Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Redrose64

Redrose64

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (63/5/9); Scheduled to end 13:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

It is my pleasure to present Redrose64 (talk · contribs), a highly experienced and knowledgeable editor who has finally acquiesced to stand for adminship after being pestered by several editors for more than a year.

Redrose's first edit was in May 2009 and since then has amassed an amazing 41,000 edits. His contributions are varied and cover many parts of the project, including:

• A large amount of new content, mainly related to UK railways. (Redrose’s 95 new articles are helpfully listed on his userpage.)
• Active participation in a number of WikiProjects including UK Railways, Trains, Doctor Who and London Transport. He also helped to found WikiProject Wiltshire.
• Technical help to the Wikipedia community, especially on the technical village pump, the helpdesk and on numerous template talk pages.

This last area is where my path first crossed with Redrose and I noticed him providing helpful assistance on complex templates such as {{WPBM}} and the like. It is this area where I anticipate the extra tools being of most use to Redrose, as I am sure he will make himself useful editing high risk templates and interface pages.

Please support this valuable and trustworthy editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

Well balanced, technical, content and community asset to the project, will be a greater asset with the tools - Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nom --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: There are many rights granted to the admin, but I do not expect to need all of them. It would be useful to have the ability to edit protected pages, since I often participate in discussions on Template talk: pages. I might see a quick fix for the problem, sandbox and test my change, but at present I then need to mark the discussion with {{editprotected}}. I can also see that I might have the need to protect pages (even to block users), to be used in cases like this.

I have participated in several WP:XFDs (but cannot call myself a major participant), and if granted the admin right, intend to assist in the closure of some; I would also process WP:CSDs and expired WP:PRODs.

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

A: One of my sins is that of modesty. My Wikipedia activity is more broad than long: as stated above I have over 41000 edits, but these were to over 19,125 different pages, an average of just 2.18 edits per page (according to X!'s Edit Counter). The breadth of this reflects a desire for consistency and/or accuracy: for example, if I see that some railway stations are in Category:Former Great Western Railway stations but others which could be are not, I'll check that the former are in the correct cat (fixing where necessary), and then hunt down and categorise as many as possible of the latter. There are also the administrative cats: I recently cleared all article-space pages out of Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters - there were well over 1500, I got it down to zero, but it's creeping up again.

But there are pages where my contributions dominate the page; I'm particularly pleased with NBR 224 and 420 Classes, which I created and had it appear as a main-page DYK (with a triple hook); and then got it to GA-class with just one edit (a dab) by another user. I have created an article which is now FA-class, but Iridescent (talk · contribs) put in most of the work on that. Conversely, somebody else created Britannia railway station but most of that article is my work, and it got a main-page DYK.

I give assistance where possible; as mentioned above there are the WikiProject and Template discussion pages, and I do what I can at WP:VPT. I sometimes welcome new users, some of whom are pleased with my help; but there are occasional failures. Some users, aware that I have their talk pages watched, post questions there and it's often me that answers the q.

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: There have been conflicts, but for those not in the recent past, my memory of just who was involved is fuzzy; but I expect that some or more of the RFA reviewers have a tool by which these can be found. I'll comment on specifics if requested to do so.

I think that the most recent incidents are at WT:GM#Disrespectful and several [sic] threads on Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer; in the latter case I have been tempted to call WP:POINT but didn't. If things get too hot, I typically just walk away - maybe stay on WP but edit some totally different area, maybe I go and watch TV for a bit. Unless it's something I really care about, I'll probably unwatch the page too.

Additional question from Monty845

4. As you express an intent to work with Speedy Deletion nominations, would you mind trying to find an article in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted that does not qualify under WP:CSD and explain why?

A: User:Codyscudder doesn't qualify - A7 applies only to pages in article space, this is in user space. Similarly User:Georgiasouthernlynn/test3 - in this case the {{db-a7}} was placed by the page creator, who should probably have used {{db-u1}}. The 20 or so actual articles presently in the cat would all seem to qualify; the most borderline is Clyde Boats but I'd tend to be swayed toward "delete" by SarekOfVulcan's comment on its talk page.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Do you believe prisoners in maximum-security prisons should be permitted to edit Wikipedia? Why or why not?

A: Here at Wikipedia, we respect anonymity. Very few Wikipedians know my real name; I claim to be a 47-year-old unemployed computer programmer in Didcot, but that could all be a front. I might be a $250,000 a year banker in Shanghai, a streetwise hoodlum in NYC or Dolly Parton's hairdresser. I might be in a maximum-security jail right now. Since we don't know who most editors really are, nor what they do in real life, we're not in a position to judge them except by their editing activities. Some very intelligent people spent time inside. It's not just prisoners who might be restricted in their editing: I have had employers which had internet policies that made it a disciplinary matter to make use of the internet for any purpose not directly relevant to your day-to-day duties. Thus, the question of whether prisoners are permitted full access to edit Wikipedia, limited access, read-only access or none at all is a matter for the prison authorities, not us.

Additional question from SarekOfVulcan

6. Ok, pretend you just found Clyde Boats, and I hadn't tagged it yet. Tell us what you do with it, if anything.

A: It looks like the basis of something quite good. It's certainly not promotional, since the company is defunct. The "Further reading" section shows a book, and it's possible that the boatbuilder in question got a pretty decent write-up in that book. I might assume that the article creator drew material from it, and decided to list it as a reference but hadn't read or understood either WP:CITE or WP:FURTHER. I don't have the book concerned, so I'd apply WP:AGF and add a {{no footnotes}} and possibly drop a line on the creator's talk page - something like this or this. I could also search for a relevant WikiProject and pop their banner (in this case {{WikiProject Transport|maritime=yes}}) on the talk page, in the hope that somebody knowledgeable would have some source materials.

Additional question from WFCforLife

7. How would you respond to a situation where policy was, in your opinion, irreconcilably at odds with common sense?

A: Nothing is irreconcilable. We have a large number of policy and guideline documents (too many for any one individual to learn by heart), which are usually collaborative efforts, even if originally or primarily the work of one person; over a period of time, some form of consensus is reached, which won't necessarily satisfy 100% of users. Every single one of these docs has a discussion page - or the potential for creating such page - where problems may be raised. So, we discuss the issue, because WP:CCC. Even MOS isn't set in stone. To see a worked example of how I have attempted to deal with cases like this, see Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer, already mentioned under Q3 above.

Additional question from Drmies

8. Given the conversation, below, about your interest in AfD (and other deletion mechanisms), perhaps you'd give us some idea about how you would close some random discussions--I plucked a couple, randomly, from the list marked for rescue at WP:ARS. Consider one or more of the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rally Squirrel (brand new, so it'll be here for a few more days), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americanism (ideology) (possibly too tricky for a quick answer here), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Stricchiola (a disputed and relisted BLP), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman W. Walker (a can of worms waiting to be opened, perhaps). Or pick another one you like--but pick an interesting one so we get an idea of how you'd weigh arguments and make decisions.

A: A difficult question. I hope not to be expected to be faced with cases like these immediately, and would probably leave them for others to close; in the meantime, I would close something more clear cut. It would surely be better for the project for me to be reluctant, than to delete something only to have it sent straight to WP:DRV.

I may be ducking the issue here; if it were a condition that I should select one to close, I would feel that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americanism (ideology) should be closed as merge, but not in its entirety. The first paragraph can be merged to something else; however, the question then is, where should it be merged to? The {{merge}} at the top of the article suggests Americentrism, but the linked discussion on the talk page suggests American nationalism. On the whole I'd merge to American nationalism. The second paragraph is just one sentence, and this is little more than the second entry on the dab page Americanism, so the loss of that shouldn't be a problem.

Additional question from Sp33dyphil

9. In your first question, you answered that you planned to delete articles that have been PRODed. If a PROD tag that had been removed by an IP was reinstated by a user with 10,000+ edits, and it has been seven days since the reinstatement, during which one more user gave it another PROD, what would you do?

A: I am assuming that you refer to a normal WP:PROD, and not to a WP:BLPPROD. A PROD, once removed by anybody regardless of whether they were logged in or not, counts as a contested PROD, and the article may not be re-prodded (the edit count doesn't enter into it). The {{Proposed deletion/dated}} should be removed again, and the person who replaced it should be advised why this was done, also that they are still free to take the article to WP:AFD.

Additional question from Tom Morris

10. As an administrator, you may be asked to handle a situation in any of a wide number of areas related to the site's management and in response to a wide variety of potential types of editing behaviour. Are there any such areas of Wikipedia maintenance and administration that you have tried and then decided are not to your taste? If so, why?

A: I've been holding off from this one because I don't think I can give a satisfactory answer. I've been invited to intervene in a few cases (some of which may be found at User talk:Redrose64/requests), some of which I declined; and have sometimes taken actions that have been criticised, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive715#User:Siouxsherat. When, on two separate occasions (here and here) I was asked if I wished to become an admin, one of the main reasons for declining was the expected abuse from those who oppose my judgment. I suppose you'd call it some sort of cowardice.

Additional question from Alpha Quadrant

11. This is a tough decision. I would really like to support, but I am a bit concerned about your interest in closing AfDs, without much experience in the area. Could you please comment in any 10 new AfD debates? (meaning that, apart from the nom statement, no one has commented yet.)

A:

Additional question from Memorykey12

12. I read that you were asked by several editors to become a candidate. Could you please tell me who some of those editors were? I will be able to support you once I know who they are.

A: Most of them are indicated by posts on my talk page, the relevant threads are Future admin? and Why aren't you an admin??. There is one other, who emailed me off-wiki so the suggestion is not on public display, but my reply was on-wiki, and is currently at User talk:Wifione#Me, an admin? Possibly... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Redrose64: Redrose64 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Redrose64 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Redrose64 is knowledgeable and clear-headed about technical matters; he'll make a good admin. Ucucha (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Support Asset to project. Agathoclea (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Great candidate. AD 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - Excellent editing history, I had to dig down VERY deep to find something even slightly resembling something that maybe could have turned into an edit war. They seem to always remain civil and level headed and has managed to stay out of drama and politics in a way that editors with 40k+ edits very rarely do. I WOULD like to see a little bit more experience in some admin-related projectspace work, but that's almost totally irrelevant, definitely nothing to make me think that this user will not make an outstanding mop-holder. Good luck. Trusilver 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. Redrose64 seems to have a straightforward use of the tools in mind, and in my encounters with (him?) I've seen nothing to be concerned about. Mind you, that's not saying much if you believe everything you hear. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   MF, you're not too old to start learning to use Singular they. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I am. I just hate it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I find it is easier to just say "this user" to bypass any gender questions --rogerd (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Support. Great editing history, highly knowledgable about policies and content, always impressive at project discussions, no concerns. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Strong support Don't see any reason why not. --John (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Amended due to great answer to Q5. --John (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Support - A calm editor and not only can put forward reasoned arguments for a point of view in discussions, but also constructively considers points of view from others. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Support Ning-ning (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
11. Support. Per my opinion. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
13. The perfect candidate. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Support In brief: a knowledgeable and helpful user. HurricaneFan25 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Support I can't tell anyone how much Redrose has helped many WikiProjects. I've known Redrose for over a year and I was surprised what sysop tools could do to make a editor a better one. The tools will help people make them a better user, it isn't only for other purposes. I was surprised the Resrose wasn't already an admin, but now I (and everyone else) will see a possibility. I doubt that any corruption would occur in this case. Good luck, Jaguar (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
17. Unreferenced article creations are a pet peeve of mine, and I did find a couple of them among Redrose64's earlier article creations. On the other hand, other article creations – especially later ones – are referenced extremely well, and the candidate has created almost a hundred of them, so obviously no slouch there. I do share the concerns about light participation in the deletion processes – I think more involvement as a participant would be advisable prior to diving into closing them, although the comments the candidate has made so far at AfD are quite sensible. Those concerns notwithstanding, this editor seems very intelligent, hard-working and good-natured, and is unlikely to run around breaking things. I'm especially impressed with the answers to questions 5 and 7. 28bytes (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
18. Support, no reason to think they'll abuse the tools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
19. Support – Redrose is an excellent editor; giving him the mop will help benefit the encyclopedia. —mc10 (t/c) 22:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Support The candidate's honesty and modesty (affirming Saul Alinksy's maxim that it is impossible to read all the rules) benefit the project even more than the enthusiasm for Dr. Who and British railroads. It is time for the (red)rose to be in the fisted glove, and the eagle to fly with the dove.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Like what I see. Oppose does not concern me. Also a nod for being willing to endure the hellweek and BS of RFA week.PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Weak support. Redrose64 is a great editor. However I am concerned by his intention to close XfDs, an area where he has little experience. On the other hand, Wikipedia would benefit if he had access to some of the other tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Support Per Malleus Fatuorum. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    That's gotta be a first! Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

24. Support He is a trustful user. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
25. Support Knowledgable in the areas in which they plan to use the tools, and willing to help and work with others. First Light (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Support. Can't see a reason not to. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
27. Support, very knowledgeable in many very technical areas, like templates, CSS, etc. Has always been extremely helpful with fixing many of the most highly transcluded templates. I have never known this editor to act unreasonable or hot-headed. I have no concerns, and feel as though he/she would be even more helpful with the additional tools. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Support, Good luck! —stay (sic)! 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Support evidence from logs and deleted entries indicate this is a sensible contributor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Sets an admirable example just by getting on and doing his stuff. If he says he could do with the extras, that's good enough for me. Plutonium27 01:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
31. Support - Sounds like a good guy. Spidey665 01:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
32. Very good answer to Q5. That's not how 99% of Wikipedians would have answered it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - After a quick look through Redrose64's contributions, I was quite impressed. Though he does not have a lot of experience in the area of XfD's (an area in which he has professed interest), I believe he is familiar with the process. At this time, there is absolutely no reason to believe Redrose64 will abuse the tools. This is, of course, the most important question I must ask myself in a RfA.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
34. 110% Support, Redrose64 is one of my talk page stalkers, and has often provided words of support when editors have made less-than-good-faith comments on my talk page. I've collaborated with him on a few articles and have always found him ready to help, advise or assist in the furtherance of improvment of the project. The extra tools will prove to be of benefit here. Mjroots (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Support Give the man a mop! --Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Very thorough answers, especially to question 5. -- Luke (Talk) 14:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
37. Support If there's a good reason for the candidate not to have the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
38. Support — Good answers to the questions and a strong record overall. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
39. Support Redrose64's significant contributions to wikipedia, combined with his willing to help other editors and having a clear understanding of many policies, makes it impossible for me to say anything other than support. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Support Redrose64's long term benefits to the project, in multiple areas, far outweigh any lack of experience in others. MarnetteD | Talk 19:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
41. Support, fully. -- œ^™ 19:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
42. The candidate has never said that he or she is going to close the whole day's AfD log, every day. Question 1 makes it clear. Question 8 re-inforces it. The answers to the questions generally demonstrate competence. A brief scan of contributions fails to reveal that the candidate is either a complete idiot or a complete wanker. Happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
43. While I'm a bit concerned by the opposers and neutrals, we do need more active administrators, and Redrose qualifies Secret ^account 21:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Support So far so good. Keep it up. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - Confident they won't abuse tools. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
46. I am tempted to oppose this user based on a perceived prejudice against roses of alternative colours, but I would need substantial evidence to support such a hypothetical concern. In the absence of such evidence, I shall assume good faith and support this request. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
47. Strong Support - Redrose64 would be a wonderful asset to Wikipedia as an admin. His technical strengths and willingness to help others are outstanding qualities that would help the community immensely! The only thing else I can say is that he better have a great sense of humor! (see above comment) ... I can also tell he is well-liked, since this is my 3rd try to add my support to this section without getting an edit conflict message!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
49. Support - An excellent candidate that I fully support. Redrose is a considerate and thoughtful volunteer that is always willing to help others. This is a very helpful quality in administators as new users often look to them for help. Redrose also has a great deal of technical expertise regarding the project and is very helpful in WP:VPT as noted above. The candidate has shown a history of studying and learning our policies before moving in to an area, so I have no concerns about inexperience in any areas of the project as I know Redrose will learn something fully before doing it. I would like to note that it appears the nominators above may have forgotten to add their official !votes in this section, so their support is not shown in the RfA report. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
50. Support - I come across Redrose regularly and I've been really sitting on the fence here. I did my research as soon as the RfA was transcluded. The candidate does not meet my criteria but the high edit count in this case is indicative of precision and good content work; the 95 clean creations convince me that they are already well versed in policy, even if activity in those policies is somewhat low to demonstrate that knowledge. Their excellent answers to questions, including the unusual ones, prove a high level of integrity and trustworthiness for candidate who will not make many errors when their tools are granted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
51. Support Contributions are great and answers to all the questions are brilliant. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
52. Support Answers to questions seem honest and show a willingness to learn and modify his behavior if necessary. Appears conscientious about studying policy and increasing his knowledge before moving to new areas. Good technical knowledge and admirable content work for a relatively newbie. Manny may (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Support as co-nom, naturally. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
    
54. Support Looks ok to me. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
55. Support Just stay away from deleting anything until you spend more time working with that specific process. Since this isn't your intended area of focus, I have no concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Stephen 01:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
57. Support. Seems like a good candidate. I'm not worried about deletion activity, because I'm confident that Redrose will review the facts (and policies) before actually deleting. I hadn't deleted anything when I became an admin, either, to be honest. I'm more interested in the requisite level of cluefulness than in a certain number of successful speedy tags or whatnot. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Support seems very clueful about WP's policies despite having not participated in much AfDs and the like. Trust is all you need. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Support per Kudpung. Nev1 (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
61. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
62. +1 – iridescent 2 14:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - whilst the opposers add value I disagree that their concerns are significant enough (IMHO) and thus agree with the nomination statements and therefore default support per WP:NETPOS and my personal review of contributions. I'm minded to comment that the +1 type signatures above me (from former / current arbs) is, well, poor showing but no less than I expect; particulary from Iridescent whose "cough" disingenuous approach to Wikipedia is now well documented. Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Candidate's answer to Q1 indicates an intention to close AfD's, as well as respond to CSD's and PROD's. I've searched through the candidate's contributions and I find evidence of participation in only 7 AfD's, speedy tagging of only 8 pages (5 images, 2 templates, and 1 redirect; no actual articles in mainspace), and I can't find any evidence of any PROD activity (although it's entirely possible that I didn't look hard enough). There isn't evidence of enough exposure to these areas to understand the nuances, and I'm not comfortable endorsing such an inexperienced candidate to make final decisions about the permanent deletion of articles. If this is an area of interest for you, then spend some time participating in these areas in a significant way. I would have no issue supporting a future RfA if more time was put into these areas between now and then. —SW— ^gab 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   As I understand it, admins are not required to use all the tools; nor are they required to take part in all of the areas in which they have expressed an interest. If the community feel that my lack of deletion experience is a negative factor, then I have no objection to being requested not to carry out any actual deletion, pending further experience. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   Access to the delete button is a big part of adminship in my opinion, and I hesitate to support candidates who have little or no experience with deletion processes — even when they don't specifically state in their RfA that they want to close AfD's and respond to CSD's and PROD's. For candidates who do express an intention to participate in deletion, it's even more important. Adminship is all or nothing, you can promise that you won't close AfD's but that promise is not binding in any way, and you are free to change your mind at any point after you get the bit. I would still like to see some significant participation in the deletion process before I'd feel comfortable supporting. —SW— ^prattle 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   How could it ever be possible to prove you have experience with a tool you don't have access to? Like the block tool for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   In the case of the block tool, you can look to substitutes, such as valid reports to WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:SPI and WP:ANEW. Monty₈₄₅ 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   You may look at whatever you like, but you're looking at the wrong things. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   Requests for a sysop to do a thing seem like a reasonable proxy for how the editor would do that thing as a sysop. I'm hoping SW simply misspoke with the phrase "such little experience making final decisions about the permanent deletion of articles", but the point remains that experience with the process might be a good indicator. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I can see how that statement quoted above could be taken the wrong way, but I think I made it clear that my primary concern is that the candidate has virtually no demonstrated experience with the processes by which articles are deleted on Wikipedia. There is much experience to be gained participating as a non-admin which can be applied to the deletion tasks that admins perform. Editors who have never voted at an AfD shouldn't be closing AfD's, and editors who have never tagged an article for speedy deletion shouldn't be speedy deleting articles. This seems like a pretty basic concept to me, and it is a reasoning that is routinely applied at RfA; I'm not sure why others are having trouble comprehending it. —SW— ^chat 16:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   It could be said, and with ample justification, that a fresh eye on these deeply flawed processes is a good thing. In particular I would trust RedRose more than a random admin on deletion decisions, since I believe he would look at the facts and policy in every case, rather than being trigger happy or vote counting which often seems to happen now. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
   

2. Regretful Oppose - I greatly appreciate your work in articles, however I have to agree with Snottywong here; you need a little more practice in deletion topics before you can say you intend to work in them. If you altered your response to Q1, I would consider revoking this, but for now, I am still a little too concerned. smithers - talk 17:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Seems like a good editor, but I have a few concerns. For a candidate who has said that they will work in CSDs, AfDs and PRODs, I would like to see more experience in those areas as a regular contributor. I was also concerned by the answers to Q4 and Q6. In Q4, he says that he would delete Clyde Boats, yet in Q6 he says that it is promising and could be rescued and expanded. I am concerned that he would choose to delete a page which he would not normally tag for deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   The circumstances were different. In Q4, the article had already been tagged {{db-corp}} and a note placed on its talk page. In Q6, Sarek asked me to assume that the article hadn't been so tagged. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   Opppose no, the standard is the same. If you wouldn't have tagged it in the first place because you think it improvable, you shouldn't delete it if someone else has tagged it. Your role is not to rubber-stamp the tagger-speedy deletion is not a mechanical process. I would suggest coming back after giving us a few months of experience at deletion process. I might not have opposed if you had said you were not interested in participating in this field of admin activity--nobody can know everything. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC). I'm moving to Neutral because I'm not totally comfortable with opposing on the basis of an originally minor part of the application. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   As DGG said, there should be no difference between how you deal with tagged and untagged articles. This would normally cause me to vote neutral; however, the fact that you have said you intend to process CSDs and PRODs makes me wary, thus the oppose. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   oppose per SW's comments above and DGG's (and yes, I know he moved to neutral). I'm actually more than a bit worried about the Q4/Q6 thing and your response to ItsZippy is troubling. Either it meets the speedy criteria in or it doesn't. A7 is tricky, and reasonable people might disagree. But the standard doesn't change based on the existence of a tag. It seems really likely this will pass. If so, I strongly urge you to participate in the deletion process for a while before using the tools in that area. On the off chance you don't pass, I'd certainly be willing to support you in a couple of months if you participated more in deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Moving to netural. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per SnottyWong. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose More experience of the deletion and blocking processes needed. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   How is an editor supposed to get experience of the blocking process without access to the banhammer? Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think he meant "blocking" as in areas like WP:AIV. HurricaneFan25 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for now. The experience level in areas they intend to work in (i.e. AfD, CSD, RPP) looks very light. Swarm 20:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Neutral Seems like a great contributor, they clearly have good intentions, and a good reason to want to be able to edit protected. However my concerns about the candidate's level of experience when it comes to Speedy Deletion, an area they declare an intent to work with, prevent me from supporting at this time. Monty₈₄₅ 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
3. I admit that I haven't read every single one of this candidate's 41,000 edits, but out of a random sample, I can't seem to find any substantial contributions this candidate has made to controversial or difficult topic areas, to dispute resolution, or even much to article talk pages, which makes it really quite hard for me to judge his temperament and suitability. The edits all seem to be relatively small and uncontroversial. I've got no reason not to trust this candidate, but because admins have tenure and it's really quite hard to get rid of a bad one, I feel as if I have to require positive evidence of trustworthiness, and not just a lack of recent mistakes, before I can support.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   But isn't that the perfect stategy for RfA? Don't get involved in any article or any area that might lead to conflict? Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   RfA does tend to work like that, sometimes--having had conflicts works against you, and not having had conflicts also works against you. S Marshall, I won't dispute your factual findings, but I'd say that the user doesn't seem to want the tools to get involved in controversial or difficult areas. From my limited experience, Redrose appears to be a very good gnome and more--that they're not an ANI regular or a Digwuren follower or an editor of caste-related articles, I don't hold that against them. We can't all be Sitush! Drmies (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Neutral per Snottywong. User does seem a bit weak in deletion areas. However, overall a great user, so I won't oppose over this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Neutral candidate has very little experience of the article deletion process: only a handful of speedy deletion tags (the only mainspace page tagged, Comet Awards, was a redirect), 7 AfD comments, and the only PROD participation I can see is removing a PROD that was incorrectly reinstated and endorsing the PROD of Iwade Railway Station which was added by someone else. There is also some participation in the processes regarding non-article namespaces such as CFD and TFD. Now that's not necessarily a problem, and there are occasional administrators who never delete articles, but the candidate clearly stated that they wanted to handle article deletion in their question answers. If this RfA does pass then I strongly recommend that Redrose64 get more experience of the article deletion process by participating in AfD discussions or by doing new page patrol before deleting any articles and the fact that they've agreed to do this above is the reason I'm not opposing. Hut 8.5 16:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   The endorsement of the PROD for Iwade Railway Station was entirely correct. There never has been a station by that name. The nearest station to Iwade is Swale Halt. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   Yes, I know. My point wasn't that the endorsement was wrong but that this one article is the sum total of their PROD experience, which doesn't indicate that they have the skills necessary to manage the PROD process. Hut 8.5 21:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   I've never been a deletionist. I certainly recall endorsing the PROD on the alleged station at Iwade - I remember consulting a pile of railway timetables (old and current), and maps from various dates, finally stating that it was a WP:HOAX. I don't remember ever PRODding an article; I seem to recall contesting one or maybe two by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} (but couldn't say which articles these were); and I'm pretty sure that I've advised somebody that they can't reinstate a {{proposed deletion/dated}} which has been removed (I don't think that it was one which I had removed myself) and suggested AFD to them. The last time I tagged something for speedy delete was as part of this discussion, but I'm sure that there have been others. I may not have been active at AFD much (although I've certainly contributed); but you should also find my name on several TFDs and CFDs, one or two FFDs and at least two MFDs. That I am not entirely ignorant of the XFD process is demonstrated here.

   All in all, if granted the mop, I don't intend to change tack and zap everything in sight. My intent is to ease the load on those who are regulars in these areas by closing the cases where consensus is clear. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

   A frequent way for admin candidates to gain experience here is to ease our load by making a few non-admin closures of the obvious--you don't have to be an admin to make even a delete closures--an admin will follow through with the actual deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Actually, according to WP:NAC, a non-admin can NOT close a delete-consensus discussion; only an uncontested or speedy keep, merge or redirect, or a housekeeping closure (e.g. discussion opened in the wrong place). I've fouled that line myself before, which is why it rang a bell when I read your comment. That said, leafing through the "Closing Today" page and hunting for clear "keep" closes isn't a waste of time. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Keep closes don't need to be uncontested, only clear. Also, I have seen non-admins close discussions with results that clearly require admin action, and then had an admin carry it out.(Deletion discussions and even a ban) However I think it is wise that the guideline does not encourage everyone to do so. It is a delicate balance between the ideal of admins being nothing more then editors with extra buttons, and the reality that most editors should probably leave closing of discussions to admins. Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   NAC is an essay. WP:NACD seems to have acquired the statement "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome." in a classic example of instruciton drift. Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC).
   

6. Neutral per Snottywong and King of Hearts. Your work overall is great, so I'm not going to oppose. Buggie111 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral I've moving this from "Oppose" . It's fairly clear the candidate needs considerable more experience with deletion before engaging in it, but I'm not totally comfortable with opposing on the basis of an originally minor part of the application DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Neutral After rethinking this I have to say I think you will likely be a good admin. Just leave deletion-related stuff alone until you spend some more time there... Hobit (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Neutral - I will not downright oppose as I have no reason for doing that, and I have had good experiences with this user in the past, but I shall not outright support either, because, like others, I have reviewed the deletion-related contributions of this user and thought it best to wait just a little while before the admin tools are let loose on them. If it wasn't for this, I would have supported. But best of luck anyway, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)