Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronhjones

Ronhjones

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (32/15/7); Scheduled to end 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Ronhjones (talk · contribs) – It is my honor to nominate Ronhjones for consideration as an administrator. We have all seen Ron around doing vandal patrol and clean up for sometime. He is knowledgeable in our processes and active in the community doing both clean up work and article creation and improvement. His user page is impressive and a hard look at his edit history and talk page more than confirms that he is an excellent candidate for administrator. His devotion to Wikipedia is evident in Template:Grand Junction Canal Route Map which is used on Grand Junction Canal, clearly hours of work. I have always found him to be courteous and helpful with new volunteers and vandals alike. Jeepday (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you kindly for this nomination, which I accept.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Obviously, I would start in the areas that I know best, and see a great deal of with huggle - vandal fighting WP:AIAV, WP:CSD, and extending into bad usernames and WP:AfD. Of course, as with any of the new tools I have used (AWB, HG), I would go carefully at first to gain experience - I know that there will be plenty to learn (starting with WP:NAS) before using the tools, it is probably better to sit back at first and observe how other admins execute their duties, rather than diving in at the deep end. Then I can use the tools for obvious decisions, and as I gain experience, progress to the more contentions decisions.

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

A: I'm not a person to write pages of prose, it doesn't fit with my intuitive scientist profile. I prefer more of a mental challenge - I'm very proud of all the canal maps I have made of the UK canal network - I have now made six of these, which is as stated is quite time consuming to get to the finished product, often involving making one or two new icons in order to fit the real world. I also constructed an intrinsic Infobox for Navigable Aqueducts - Template:Infobox AqueductNavigable, and placed it in all the appropriate pages.
I think my best article page would have to be the Lune Aqueduct
I also like popping into the Help and Reference Desks, and commenting where my background and knowledge allows.

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 don't do stress. Once you start vandal fighting then you have to expect some serious abuse to ones user and talk pages (and bad language). Thankfully often reverted by other editors before I see them. I always endeavour to be civil to all, even though sometimes the other user might not be so polite (and the very impolite tend to be reverted by others before I can reply), and I will reply back and try to assist them into making constructive edits.
I think the most problematic page I encountered so far would be Robert Cochrane (witch), where basically we have three groups of people all claiming to be the "Clan of Tubal Cain", and in March this year were all deleting each other. I made a few reverts, tried to get them talking (sadly, they didn't want to), and told then to stop edit warring. With help of one group, we managed to set up references for each group, and I added a rider that there were three groups - "although they may not necessary completely agree with each other". Since then the vandalism has petered out and that section has remained untouched, but I still watch the page.
I find that it's always better to politely reply to any comment with a cool head, which helps to defuse any problematic situation, so that is how I always intend to deal with any conflicts in the future.

Optional questions from Dank

4. Point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline; or if you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.

A: Looking back through my talk pages, I came up with Soldiers of the Cross, The Fall (browser game), Jan Jananayagam. There are probably other examples on other user's talk pages, but it not that easy to find those with so many edits.

5. Do you have any links where you communicated with editors about Robert Cochrane (witch)? I can't find it on the article talk page or their user talk pages.

A: I'm afraid the third group decided to communicate by e-mail only.

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

6. While patrolling AIV, you come across an account which replaced a fairly well known administrators talk page with insults. The user has not been warned before being reported to AIV, and the edit was several hours earlier. What administrative actions, if any, do you take?

A: Firstly revert the edit. If the user was an IP address and there was no evidence of any recent editing, then it's probably too late to post any warning (as the IP may well be on a dynamic address), and I would just watch the user for any future vandalism. If the user had an account, and there were no warnings on their talk page (or history - some vandals are quite good at blanking warnings) I would consider posting a {{Uw-npa1}} message - as the level 1 messages do assume good faith.

Additional optional questions from Btilm

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

A: I believe that people come to Wikipedia hoping to find good and reliable information. So I like to ask myself the questions "Could the page content be useful to someone? Is the data likely to be correct?". WP:N is a reasonable guideline, it's probably not perfect, but it has to cover such a wide range of articles that it is unlikely to be perfect. I don't think anything should be automatically notable / not notable - one should examine the data available, and see if there is enough verifiable data to allow a creation of a useful page.

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

A: A ban is a directive to a user that they must not edit a certain page/topic for a specified period of time, other than that, they are quite free to continue editing on Wikipedia. If they ignore the ban, and do edit the banned pages, then they make be blocked. A block prevents an editor from editing any page, except his own talk page, where they may request unblocking. The right to edit that page may also be withdrawn in cases of vandalism of that page.

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

A: Never. It will more than likely have the opposite effect on an editor, it is far better to try to engage in a dialogue to ascertain the problem. However, if said editor does not wish to converse (I'm sure some never read their talk pages), and is still disruptive, then one may have to resort to a short block as a last resort to gain their attention.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

10. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. It would depend on the number of participants - if this number is rather low, then I think it must be re-listed to try to gain a consensus. Assuming that there is a satisfactory number of participants, then I would re-check all the arguments to convince myself that the result is "no consensus" - in which case, the article should be kept. Once closed as keep, I will (if possible) add any additional tags to the article to suggest where improvement is required (and of course, make some improvements myself if I am able to do so).

11. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the current BLP policy is good. It helps to protect the subject from all the rumours and sensationalism that is so prevalent in some media. Work on BLPs - I wrote an article Bunty Bailey. I have reverted countless edits on BLPs based on the policy e.g. One of the most common edits is "Mr.X is now dating Miss.Y", with no reference or just a reference to Twitter/Facebook. These have to be removed immediately - Mr.X may well be dating Miss.Y, on the other hand he may be actually dating Miss.Z, and then Miss.Z is going to get rather annoyed with Mr.X... If these edits (often well intentioned) were allowed to stay, it would not put Wikipedia in a good light.

Additional optional questions from Lambanog

12. There is an advocate who is promoting or out to prove a particular point of view (this is explicitly stated) and creates an article for that purpose. It is a legitimate point-of-view and can be verified. However, the article omits a critical opposing viewpoint. Another editor recognizes this and believing the opposing viewpoint takes issue. The creator advocate makes edits so that the article while not omitting the critical opposing viewpoint still glosses over it and portrays it in such a way as to diminish its importance. Rather than get into a time consuming edit war involving content that may also end up lending credence to the views of the article creator, the opposing editor instead decides to heavily tag the article with specific NPOV related templates and gives reasons on the talk page. Questions: Is this proper? How long should the NPOV tags be allowed to stand? Should the onus be on the article creator to balance the article or the editor raising issues to directly make edits? In general how should one-sided advocates be dealt with? In your view are current Wikipedia guidelines sufficient in addressing this issue?

A: The simplest way to "neutralise" the article would be to carefully improve the article so that it is no longer POV. However, the addition of POV tags and adding explanations on the talk page is an allowable way to proceed. It may well be that a useful dialogue can be struck up with the page creator on the talk page. The addition of too many {{POV-section}} tags might be better done with a single {{POV}} tag for the whole article coupled with suitable text on the talk page explaining which areas need addressing. I don't think there should be a time limit on the tags, the tags should be removed when they are no longer applicable. The tags do not direct anyone (neither creator or second editor) to make the article NPOV (although either &/or both could do it). The tag addition will add the article name to the NPOV dispute category, this may encourage other editors to examine the article and assist in the editing process. Should these processes fail (e.g. more heavy POV editing by the page creator), then one might have to consider posting a question in the NPOV Noticeboard and if that fails to achieve a solution, maybe then onto dispute resolution. That whole process would seem to me to be the best overall solution, and hopefully one would be able to gain an early consensus about re-phrasing the article content until it is neutral, without going to the final stage.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

13. You do a lot of anti-vandalism work, which is to be applauded. However, I feel that your answer to question 1 did not really explain what you would do with the admin tools that you cannot already do during your vandalism patrols?

A: I'm sorry if I was not quite clear enough in Q1. I will elaborate:- Sadly the maxim "Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" all too often tends to be "Wikipedia, the Encyclopaedia that anyone can vandalise", so when on vandal fighting, there is very often the case that WP:AIAV get backlogged - huggle revert rates fluctuate with time of day, but at peak times can easily be in the order of 15 reverts a minute, add to that the reversion done by editors using Vandal Fighter and Twinkle, plus the reverting bots, means that I would estimate that 25+ reverts a minutes is not an unreasonable estimate - hence a backlog occurs - I often see this as huggle will report "User has been reported" over and over again (for the same vandal), and I have easily seen 10+ minutes of random vandalism (they know a block is due, so they just go and vandalise as many pages as possible before the axe falls). Therefore use of the tools will enable me to block these repeat vandals (thus preventing excessive page vandalism), and where necessary protect over-vandalised pages - there does seem to be a tend for concerted vandalism of some pages. This will also help reduce any backlogs. I intend to assist in the deletion of articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion and are uncontested. I would also look at reviewing contested CSDs, plus playing a part in reviewing inappropriate usernames and closing AfD.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom Jeepday (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Proud to be among the first. Ron's writing, by his own admission, is thin and I would have made an issue of that until recently, but since that is no longer as important as it used to be in an Rfa, I say hand this dude the mop! (And as a fellow vandal-fighter, I additionally beam with pleasure. Good luck and best wishes on this.) Jusdafax 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks alright to me.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support He's an excellent vandal fighter and seems discreet enough. Though I would like to see more regular edits, I don't think that would be a real problem based on the work he intends to do. All-in-all, I think I would trust him with this line of duty.--Twilight Helryx 01:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Overall it would be a net positive to have him as an admin. --Katerenka (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Not every admin need to have written reams of prose before being appointed. As their primary role should be to facilitiate others to make contributions I don't see a problem with Ron's relative lack of article-writing experience. His work in fighting vandalism is enough to demonstrate he has the right temperament to continue doing that with some extra tools.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - automated edits are not a problem. This user wants the tools primarily to fight vandals, and I see no evidence that he would do a bad job at that. Robofish (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Per above, plus you have a clean block log and the tenure and editing experience needed for adminship. I've gone through quite a few of your deleted contributions and not spotted anything untoward. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Per above vandal fighters don't need to be huge content creators. Dlohcierekim 14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Candidate seems fine, has the necessary experience, no communication issues. The percentage-requirement for non-automated edits is completely illogical. Any one of the opposition down there - pick your favorite editor here. The one you look up to, the one you think would make the best admin. Now, that person goes - this week - and reverts 30,000 vandalism articles using some new automated tool that just slays the vandals. Would you now oppose them because their percentage of non-automated edits is too low? I can't believe that people latch on to this requirement as making any sense at all. "Oppose, he's done too much work in an area I don't respect". That's really what you should say, because that's what it really means. Tan | 39 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong Support per Tan, and per his post on the RfA talk page. Had he done everything manually, he'd have less vandalism work, but it seems like, more or less, he would have more supports... that is utterly illogical. The thing that should not be 15:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. Will use the extra tools to help with vandals fighting by blocking repeated ones as their noticed and states he will expand out as he learns. Sound and ideal way to go. --Nate^t/_c 15:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. Lots of good work here, and 17 articles is more than I've created. I see no evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per Tan and The Thing That Should Not Be. Honestly, percentage of automated edits is one of the shakier rationales I've seen here. GlassCobra 15:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Pleasent interactions with this editor in the past. Though i think more activity on article development would be a plus. At anyrate, Fully trustworthy in my opinion. Good luck! Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
17. Support -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I like how Tan framed it. Whether it is automated or manual, the work gets done correctly. Warrah (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Uh, the opposes just don't get what adminship is about. We have admins who only do vandal fighting and we have not seen any problems with them. The oppose by Btilm is completely lopsided and nonsensical. Majorly talk 17:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak Support: 85% automated edits... Has never voted in a RFA... Not enough Constructive Edits (See my used page). Close but no cigar! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I see lots of good work and nothing problematic -- opposing because of the number of automated edits strikes me as wrong. Does using Huggle disqualify an editor who would otherwise be okay from becoming an admin? Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Not convinced by the opposes. Per Tan et al. Tim Song (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - trustworthy editor. Agree with above regarding the quality of the oppose rationales. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Why not? The faster the vandals are gone, the better. A8UDI 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Good track record defending the encyclopaedia, no reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Glad to - no reason to think you'll abuse the admin tools, and in reply to the opposes: they really *can* be valuable on antivandal patrol (I suspect every one of us Hugglers has had the frustration of repeatedly rolling back some vandal's edits at 2am until some admin finally gets to the half-hour backlogged AIV page). Requiring familiarity with the full range of situations an admin is likely to encounter, when you've well indicated your limited purpose with the admin functions, is just going too far and likely to deprive us of a good productive admin. Ray^Talk 02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Answered my questions to my satisfaction. Lambanog (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Support per the opposes based on automated edits. Hopefully the crats will acknowledge that such votes contain precisely zero substance. Sluggo | Talk 06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Can't see anything that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 09:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I've seen him revert vandalism I think he can be trusted with the tools--NotedGrant Talk 09:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Has done well, will do well. As far as automated edits go, I'm in full agreement with Tan above and Jusdafax below. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I see no reason to oppose. The ability to identify and use tools is not a negative, and there is good content creation. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I respect your ability with vandalism and I would like to thank you for everything you have done. But the fact that 27,933 edits were automated disturbs me too much. And also, that is 85.25% out of the 32,766 edits you have ever done. Too much. Sorry. Smithers (Talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   If he had only the 5,000 non-automated edits, would you support him? Gigs (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   No. Percentages are what matters to me. Smithers (Talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not often to quibble with people's RfA reasoning, but that strikes me as dangerous. I do a lot of automated edits, but I'm sitting there for each one of them. I understand thinking those edits are less "meaningful" because they're quick and easy, compared to adding to an article, but if the user has a huge edit contribution otherwise, why oppose on that fact? I'm seriously curious, unless I've misunderstood you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Agree with Shadowjams in questioning this reasoning. The term "automated" is misleading in itself. It's not like your edit count goes up while you are asleep. Jusdafax 07:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I have opened a discussion on the talk page regarding this, because the question was raised in several places throughout the RfA. Gigs (talk)14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Nevermind there's a discussion someone opened here. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Fighting vandalism is great, but I don't see good examples of dispute resolution or communication skills. In fact, much the opposite; the examples provided that are meant to show good explanations/arguments of policies or guidelines show the opposite. Especially when discussing matters with an inexperienced editor, it usually doesn't do more than confuse a person when you just link a policy page as a way of explaining yourself. Doing so is like telling someone "RTFM", and if these are your best examples of policy arguments then I have to oppose. -- Atama頭 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Agreed with Atama. I want to add that sometimes links can be okay; I'm not saying you have to explain policies in detail all the time. But I'd want to see that when it's necessary, you can (figuratively) listen to people, figure out what it is they're not understanding, and teach it to them, making connections to guidelines and policies. You're doing fine, it just takes a long time and a lot of experience to get comfortable with this. Keep up the good work, drop a note on my talk page in six months if this RFA doesn't succeed, and I'll be happy to talk about the prospects of another RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Links are often okay, I use them all the time myself, but either as shorthand when discussing things with an experienced editor (to remind them of what a given policy/guideline says), to back up what I'm saying, or just to say "read this policy". It's usually not helpful to just link a policy in the middle of a sentence when talking with a new editor because they have to now read a web page to understand what you're saying to them (especially if you're not piping to keep your sentence in clear English - see what I did there?). Having said that, I agree with Dank that you probably just need some more experience in that area. -- Atama頭 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Have to agree, unfortunately. Vandal fighters are always needed, and their work often goes under-appreciated. However, I see little evidence of work outside of RC patrol. That isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence. Additionally, vandal fighters have tools that enable them to preform nearly any task that a sysop can do, so if you're primarily an anti-vandalism editor, I think it's reasonable to be a bit more choosy. Don't let it discourage you though, and best of luck regardless of my opinion. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
5. With Regret, Strong Oppose. You do some quality work fighting vandalism but with 85.25% of your total edit count as automated edits, I'm afraid I cannot support you. The large number of automated edits makes it extremely difficult to evaluate your understanding of key principles and policies of the project. Sysop's tools are not as simple to use as pushing the "q" and "space" keys on your keyboard. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Presumably he should stop making automated edits to fight vandalism if he wants to become an admin in the future? Surely it's the quality of his other contributions that matters, not the ratio of them to automated edits.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose with reluctance. Ron is definitely a positive contributor, and trustworthy enough for adminship; however, 85% automated edits is way too high for me to support your candidacy at this time. Your anti-vandalism work is very respectable, of course, and your work on the templates mentioned above is stunningly commendable. Please don't take this the wrong way; you're an excellent editor and I think you would be an excellent administrator as well with more experience. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose You have 85% automated edits. You have only created 17 articles. You have never voted in a RFA. Yikes! Btilm 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   No need to minimize the candidate's contributions. 17 articles are nothing to sneeze at, even if including stubs and disambiguation pages. A look at some of these articles, like Lune Aqueduct, shows the candidate's dedication to the project, although probably his most impressive work is in his 15 excellent templates. I agree that the automated edit count is too high, and that the candidate lacks the necessary experience, but he is a good contributor and deserves a little more respect than the comment above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for speaking first, Will. Agree that the candidate deserves more respect. I have personally seen Ron do a lot of good, honest hard work in the trenches for the project, day after day, week after week. Btilm's comment crosses the line, in my view. Jusdafax 07:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed. A8UDI 15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I haven't !voted [yet], but I might agree that 17 new articles isn't a lot. But I am really bothered by references to the percentages. As if someone who did loads of good work who started doing loads of other good work (or vis versa) should be disqualified is insane. If it sends any message at all it sends the message that the RfA regulars don't respect vandal fighters, new page patrollers, and other wiki gnome tasks. These people know the system in and out ( they have to, or they hear about it) and they are critical to most admin tasks. As I've said above, I'm fine with opposing on edit counts, but not percentages, unless I hear a good reason otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not in the habit of bashing oppose rationales and have no particular opinion about this candidate, but I find it quite ridiculous he is apparently required to vote in RFA's and to create a great number of articles, in order to be an admin. The vote even ends with a "yikes!", as if creating "only" 17 articles is a red flag.--Atlan (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Never having voted on an RFA is arguably a positive, in my view... Robofish (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure about that, but RfA is the one area where I don't expect admins to be active at. Lack of participation in adminship policies is a valid objection for RfB, but not for RfA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Too many automated edits. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  ^Talk 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Would you care to elaborate on why that makes you oppose? Should those who want to be admins not bother fighting vandalism? Or should they do it all manually? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I don't understand that either. "Not enough non-automated edits" makes sense, but what is with the stigma associated with making automated ones? While I understand that automated edits take less effort (which is the point of using them) and might indicate less forethought, if the results of those edits are positive that should reflect well on the editor, not poorly. -- Atama頭 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   I agree. Automated edits still take thought; they're not automatic. If you have 25,000 (arbitrary number off the top of my head) that are within policy and beneficial to the encyclopedia, how is that a bad thing? @Kate (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

9. Not yet. Admins have tenure and it's extremely difficult to rid the project of a bad one, and there's no way to restrict them to one area of the project, so I'm afraid I insist on seeing evidence of all the key administrative skills before I can support. I'm not seeing the dispute resolution, talk-page work or discussion participation that enables me to reassure myself that this is an appropriate candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose. I couldn't care less if 99% of edits were automated, to me that seems an absurd argument to make. However, what gravely concerns me is the lack of work outside vandal fighting- which I dabble in myself and I consider a very respectable field. However, I don't see any substantial work that shows what they would be like as an admin. If you were to come back in a few months with slightly greater breadth of experience on the project, I would certainly not oppose. I really hope this doesn't dampen your enthusiasm for the project. HJMitchell You rang? 19:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
11. I've decided. I'm sorry, but you are a net positive as an anti-vandal worker. That's obviously not a reason to oppose your RfA, but the other concerns leave me with enough doubt to think you are ready at this time. There are two paths you could take from here. If you could, try to make some strong manual edits. A good example of a user who made excellent, well thought out edits every time before their RfA is Maedin. You could also take the Jdelanoy route, and work on other areas so that you could expand your knowledge. After all, his first RfA was not even close to successful, but his second was way over. Best, ceranthor 20:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Admins will be called upon to do more that fight vandals, and while I also do alot of cleanup after vandals I think that any admin needs to be more well rounded within the community than this editor... RP459 (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Per HJMitchell, with regret. NW (Talk) 04:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose - - Per your stance on no consensus BLP AFDs defaulting to keep. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Can you point out the policy or guideline where it instructs or recommends that they default to delete? Tan | 39 16:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    WP:IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. Just, wow. Tan | 39 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    I would assume your amazement, is to the fact that I had enough clue to answer that properly. ;) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    My amazement is that you would use RfA to further an agenda. There has been much discussion on this issue and the BLP-defaulting-to-delete issue never gained enough traction to be made official policy or guideline. Yet, you will oppose candidates who do not share your view that we should ignore the rules here and do it your way. Mmmkay. Tan | 39 16:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    Agree with Tan. If Coffee's comments are attempts at humor, they aren't funny in an Rfa. Jusdafax 16:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not "furthering an agenda", I'm using the policy for what it was made. It says "If a rule prevents you from ... maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", and the way I see it the current Delete policy prevents you from properly maintaining Wikipedia. I also didn't just oppose him because of that, as you might notice I did link to a full page of reasons. @Jusdafax Pull your head out of your ass, I'm not joking, I'm posting perfectly reasonable replies. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

15. Weak Oppose. I am not concerned about the number or ratio of automated edits. However, I am somewhat concerned about lack of experience in other areas. The candidate has limited experience outside of vandal fighting, limited interaction with other editor and a limited content/encyclopedia-building track record. With some additional experience in these areas the candidate will be ready for the sysop gig. Majoreditor (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Not sure yet. He is an excellent anti-vandal worker and all, but I'm not sure that I've seen a lot of personal judgment from this user. Also, as an admin, he'd probably focus less on that area. He's one of the best, and that would be a NP. May be swayed one way or another. ceranthor 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - For now, waiting for an answer to #4. I'm leaning toward support for now but I want to see how the Robert Cochrane article discussion proceeded to see a good example of this editor's communication skills, problem-solving, and judgment. -- Atama頭 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC) _{Moving to oppose. -- Atama頭 01:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)}

1. Neutral leaning support. Answers to abouve questions will determine my vote. Also, 85% automated edits is a bit much. *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 00:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   If he'd written 15000 articles and made 85000 edits reverting vandalism would 85% still be too much? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I'm confused why being a sysop would be a tool for you or help you out with what you do already. Automated edits and reporting IPs/users doesn't really require adminship status. A8UDI 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Move to support. A8UDI 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Your heart is there, but I didn't realize that you had that many automated edits. Better luck next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Going back to support as I forgot about your creations and other stuff. Sorry about that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral I like your vandal fighting, you can obviously block vandals without makeing mistakes but the comments in the oppose section have made me !vote neutral. You may want to do dome more article work ect.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral You are not quite ready yet; however don't be discouraged as numerous opposes above are unfair to you. Keepscases (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral - pending answers to questions.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral pending answers to questions, and possibly a reply to concerns about #4. The points raised by Atama and Juliancolton are good ones in my opinion, but there are also good reasons to support. No concerns over automated edits however. --Taelus (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Remaining neutral as I cannot bring myself down on either side. Some of the opposes over automated rate, and your opinion on an "in discussion" BLP policy of defaulting to keep are not convincing. However, points raised by Atama and Juliancolton are convincing. I think I will remain neutral, leaning weak support.

6. Neutral for now. I don't really care about the automated edits, since I'd rather see 5,000 good contributions manually made and 1 million automated edits that were well-made instead of merely 5,000 manual edits. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. 5000 non-automated edits is plenty, and ratios in this case have very little meaning. More compelling are the recommendations to get involved in other admin areas. If you have another RFA later, I would appreciate a friendly notice. ~YellowFives 16:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)