Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Cline

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Mike Cline[edit]

Final count 68/18/8, closed by Pakaran at 03:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Mike Cline (talk · contribs) – I am pleased to nominate Mike Cline for administrator. Mike has been on Wikipedia for 3 years and has been primarily a content editor with a flawless track record including no blocks, no edit warring, no major content disputes, no drama yet plenty of well referenced article starts, article improvements, template work and all the things that we should be doing on this website. His edit count is just under 10,000 but would be far greater if he used the sandbox LESS...as an example, looking briefly at a new article he recently started titled Birds of Yellowstone National Park...the article looked almost complete in only one edit, but Mike informed me that was due to "lots of sandbox work" in this discussion. In review of MIke's contributions, I did notice that he could use the edit summary more often but aside from that, I can see nothing at all that causes any concern in the least. I'm one of those that believe that admin tools don't need to be handed out solely to those just here to do admin work..that instead, trusted mature editors who have perfect editing track records should be given tools so if they choose, they can help with admin chores. I am completely confident having watched Mike Cline for some time now (we edit in similar areas of interest) that he will not abuse his admin tools...I hope the community will agree with my assessment.MONGO 00:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am grateful to MONGO for this nomination and more than pleased to accept it.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As a new admin, my first focus would be learning the various tools and roles that admins play in WP and how best I can apply them to my WP routine. I must say it took me at least a year as an active editor to gain confidence in my ability to contribute to WP in a constructive and productive way, adhering to but using WP policies and guidelines to the advantage of the encyclopedia. As an active admin, I would most likely and eagerly participate in WP:NPP to help editors quickly understand the application of policies and guidelines as well as ensure worthy content is retained and un-worthy content isn’t. WP:CSD is also an area where I will work as many admins in the past have helped me keep my user space cleaned up in a timely manner.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think that my collective work on articles related to Fly fishing and Yellowstone National Park, especially its exploration and history, represent my best work. The Hayden Geological Survey of 1871 is just one of many Yellowstone articles I have created. Especially in the last two years, I believe my contributions to WP have been extraordinarily well organized, sourced and encyclopedic.
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: The last two years of my editing experience in WP have essentially been un-stressful, primary because I understand WP policies, guidelines, the basic content cycle of the encyclopedia and the community of editors and admins that make it a reality. Content and guidelines will change. When those changes are inconsistent with policy, they can and usually are changed back. Vandalism, although very tedious at times can be reverted. Bad grammar can be improved. Inconsistent article organization can be fixed. Today, when editors make changes that are suspect, I usually engage them thus: with some advice on the facts and sourcing. Done constructively, this produces little or no stress on my part, yet helps other editors make better edits.
I must say that my 1st year editing WP did become stressful, for the very reason that I did not fully understand all the relevant policies and guidelines and the implications they had on edits I was making. My first deletion debate was very stressful and the encyclopedia lost a good article, but it was a great learning experience. Subsequent deletion debates were much less stressful because I had taken the time to understand WP policies, guidelines and the community much better. That, in my opinion, is the key to reducing personal stress as an editor, (or admin for that matter)—understand how WP works. As an admin I would continue to broaden my understanding in the SYSOPS world as well as mentor editors in the ways of WP.
Additional optional questions about CSDs from Phantomsteve
4. Could you please answer the following questions related to CSDs:
a. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A. A1 is essentially Lorem ipsum, fills space, but means nothing. The lack of a coherent lead-in sentence (whether formatted correctly or not) is usually a dead giveaway. A3 is that fine line during the birth of an article between nothing and stub. Experienced editors no how to avoid this, new editors are more likely to create candidates for A3 because they haven't yet grasped article content essentials.
b. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to decline a request for a speedy deletion using criteria A7?
A. If the claim's [importance] credibility is unclear is the operative element of the A7 guideline. If for whatever reason--wording, sourcing, context, etc--instinctly left the impression that the Importance Claim was on the fence, I would decline the CSD-A7 request and propose or initiate alternative approaches--PROD, AFB or re-write depending on the situation.
c. In your own words, could you explain what would cause you to accept a request for a speedy deletion using the relatively new criteria A10?
A. - Although I find the guideline exceptionally clear, I must say that dependent on the subject, it might be a lot of work to really evaluate an article to be deleted under this criteria. If one had only to compare Article A with Article A1, and they were the only articles on the subject of A and were of essentially the same content, the decision would be easy--CSD-A10 applies. However, given a complex or broad subject where there might be 100s of related articles, applying CSD-A10 would required extensive research and probably be an unproductive effort timewise. In those cases, other approaches might be better used to deal with the request, and I would solicit the requester to either demonstrate unequivocally that the guideline: does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject applies or to consider other methods to deal with the issue(s).
d. Which CSD do you find the hardest to judge, and how would you ensure that you make a correct assessment for deletion under this criteria?
A. Of all the CSD criteria, I suspect that G-11 at times is very difficult to judge. The word Exclusively and Unamibigous are always subject to interpretation. Its not that there won't be articles that meet this criteria, but I suspect there will always be articles that may start out looking like they meet this criteria, but eventually turn into valid WP articles. The fine line between exclusively, unabmiguous and not necessarily unambiguous can be thin, but it does exist at times. When confronted with that fine line, I would engage editors and other admins to help determine which side of the fine line the article falls in.
Additional optional question from Phantomsteve
5. You have been editing an article Article-1, adding information, sorting out layout, etc. Another editor (editor-123) reverts some of your edits, with the edit summary "removing of unsourced information". How do you deal with this, which admin tools (page protection, page deletion, blocking, etc) or other methods you would use to deal with it, and which policies/guidelines/essays you would use in justification?
A. I believe this has actually happened to me at some point and is one of the primary reasons I create articles or major re-writes in my user space—it essentially eliminates the potential. However if it does occur in the article space here’s how I would probably handle it. 1) Make sure that I did in fact have valid sourcing for the content in question. If I didn’t I would consider revising in a way that met WP criteria. 2) Knowing that I did have valid sourcing, I would engage the other editor with that information, include it immediately in the article and press-on. 3) I would have at my disposal if necessary the various INUSE templates that I could be employed to discourage further reversions while the article was being composed. 4)If in-use templates failed to solve the problem even with continuous engagement with the reverting editor, one of the PROTECTION templates might be employed along with the involvement of an uninvolved Admin.
Throughout engagement with the reverting editor there are several policies, guidelines and essays that can be referred to. Among the most relevant are: Not Perfect, Assume Good Faith, When to cite if relevant, Improving Referencing Efforts, Work in Progress


Additional optional question from ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒
6. Given your interest in NPP, let me put two quick situations in front of you
a. An unreferenced BLP that had been newly created was deleted by an admin as it was tagged as a clear attack page. The BLP is recreated within moments of its deletion by the original author, but this time with just one source that -- on the face of it -- is a primary source. An editor has tagged it again as an attack page. What would you do as an admin in this case?
A. If I were an experienced Admin, I would probably know immediately what course of action to take. As a new Admin I would first review the facts, form a course of action and CONSULT with other Admins before taking any precipitous action. In reviewing BLP policy there’s little doubt that situations like this require bold, and quick action. The BLP policy statement should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion is unequivocal and not difficult to understand. Removing inappropriate material rapidly is paramount and deleting the article using CSD-G10 can be easily defended. Additionally, consideration of using Blocking policy against the offending editor after appropriate warnings and engagement might be appropriate as well as blocking re-creation of the offending article.
b. It is wrong to use self published sources in BLPs. What would your stand be with respect to using self published sources in biographies of people who are not living.
A. BLP questions are always problematic without a specific context where facts can be evaluated in toto relative to other facts. For Non-living Biographies, I think the farther one goes back in time, the more appropriate self-published sources are. Although self-publishing was less common 100 years ago, a great deal of historical data about notable people is contained in self-published material. When self-published sources are routinely referenced in 3rd party sources and those 3rd party sources leave no doubt about the validity of the self-published material, I see no reason why that source cannot be cited in a non-living person’s biography on WP. A perfect example that I am intimately familiar with is this source which was self-published by Langford and is used in his article Nathaniel P. Langford three times. However, one can find literally 100s of references to this self-published work in 3rd party sources published in the last 100 years.
* Langford, Nathaniel Pitt (1905). The Discovery of Yellowstone Park--Diary of the Washburn Expedition to the Yellowstone and Firehole Rivers in the Year 1870. St Paul, MN: Frank Jay Haynes.
On the other hand, if the recently departed’s self-published material has not been referenced or given validity by 3rd party sources, then its use in WP is suspect.
Additional optional questions from Lambanog
7. How many articles have you created from scratch? How many pages for articles, templates, redirects, etc. that you've significantly worked on have been nominated for deletion? Could you link to a couple?
A: I believe the number is 115 articles I've created from scratch which includes 18 redirects, 11 lists, 5 biographies and 9 book reviews. My talk page lists most of the articles I’ve created. I've created 8 templates, none of which have been nominated for deletion.
I believe the first article I created from scratch was Prometheus Process which was subsequently deleted Here. It was an early editing experience that forced me to learn WP guidelines and policies with much greater clarity and to avoid any further contributions to articles related to Strategy because of potential COI issues. Another article I created Bibliography of fly fishing survived two deletion debates: No. 1, No. 2. There was one Category I created that was deleted: here.
8. Please evaluate this RfD discussion and close [1]
A: In this case, an editor, one very close to this particular question, created a variety of cross-namespace redirects to assist in work the editor was undertaking. Another editor, believing the redirects violated the cross-namespace essay consensus, nominated it for deletion. At least one other editor agreed with the deletion. The only defense of the redirects was by their creator, thus Admin AMORY closed the RFA with a delete decision. My only observations about this are: 1) I don’t think AMORY provided sufficient reason for deletion (maybe that’s not typically done). It may have been appropriate to relist for additional consensus (am unaware of how often that is done in template delete disucssions) and 2) I don’t understand where the Request to the developers comment and as it isn’t attributed to a specific user, I am unsure as to how something like that gets dealt with, if at all.
9. Could you clarify what kind of contributions you plan to make related to CSD?
A: As an Admin, I would consider it a responsibility to monitor Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on a routine basis when working on the encyclopedia and devote time to dealing with an appropriate number those CSDs (regardless of criteria) I felt comfortable with. I am confident that my skills and comfort level would grow as my admin experience grows.
As a sidebar comment, that applies here as well as to other comments, my profession has me traveling extensively throughout the year (100,000 miles on one airline last year), spending a lot of time in airport lounges, hotels and such. As we live in a connected world, I do most of my minor WP work while traveling and my major work while at home in the presence of my library. Admin tasks will be an appropriate and productive use of my WP time while I am traveling.


Additional optional questions from Coldplay Expert
10. What is your opinion on the Ignore all rules policy?
A: This is a bit of an essay, but I’ve thought about this carefully over the last 12 hours and purposefully did not pre-read the several essays on What IAR Means so as to cloud my thoughts (have read them many times in the past). IAR is not a license to maintain an ignorance of the rules, nor is it a sanction for blatant violation of important policies and guidelines, violations that will and should be corrected and brought to light. Blindly following every possible rule and having to find a rule that specifically allows you to do something for every aspect of your editing (or admin for that matter) would be extremely stifling in our ability to improve WP. So the community, through a brilliant, IMHO, consensus message created WP:IAR, a powerful rule and one with little subtext, a rule that encourages reasoned creativity, innovation, a bit of artistic license and most of all, bold editing with the goal of improving WP.
14 years ago I finished a 28 year professional career in Special Investigations and Counterintelligence, a profession that was far more highly regulated in every way than WP could ever imagine because of implications on individual reputations, personal freedoms and national security. Yet, given all that regulation—volumes—in the field and in the headquarters we operated very effectively with the following philosophy: If something needs to get done, and the regulations don’t precisely prescribe how to do it, and the regulations don’t specifically prohibit a specific methodology to do it, then do it anyway you can that meets the objective. This philosophy worked very well in getting people to get things done without them believing there had to be a rule for everything or that the rule makers in their infinite wisdom had conceived a rule for every possible situation. I think WP:IAR is much like the above philosophy.
Fortunately, a great number of rules in WP are really easy to break without consequence, and their breaking improves the encyclopedia. One of the reasons this is the case is their wording. The words may, should, can as operative verbs are not prescriptive, but create suggestive guidelines or broad boundaries of interpretation. I may do something a certain way, but I don’t have to. Here’s a specific example that I interpret as supportable by WP:IAR. In the Stand-alone List Manual of Style Guideline there is a sentence (a rule) in the Naming Conventions section that reads: The name or title of the list should simply be List of _ _ (for example list of Xs). Yet there are 100s of lists in WP that don’t follow this rule and WP is better for it. For example, my recently created Birds of Yellowstone National Park and Mountains and mountain ranges in Yellowstone National Park are stand-alone lists, but ignoring the above guideline made their titles far more encyclopedic and meaningful to readers.
I think WP:IAR, as I said above, is not a license for mischief, nor is it an excuse to maintain ignorance of the rules. It is a philosophy rather than a rule that can and should be invoked at times to maintain and foster the creativity that’s made WP was it is today.
11. What are your views on the Petition against IAR abuse?
A: On the surface, I agree with the premise, and I think my answer above supports that. What does strike me though is the mere existance of this petition (supported by much of its discussion page) is that there may not be as much consensus about what WP:IAR means as the active WP community might think there is.
12. As an admin, would you or would you not use the WP:IAR policy as an explination for any administrator-related decisions (blocking, deletion, ect...)?
A: Without a specific context and facts, that's pretty much a loaded question therefore I can't answer it with a simple yes or no. I do believe however, that if I chose to make an Admin decision where the discussion included the invocation of WP:IAR, I would be more than comfortable in weighing the facts in light of IAR in making my decision.
Additional optional questions from DGG ( talk )
13.A Just 2 days ago you placed a prod tag on Hanson School. W, saying "non-notable school, unreferenced)". Another editor than myself removed it with a comment: "contest deletion - deletion of articles about high schools is controversial, so shouldn't be done with WP:PROD, and, anyway, it only takes a couple of seconds with Google to confirm that this school is notable)". Were you unaware that we have not eleted a high school in 2½ years now a/c WP:COMMON, or did you mean to challenge it?
A Over the last few days I devoted some of my WP time to NPP work with the aim of doing a few CSDs, PRODs and welcoming new editors to demonstrate to myself that I, as this contingents says, “has a clue” about the process. My PROD of the Hanson School was a result of that effort. In good faith, I placed a PROD tag on an unreferenced 5 day old article with no evidence of notability in the article. As DGG surmises correctly, I was totally unaware of the inherent notability of High Schools as brought up by the contesting editor, most probably because I’ve never edited in that area of WP before. Absent that bit knowledge, which with one experience I am now armed with, my PROD was a reasonable decision. An expectation, that all editors and admins should have knowledge of every trend in WP is unreasonable. What I think is most instructive here is that the collaborative WP deletion process worked. An editor PRODed an article, another editor, armed with additional information contested it and we moved on. The initiating editor learned a bit more about another area of WP and the article got its deserved opportunity to be improved. Rhetorically, if the PROD on this article had not been contested, and an admin also lacking knowledge of the inherent notability of high schools (I am sure there must be some of these around) deleted the article, Would WP have been harmed?
13B Second, do you think "unreferenced" is a reason for deletion?
A Is lack of referencing a reason for deletion? Fundamentally, as a reason in its own right, absent any context, NO. If the answer was Yes, there would be significantly fewer articles in WP than there are today. However, this a complex question, that requires far more discussion and context than merely simple Yes or No answers. Take for example this phase from CSD-G10: biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Surely a G-10 deletion is made because the article is unreferenced? Sourcing is integral to demonstrating in an article the Notability of the subject, NPOV , Not OR and supporting facts and statements likely to be contested. WP:Verify is unusually clear on this. Absent any sourcing in an article, none of these are firmly established. In a PROD or AfD that is based on the claim that the subject is non-notable, and the article contains no sources showing that it is, and that article is deleted, is it because it was non-notable or unreferenced?? Those genera of articles that enjoy the cloak of inherent notability, such as high schools above provide an interesting dilemma. If they should not be deleted because they are inherently notable, how long can they remain unreferenced? An area I am very familiar with is that of geographic places. For the most part this genera of articles enjoys the cloak of inherent notability. If Mountain Peak A is listed in the USGS Geographic Place Names database, it is notable. An editor could create an article with the single sentence and no sourcing: Mountain Peak A is a mountain peak in [state]. PRODing based on Non-Notable Peak, No references could be justly contested because the contester could certainly cite the inherent notability of Geographic places and this peak existence in the USGS database. But what if that source was never added to the article? Would it survive an AfD absent any sources?? Because there are a plethora of article genera that do not enjoy ‘’inherent notability’’ and that the notability threshold is not precisely defined somewhere (such as films and music have), then sourcing becomes key in establishing the notability of the article subject in question. Artificial Flies are a subject area that I am intimately familiar with. What if I created an article with the following title and un-sourced text: Booby fly: The Booby fly is an artificial fly, invented in England, and is so named because it resembles women’s breasts. Someone doing NPP completely unfamiliar with Artificial flies and fly fishing might nominate the article for CSD-G1 or G3. If it didn’t get deleted that way, a PROD as non-notable or hoax fly, unreferenced might be seem reasonable to an uninformed editor. If this article was never referenced, it would surely eventually fall to an AfD. Yet, it is not a hoax and it is a very notable fly. There are literally 100s of on-line sources about it-Here's just one-[2] and a great many printed sources.
Referencing is extremely important as the WP:Verify policy states and all editors, both new and old should be encouraged to become better at it. It may not be the sole reason to support a deletion, but absent any sourcing, other deletion reasons are very much strengthened.
Just my comment: as I see it the G10BLP case is deleted immediately because it is harmful as well as unreferenced, which most unreferenced articles--BLPs or otherwise-- are not. Only the harmful ones need immediate deletion. Otherwise, this returns to the difference between WP:V and WP:N. Schools articles --or anything else--where no good evidence of existence can be found are indeed deleted at AfD as failing WP:V, just as they ought to be. But it's "no evidence can be found," not "no evidence is currently in the article." DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13C Third, do you think that WP:BEFORE is a good idea? Do you think the nom. of an article should in general look for sources, when sources might be relevant?
A: WP:Before is absolutely a good idea and the experienced Nominator will have developed a routine and methodology that allows them to accomplish these steps efficiently in the course of their WP day. And, an experienced Administrator will have developed a methodology to evaluate nominations as to whether some of all of these before the fact guidelines have been considered or undertaken by the nominating editor.
Nominators should, in general, as you suggest, look for sources of notability if they are not in the article. Finding them can be problematic for esoteric subjects, and assessing their WP:RS In-light of WP:Verify can be problematic if one is not expert or knowledgeable of the subject area, or the only sources are old, published material that is not readily available and that meaningful Google hits are unlikely.
Additional optional questions from Power.corrupts
14. What is your view on the ongoing evolution of WP's policies and guidelines: should they be descriptive or prescriptive? Please provide your reasoning.
A: The fact that WP Policies and Guidelines are evolving is indicative of a healthy collaborative environment that is essential to WP success and longetivity. All healthy collaborative environments require rules that everyone participating can understand and follow. Those rules need to facilitate the achievement of the collaborative effort's goals. In WP that goal is The primary objective of Wikipedia is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia from WP:SR. Achieving that objective requires both prescriptive and descriptive rules. Some prescriptive rules are required because WP does not exist in its own vacuum, but in a connected global environment where complex legal, ethical and credibility concerns dictate specific behavior by participants in areas where imprudent behavior would jeopardize the collaborative goals. One the other hand, a collaborative project, with a goal such as WP, could not possibly contrive prescriptive rules that would address every conceivable contribution to the encyclopedia now and in the future without seriously stifling achievement of the overall collaborative objective. Thus Descriptive guidelines become far more useful in furthering the collaborative objective. The farther one gets from those rules necessary to deal with legal, ethical and credibility concerns, the most descriptive and flexible the rules should be. WP must remain open to new ideas and approaches to achieving the goal of the encyclopedia and descriptive rules, vice prescriptive ones allow that.

There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.

— Victor Hugo
Our rules should never discourage ideas whose time has come!
14A. Sincerely, thank you. I regret the sweat you have had over this. Do you think that WP's policies and guidelines should crystalize around and arise out of the community's current practices and its current views on consensus, or do you think that policy formation should take place in the various community fora (RfC etc.) and then be improsed on the wider community. 2-3 lines will suffice. I regret my inefficient communication in my first question, I'm often taken aback myself about the parlance used around here; anyway I now know that you could be (have been?) a speech writer for any politician, any party, not offending anyone :-) Power.corrupts (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think policies, many times have to be imposed because they result from issues that can seriously harm the project. Even those issues evolve and the method of development should incorporate community wide involvement (not necessarily consensus) to the greatest extent possible because that ensures the fastest way to get wide compliance. Basic guidelines and MOS should be developed by on-going consensus development the way we do it today. I would fear that imposition of glidelines and MOS would serious damage the project's goal as an Open Encyclopedia. Hope I got my point across, am juggling this and an all-day conference call.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I don't blame anyone for that mistake. It's an unwritten "rule". Nowhere are high schools officially regarded as notable; nowhere in WP:N is it mentioned, and WP:SCHOOL was a failed proposal; there is a brief mention at WP:AFDP but that page is not a policy or guideline. Yet, try to bring a high school to AfD and it's almost surely going to be kept because it's a high school and assumed to be notable, based on the fact that most AfDs on high schools closed the same way in the past. That's an example of something you just aren't likely to learn without being involved in a lot of AfDs, and one reason why experience is important. -- Atama頭 19:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • People heavily involved in AfD know about it, but nobody else does. What I love about Wikipedia is that there are people who are prepared to work in specialised sections, and get to know the procedures of that section very well. An understandable consequence of working intently in an important section is an assumption that other committed Wikipedians also know the important details of that section. I have worked in many sections of Wikipedia, and I have learned over the years that Wikipedia is like the TARDIS - there's always more sections and more sections to discover. We cannot know them all. I am a little discomforted by the sort of specialised knowledge questions that people get asked at RfA - though, to be fair, they are usually easily answered by looking up the relevant guidelines. SilkTork *YES! 00:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And...admins usually gain more knowledge as they start to dwelve into areas they never would have gone before gaining admin tools...many questions I always thought were almost an "open book" study guide...and offer insight into admin work that many admin candidates may not have ever heard of before.--MONGO 04:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Unconditionally...will be an asset.--MONGO 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. Fine editor; likely will be a fine admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Excellent article creation, and I like the approach you mention in the answer to Q1. I hope we share the same views on important policies outside of WP but would support you even if we don't.  7  04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Likely to be a fine admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Exceeds my criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Content works look great. We need more admins who write articles (as opposed to focusing on vandal fighting) RxS (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support He's calm, friendly and has lots of experience (3 years). I accept the nominator's decision. Minimac94 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support User has been around since Jan 2007 and good track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. An exemplary track record of content-building combined with a low profile in drama space sounds like the ideal candidate to me. I believe you've demonstrated that you possess the judgement and maturity to take things slowly in unfamiliar areas and even if, at worst, the only times you use the mop are to maintain your own userspace that would still be a net positive for Wikipedia. Wholehearted support. EyeSerenetalk 10:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Support I would have liked to have seen a little bit more experience in admin areas but I see just enough to support and I also trust the judgement of the nominator here. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support may not become the most active admin but would be trustworthy with the toolsAjbpearce (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - level-headed, good writer, little downside. Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Good editor with a long tenure and clean block log, I recently flagged him as an wp:Autoreviewer. I'm not bothered if his use of the mop will simply be moving articles from his userspace to mainspace without redirect - that would still save another admin from deleting them as U1 or G7. It could also be useful for him to be able to see deleted articles, as there could be occasions when he is contemplating writing an article for a subject that has previously been deleted, and if so it is useful to be able to check whether the previous article was for a different person of the same name. ϢereSpielChequers 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong candidate - experienced with no outstanding issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Looks good. Thanks for your contributions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Without reservation. If a candidate promises to learn how to be an admin before using the tools, then why shouldn't we trust their word when they have such a wonderful track record? I'm confident the candidate will make a fine admin, and that's that. ceranthor 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - A long-term editor with fine content contributions. His responses and editing history show an individual who takes a very reasoned and mature approach to Wikipedia. I envision the help of this kind of thoughtful drama-free editor with administrative tasks will only be a positive. — CactusWriter | needles 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. And why for not? Looks to be a sound bloke. Solid experience. No downside apparent. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Not seeing any evidence Mike wouldn't use the tools well (even if he wouldn't use them much); and in the absence of such evidence, he should be given them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not seeing any issues. That they've largely avoided the project space is all the more reason to support. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A zero-drama, zero-politics admin candidate, what's not to like there. I don't see anything that raises my concerns. While I would like to see some more projectspace work, it's not a dealbreaker. Trusilver 02:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Seems like a good asset to the project. The concerns brought up by the opposers do not seem IMO to bear on his fitness to perform admin duties. --rogerd (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, User:Trusilver above puts it quite well. Always happy to have more admins that stay away from drama and Wiki-politics. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Support. Has experience in the areas I'm concerned with and seems to possess prudence. Lambanog (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Week Support I'm too lazy to add up my RFA criteria, but he looks ok, my only concerns are the edit summaries, the speedy deletion warning things and um....., the lack of contribs to wp mainspace. Buggie111 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Plenty of experience for me to trust him, looks like a great editor. I feel much more comfortable supporting candidates like this, whose edit stats may not be perfect in every way, than ladder-climbing mandarins who have spent the last six months in training for the truly epic goal of becoming a Wikipedia admin. AlexiusHoratius 19:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support He'll do just fine. Responsible and clueful editor with three years of solid experience. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Plenty of experience and clue, suggesting that he'll quickly figure out what to do and what not to do. --Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support He's not the most outstanding candidate I've seen. But he's done his bit to add to the value of the project. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 14:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per nom. Tan | 39 15:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support A trustworthy editor who's made fine contributions to the encyclopedia. He will be just as trustworthy, careful and valuable as an administrator. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support. Brilliant answers to my questions. Yes, the last one was a loaded question. Nice job at noticeing that. You are open minded and will not make a desision without all of the facts. I like that. Good Job!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak Support per buggie. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Can be trusted. -- Ϫ 05:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the fact that an editor focuses on actually writing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in other activities shouldn't be held against them. He has plenty of experience and great answers to the questions; I would definitely trust him as an admin. The lack of contribs to the wp namespace doesn't mean that he will suddenly start using his tools in new areas without a clue. Swarm(Talk) 07:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Well said Swarm. And I will say it again! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the fact that editors focus on actually writing the encyclopedia rather than engaging in other activities shouldn't be held against them. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Wow. After reading your userpage, I think we're very lucky to have you. If this RfA fails, I hope you'll run again in 6 months or so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Should be okay. Tim Song (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I trust him to be a fine admin. hmwith☮ 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Aiken ♫ 18:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Out of pure disdain for the idiocy of the opposition. A perfectly solid candidate who you oppose for lack of obsessive fanboy behavior? This is an encyclopedia, folks, not a best-in-show at Comic-Con. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support – no concerns here. To the nominator: doesn't using a sandbox also up your edit count? Airplaneman talk 06:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. It's not rocket science. All that's really needed is someone calm, intelligent, and if they goof, willing to change behavior in response to constructive criticism. That seems to be the case here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate makes reasonable arguments in AfDs as seen at [3] and [4], he is an article creator as seen at User:Mike_Cline#Articles_I_have_created, he is a fellow fisherman, he is a veteran editor, and he has never been blocked. His heart and mind lie in the right place. I have no reason to assume he would abuse adminship tools. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Looks great. RayTalk 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Excellent answers to questions. Though I would have used Article X rather than Article A in 4c :). Unlikely to go berserk and (quoting ANobody) "his heart and mind lie in the right place". As an aside, I don't think we should only be emphasizing experience in project space when picking admins. Any reasonable person can figure things out as they go along and most reasonable editors are willing to undo mistakes. While we might need admins who have project space experience, we also need admins who work primarily in article space but are willing to help out with admin duties.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak Support I have some concerns but I think the candidate deserves the benefit of the doubt and could make a good admin. Best, Mifter (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. An experienced editor with a history of collegial interaction and solid content contributions whose answers to questions induce confidence. Familiarity with project space can be easily acquired post-RfA, and Mike seems to have the qualifications where it matters – character.  Skomorokh  18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Won't abuse the tools Secret account 20:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per Mongo.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Next thing we'll be saying is that 20k projectspace isn't enough experience. —Dark 09:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak support from neutral. On review, I don't see why not. --Taelus (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, will make good use of the tools. The fact that editor has had less than 4i^pi contributions to namespaces starting with the letters B and Æ since last Saturnalia doesn't concern me nearly as much as it seems to terrify the Oppose voters. I can see them now, their monocles dropping into wine glasses, trays of imported delicacies being hurled across dining rooms, howls echoing around studies and conservatories... What were we talking about? Oh, yes, will make a fine sysop. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I am sure this fine editor will make a fine admin too once he has the tools. No concerns here. ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Sounds like an extremely cool, considerate, deep-thinking, and well experienced editor. Lack of experience in some important areas doesn't really bother me, because this is clearly someone who would not venture into unknown areas without taking the time to learn about them properly first -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Seems experienced, competent and unlikely to abuse the tools. The opposers' concerns about experience are a-priori reasonable but personally I disagree. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Lack of project-space edits isn't really a concern to me: to my knowledge, nobody has been desysopped for not having enough experience, rather, improper conduct has been a more common desysopping reason: no one has brought up any behavioral concerns here, and my observations of the candidate prior to this RfA were positive, so I don't think there are any problems here in that regard. In addition, I should note that someone can still be an effective admin without participating in admin areas, and instead can use them productively during their everyday editing. I think Mike Cline will make a decent admin. Acalamari 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Not convinced by arguments in oppose section. Think that project would benefit from giving this editor the tools. -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Yup, definitely. (Although I'll point out that deletion rationales by closing admins are not usually given at RfD as they usually aren't needed.) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't mind, I'd like to know if that is stated anywhere. Lambanog (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support While DGG's neutral argument is pretty compelling, I'm inclined to trust a good content creator with good answers and a clean track record to learn on-the-job. If he hasn't been a problem so far, giving him the tools isn't going to make him one. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support User contributes to building the encyclopedia and demonstrates due care in their on-wiki activities. See a good admin candidate here. --StaniStani  22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Reasonably satisfied with the user. Like the devotion to the fishing articles. I think he will not abuse the tools that come with adminship. Fully support.Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seems quite sensible and mature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support —Soap— 02:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support – agreeing with Jclemens. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. As many people above, such as Acalamari, explained more fully, there is no reason to assume that Mr. Cline will be a bad admin. Some of the oppose reasons (lack of deletion notifications) don't appear to be grounded in fact if he did not have any nominations he had to notify people of. Ucucha 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - I can't support editors with virtually no project space experience. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was he ever intending in working there? Look in Question 1. smithers - talk 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have and it inspires absolutely no confidence in me whatsoever. Your comment also is perplexing. I should support because the candidate doesn't say he wishes to work in admin areas? Seriously? Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits in wikipedia and wikipedia talk namespaces combined count up to over 400. This is not "virtually no project space experience". Polargeo (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A very quick look through [5] shows that Mike Cline has taken part in well over 60 AfD disscussions. He has also taken part in several categories for discussion and even templates for discussion. Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When a majority of those 400 edits are Wikiproject related it does. I'm talking about strictly admin related areas and I just don't see the experience I've come to expect. Sorry. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason to believe that Mike Cline would abuse admin tools, or is it just that you feel that someone needs to "earn their stripes" more before being granted them? I'm of the thinking that when seeing a tenured editor with an excellent track record we should give them the tools, even if they use them infrequently and especially if there is no reason to believe they will abuse them....it's not as if we have only a limited number of admin tools to hand out...if anything, we need more admins, especially nearly blemish free ones like this candidate.--MONGO 00:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I was about ready to go to the support column but then I went to your contributions and saw that when you nominate things for speedy deletion, there are no notifications to the article creator. Either that or you don't use edit summaries. Two things that per my RfA criteria can't make me support. Sorry. smithers - talk 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this editors high count of deleted contribs is a result of NPP / CSD tagging (with missing talk page notifications) - rather, I believe they are a result of his own contributions to his own sandboxes where he works on articles extensively, before requesting their deletion after putting them into the article namespace. Also - his answer to Q1 indicates that his involvement with CSD is in keeping people's own userspace clean. Before others start to agree with this potentially valid concern I would like to ask an admin to review deleted contribs to see if there were any significant number of pages deleted as a result of him nominating articles for speedy deletion.  7  06:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked over the most recent 4000 deleted contributions, and they are, as mentioned above, 99% in his own userspace. No point in notifying yourself. GedUK  09:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then he has very little experience there in the first place. And User:7, he does not say the "cleaning up userspace" comment in Question 1. With what you have stated, he has virtually no CSD experience then. smithers - talk 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the answer to Q1 he says "WP:CSD is also an area where I will work as many admins in the past have helped me keep my user space cleaned up in a timely manner.". In other words, he plans to help with CSD where he has experience (in cleaning up user space tagged deletion requests). I believe he has indicated he has no plan to wade into deep waters without a full understanding of what he is doing.  7  04:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I'm not sure the bit would be of use to Mike, his categorisation of CSD as keeping peoples user-spaces clean fits with his deleted edits, several thousand almost all in his userspace suggests he is unaware of the actual meaning of csd, I can't support that. I think if Mike was made an admin it would just result in him spending less time doing what he is clearly good at - writing articles--Jac16888Talk 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I interpreted that as meaning something like "admins have helped me keep my user space clean so I'd like to put time into CSD to pay back for the use I've got from it", not that he actually thinks that's all it's for. I could be wrong, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And keeping user areas tidy is a CSD area, see U1, for example. it is of course, far more than that as well. GedUK  11:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Such oppose reason leaves one to wonder, if admin jac16888 knows what he's talking about, and if he is in the right place himself.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. per above and per low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Per lack of contributions in the Wikipedia space. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. The A7 category is always tricky, and contentious, and it is important to get it right. The A7 should be declined if the article makes an ASSERTION of importance, regardless of whether that will ultimately meet the notability standard. Mike's answer - that he would decline something "instinctly left the impression that the Importance Claim was on the fence" is not the right answer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not actually what the policy says. I don't want to [and won't] get into an A7 debate here, but "assertion" appears nowhere in the guideline, and although some editors have taken it upon themselves to impose that requirement, despite some advocacy it is not part of the criteria. The operative language is "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant....a lower standard than notability." I don't see why this is relevant though since there's not any apparent use of A7 by this candidate (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any recent CSD patrolling from the comments and my quick look at the edit history). Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shadowjams, I think your response actually makes things worse. Mike specifically says he wants to patrol CSD, and the answer to when would you decline A7 is when the article DOES indicate (even I'm putting in a stronger standard with ASSERT) importance, not when something "instinctly left the impression that the Importance Claim was on the fence" (whatever that means - I've read that sentence a couple of times now, and I think perhaps he needs to go back and have a look at it, as it may be that it's not saying what he meant). Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I don't see any XfD, CSD, or PROD notifications in the past 2000 edits. This is fundimental that the user be notified on deletion of an article. Users need to cleanup their own mess and not leave it to other editors. I also don't think you have an understanding of CSD A3. (For more details go to User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, someone raised this above and it was pointed out that 99% of his deletion requests are in his own userspace. That's an issue for me, as I don't think he's familiar with the CSD criteria other than author requests deletion in userspace, and I don't think he's done much in the way of AfD or PROD either Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unlikely someone may not know all the nuances of various rules and regs prior to their involvement. Understandable that lack of concentration in various admin areas makes it hard to determine if there will be misuse of admin tools...but based on editors contributions, no precedent of malice is apparent...so if a mistake were made, it would only be a learning experience, not a deliberate malicious action. I'm confident this candidate would ensure he got directions before he plunged into areas of admin work he may not feel completely comfortable with.--MONGO 18:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mongo, lets say you create an article about a person pretty well known in your town that has gotten a few awards from the mayor and maybe the county, and everybody knows the person in your town. Now lets say I go and tag it for A7, and don't notify you, the creator. Next thing you know, it is deleted before you have a chance to put a {{hangon}} to it, restating the notability of the person. Do you think that is fair? Would you be mad at me? smithers - talk 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors should be notified that an article they created has been put up for deletion review.--MONGO 06:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MWOAP, maybe I'm missing something but why are you only interested in XfD work in the past 2000 edits? Is there an expiration date on XfD experience? Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't just look at that. I should have included that it was all areas of deletion. I looked back another 2000 edits and still don't see anything. That also carries back to Feb of last year. relitive recent deletion expirience is something I require. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose editor has no experience in project space, and based on answer to Q1, I wonder if the editor has any interest in the project space. RadManCF (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "No" experience? Did you bother to read this candidates answers to questions and his statement?--MONGO 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose You've spent too much time away from the project space to be given the sysop tools right now. I really think sysops should participate at least somewhat in the development of community consensus regarding policy interpretation, which requires some participation in the project space. Because I haven't been able to see your recent stances on community consensus I can't support based off of the year-old participation that I see, since it oftentimes lacked a basis in policy (particularly your participation in list-related AfDs). ThemFromSpace 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, sadly. Great content work, and reasonable answers to some questions, but you need some amount of practical experience in admin-related areas before applying for adminship. Also, it's not clear at all what admin areas you intend to work in. Pcap ping 10:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I sure would like someone to explain why granting the tools to Mike Cline would hurt the project...I have yet to see that. I thought it was obvious what areas of admin work Mike said he would work in...--MONGO 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I think this is a very good editor, and a promising future admin candidate. But I see this nomination as putting the cart before the horse. Basically, this is an editor with little-to-no experience in areas related to adminship. Per Q1, the intention is to get the tools, and then to participate in CSD and NPP work. The editor should rather participate in those areas first, show competence in those areas, and then apply for adminship. What I do see from this editor is good; I see intelligence and caution, and a lot of article development. It's what I don't see that leads me to oppose. -- Atama頭 17:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @atama, sometimes it is better to have "little-to-no experience in areas related to adminship" than to have too much of experience like you do for example, don't you think so? Sometimes too much "experience in areas related to adminship" prevents an admin to realize that he/she works with a real human being, the most important tool an administrator could get, the tool that should not be abused a single time. First of all and the most of all an admin should be a fair person, and I am sure Mike is. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - per low edit count in the Wikipedia namespace. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 00:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Per Atama et. al. For someone who would like to use admin tools in NPP / CSD, I would like to see some experience in those areas. However, lack of project space contributions is of no consequence. decltype (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reluctant Oppose. A very good content contributor who simply needs more experience in the general "admin areas". Laurinavicius (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Per smithers, Elen of the Roads, and MWOAP, I feel that Mark Cline doesn't have the experience in administrative areas and understanding of CSD that a RfA candidate should have. His answer to the questions posed above do not indicate a strong understanding nor complete knowledge of CSD that an administrator should have. An RfA candidate should have an intimate knowledge of everything that an Administrator needs to know. An Administrator must already have all the knowledge necessary to make quick, justifiable, sensible decisions BEFORE he or she becomes an Administrator - Administration is not a time to learn, but a time to lead. -- Nutarama (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to see very many admin candidates that have an intimate knowledge of everything that an Administrator needs to know...I mean, what would you know about it, Nut-a-rama?--MONGO 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response is unhelpful. Nutarama isn't applying for adminship. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The community grants administrator status to trusted users. From Arguments to avoid: The question posed with every RfA is "Can this user be trusted with the administrator tools?" Yet, most if not all the opposers never actually come out and say "I cannot trust this candidate with Administrator Tools". I'm finding little reason to decline based on not having an intimate knowledge of everything that an Administrator needs to know since few if any admin candidates do and many never do even long after becoming admins...to suggest that admins don't learn more after gaining tools would be something I would find hard to swallow.--MONGO 04:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What one should need to know should be found in Wikipedia policies and guidelines which represents the theory. However, from what I have seen, common but undocumented practice is the baseline of "experienced" admins as often as not. The reasonable assumption that experience in project space is desirable therefore has in my view increasingly become fallacious. Much more important is a connection with the majority of constituents that admins come in contact with. In votes like this in project space, however, specialist votes from many who do not create content are overrepresented. It is an imbalance and bias that should be addressed. Lambanog (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Mike is an experienced editor and while I don't think he'd abuse the tools; I feel reluctant in giving them to someone who has little experience in admin-type areas. I also think an admin needs to be involved with at least Wikiproject; a connection to the Wikipedia community. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Need understand and follow process more, like telling people of delete noms. — JoJo • Talk • 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, reluctantly. Seems to be a very sensible editor, with firms support from many trustworthy people. Your answers are somewhat bland, you lack practical experience in admin-related areas and I cant get a firm picture of what you represent. I have recently intensely regretted some earlier support votes I have given, I'm sick of tendentious admins, and then I default to oppose. Sorry. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. I would trust this editor as an admin, and I understand the argument that one good use of the tools is a net positive. But while I have the utmost of respect for their encyclopaedic contributions, I do not want the user to be given the tools if this would significantly change their focus, as the answer to Q1 implies. WFCforLife (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Excellent user but I am worried that he does not have enough demonstrated experience that is specifically relevant to being an admin. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good content contributor, but I am concerned about the lack of admin-related area experience. Particularly, the statement that the editor would work in the CSD area combined with the indicated lack of experience in that area gives me worry (but insufficient to oppose because I feel the user is well-intentioned and has good common sense judgement as indicated by existing contributions). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Regardless of where this candidate wishes to work, I believe that all admins must still have a certain level or involvement in the project space, and only 400 edits (see [6]) is not enough for me. I also agree with Shirik, I would like to see some more in CSD other than userspace.  fetchcomms☛ 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - Has nothing to do with lack of involvement in project space. I see that as a plus. But most RfA duties involve either vandalism patrol, something deletion related, or perhaps more nuanced page protection and editing those pages. I see almost none of that in the long list of this editor's strength. I think given a month or two of some reasonable activity in any one of those fields, he/she can come back and it's an easy yes. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Although the candidate is a good editor, I do not think that they have enough experience in admin areas to be an admin at the moment, but this is not strong enough to oppose - hence my placement here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral for now Even when someone intends limited use of the tools, they will inevitably run across situations where other things are called for, and should be able to respond apropriately to at least the most common situations. I don;t think he'd go wrong, but if he intends to work at CSD , he needs to practice there with the things a non-admin can do, such things as nominating articles for deletion,and removing clearly inappropriate tags. His answers to the CSD questions were very good, so I can see he at least knows what the rules are--otherwise I would be opposing. But he has almost no experience using them,; if he had, I would be supporting. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. The article writing is valuable and impressive and should not be underestimated. However, I'm not seeing the kind of established excellence in any area other than article writing (which is excellent and long may it continue, but you don't need admin tools to write great content) and I'm afraid I just don't feel you have enough experience in the "behind-the-scenes" areas of the wiki to convince me you truly know what you're doing as an admin. I was considering opposing based on that, but I rest here because several editors whom I respect greatly and who have excellent judgement are in the support column. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, this is too tough for me to decide. I agree with comments in both support and oppose, and after reviewing this several times I just can't decide, so here I am. Best of luck however, you are an excellent editor. --Taelus (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Changing to support[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Mike_Cline&oldid=1149834449"