that academics who have years of experience writing can come to Wikipedia and get keel hauled by a system they don't understand so to can users who have long had experience in the article space flounder when they try to get involved in the maintenance processes, the rules of which are not at all obvious. This is evidenced in the record, looking at Cgoodwin's most recent contribution to an AfD: "Please do not delete. There are other worse, poor, non notable and even hoax articles and comments that are still in existence on WP.", I would have pegged him as a newbie. To the candidate: You are wonderful, sir! But I can't support you for adminship until you have taken the time to observe and experiment with the the way the system works, which I hope you do. We always need more admins! extransit (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   For anyone interested, here's the link to the AFD. Townlake (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose The content work is admirable, but the lack of project space and the tone of the edit summaries here and here from earlier today cause concern at first glance. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose You have some great content work, but you have almost no experience in admin-related areas. Experience in those areas is a huge factor in becoming a sysop. Sorry. A8x (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Change to Strong Oppose per question answers that lack extremely in depth (8, 9, 13, 14, 16). Your answer to my question can not be justifitd. Can you show me when you have been "mature and nor ruthless"? A8x (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose Your content work is great, but I do not see why you would need the tools. More experience in the project namespace is a must, as well as a better knowledge of policy. -download ׀ sign! 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose Great content work, but tools are unneeded. Your answer to Q16 wasn't what I was looking for. If you elaborate more, :I would gladly reconsider. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed on your talk that NuclearWarfare gave you rollback. Personally, I'd say maybe a couple of weeks with Huggle, which means a more admin-istic area of experience, which means a better RfA! Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. The candidate most certainly has excellent content contributions, but the areas that he would like to work in, he has no experience in them. One question that bothered me was his answer to 16; I would think there would be something to say if he wants to help as an admin in an area that he has an extremely low level of experience in. Questions 8, 9, and 13 also bothered me a little bit; just saying that he is mature and not ruthless, just saying that he would "tag the article", and then not knowing how to answer 13, all make me want to oppose. More in depth answers for all of these would make me reconsider my position, however. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose- moved from neutral. The answers given to some of the optional questions strike me as being dismissively blunt, and demonstrate a lack of understanding. Reyk _YO! 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose There is no great mystery to being an admin, so I have no problem with Cgoodwin focusing on content creation rather than NP patrol, or whatever, prior to his nom. However, that does mean that he has yet to demonstrate his knowledge of and engagement with established policy and practice. The questions above are the ideal opportunity to do that, so the answers just make me wonder what he expects from this process, and what he expects from adminship in general. To be honest, the bluntness of the answers do not convince me that Cgoodwin even wants to be an admin, let alone whether he is ready for it. Rje (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Like Reyk, moved from neutral based on the trite answers to serious questions. Please, take a few months, watch how a few RfA's go, and consider coming back when you're ready to address the community's concerns in a bit more verbose manner. No hard feelings, but just "no" at this point. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose - Same reasons I was neutral below, but the terse answers are insulting at worst, and naive at best. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose - per professed lack of experience in areas where the candidate wants to work. The candidate's responses to questions are so terse as to make me concerned about his/her ability to communicate productively with other users, a skill I consider vital for an admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose, sadly Clearly an excellent contributor, but I have to agree with Gonzonoir and others; I can guarantee that if you become an admin, you will get poked, nagged and abused by editors, registered, non-registered and IPs alike. The ability to explain your decisions is critical, and the style of the answers is too abrasive to be non-inflammatory. GedUK  13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Unfortunate Oppose my apologies but I cannot support at this time. Your answers to me indicate as a whole that you have not spent enough time getting to know the admin related portions of Wikipedia and as such have not yet demonstrated to me that you can be trusted with the tools. Please keep up the good work and after doing more work in the Wikipedia namespace. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose - Sorry but like a number of other editors above I am not sure that you have the need for the tools and the answers to the questions (or in some cases lack of answers) just don't convince me that you fully understand what the community is looking for in it's admins. Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose It does not seem as if Steven has nominated someone who is ready, at least at this time. The candidate fails or refuses to explain why he needs the tools or what he would do with them, if he had them. Answers to several of the questions -- especially some of the more latter ones -- suggests to me that this candidate does not have a real clue on why he's here at Rfa. More seriously, his recent statement at this Afd indicates to me that he does not have a most basic grasp of why articles are kept or deleted. The result of this Rfa now seems clear and I'm sure it will be a disappointing one for the candidate. However, I hope this a lesson learned for the nominator as well: no good can come from nominating someone who is so clearly unprepared for the task. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey there my Québécois friend, the majority do not agree that he is "clearly unprepared". Also singling out the nominator as you did is very inappropriate. Most of what has been said against him is weak. Remember this is not a vote and it is not over until it is over. This "farmboy" has shown more smarts than many Admins I have met along the way! Speaking of smarts (or lack thereof) I suggest you review your first sentence. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I have no intention of getting into a debate with you at this Rfa but I should point out that in your support comment above, you state that he should "have another go in a few months." So it would seem you are anticipating the same result as me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Glad you took my advice and fixed that first sentence. Remember we all make mistakes when trying "to clearly communicate" . . . - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what advice you're referring to, but this is beginning to become a bit trollish imo and I can't see how you feel this helps the candidate. But if it makes you feel better, go for it. I'll let you have the last word. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting me have the last word and for fixing the first sentence. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose—a key trait needed in any Wikipedia administrator is the ability to clearly communicate and answer questions. The short and somewhat evasive answers to the questions above do not inspire confidence that the candidate will be able or willing to answer user questions about his administrator actions in the future. –Grondemar 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - the fact that 36 people (as of this writing) have supported a candidate who wants to use the tools for deletion (Q1) but whose sole contribution to AfD consists of this charmingly-naive appeal to emotion speaks volumes for the RfA process. Adminship is not a trophy awarded for decent content building - it's a set of tools bestowed upon those who have shown sufficient aptitude for the skllset required for the use of said tools. This candidate has abysmal communication skills (Q7, Q8, Q9, Q16), a lack of pre-existing clue (Q13), a seeming tendacy for selective response (Q6, Q11, Q12) and seems to already be getting a bit prickly (note progressively more-disinterested answers to questions). The overall picture here is of an admin who would try to "learn on the job", make mistakes, offer tersely-worded explanations - or just archive requests for explanations without a response - and eventually have two or three dramasplosions on AN/I or somewhere, with possibly two or three "retirements" to boot. Even if this is a false impression (which I suspect may well be the case), a candidate should strive to leave a better impression on their RfA page. One doesn't need adminship to install Twinkle and warn vandals, and a candidate with only one (1) comment to AfD should not be getting involved with admin-level AfD closing. In summary, because I feel the above could be construed as unnecessarily harsh, I would like to make clear that the candidate does have an admirable skill-set with regards to content-building - but adminship requires a separate skill-set which I am far from convinced this candidate possesses. I see no flaming on Talk pages, no excessively ridiculous AfD arguments - but this is more a result of "lack of evidence" than "evidence of lack". Badger Drink (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose I really don't like the answers to the questions other opposers are having problems with. Combined with some other concerns raised, I cannot trust this user to use the tools responsibly at this time. Vodello (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Whilst I lean to support for a lot of reasons I find Badger Drink's arguments above persuasive. I looked at this RFA a couple of days ago and was going to leave it without commenting to be honest. However I'm not impressed by the approach to the answers to the optional questions either. Yes, they are optional, but as editors have pointed out in discussion above when you have no demonstrable experience in areas you'd like to work in then the questions are there to tease out that which cannot be found in the contribution history. Sorry, and FWIW a weak oppose due to many positive aspects of the request, but an oppose nonetheless. Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose – Sorry, but I don't think this nomination is motivated enough, despite the fact that he has made more than 13,000 edits since his first edit in early May 2006. I would still like an answer to question 6, I am really wondering what he wants to use the admin tools for. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Moved here from neutral. I am a bit to worried about various aspects of this RFA to remain neutral or to support. As others have mentioned i still cannot see what you would require the extra tools for - adminship is really nothing but a few extra buttons that help with some sensitive tasks - it is not a badge or a reward for excellent work. This also raises my second worry: You have virtually no edits in usual admin-related area's such as WP:CSD, WP:AIAV, WP:PROD, WP:RFPP and WP:AIAV. Work in those area's often signals a need for the tools, as well as an understanding of the policies related to them. I could easily overlook that if your answers showed that you know the ropes of those pages, but Q13 suggest that you have little working knowledge of the blocking policy. I'm sorry for being so negative, as it doesn't do justice to your excellent contributions as an editor. As i said before, you are a top-notch article writer who's edits and dedication are truly admirable. However, for now i cannot see you as an admin, as it seems to far outside your normal scope of contributions. I'm not saying never though - work in the above mentioned area's for a few months to get a good feeling for the respective policies and i will certainly support. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose per Excirial and others above. I can't support given that you intend to work in anti-vandalism and yet have made no WP:AIV reports. Your answer about that in the question above is unsatisfactory. I do admire your content work, and suggest coming back after you learn some of the anti-vandal ropes. With best wishes, Jusdafax 21:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose Answers to questions lack depth, numerous questions have not been answered, and the candidate does not seem to have prior experience in the areas they intend to work in. Spend some time working in AFD and AIV and then you'll have a good chance of passing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose, I think GedUK's train of thought is similar to my own. There are too many worries with the abrupt/short and blunt answers to this RFA so far, and your projectspace experience is indeed shown to be lacking by others in this opposition column. I am unfortunately in the position where I feel this would possibly be a net-negative promotion, at least in the short term whilst you gain experience. I would recommend gathering some more projectspace experience, then trying again. Best of luck, --Taelus (Talk) 21:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose - The first thing that caught my attention about this RfA was the lack of answers and the brevity of the existing answers. Yes, most of the questions are technically optional, but in reality, you're not going to be promoted if they're not addressed. Beyond that, I think that Badger Drink has done a good job of summing up the concerns most of us are having. The candidate is a far better content creator than I could ever be, but they unfortunately lack the experience for using the tools. —DoRD (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - While I certainly appreciate the content contributions from this editor, I don't see any indication of an understanding of admin-related areas of Wikipedia, most especially areas involving conflict resolution and article deletion. The answers to questions posed above for the most part either aren't clear, or don't seem to understand the question (the answer to question 4 in particular stands out). I don't see a particular problem with this editor's attitude or aptitude, I just don't think they are ready to accept the responsibility of adminship at this time. -- Atama頭 23:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose Terrible answers to numerous questions. Admins are expected to be able to communicate clearly with users, not give evasive non-answers. Suggest candidate withdraw as this is obviously not going to pass. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose (edit conflict) - sorry, I appreciate Cgoodwin's willingness to help Wikipedia, but I don't feel I can support this one. While there's no reason to think Cgoodwin would abuse the tools, I don't believe he has enough relevant experience to trust that he would use them correctly. His uninformative answers to the questions do not help matters - yes, they're optional, but if you're not willing to take the time to answer them, how can we expect that you will treat difficult situations with the necessary care and attention? I advise Cgoodwin to withdraw this RFA, and gain more experience in areas such as AFD (and user interaction in general) before applying again. Robofish (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose. In Cgoodwin's words and with his own lack of depth from Question 9, "No". Esteffect (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose. Concerns about breadth of experience, temperament, and answers to some of the questions. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose. You're clearly great at editing the mainspace, and you're a benefit to Wikipedia. However, the answers to some of the questions you give are very short, and that worries me. "No, I would tag it" for example is very short and does not explain much at all. Also, even though you may wish to focus on a different area, I like all admins to have significant contributions to Wikipedia: pages, and unfortunately you don't have enough for me. -- bydand•talk 07:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose Jmlk17 08:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose The answers given above are so inadequately addressed that it seems as if this user is not taking this nomination even slightly seriously. The user has been almost exclusively a content contributor (not a bad thing) and just needs some experience in some of the other areas to be an admin. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 09:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Weak Oppose You've had plenty of time to deal with concerns expressed via the optional questions but haven't really addressed the issues. I'd like to support, because you obviously have the interests of wikipedia at heart, but your answers don't persuade me. Jimmy Pitt talk 09:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. Where a candidate has very little project space experience your interaction on the RfA is all we can go by to assess your judgement. Steven Walling was right; you're a great content editor and on paper appear to be a good admin nominee. However, unfortunately I think that by your non-participation you've sunk an RfA that, with decent answers to the questions, could have been yours for the taking. Sorry. EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose - per my statement from neutral. Mlpearc powwow 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Content wise we have a person who tops the charts here. but the motivation for the tools is for usage in areas where experience seems to be a bit laxed, ie vandal fighting etc. obviously theres policy and content knowledge with the article development. Id like to see more answers in the queries before making a final decision, i could see some avenues where admin tools would help a great deal, Im certaintly am optimistic about supporting, but id like to just hold off for a tad longer. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Leaning support. This user appears to be a fine editor indeed, but as there appears to be a comparative lack of experience in admin sectors, I am not comfortable supporting until I can make more of a judgement based on their answers or any further evidence. sonia^♫♪ 12:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   It looks like I'll be staying here. I honestly don't care whether you can demonstrate a need for the tools, as there are passive, mainspace uses (the most useful of which being viewing deleted revisions and moving pages sans redirect). You are more than competent in mainspace and would make a cautious admin who is unlikely to break things; I held back because I could not find evidence of experience in the other areas you have expressed interest in, which was a minor issue compared to the apprehension your answers have given me. The nature of the role requires interaction with everything from vandals to controversial old-timers. The only way I (and others) can judge your judgement on these more subjective issues (for people are by nature more subjective than inanimate articles) is through your answers to the questions. Many of the answers you have provided are, quite frankly, the curt and over-simplistic kind oft-found on notnow RfAs. That's not only unhelpful, but it makes me cringe a little at the thought of future interactions as an administrator being of the same type. Although it is refreshing to have a user who stays out of the drama and just does solid work, your talk page does not help reassure me that you would handle people well as an admin. I cannot oppose due to your clear trustworthiness and ability, but I simply cannot support. sonia^♫♪ 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral moved to oppose - And likely to stay that way. While I think the "don't need the tools" explanation is useful, I don't think it's accurate. The underlying assumption is that the editor doesn't know how to use the tools, or maybe better, we don't know how the editor would use the tools. We use things like speedies, rc patrol, and other functions as proxies for how the editor might behave. I think this is a sensible and good editor, but part of the admin process is knowing what the problems are and how they appear in practice. That takes practice and I just don't see a comfortable level of experience with that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. My heart wants to support because the candidate has made some fantastic content contributions to the project; however, my mind says that the points raised in #3 & #4 oppose above are right on the mark. More experience is needed in the areas where you'll be using the mop.--Hokeman (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure how to perceive the arguments regarding lack of work in project space. Some people do have massive percentages in article work compared to project work, but still amass a decent amount of edits to the wikipedia pages. Leaning towards oppose; will search further. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC) - Moved to oppose.[reply]

   I am not super impressed with some of the oppose reasons given so far, particularly "has no need for the tools", and I can see no evidence that you don't understand admin-related policies. But your answers to the mandatory questions are too brief so I'd like to see your answers to some of the others before I make up my mind. Reyk _YO! 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose.[reply]

   Per Reyk. Moved to oppose. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. I would like to see better answers to the questions. I get the impression you may have not realized there would be a rush of questions right after the RfA went live and that that is why you havent answered them. —Soap— 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Staying neutral. I had hoped for answers that would show more evidence of knowledge of policies, even if you haven't gotten actual experience with certain situations yet, but I won't oppose either because I don't think you'd do anything harmful as an administrator. —Soap— 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral moved to oppose - And likely to stay that way. While I think the "don't need the tools" explanation is useful, I don't think it's accurate. The underlying assumption is that the editor doesn't know how to use the tools, or maybe better, we don't know how the editor would use the tools. We use things like speedies, rc patrol, and other functions as proxies for how the editor might behave. I think this is a sensible and good editor, but part of the admin process is knowing what the problems are and how they appear in practice. That takes practice and I just don't see a comfortable level of experience with that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Neutral for now. Clearly a great content creator, and we definitely do need those in admin. But from the answers to the questions, I just can't really tell whether the candidate understands what admin tools are there and how, when and why they should be used. The answers are brief to the point of being curt, and in some cases (eg Q4) don't even answer the question. An admin needs to be able to express themselves well in discussion and properly explain what they're doing and why (and in some ways, I think that's a more important attribute than knowing what buttons to press). However, I appreciate that this RfA is still young, that a lot of questions have been asked, and that the candidate might simply have been a bit overwhelmed by them and hasn't really had time to answer them properly. So I'm neutral for now, and hoping for some expansions of the answers (inc Q8, 9, 12, 13, 16) to help me decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral per Boing! Additionally, I don't like the question answers, especially the one for Q13. There are certain cases to block on sight and/or without the "sufficient" four warnings, for example: blatantly obvious edit filter hits, obvious socks, and page move vandals. Airplaneman ✈ 11:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral As Boing! said, “[a]n admin needs to be able to express themselves well in discussion and properly explain what they're doing and why.” But I lean towards “support” because this candidate seems to be completely drama-free. Bwrs (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral - For now, waiting for answers to all questions. Moved to Oppose - disregarding newly added questions, the questions I was waiting to be answered have not, and after waiting 24hrs. it seems your not interested in or have lost interest in becoming an admin. Mlpearc powwow 14:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral per Boing! and the three after Boing!, for now. I would like expansion on some of your answers that are vague or <10 words, as these types of answers really don't tell the voters anything. As for Q13 (and Q20), can you give an answer that is more than "Have not struck such a situation, yet"? Also, your responses to questions 8, 9, and 16 don't answer the question. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Moral support, but I don't think you're quite ready yet, or at least you haven't shown you are to my satisfaction. You've done a remarkable job of editing, but I'd like to see more familiarity with admin areas, particularly those areas in which you say you want to work. Get involved in some AfD discussions, watch the AIV board (and maybe file some reports), and come back in a couple of months, and I suspect you'll pass easily. Right now, you just don't have enough of a record in these areas for me to support you. Shimeru 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral Moved from Support. Per my comments in Support vote. I'm sorry, but every time I look at those answers, they seem to look worse. I'm afraid the enthusiasm from the candidate for this to succeed just doesn't seem to be there, for whatever reason, so I can't support, which is a shame. I did want to support such an excellent content contributor, but honestly can't with such poor interaction in their own RFA.  Begoon^talk 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]