Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Suntag

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

Suntag

Nomination

Final (71/38/8); Originally scheduled to end 23:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort everyone put into responding to my request. It is clear that my request for adminship will not succeed and that the main points now have been presented. Accordingly, I respectfully withdraw my request. -- Suntag ☼ 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Suntag (talk · contribs) – For my 52nd and final nomination, I present to you guys someone who is one of the more impressive uers I have come across in a while, Suntag. I'll get the formalities out of the way to start. Has he been here long? No, by some of your guys' standards he's still a rather new user (not quite at the 6 month mark). Does he have a slew of FAs under his belt? No, he isn't at that level of article writing. But what I have seen from him transends any of that timeitis/articleitis stuff that is thrown around here, he is clearly a user who is ready now.

I originally came across Suntag at WP:DYK. In his time here he has both written and nominated many articles to DYK, and has also helped with its recent overhaul and modifications, which have been invaluable to the process. Namely, he has helped a lot with Template:DYKsuggestion. He is also quite active at WP:DRV, an area where it's always helpful to have more administrative eyes at. As for article writing, along with his DYKs, he has also written two WP:GAs, Nassak Diamond and Columbia Park, Torrance, California, so he knows his way around an article. Overall, he clearly knows what he is doing, and he would be an asset as an admin. Wizardman 19:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your final nom Wizardman? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Wizardman 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination I, too, first became familiar with Suntag through DYK, specifically through doing some template development and working on tools to make DYK more organized and more fun. Suntag has been an enormous asset both to DYK as a whole, and to our efforts to develop tools for it—he is constantly working on developing bots to help the process, and critically evaluating new templates that we are using in DYK nominations and checking, as well as suggesting new features. He is currently in the process of developing some excellent documentation for DYK (and overhauling what is already there)—a records that details a lot of the history of DYK and its contributors. I've also noticed his work at DRV, although that's not an area where I myself participate.

I have seen at least one user criticize Suntag before for his experience in article-building, but as Wizardman points out, he has written GAs and DYKs, and has also done plenty of WikiGnoming of DYK nominations (the kind of editing that you rarely get awards for, but is invaluable for both the encyclopedia and for that editor's gaining experience), and besides, I think the areas where he is most active are the ones where admin tools will be most useful anyway—DYK, DRV, development of templates, bots, and other tools.

Finally, I have always been impressed by Suntag's ability to keep calm, and based on what I've seen I think he would be an asset to dispute resolution whenever such things come up. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination, which I accept. -- Suntag ☼ 23:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: In the approximately 1,500 edits I've made to AfD, DRV, IFD, MFD, RFD, and TFD, about 600 of them have been made at DRV in reviewing whether the XfD closer determine consensus correctly. As an admin, I plan to put this experience to use in closing XfD discussions. I also plan to participate at DYK as an admin, such as by moving next update hooks to the protected DYK queues. Template categorization and documentation is another area that I work in. I've made many {{editprotect}} edit-requests, usually to add a category or the documentation template {{documentation}} to a protected template. The tools would allow me to categorize and document protected templates directly. As for other admin tasks, I likely will expand out to other areas in need of admin assistance once I gain more experience with the tools.

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

A: I think that my participation in the recent collaborative effort to improve the workings of DYK is significant. DYK posts about 170 individual hooks to the Main Page per week, each having a link to a new/expanded article. Those hooks pass through review at the DYK suggestion page. The information on that page now is formatted through {{DYKsuggestion}}, a two-template system in which I've made modifications and many suggestions. With the DYK suggestion page now being formatted, I participated in conceiving and suggesting the creation of a bot to keep track of the DYK hook count. The DYK hook count offers feedback to everyone at DYK on things from the rate of updating the Main Page to what suggestion page days need more attention. There's a lot more and if you are a DYK old timer who hasn't been to DYK in a while, you should check out the new DYK. I'm also proud of the research I did for the Tom Collins cocktail article. The origins of that cocktail have been accepted as coming from England for the past 117 years. In my research, I located Image:TomCollinsOrigins.PNG, an old forgotten about news article that rebutted 117 year old belief as to the origins of the Tom Collins. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is the only media to have that information. I'm also proud that my first GA article, Nassak Diamond previously received 20,900 hits in the six hours on the Main Page and was listed as #16 on all-time best of DYK. Further, I'm proud when someone else cites my XfD post as a basis for their reasoned analysis.

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 believe that I've been in any conflicts over editing in the past. I've never felt undue stress from others but I think everyone has felt some level of discomfort at one time or another in dealing with an editor on Wikipedia. Text is an imperfect communication media and is prone to misunderstandings. If I feel stress or discomfort from someone's communication with me, I usually try to say something polite/diplomatic or disengage for a while. Both of these seem to have worked to prevent things from growing into a conflict. I'm quick to see my own mistakes and take action to correct them, which helps avoid conflicts as well. As for the future, I plan to continue on the same path since it seems to have worked to make my Wikipedia experience enjoyable.

Additional questions from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

4. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.

A: The statement falls under BLP, Non-article space, Talk page, which provides two elements to look at for unsourced material: (i) the material should be (A) related to making article content or (B) useful to making article content and (ii) the material should not be contentious. The topic of the discussion in which the statement appeared included discussing how much weight to assign to Professor Rosenbaum's opinion to make a determination on article content. The statement seemed related to making article content. It may have had some usefulness (personally I didn't find any), but I don't think it's primary usefulness was to making article content. In regards to contentious, it certainly had a quarrelsomeness element to it. On the other hand, the term "masquerades" in the statement provides a subjectiveness to the statement that gave it some opinion quality. In sum, I don't think that one person can conclusively determine whether the statement a violation of WP:BLP. I sure that a quick consensus could have been obtained at one of the noticeboards were there a need.

5. Where does policy on wikipedia come from, and why does it change?

A: Policy comes from the documents listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. Those documents reflect consensus regarding actual good practices within Wikipedia. They also reflect declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, and the Developers. Policy changes because consensus changes.

6. What is the difference between punitive and preventative blocking?

A: A punitive blocking seeks retribution as a way of obtaining satisfaction and psychological benefits for an aggrieved editor. Preventative blocking sometimes is used to encourage a productive editing environment and to discourage whatever behavior led to the block. Aside from the fact that Wikipedia uses preventative blocking rather than punitive blocking, a difference between punitive and preventative blocking is that punitive blocking pits the blocker against the person being blocked whereas preventative blocking to some degree puts the blocker in a position of seeking to help the person being blocked work within the rules to reduce the likelihood of future problems. Also, preventative blocking omits the aggrieved editor from the blocking action whereas punitive blocking brings the aggrieved editor in to experience the results.

Additional optional question from User:Tanthalas39

7. Can you explain your thinking from this AfD nomination that was closed with a resounding "keep", and what you've learned from it, if anything?

A: The article's topic is a hereditary title awarded by the British Crown. On coming across that article (I think as a result of hitting the random article button), I read its content and did a search for more information, which included databases in addition to Google's database. Not finding any, I listed that particular hereditary title for deletion because it did not appear to me that there were enough reliable, secondary published sources independent of the subject and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See General notability guideline. From my work at DRV, I've learned that the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants needs to be considered in determining consensus, in addition to looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy.

Optional question from Ironholds (talk)

8. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?

A: A non-free photograph of a living person may be used on Wikipedia if the requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are met. The 'No free equivalent' criteria usually is a main focus of such a review. That requires determining the encyclopedic purpose of the photograph and determining whether free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The "could be created" phrase seems to be a basis that leads to many photographs of living persons not meeting the Non-free content criteria.

Question from John Sloan (talk)

9. This is normally xeno's RfA question. However, I like it as well. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. Without more, I would not unblock. After the first block expired, the IPs next series of same-day edits lead to a second block five days after the first block expired. The IP supports his/her unblock request by pointing to the 11:18 post as evidence of turning over a new leaf. However, that edit was followed up by the 11:28 vandalism post, which shows that the IPs promise of good behavior is a weak to empty promise, particularly in view of the short edit history of the IP which mostly is made up of vandalism. I don't think unblocking would reduce the likelihood of future problems without more input from the IP. What I would be looking for is something that shows that the IP is willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. In this situation, I would post {{2nd chance}} as a way to move forward in the IPs request to be unblocked.

Follow up question from John Sloan (talk)

Personally, I think the better option would be to let another uninvolved sysop handle the unblock request. Do you think this would also be an acceptable option?

A. My involvement with that IP in the 'Optional question from xenocidic' is represented by the green text. The facts of the optional question appear to put me as the admin with the most experience with that particular situation and one of the roles of an administrator is to continue dealing with such matters if necessary. Also, since I acted in an administrative role and there is nothing in the facts to indicate that I would not be able to exercise the tools from a position of neutrality, I would characterize myself as an uninvolved admin even after the second block. As a new admin, I will be relying on the more experienced admins to look over my shoulder to make sure that actions I take are correct. In addition, I would not have any problem with another uninvolved sysop handle the unblock request. In fact, the {{2nd chance}} template allows for other administrators to review the IPs proposed edits to determine whether they will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.

Question from Wehwalt (talk)

10. What is a "grassy expanse recreational area" and why do you use this phrase twice in your park article, a phrase apparently otherwise unknown to Google?

A. I found the answer rather quickly becase when I post something in a Wikipedia article, I usually try to footnote the sentence. That phrase is sourced to this article, which reads in part "At Columbia, a grassy expanse with six soccer fields and two baseball diamonds ..." See this google link (top article). -- Suntag ☼ 02:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow up from Wehwalt: That source justifies the four-word compound noun?

A. I apologize. I read your question as asking me about the "grassy expanse" term and saw an opportunity to convey what I try do in regards to footnoting. I don't think the phrase "your park article" is accurate. In regards to the rest of your question, it is not clear to me what you are asking in the context of my seeking to be an admin. Since it seems to be a content issue, I would be happy to discuss this with you later on the article talk page.

Further follow up: It is certainly your phrasing. You appear to feel the question is out of bounds for an RfA, if that is your feeling, well, all questions are optional, but you and others state that you have strong qualifications in the content area, a question regarding content matters hardly seems to me to be too much. After all, in response to the neutrals, you said "I would be happy expand on any area that any area that is in need of more detail." I'll rephrase the question, one last time, is what you submitted justified by the source and how?

A. Thanks for the clarification. As for whether I've made sufficient efforts in article namespace in addition to non-article namespace to be a well-rounded RfA candidate, I've created or expanded at least 21 articles sufficient for DYK to link them from the Main Page, two of which have gone on to receive GA status. In addition, I've modified many articles with referenced information in response to DRV and DYK requests in an effort to improve the content to address concerns raised at DRV and DYK. I'd be the first person to say that this does not qualify me to be a GA reviewer or FA reviewer. In fact, I previously considered myself best at giving chronological structure to an article and receiving my first GA gave me confidence to believe that I can improve articles beyond a B class. However, I do feel that I've spent sufficient efforts in article namespace and non-article namespace to be a well-rounded RfA candidate. In regards to whether "grassy expanse recreational area" is right for that article, I'd be happy to discuss this with you later on the article talk page or feel free to modify the article if you believe otherwise. I welcome revisions to article edits, which I think helps me from entering conflicts over editing or having other users cause me stress.

Question from Wehwalt (talk)

11. Suntag, I'm reading your denied request for rollbacks from November 22, in which you state considerable need for rollback for vandalism fighting purposes. In asking for reconsideration of your request, you state that you need the rollback tool to revert vandalism when there had been multiple edits by a vandal. First, why would it take you a "considerable amount of time" to work out how to deal with it when all you have to do is go back to the last nonvandalized version and save that? Second, can you point to some of the "many" vandalism reverts you did before November 22 that had edit summaries other than "undid"? I'm asking this because you represented to the admin, Efe, that you changed the edit summaries on undids to reflect what you were doing (in response to Efe finding you had no reverts (probably Efe was wrong, I found one) in the 2000 edits immediately preceding Efe's review) And third, other than the flurry of undids I see in the seventy five minutes following your request for reconsideration, have you reverted any other editor (leaving aside self reverts) since then? I apologize if these questions seem unconventional, whether or not you were candid to Efe less than five weeks ago is a critical factor in making a decision whether to support you.

A. My purpose for requesting Rollback was that I was looking for a fast method of undoing blatantly nonproductive edits. I felt that relative to using a rollback, going back to the last nonvandalized version and saving that took me considerable time for any one given edit. Wikipedia:Requests for permissions itself states, " Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it," and that is how I understood it. At the time I had 8,300+ edits and been with Wikipedia for about 4 months, so I felt that I could be trusted with the rollback feature. In formulating my request for reconsideration, I wasn't completely clear as to why my request was denied. I felt that I had come across many blatantly nonproductive edits and have undid them, such that I could make use of the tool. Since I could make use of the tool and could be trusted with it, I felt it reasonable to request reconsideration. After posting my request for reconsideration, I stared at it and thought about it. It then occurred to me that efe's rejection may relate to a need for the rollback tool while doing undos at recent changes. To get a better idea of what efe's response entailed, I started doing undos at recent changes, something I hadn't done before. On working recent changes, it was then I realized what Wikipedia:Requests for permissions may have meant by a history of vandalism fighting. Relative to having a history of vandalism fighting such as an editor would have doing undos at recent changes, I then understood that I probably did not have enough history of vandalism fighting to justify the rollback. At that time, it was more of a guess on my part as to why the request was denied. I then decided to revised my request for reconsideration with this edit, where I explained that the vandalism I've undid in the past had gone unnoticed for quite some time and that is what I plan to use the rollback tool for. I thought that conveying my recent experience along with a clarification of my relative need for the rollback tool was sufficient information to review the request for reconsideration. After posting my revision to my request for reconsideration, I figured that if someone felt a need to grant the request, they would and if not, it wasn't meant to be. I then move onto other things. Apparently, it wasn't meant to be and it is a matter that I have not pursued.

Follow up from Wehwalt

I was a bit confused by your final response to our colloquy below in response to my oppose (which, mind you, I'm still open to changing), and I posted a question in response, which you may have overlooked and for the convenience of everyone, I'm rephrasing here. Did you mean to say in your final response that: while you concur with my point that the information you gave Efe was not correct, you did not intend to deceive? Is that a fair characterization?

A. I respect the decision that you've made and appreciate the opportunities you have given me to try and change you mind. I've already answered the question to the best of my ability and I can't really add anything without simply rephrasing what I've already said. I hope that you reconsider your position, but understand if you don't.

Comment <Wehwalt notified me about this discussion> Probably half-wrong and half-right. I did check his contribs but only up to 2000 edits and was not satisfied of it because it mainly consists non-mainspace edits. However, preceding the 2000 edits, there were a number of revisions. But my grounds on not granting him the tool is that I feel he doesn't need the tool. He's more on templates, wikipedia space, which are not a main target of vandalism. Had he showed great concern on vandalism fighting, I would be happy to grant him the tool. And by the way, I checked his mainspace revisions and he used "undid ..." in contrast to his reasoning: "I ask that you reconsider. When I undo revisions, I change the "Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by User" edit summary to help everyone to understand what is changed, which is the purpose of edit summaries." --Efe (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions from John254

12. Under what circumstances should self-published blogs, podcasts, etc. be used to make controversial claims concerning living persons?

A. Self-published material, including contentious material written by the subject of the BLP, may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subject themself. If such material is not unduly self-serving, does not involve claims about third parties, does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it, and the article is not based primarily on such sources, then the self-published by the subject may be added to the article.

13. If someone is repeatedly adding content to an article that violates the sourcing standards of the biographies of living persons policy, can you block the offending user or protect the article yourself, even if you have reverted his edits or are actively editing the same article for content?

A. Administrators acting in the role of a sysop should be neutral in that they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with. If the article changes by the sysop editor amounted to a content dispute, made the person a significant editor of an article in question, or amounted to revert wars, then the sysop would seem too involved to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. WP:GRAPEVINE provides that administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Prior to taking action, the test for the admin seems to involve two parts (i) whether the admin subjectively believes that they can exercise their tools from a position of neutrality and (ii) whether the admin thinks that other admins viewing the situation would objectively conclude that he/she can exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. Even if the admin subjectively and objectively believed that they can exercise their tools from a position of neutrality, I think it important to take into account the perceptions of the person affected by the tools as well. Personally, if I had any interest in the content of an article, I would be quick to pass the matter to another administrator such as by posting on one of the noticeboards. However, I would not delay removing libelous material for a discussion and might seek confirmation of my actions after the fact by posting to one of the noticeboards.

14. Under what circumstances is it impermissible to block editors for violations of the three-revert rule or edit warring generally, irrespective of the number of reversions that they have performed?

A. I would say that, except for a few specific exceptions, it is impermissible to block editors for violations of the three-revert rule or edit warring generally where such blocking amounts to wheel warring since it is strictly forbidden for administrators to war using administrative tools.

15. Under what circumstances is it technically permissible to block editors for edit warring, but it is nonetheless highly inadvisable?

A. I think it highly inadvisable for a first admin to block a second admin where the second admin is misusing their administrative tools in their capacity as an editor involved in edit warring. I think it better to try to discuss the matter with the second admin and, if that doesn't work, then refer the matter to the noticeboards for further discussion, if necessary.

16. Under what circumstances is m:The wrong version inapplicable to the protection of articles due to repeated insertion and removal of content?

A. I'm not sure that I understand the question, but m:The wrong version is tagged to indicated that it contains material intended to be humorous and it should not be taken seriously or literally. In response to a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies, such as vandalism, copyright violations, or defamation of living persons. If there is an old version of the page predating the edit war, then administrators may revert to that old version.

Optional question from TotientDragooned (talk)

17. Could you elaborate on the last sentence of your response to question 7? I'm not sure what you mean by "judgment and feelings." TotientDragooned (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A. Deletion Review largely centers around determining whether the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators often is consulted to make that determination. That guideline provides "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." It also provides "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." It is clear to me that the judgment and feelings of the Wikipedia participants in that AfD wanted to keep that article. If that AfD1 were brought to DRV, it likely would receive several "The closer could not have interpreted the debate any other way" responses, including mine.

Question from Gimmetrow (talk)

18. As a followup to your response to Q8, could you explain in more detail any situations, other than the case of a recluse, where no equivalent free image of a living person could be created? What sorts of non-free images, if any, could be justified in those situations?

A. In the Image:Jalaluddin Haqqani.jpg IFD, the deletion discussion centered around use of a non-free image of living person. As the photo now in use in Wikipedia clearly shows, he is not a recluse. I argued in that IFD that if a September 2008 U.S. airstrike targeting Haqqani could not find him, I doubt that a Wikipedian with a camera will have better luck. I remembered that IFD because User:Million Moments awarded me the "The Barnstar of Good Humour" in connection with that discussion. I think that my to-the-point response made a strong visual image argument that no free equivalent could be created under such circumstances. That discussion was closed as keep by Nv8200p, who reasoned that "evidence presented that obtaining a free image is not possible." Consensus in that discussion supports my answer in Q8. It might be a rare event to make its way into XfD, but as I noted above, I've made approximately 1,500 edits to AfD, DRV, IFD, MFD, RFD, and TFD and believe that I have come across enough situations to contribute positively as an admin in that area. As an admin, I will approach XfD discussion with an open mind and do my best to determine consensus such as provided by the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators guidelines.

Optional question from User:Ling.Nut (talk)

19. Regarding the issue of inexperience, did you edit extensively under any other username or IP address before registering User:Suntag?

A. No. I had tried making a few edits to Wikipedia before I started editing back in July, but they were more my testing how to edit than anything else. On looking more into Wikipedia, it seemed like a good way to contribute back to society so I decided to register with an account. I began by adding information to Emile Lessore from an encyclopedia I had been looking through at that time. Basically, I would do some writing and then some reading to get the hang of how things worked. Eventually, I moved into different areas. Below, you opposed my request, writing "Hanging out in DYK for a few months does not = committed & experienced editor." I hope that you will consider my work in other areas such as XfD, which I found to be rewarding area both in the work performed and the experience I gained in working there.

Questions from User:Mattisse

20. Do you think that you may be overly involved in DYK and that becoming an admin may further this problem? You list one of your main accomplishments one of your DYK's being listed as #16 on all-time best of DYK. Considering that list only includes DYKs beginning in August 2008 (about the time you became so active, I think), and considering your heavy concentration of effort on DYK gives you a edge there, do you think you can justifiably list this as a major accomplishment for RFA purposes? Also, although the wording of the criteria and determination of status on that page is unclear (I tried to figure it out), apparently the number of views a DYK receives is determined to a large extent by whether the DYK is "first" in the queue. Do you have a "edge" there over others, due to your involvement with the admins running DYK and your heavy involvement in DYK itself? (When I was active in DYK previously—when it was much less formal and more inviting—the editors "running" DYK were not so preponderantly the ones posting their own DYKs.)

21. Where did all-time best of DYK come from? Were you involved in its creation? This is the first I have seen of it and there is no documentation as to how the rules were decided. Does it take into account quality of article, time DYK was awarded (as readership has grown enormously over time), outside factors such as fame of subject, whether the DYK was slashdoted for example, or is this just a raw numbers game?

22. Do you think that it is a healthy sign for DYK and your involvement there that you received your 25 DYK medal and 50 DYK medal on the same day?[1]

A. I strongly disagree with Q20's implications about the admins now running DYK. Regarding Q23, I don't understand what it is requesting. The 25 DYK medal listed on your user page shows a date of 11 January 2008 and notes "only a few to fifty" and the 50 DYK medal on your user page shows a date of 8 January 2008. In general, these three questions seem more appropriate for the DYK talk page and I would be happy to discuss this later.

• I am referring to the pattern on your talk page of DYK's. See User:Mattisse/sand for a composite view of your escalating pattern, especially in December of as many as 11 DYKs in one day, a total of 58 DYKs for you in December alone. The information is from your talk page and clearly shows why you received the two metals so close together. That one participating editor, you, can wrack up such large numbers of DYKs for yourself in a short amount of time reflects poorly on the DYK process. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Suntag: Suntag (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• Do you believe your research constitutes original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy ;)? I may or may not end up !voting, but I just wanted to say nice job with that bit of research. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone else find question 22 ludicrous? Doesn't it just mean that someone forgot to hand out a 25 medal? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Now that you point it out, yes. I must admit, my reaction was, gee, how did Suntag get 25 DYK's in one day!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Let me say one thing before this gets archived. I think Suntag is committed to the project, and given six months' more solid experience, should be a fine admin (assuming no more red flags come up). I hope he takes this RfA the right way, it is too easy to be bitter, and keeps it all in his mind in future. I think everyone was respectful to him, and was careful in their language, and looks forward to seeing him make substantial improvements to the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

#Very strong support for an excellent editor! Merry Christmas! Majorly talk 23:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Support I was at Suntag's user talk page to add a 50 DYK Medal and saw this AfD RfA nomination. Suntag has a broad range of experience in participating at XfD, but also has strong work creating and improving articles, a vital asset when considering and judging the work created by other editors. It's fascinating that Suntag cited the Tom Collins article as among his best contributions to Wikipedia, as it was the article that earned the 25 DYK Medal, and one that ought to show how any editor can take a stub and turn it into an excellent encyclopedic article. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Instead of "AfD" I think you meant "RfA"? ;) I'd sure hope it wasn't EfD that Suntag was headed for now. :P Jamie^☆S93 04:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   A curious faux pas. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Support as co-nominator. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - an excellent editor. 50 DYKs and 2 GAs are enough content work for me. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 01:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Are you sure you're not already an admin?--Iamawesome800 01:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Excuse the language support Abso-*@#&ing-lutely, positively. Every debate I've seen suntag in (including many where we were on opposite sides) he (she?) has been measured, intelligent and clear. I have seen no circumstances where this editor has been rash, incivil or unreflective. Suntag's possession of the tools will be a net positive for wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   To substantiate my wild claims: This user and I have been involved in many of the same DRV discussions. In most cases DRVs are hard fought and cut to the core of how people feel about the wiki (hence many users can become deeply involved far beyond what a normal discussion of the content at hand might bring). See specifically the "big bust models" debate where suntag poured considerable time and effort into that debate and produced an even-handed statement as well as 'clerking' the debate itself (adding past AfDs/DRVs, linking sources, etc. all in a neutral manner). Here in the Lt. Clayton image DRV, one of the bigger image debates on DRV in a while, suntag provided clear and appropriate reasoning (as well as further comment later), indicating his (just sticking with the male pronoun) understanding of the underlying policies. There are plenty of other examples, but those provide some window into the candidate. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Support as a strong content creator with a level head and definite, helpful plans for the mop. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Excellent contributor, has a good judgment. We could do with some more admins at DYK too ;) Chamal ^talk 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support due to nomination by Wizardman (good guy), multiple barnstars on user page (works well with others), multiple good article credits on user page (here to build an encyclopedia), no blocks, no memorable negative interactions, and Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I actually thought you were an admin already. Excellent contributions certainly don't hurt this nomination. AniMate 02:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. I read the two GAs quickly; the language and orthography aren't perfect, but I can understand everything they're saying ... what's wrong with them? DYK work is impressive, and nom from Wizardman and enthusiastic support from Protonk suggest that I'd be surprised if something sways me the other way (but I can always be persuaded if new information comes up). Ottava's link says more about Ottava than Suntag. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    P.S. I get what Wehwalt is talking about above; Suntag occasionally uses the wrong word. I am quite comfortable opposing if someone seems to stumble with language, but this seems to be a random and occasional thing with Suntag, probably when he's in a hurry or stressed. I like his style on talk pages; very succinct. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    Please don't assume you know what I'm driving at. I'm interested in Suntag's response; he is the candidate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

11. Support A strong contributor to the encyclopedia who is willing to collaborate and learn, and doesn't presume to know everything already. This is the type of flexibility and consideration that best serves the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support as nom. Wizardman 02:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support — Overall fine editor. I have seen some impressive work from Suntag at WP:DYK. I always see Suntag at discussions at WT:DYK. Suntag could do a lot more for WP:DYK (such as moving hooks to next queues) as an admin, and s/he would make a fine one. I trust Suntag as an administrator. — RyanCross @ 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    #Support My own interactions with this editor have proven that Suntag is fair minded and not disposed to favor a chosen group. This is an editor who will benefit the general community, and is not running for "a few extra buttons" to make his/her own article writing easier. Suntag's behavior thus far shows that he/she is interested in pitching in, learning the admin ropes, and helping in general admin duties. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Must move to Oppose based on the evidence presented by Ottava Rima

14. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    Since RfA is a discussion and not a vote, could you please elaborate? — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Where is this "discussion" that you mention? Please provide me with a link. If I were to use one of the templates ("great editor" or "my interactions with him were positive") then I would be "discussing" my reasons for support? That's doesn't make sense. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

15. Support -- Helpful when I needed good references for some of my DYK articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Yes please. Suntag is an excellent reviewer at DRV and his contributions are solidly based on policy and common sense. He listens to other views well and can and does change his position if a better argument comes forward. This is a crucial quality for an admin as it is important that those wielding the tools are receptive to comment and learning from errors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Strong Support due to the excellent answers to questions, good DYK work and to balance out against Ottava's ridiculous, spurious and jerk-worthy oppose. Ironholds (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Excellent, prolific contributor of content and clue here on Wikipedia. Terrific, exemplary contributors tend to make terrific, exemplary administrators. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. In my encounters with Suntag at WP:DYK have seen no actions that would make me question his commitment to this project. Would do nothing to harm Wikipedia. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 11:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - Garion96 (talk) 12:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - I am reassured by the user's answers. kilbad (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Support As per Wizardman and good editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Hello, I need to see a lawyer -- I just performed brain transfer surgery between my brother-in-law and a chicken, and the Animal Rights League is suing me because they say the chicken is now at a cerebral disadvantage...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who has a commitment to creating content and not drama. You go, Suntag! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
24. My own interactions with Suntag have been positive. The six months thing is crap; as long as he shows he's ready, he's ready. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 13:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
26. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 16:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
28. Merry Christmas Support Looks good. LittleMountain5 ^{Merry Christmas!} 20:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Support -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - This is a user that will be an excellent addition to the admin group: this user answers Q's in a good manner and is a good editor overall. MathCool10 ^Sign! 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Support His work at DYK, which I've seen since he became involved, shows good evidence of content building, policy understanding, and cooperation with other editors. Nothing suggests to me that he'd do anything detrimental with the tools. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

    Would "good evidence of content building" with DYK include showing others how to purposefully inflate the character amount on a page in order to get a page listed on DYK (in a way that is directly stated as not supposed to count towards characters for DYK purposes, aka, a list) as found here? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    I believe Suntag was offering a suggestion for how to rewrite a list in prose form—ie, not just to delete the "*"s to make the characters go towards the character count, but also to rewrite the information so that it would read as prose. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    A list is a list regardless if it is bulletted. All he did was say for the person to date it and then format it together. That is not what "prose" means in word or spirit. That shows a lack of understanding of DYK. DYK is a major basis for why people are supporting him for adminship, and he does not even have a strong grasp of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    Taken alone, that edit could probably be interpreted in either of the ways Politizer and Ottava have above. However, the large amount of work of Suntag's I've seen at DYK all points to an editor who a) has a good understanding of the purpose and operation of DYK as defined by consensus, and b) would not seek to game the system (or help others to do so) if he disagreed with some part of that consensus. With that context in mind I am confident the edit is nothing to worry about, though perhaps a slightly different wording would have removed the possibility of a negative interpretation.Olaf Davis | Talk 16:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

32. Support per evidence that he has demonstrated good qualities and good work at WP:DRV, an area where more admins would be helpful. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Support: Ho Ho Ho! seicer | talk | contribs 00:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
34. Support per many of the fine arguments above. Would caution against over boldness. Dlohcierekim 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Support Sebleouf (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
36. Very strong support - When Sarah Palin unexpectedly was put forward as a VP candidate, any Palin-related articles were virtually overwhelmed by pro- and anti-Palin IPs and new accounts, most of them new and clueless as to our policies. Suntag spent many hours upholding our editorial integrity at a time when it was especially important and we had tenuous control of the situation with new POV forks every hour. Suntag stayed courteous in the process. An ideal admin. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    Diffs please? I was at the Sarah Palin page. I don't remember Suntag doing anything to help. Furthermore, the page was protected rather quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

    I was there and I didn't remember it either, so I looked into it. There was this minor edit, and also apparently Suntag created this MfD regarding talk pages relating to the Palin family. Perhaps the reason you and I don't remember this is that Suntag didn't notify Talk:Sarah Palin about them, which perhaps should have been done but isn't something I would hold against an admin candidate. Not exactly what I'd call "many hours upholding our editorial integrity" though either. I'm guessing A.B. was either thinking of another editor or another article. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

37. Support abf /talk to me/ 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
38. There's nothing to suggest his being an admin would harm Wikipedia. Thus, support. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
39. strong support- really nice, collaborative, friendly, supportive, helpful, when I encountered him via DYK. Sticky Parkin 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
40. Eco beat me to the wrong queue, I was going to do that! He, he. Anyway, on a serious note, Strong Support great editor, trusted by me with the tols. Deserves adminship. Andy (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Support good works to DYK and everything other than that seem fine to me although the editor has only about 5 month experience (hmmm...).--Caspian blue 19:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
42. Support Why not. No reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
43. Support - The answers to the questions are excellent (except for Q9; unblocking someone you blocked is generally frowned upon). Hell, it took Can't sleep, clown will eat me this long to become a sysop, and it took Golbez only slightly longer, so what's the timeitis about? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 20:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
44. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 20:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. —_macy^{es: bot} 00:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
46. Support, per the noms by Wizardman (talk · contribs) and Politizer (talk · contribs), per the answers to the first three questions, per some great contributions in many areas of the project, and per this. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
47. Strong Support - In my mind there are two non-admins who really stand out in the work they do at DYK. Suntag is one of them. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 04:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Good work, no red flags.  Sandstein  12:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Solid contributio to DYK. I respect his/her views. I have read the arguments below and maybe Suntag does have a flaw or two (I have!), but I trust this person in the normal sense of the word. We have bots if we want perfection, admins are human. Victuallers (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Strong support as this user has clearly shown good patience and common sense in answering the questions. I have no doubts this user will make a fine sysop! John Sloan (view / chat) 15:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Support: Satisfied with the relaxed attitude and article-building skills. ^Law _shoot! 20:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
54. Support, thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Delete Support. I see no problems here. I think that the neutrals and the opposes are splitting hairs at the atomic level. Trusilver 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Support: Solid user.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - User has shown to be an excellent content contributor, in addition to an all around great user. In my opinion, Suntag has proven himself as someone who would make a great admin. Xclamation point 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. Excellent and dilgent DYK and all-around contributor; no objections to giving him tools. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
59. Support I've never understood the dismissive attitude some wikipedians have towards so-called 'edit count boosting' boring-but-necessary minor edits. I see a solid contributor with a very cool temperament. -- Vary Talk 16:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
60. Support I've seen this editor around DYK and can find no objections. Surprised to learn he has been around for such a shortish time and expected he was an admin already. --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 16:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - good answers to questions. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. DYK is good experience. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Good experience for what? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    DYK is good experience for being an admin. As someone who has been admin for a substantial amount of time, (July 2006) I subscribe ardently to the view that being an admin is not a big deal. It's not hard, so I support any established editor with experience in any specific area. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

63. Weak support: See User:Dendodge/Admin criteria/Log#Suntag for an explanation. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
64. Support. Appears to be level headed and not prone to capricious acts. Wikipedia needs more admins with these qualities.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Seen around at DYK and AfD doing fantastic work. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
66. Weak Support. I am not thrilled by several of his answers to policy-related questions, but I have no reason to think Suntag would be a net negative to the project as an administrator. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Based on personal experiences. Spencer^T♦C 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Based on his answers, he knows the hook, even if it's qite a bit too early to nominated (6 months? Give me a break.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resident Mario (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
69. Strong support. I have found Suntag's articles to be quite good and his temperament is calm and cool, even as discussions often become heated at DYK. I think he would be a capable and trustworthy admin. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Suntag has proven to be a reliable contributor and his help at DYK has been excellent. Am I the only person who finds the number of questions to be too many with all of the rephrased and repetitious questions? There's way too much badgering in this RFA. Royalbroil 02:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    His "help" at DYK? You mean his 58 DYKs so far in December with as many as 11 in a single day? Is that the way it works? See Suntag's DYKs. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

71. Support : Based on my interactions with Suntag, I found him to be a reliable and trustworthy person. I dont care whether he really needs to extra buttons , but I am sure that he will not use it abusively . An new admin will not press all the buttons to see if it works. This guy will use it cautiously and that is all I care about. And of course we need more admins at the DYK spectrum! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose - user has extremely little experience, which has come up before in some very key areas. The user also lacks experience in other areas of content and discussion. Admin does mean something, and it should not be handed out lightly. This user has also not proven themselves as able to deal with things neutrally, and he has rushed into things without a background for what the problems are based on. There is plenty more, but I wont fill up the whole page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Actually if "filling up the whole page" includes some diffs and examples I'd rather you would. Can you be more specific; what areas does he lack experience in? When has this come up? And so on. Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Of course I shouldn't speak for others, but in the interest of the discussion, I believe Ottava Rima is referring at least in part to this discussion (scroll down to the unindent to see Ottava's interaction with Suntag). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Well, at first glance, this looks more like Ottava being a jerk. Tan | 39 00:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think an added bonus is that someone has reviewed "hundreds" of DYK while only being around for a few months. This is rarely a process that beginners jump into, especially so whole heartedly. If he is new, his jumping into it without an understanding of MoS and other aspects of the encyclopedia show a lack of experience and judgment that would be detrimental while as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are here for exactly that reason. — neuro^(talk) 01:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Being new doesn't mean you are bound to be stupid. MoS is not rocket science, you can get a general understanding about it in a few weeks of editing. If you check the articles Suntag has reviewed, you'll see that he is familiar with it, and frequently tries to make the articles compliant with it. He's not someone that passes a nomination just because it is there. Chamal ^talk 01:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   If you read the link Politizer gave, it shows that he doesn't understand the finer details of MoS or how FAC/other greater processes work. This shows an early understanding of basics at a surprising speed, but a lack of a grasp of the completion end of things. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   MoS and FAC aren't really related to RfA in any way. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think many will agree that his content contributions don't add anything when they are weighted only on one side and show a lack of understanding of the whole process. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Some links: An early merge proposal. Once proposed, user did not return to it and it was abandoned. Thus, you have Talk:Nepotism/Archives/2012#Merger_proposal unanswered. As per this, the user has made many merge proposals, with most of them abandoned. As per this (and surrounding contrib pages), many of his contributions were merely the adding of a "see also" section to multiple pages. This shows many contributions just linking one page to many other pages. His contribs can be broken down to such things, which show a much smaller amount of actual contributions than what is seen by just reading off his total count. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Two of those diffs are from early August, and he started editing in late July. Would you be able to point us to any more recent diffs showing potential errors in judgment being made? Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, I beat you on that by a good 12 minutes. See below. Plus, August was the beginning of his career. Those hold up for his first 1/5th of edits or so. Remember, this user has only been really active for 5 months. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Lets examine some recent items from DYK: This has a summary of "refactor" when there is nothing actually being refactored. As does this. The user does reformat various items, and this is not necessarily a good thing. For example, the second link, Agne's second comment is moved out of the box without any real explanation. Does this user believe that they have the right to edit other people's comments for any given reason? Then look at this, in which the user tells people how to expand it by expanding a list. Lists are not accepted as "prose". Thus, the user is telling people how to fluff up an article without it falling under the appropriate definition. This is not good DYK conduct. This is just a handful of problems. A more indepth look will only reveal more. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm going to follow Tanthalas's description here; jerk-worthy behavior is all I'm seeing. "Not understanding FAC makes him inappropriate for adminship"; I've been here for probably two years, I've got four pieces of featured work to my name (lists, not articles), 34 DYK's (so a pretty good grasp of "the final result of the content creation process" and I don't understand or know the FAC. Some areas of the wiki you just don't get involved in, and telling a man with two GA's that you are opposing partially because of his lack of understanding of content creation is ridiculous. So far what I'm seeing (boiled down) is "He doesn't have an FA and didn't leave an edit summary one time when he was moving a DYK comment". Did santa leave a lump of coal in your stocking? Ironholds (talk) 08:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Does adminship mean so little to you that a person with 5 months experience, mostly making mass trivial edits, and event promoting a direct abuse of DYK guidelines (in his specialty, no less), with little understanding of editing pages as a whole, really deserve to be an admin? Wow. Then I guess we should just pass it out to everyone. I defended Tan when he called me a jerk because I like Tan. You don't get that privledge. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Believe me, you being nice is not something I expect from this RfA nevermind desire. Adminship does not mean "little" to me, but to me this user has not done anything that rings little warning bells in my head. 5 months of work, when that work is worthwhile, thought through and not made with automated tools is fine. It is a bit on the short side, but the point is there are no other major issues. If it was "5 months experience plus answers to questions that show he doesn't understand policy X" then fine, I'd say he hasn't gained enough policy knowledge and experience in those 5 months to be trusted with the tools. Answers to the questions and contributions in general show a firm grasp of clue and policy, which is an indication he has spent those 5 months learning and doing useful work. Setting a "you must have X months experience to get on this ride" limit assumes that all edits are equal in value, something which is fairly obviously not true. Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   There are many online "guides" for gaming Wikipedia that say that you should make small edits in certain areas, such as vandalism, and deletion review. Don't edit anything major. Don't produce a lot of content. Wait six months. Then approach a high ranking person to nominate you. These guides are mostly put out by those like WR review. This is why we try to demand people to be around for a long time, to have experience, and to interact with others. We don't need another Poetlister. This user doesn't have a firm grasp of editing. This user doesn't have a firm grasp of policy. This user has promoted gaming the DYK system to other users. I am absolutely frightened and appalled that so many people are willing to hand over the admin tools to this user. Haven't we learned anything? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I completely agree with Ottava here. I see no substantial contributions, an exaggeration of some dubious contributions, all to get the admin badge. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Two deeply unimpressive GAs show no real knowledge of what content building is all about. Looks to me just like ticking the box in preparation for this premature RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Can I ask what you mean by "deeply unimpressive"? I reviewed Columbia Park, Torrance, California, and in my mind it was a Good Article, well written and researched. Apterygial 07:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I mean that in my opinion Columbia Park, Torrance, California in particular ought not to have been listed as a GA, and is very far from from being "well written". --Malleus Fatuorum 06:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   If you have a problem with my reviewing, which you clearly do, then feel free to list the article at GAR. Apterygial 08:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   I will very likely do exactly that. I have no opinion of your reviewing in general, as this is the only example I have seen of it. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   A) There is no GA that is umimpressive, they are all really good and have to be well written, researched and of a good length. They are Good Articles! Suntag's GA that he was a part of are no different.B) Rfa is not just about GA or FA but the use of tools, trust and civility, along with others. Basing an oppose on purely contributions (although important, they are not the be all and end all), especially when they are good anyway, is not a good reason for me. I'm not being incivil or trying to put you down or anything, just voicing my opinion! :) Andy (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   I just updated my user page with a link to the third GA article to receive my contributions. That article, Trial of Lex Wotton, is an Australian related article that I came across while working DRV. I revised the article based on a comment from Rebecca in the AfD. My revision of the article resulted in the remaining contributors to the DRV discussion to specifically note and agree with my action. So what was seen as a BLP1E problem a month ago now is a GA article. As noted above, I think that I've made sufficient efforts in article namespace in addition to non-article namespace to be a well-rounded RfA candidate and hope that you will reconsider your position. -- Suntag ☼ 20:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose Editor seems to have been imperfectly candid when requesting rollback to the reviewing admin, Efe, here, concerning claim that he had "come across many blatantly unproductive edits and had undid them". See Question 11, above. I asked him to name a few, he could not do so and more or less admitted that what he had said in his request was other than the case. Given the powers of adminship, candor is an essential quality in a candidate. This took place less than five weeks ago. This is just too recent to overlook. Strong oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think I was candid. I had 8,300+ edits at the time and felt I had come across many blatantly unproductive edits and had undone them. In the hour after I posted my initial request for reconsideration at 14:42, 22 November 2008, my understanding of what Wikipedia:Requests for permissions may have meant by a "history of vandalism fighting" changed immediately after I experience doing undos at recent changes. Compared to the undos racked up by someone working recent changes, I probably didn't have a enough of history of vandalism fighting to justify a need for the tool. I believe that I reflected that very recent change in understanding in my 15:43, 22 November 2008 post in that request for reconsideration. -- Suntag ☼ 19:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   So where are the "many" undids that you did? Or did you just "feel" that you did them? Diffs would be nice, say, I don't know, five or six in the couple of weeks preceeding your request. I don't mean to be harsh, I strained my eyes going through your contribs this morning, so don't think I am looking for reasons to oppose. I was going to go neutral at worst before this, even though I had reservations about your experience and the quality of your articles, I was swayed in your favor by the arguments of other editors whom I've dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   My rollback request was based on the 8,300+ edits that I had made at that time over the past four months. I didn't posts any diffs in response to your Q11 because manually going through each of my 8,300+ past edits to find the ones on which generated a need in my mind for the tool on 22 November 2008 will take some time. I still believe that I was being forthright in my request given my understanding of the situation at the time and am trustworthy overall. I received a request on my talk page to provide diffs to your request and your being swayed in my favor by the arguments of other editors helps as well. If this issue is a concern of anyone else reading this, please bear with me as it will take some time to open each of my 8,300+ edits, read what I wrote, and determine whether it is relevant to this matter. -- Suntag ☼ 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Since you are very good about edit summaries, I found it rather easy to go through your previous edits, just a bit tedious and hard on the eyes (I'm using my old glasses temporarily). Most of them could not possibly be undos, and I went through about fifteen that could have been and checked the diffs, finding out in each case it was not an undo. Only one edit that you made from October 27 to November 21 was an undo of someone else, and it is clearly labeled as such, you did not change the edit summary. I'm not asking you to go that far back, just two weeks before you made the request.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Your request goes to the state of my mind at the time I made the post. I appreciate your not asking me to go that far back, but my decision to request the rollback tool was not based on two weeks of edits before I made the request, it was based the 8,300+ edits that I had made at that time over the past four months. It will take a day or two to complete. -- Suntag ☼ 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Feel free. In the meantime, I guess editors can read your words and do their own research and come to their own conclusions, to what degree you were candid, and to what degree that affects your nomination. And to what degree you REALLY need to go back to July to justify a request in November expressed in the present tense, speaking of a current need ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Rather than a current, ongoing problem, my interest in having access to the rollback tool a month ago included addressing blatantly nonproductive edits that had gone unnoticed for quite some time. While that may not have been sufficient to justify a need for the tool, I believe that I was candid in my unsuccessful request and I'm fairly certain the diffs will show it. -- Suntag ☼ 20:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Wait, what? 8,300 edits in less than 6 months? How can people honestly claim that he is contributing content and taking his time to understand thing with such a high rate of edits? If 8,300 is a true number, and lets assume there are 31 days and 6 months, the average amount of edits per day is 44 per day. Looking back at his contribs, you can see that a lot of them are just mass linking to the same pages (which also happen to be involved with deletion reviews). Not really high quality content. I think a bot could have easily replaced Suntag, did the same, and probably get through RfA just as easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   Wehwalt, may I remind you that your very recent RfA was threatened with derailment because too many people took a pair of indelicate comments that you made out of context and held it up as the be-all/end-all definition of what you brought to Wikipedia -- and yet you are doing the exact same thing here by ignoring the candidate's complete record by taking a single incident and magnifying it to the point it obscures everything else. I would respectfully ask that you please judge the candidate's complete record of contributions to this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Trust is the defining characteristic for an admin. My comment that I was nearly burned at the stake for did not go to trust. You're comparing apples and oranges here.--Wehwalt (talk)

   It did go to trust. We, the community, had to trust you that it was just a one off incident and that it would not be reflective of you if you became admin, and we trusted you that thus was the case. Almost everything done in an RfA is done in trust, or in the hope of trust. — neuro^(talk) 09:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   Oh, Neuro, you naughty boy...you got there first and said it better than I could have! :) The point remains: do we judge people (not only in RfA, but in real life) solely by isolated mistakes that create no great damage, to the point that we obscure everything positive and meaningful put forth by those people? Too often, worthwhile candidates for adminship have been whacked because of one or two errors that popped in the course of tens of thousands of flawless contributions. If RfA is going to function at a level of adult intelligence, such actions need to be put to rest. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   With me, there was a very long track record. Suntag has a lot shorter one. It's reasonable for me to ask him to explain, and to decide based on that. What got me about my RfA is that no one asked me to explain. And there is a considerable difference between a common, but questionable word, and giving incorrect information in a request for Wikipedia privileges. My use of a word had nothing to do with the truth, or lack thereof, of statements I made in my RfA. If he made less than candid statements to an admin while asking for privileges a month ago, obviously I am entitled to worry about his current veracity. Nothing personal, but it seems obvious to me. And his evasiveness (or so I deemed it) in my initial question to him did nothing to reassure me. That's my train of thought there. Otherwise I have nothing against the guy, and I think his response below goes some way towards reassuring me. I don't think his GAs are wonderful, but I'm more used to dealing with the FA standard so that may just be me, and I'm somewhat taken aback about his uploading two articles to WP in 72 hours, one of which he nominates for GA eleven hours after it is uploaded to WP and one a month later, it seems odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

   I started going through each of my edits. For each edit, I asked whether it was a nonproductive edit. Then I asked whether it was blatantly so. I asked whether I removed part or all of the edit and in removing the edit I asked whether I replaced it with nothing or with different text. In doing this review, I realized that my rollback tool request was not based on any set of diffs but was based on my then-present overall impression on November 22nd of the prior four months of editing. My request for rollback a month ago was not well thought out. I wasn't aware of the standards applied as to what was considered sufficient need and what was not. I believed that my need for the rollback tool was sufficient, but my belief turned out to be incorrect. I understand a desire to review a set of diffs and determine whether those amount to the undoing of many blatantly nonproductive edits. When I made that statement a month ago in requesting reconsideration of the rollback tool decision, it was not base on a set of diffs. Rather, it was based my memory of the collective actions I took during the prior four months. Reviewing my statement against one or another set of diffs would not reflect what was going on inside my head at the time I made the statement because I did not make that statement on a set of diffs. What I will bring in as an admin is analytical thinking and reasoning. In my edits, I strive to think things through by reviewing the information before me. My request for the rollback tool was not analytical thinking and reasoning and was not based on reviewing the information before me. I made the request with little preparation and effort to accurately assess my needs in view of the standards. In short, it was a lapse in my effort to maintain the standards to which I try to hold myself and I believe that is how it should be judge. I don't believe that it represent my overall efforts within Wikipedia and it is not how I plan to approach being an admin. However, it will leave a lasting impression on me as to the level of vigilance I need for each edit I make. -- Suntag ☼ 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   Basically, I guess what you are saying is that what you said to Efe was factually incorrect, but there was no intent to deceive? Is that fair?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

   Suntag declined to answer this question when I put it as a follow up, above. I'm sorry, I'm sticking with strong oppose. Per Lankiveil (Neutral 10), we're getting considerable "ducking and weaving" by the candidate, whose final response to my point (his final respoonsive response) was considerably different from his initial one. This nomination leaves an awful lot of questions, and I think there is an increasing feeling here that this is a cookbook admin candidacy, where the editor joined, collected a lot of Wikipedia bling, got some hooks and barnstars (of course we all know about barnstars) inflated his edit count (which you notice Suntag touts at every opportunity, as he's started to do his barnstars) through category adding and the like, uploaded an article fully formed and noninated it for GA less than eleven hours later (compare [2] with [3])(which raises questions about where that article underwent gestation, it could even have been written by someone else, not saying it is, but it is odd)(the other GA was also uploaded fully formed, though he waited a bit before nominating), and of course, his statement, designed to pick up the rollback tool as another piece of Wikipedia bling, which was not candid, but which fortunately did not fool Efe (I've dropped a note on Efe's talk page informing him that his actions are being discussed here, but not suggesting he do anything about it). All of these things may have innocent explanation, and Suntag may be the hottest thing since the sun. But judging him on his track record to date, there's an awful lot of red lights, and I can't change from "strong oppose". Send this candidate back, have him do three or six months solid editing work in the sunlight, and I'll look at it again. But that's what I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Ottava Rima makes some good points. I'm not saying that Suntag isn't trustworthy, but simply that he hasn't completely shown himself to be trustworthy yet. Try again in a few more months, maybe. Do some more article content too. DS (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose: Per Ottava Rima and DS. While adminship is "no big deal", they are still looked at by the vast unwashed masses as the figureheads of Wikipedia (including myself who is fairly new around here, but I'm sure I'll learn). Suntag has been editing for barely 6 months, with under 20% of those edits being within articles. Simply not enough time (in my opinion) to be sure that Suntag can be trusted with the tools. --Chasingsol^(talk) 15:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
6. +O Inexperienced. Hanging out in DYK for a few months does not = committed & experienced editor. Will probably +S in a couple months, barring anything unexpected. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Oppose - Per Ottava Rima and DS. The issues raised are very troubling, and I believe, have the potential to undermine DYK and therefore Wikipedia. This inexperienced editor is overly involved in one aspect of Wikipedia, DYK, where he is having undue influence. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Also per User:Oren0 and per User:Wehwalt as I investigate more. I found the Christmas list of suggested articles particularly useless and crufty when I came upon it originally, not noticing the creator. Now realizing this editor made numerous edits creating and populating categories pertaining to Christmas images increases my concern regarding the worth of this editor's mainspace edits and the quality of his contributions, as these, in my opinion, are what Wikipedia does not need. Regarding the rollback issue described by User:Wehwalt, at best this can be viewed as demonstrating immaturity and a somewhat casual disregard for accuracy. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

8. The answer to question 8 is completely wrong. Non-free images of living people should never be used on Wikipedia, because they are always going to be replacable as long as the person is living - anyone could take a photo of the person. This may sound strict, but it's supposed to be the "free encyclopedia". I think you may need a little more time. Majorly talk 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   I really agree with that rule, but there are exceptions, J. D. Salinger for instance which passes the non-free content criteria. Suntag's answer seems good to me. Garion96 (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   I provided a response to Q18 above that I believe will aid you in seeing a basis for my reply to Q8. You might hold the view that Non-free images of living people are always going to be replacable as long as the person is living. However, I think you would agree that my read of NFCC#1 is not unreasonable and that others also hold that view. In any event, that view would be asserted as an editor, not an admin, and is a rare exception. If I ever came across this issue an admin seeking to close a discussion on the topic, I would strive not to inject my opinion when determining consensus. I hope that you will reconsider your decision. -- Suntag ☼ 08:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Any non-free image that meets the non-free content criteria is elligble for inclusion in the encylopaedia. Images of living people usually fail criterion 1 - they are replaceable by a free equivelent. There are however definite circumstances where non-free images of living individuals can be (and are) acceptable under the NFCC and are used within the encycloapedia. Examples of such instances include:

   • Instances where the image itself is notable and described in the article. Example: File:Dan Westbrook8989.jpg
   • Where the photo depicts the individual participating in an event for which they are notable and is described in the article but for which no free equivalent will be available. Example File:Queencrown.jpg
   • Depictions of living people playing fictional characters in order to illustrate that fictional character. Example File:MalReynoldsFirefly.JPG
   • Depictions of living people as they appeared during a time period which is described in the article and where theire appearance is notworthy enough to be described in the article and different enough from their current appearance that a newly created free image would not be effective in illustrating the noteworthy period of their life. Theorectical example: The article Pelé has no images of the subject playing football, if no free image is available at this point a non-free image of him in his playing days would probably be acceptable.
   • Where a free image does not exist and will not be obtainable for other reasons - such as for extreme recluses as in the example given above.

   Baring this in mind I think it is certainly not the case that - under current policy - "Non-free images of living people should never be used on Wikipedia". (Note: I haven't checked through all of the above images for fair use rationals, etc. but I think that they at least illustrate when non-free images of living people can be permittable).Guest9999 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   How about With The Beatles? Paul and Ringo are still alive, and that image is non-free, but it's certainly allowed - it's an album cover, and one of the most iconic images of the band. The same goes for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Abbey Road (album) et al. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 13:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but that's not designed to illustrate them, it is designed to illustrate the album cover. — neuro^(talk) 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

   Majorly is correct, as he often is. This is supposed to be a "free encyclopedia". Perhaps too many people make the mistake of thinking "free" means "doesn't cost any money to use? GTD 19:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I was going to go neutral until I reviewed this user's contributions more carefully. I do find the "how to be a WP admin" guide argument to be an interesting one. This user has some 600 Talk contribs, for example. Look at the last 250. How many of them are actual talk page comments? 10% maybe? Article-space seems to suffer from the same issue; sure adding categories, see alsos, and images to articles is important but does it really demonstrate much towards adminship? Here's a classic example.

   Step 1: Create Category:Christmas images and Category:Non-free Christmas images.

   Step 2: Search for the word "Christmas" in the File: namespace and add every result to the categories you just created, racking up 200 edits in 2 hours.

   Step 3: Adminship?

   So what, make a few thousand mostly bogus edits, spend some time at DYK and XfD and you're ready to be an admin? This user seems to have racked up thousands of puffed-up edits. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this "get admin quick" argument is likely (though if it is it looks like it'll work), but this user's edit counts are very deceptive and outside of the deletion work I see almost nothing that indicates this user has the necessary knowledge and communication ability to be an admin. Oren0 (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   I don't characterize those Christmas edits as bogus. Those edits were in response to a serious mid-to-end of November 2008 concern here and here that DYK was in the process of generating an impression of bias by hosting a DYK Christmas 2008 project within its WikiProject space. I argued here that DYK should not use its subpages to sponsor themed hooks as it did for Wikipedia:Did you know/Halloween 2008 and proposed using Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays to host the event. To further move the effort in that direction, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force, created Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force/DYK Christmas 2008, spent about eight hours reviewing I think it was 1,000+ Christmas articles to find stubs that could be expanded into DYK articles in time to be posted to the Main Page during December 25th. I posted that list at suggested articles, which was used by other editors to create articles that met DYK criteria. Included with this effort was the categorization that you noted above. User:How do you turn this on felt my Christmas DYK resolution efforts were significant enough for him to award me The Original Barnstar. As noted in this 24 December 2008 thread, the Christmas event on the Main Page was successful. I believe that my efforts eased tension at DYK on that issue and showed an example of decision making that I would bring to my work as an admin. -- Suntag ☼ 08:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Viewed on their own, are those edits justifiably useful? Perhaps. Viewed in the context of what I believe to be an unusually large number of trivial edits such as categorizing, "see also", etc. in all namespaces, I question whether you're doing certain things primarily to raise your edit count. Even if that's not true, when trivial edits are removed I'm not sure what you've done that demonstrates admin know-how. If you used minor edits as judiciously as some I think it's not a stretch that up to 90% of your talk/article edits would be marked minor. I understand that many supports are pursuaded by the DYK/deletion work and that stuff is important but I don't see hardly anything on the article or talk sides of things. Oren0 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

10. Oppose regretfully, as I see his good work at DYK and don't share Ottava Rima's concerns about it. But I don't think he is ready - he was turned down for rollback rights just a month ago, and the baronet Afd nom in November shows inexperience. I think he's made a good start on article-building, DYK and other areas, but needs more experience. I'd say give him rollback now & I would expect to support after a decent interval. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose. It's less than a month since this, and your trying to wriggle out of it with "I've learned that the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants needs to be considered in determining consensus, in addition to looking at the strength of argument and underlying policy" is deeply unimpressive, particularly with something like this where it's not a matter of "judgement and feeling overriding policy", but where we have a clear and unambiguous policy which you ignored in favour of what is essentially "I've never heard of it, delete". There is no way I'd trust you with a delete button. – iridescent 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    It's barely more than a month since this. Iridescent, you oppose an RFA candidate for nominating an article at AFD that was unanimously kept after four days. Do you offer to resign your adminship for nominating an article at AFD that was unanimously kept after one day? "I'd question the notability - but this is a field I don't know much about" sounds eerily similar to (in your words here) "I've never heard of it, delete".

    Your a clear and unambiguous policy is nothing more than a WikiProject guideline. That's useful so far as it goes, but there is absolutely no way Suntag could have known about it before nominating the article, and none of the "keep" voters in the AFD pointed it out to him.

    I said it in a previous RFA and I'll say it again: users need to have freedom to vote their conscience in whatever context. It's okay to get the "wrong" answer as long as you make a reasonable effort to get it right. Suntag did exactly that: he tried to find reliable sources and was not satisfied, so he listed the article for a deletion discussion to solicit other opinions. The other opinions moved to keep the article. Suntag, in his response to question 8, voices respect for those other opinions. Crystal whacker (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Nice try. At least 75% of AFD nominations by me do generally end in "keep", as they're almost all procedural nominations, either of articles I've deprodded/despeedied, or of borderline spam cases that have sat around for a long time without improvement; the SAP article you mention looked like this at the time I AFD'd it and had been largely unchanged for three years (2005 version). You'll note that I didn't delete it! The Edge Baronets AFD, on the other hand, was a clear "I don't like it" AFD, with a reason of "Not Wikipedia notable" and "One of the references dates to 1990" (not the reference cited for the 2007 BLP material, which the nomination implied). – iridescent 17:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    You did not identify your nomination of SAP R/3 as a "procedural nomination." Just because it's a "borderline spam case" doesn't make it a procedural nomination, i.e. one where you have no opinion but are nominating on behalf of someone else and explicitly abstain, which is what you did here.

    I'll note that Suntag did not delete Edge Baronets either! He nominated it to start a discussion. Just because he thought it lacked sources and should have been deleted does not mean he would have deleted it unilaterally without consulting other users. You, too, elected not to delete SAP R/3 without consulting other users. I do not perceive a distinction between your behavior and his, and I think in both cases it's okay.

    Let me say that I agree (1) that SAP R/3 was and is in bad shape, and (2) Edge Baronets is a fine short article and should not have been listed for deletion. However, just listing an article for deletion is not tantamount to saying "if I were an admin, I would have deleted it straight-away." Therefore I do not see Suntag's nomination as a disqualification for adminship; or if it is, I think not only you but a lot of other admins would not pass the stringent criterion of never nominating an article that is kept with strong consensus. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

12. Weak Oppose per Iridescent, and the feeling that a number of the answers are weak or show a vagueness of understanding. (Some answers - i.e. Q14 - appear to be clearly incorrect, as there are clear exceptions to 3RR). Black Kite 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose, regretfully. Good work at DYK but too inexperienced for adminship at the moment. The AfD mentioned by Iridescent and a largely bungled answer to Q8 about non-free images of living people (where the candidate essentially entirely missed the main point), demonstrate this pretty clearly. The recent denial of rollback episode is also somewhat concerning. The user is very much on the right track and there should be no problems in 3-4 months. Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
14. A considered oppose after a great deal of thought. Great work clerking at DYK but contributions in other areas do not show the judgement necessary to be a good admin although I am sure that this will come with time and I could see myself supporting in the future. There is just something that does not feel quite right. I am also disquieted by the several mentions in this RfA of being awarded barnstars as if they were some kind of kitemark which I should usually ignore but in this case it just adds to the general feeling of unease. Nancy ^talk 18:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose per Iridesccent and Nancy. Sorry, but I can't support this time around. ayematthew @ 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose - I do not doubt that Suntag has best intentions at heart, but he is not ready in my mind. Answers to questions indicate a likely lack of policy knowledge. Something also makes me wary of this RfA, I agree with Wehwalt to some extent. — neuro^(talk) 19:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Good DYK work, but something doesn't feel right here. Ottava Rima's points and Iridescent's showing of the bungled AfD make me oppose. VX!^~~~ 19:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose per number 11. Let the Oppose-stalking begin. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Per number 11? Per question number 11? Per Support number 11? Per oppose number 11? Per the spritual imagery associated with 11? Or just per number 11?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Houston, we have a problem. Tan | 39 17:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Come on Tan, that wasn't 11, that was 13, you should know better!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

19. Weak Oppose - It isn't really anything anyone has said, but rather a culmination of some chats with a few of the opposers and another general overlook of WP:DYK. It's still just a general feeling of "I don't think this user should be an admin yet" rather than "This user should not be an admin," which is why it is a weak oppose. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Iridescent's oppose. While the DYK'ing is a definite plus, just like everybody else here, I've had this feeling that there was something wrong. I still can't put my finger on it yet, but NuclearWarfare's oppose is probably the most accurate. Nothing against another RfA in a few months or so, but just not now. Sorry, and best of luck in the future! DARTH PANDA^duel 21:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
21. Oppose for now. Along with Johnbod and iridescent, I feel the user needs to get some more experience before I fully trust them with the tools. Someone turned down for rollback just a month ago is not ready. Please continue the good work you've done so far, and gather some more contributions that show you've learned from mistakes like the Edge Baronets AFD, and I'll support in another few months. Steven Walling (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose Not enough experience, user not ready. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose per NuclearWarfare and Iridescent. The user needs a tad more wisdom, just a tad. Dean B (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose, basically per my neutral below. More experience is required before Suntag will be ready for the tools, although I'm sure they'll make it eventually. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC).
25. Oppose - Per Matisse, Iridescent, and Oren0. I think this is too soon. As an aside, I'm also getting a slight 'trophy hunter' alert but I could be wrong about that. Like a few others said above, something just doesn't feel right. That feeling alone wouldn't be reason enough to oppose but the things brought up by Matisse, Iridescent, and Oren0 are.    SIS  03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose Candidate is well intentioned, but quite apparently not yet ready to fill the role they want as reflected in Q1. Townlake (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose Enough questions exist that it would be best to hold off at this time.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose as trust has not yet been established and per Majorly. I also consider DYK to be one of the most pointless, time-wasting aspects of Wikipedia that many new users use in an attempted shortcut to passing an RFA, so I never give any weight to anything there GTD 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    The point about DYK is a good one. DYK highlights trivia pulled out of its context, which is sort of the antithesis of the project. Townlake (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more. I give DYK no weight whatsoever. Irrelevant trivia. Tan | 39 16:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    DYK is one of the most pointless, time-wasting aspects of Wikipedia that many new users use in an attempted shortcut to passing an RFA??? That's a negative comment. That's like saying many new users use vandal fighting/participate in AN and ANI/write FAs and GAs in an attempt to pass an RFA. Compared to FAs or GAs, it is easier to write DYKs. But, it requires creativity to write DYKs. Many DYK articles are decent articles, and they help Wikipedia. Please remember that we are here to build a free knowledge. Passing an RFA is a secondary thing. Some help Wikipedia by writing DYKs, some help Wikipedia by writing GAs, some help Wikipedia by fighting vandals, some help Wikipedia by helping at AN/ANI - they are all important. AdjustShift (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    While this discussion is clearly not for here, I would suggest I may start taking DYK more seriously if it wasn't possible to be given an "award" for creating a hook, thereby allowing the gamers/myspacers/trophy-hunters among us to grab a shortcut via the hard work of others GTD 17:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    I couldn't disagree more. DYK is a very valuable aspect of the project. First, it encourages people to write passable articles and not stupid stubs. But even more than that, an article on the front page with get more coverage. DYK's often help filter out incorrect information, hoaxes, or other problems. DYK's can help others identify subjects that need more help. People who write DYK's are often doing so with the hope of getting the article to GA status, by going through DYK you subject the article to the eyes of hundreds of people---who will then edit and improve the articles. I guarantee that the vast majority of new pages that are featured on the front page, are significantly better AFTER being edited by scores of people, than they are the day before they are part of the DYK.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Noble wishful thinking. As it stands, DYK is the Main Page's evergreen contribution to Wikipedia self-parody. Who has not looked upon these scraped-up lines of meagre fascination and thought (even within the darkest recesses of their treacherous soul) "Did You Know? No and frankly just as well," or (for the true-believer evaluator) "Content is getting awful hard to write these days?" ? To get back to the point, its become an over-rated tout for marginal RFA candidates and one that 'coaches' ought to look long and hard at. In this particular cases, the candidate is offering the benefits of GA's that make a mockery of the accolade and a flawed laundry list of these DYKs which are also less than stellar. Plutonium27 (talk)

    Agree with Plutonium27, and have asked the candidate above about a new DYK trinket all-time best DYKs, insituted recently, on which Suntag is rated 16th overall. Does this list represent anything more than busy work and self-agrandizement? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    When DYK is good, it can be quite good. At its worst, though, I see four or five element lists being created apparently for the sole purpose of creating a DYK hook, and with next to no utility to the reader. Lists of Tampa Bay Rays managers (easily gleanable from the team's article), or list of Phoenix Sun players/coaches in the Hall of Fame, that kinda thing. They are incapable of expansion (other than by an election) and are surely abandoned once they've served their purpose, that is, getting the nominator another hook.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    DYK is used to call attention to new articles and to expansions of existing articles. The attempts to belittle the efforts that go into content creation and content enhancement are nothing short of emetic. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Content creation and expansion is good. Getting an "award" in the trophy cabinet for writing a hook is not GTD 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    But condemning DYK as the most pointless, time wasting aspect of WP is throwing the baby out with the bath water. DYK itself serves a purpose, you may not agree with the motives of some behind said purpose, but it does serve a purpose---and that is getting the article in the eyes of people who might be motivated to help improve the article. I know that when I've had DYK's, those articles have been significantly enhanced as a result.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    But, back to this candidate, is it a good sign that he received his 25 DYK Medal and his 50 DYK Medal on the same day, December 29, 2008?[4] His placement as #16 in the questionable Wikipedia:DYKBEST is one of two achievements about which he is most proud. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    But that is a different argument/statement than the one made. the statement made was one that DYK is "most pointless, time wasting aspect" of WP... which is not true. It has a valid point and is a valid way to contribute one's time to the project. Now, if you want to argue that this candidate's focus might be skewed, that is a different argument/statement, one that I wouldn't debate.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    Suntag received 58 DYKs in the month of December so far. There were some days he received as many as 14 - in one day! What is wrong with this picture? It has certainly turned me off to DYKs. I always thought of them as the little guy's chance for a little main page recognition. I didn't realize there were DYK factories like Suntag churning them out. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    Well, that is concerning. Are you sure? 14 in one day? Wow...I think DYK can be wonderful; I know many DYK editors who frequently produce excellent work. On the other hand, I have caught "cut and paste" from public domain jobs (I do not believe unoriginal public domain cut & pastes are appropriate for the main page; in fact, DYK rules advise against them). Even more frightening, I have caught articles with chunks cut and pasted from copyrighted sources without proper attribution or use of quotations. Again, I think that most DYK editors would abhor such activities. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    You can go to his talk page and count them. My counting may be a little off, as 11 is the most per one day I count now. See User:Mattisse/sand which I copied from his talk page. (It's hard for me to count!) What is interesting is the escalating pattern. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    DYK should "be wonderful." But exercising within the rules still cranks out an astonishing turnover of ludicrous product for the Main Page (our window for the look-it-up world out there, FSM help them all) and works as a tickybox fix-me-up for RFA candidates. Whether that shows a causation/correlation or not is beyond me to propose. I'm truly sorry this has had to be thrashed out here but Suntag's candidacy is relying considerably upon his DYK contributions as a factor and so both their value and execution are important. Questions and concerns about the intrinsic value and perception of the current DYK status quo and whether it is consequently a fair and accurate reflection upon a candidate's breadth and depth of experience as it relates to admin suitability does matter. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    Suntag wasn't writing those DYKs; he was looking through new articles by other people and nominating them (the way DYK works is we give credit to the article creator and the nominator, if they are different people). There's nothing wrong with nominating 14 DYKs in a day; it happens quite frequently and doesn't mean the user is copy-pasting or being lazy in any other way. A lot of people do lots of DYK nominations.

29. Oppose per many of the comments above such as Oren0, Iridescent, Matisse, and Majorly. either way (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
30. Oppose there are some people whose opinions catch my attention. When Majorly opposes, I take note. While his support doesn't say much to me, his oppose says a hell of a lot. Majorly does not oppose candidates lightly or often. If he is opposing, there is a solid reason behind it. This combined with my own misgivings about the candidate during my initial review, have pushed me into the oppose camp.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose. I dislike the answer to question 7 ("feelings"? seriously?). I am also concerned that this user has never been in any kind of conflict, so how are we to judge how well he can handle future conflicts? Administrators make people mad just by enforcing policies, and I'd like to see how administrator candidates resolve disputes that they are involved in to gain an understanding of how they will deal with those future angry editors. I think Suntag needs more experience. Karanacs (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
32. Oppose per some of the above. John254 18:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Opppose from neutral per the above. Majorly makes a good point, as does Iridescent. I can't support or even neutral in light of some things brought up since the thought of you as an administrator at this time is disturbing. I'd be happy to reconsider in future if the things above are corrected in your nature. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    Disturbing? Harsh words - it's just a website. I can think of many things that actually are disturbing. This is a brutal enough process as it is, and basically attacking the candidate in an oppose doesn't help things at all. Majorly talk 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

34. Oppose I regret that on a close reading of this (regretably brutal) RFA I believe that you will be more harm than help with the admin bit at this time. Pedro :  Chat  22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Oppose. For various reasons stated above. As an aside, the welcoming message on Suntag's userpage says "I like to travel and been all around the United States" and "seems like ever where you turn" and "it feels good to help an editor get Main Page recognition for article they developed". Then there's " XfD has lead me to writing/editing a topic" and "I interested in everything". Awful. Ability to write good English is important IMMHO even if it has little to do with the motivation of a sysop in the use of the tools. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all, and sysops are senior contributors to it. Does lead by example come to mind? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

    On a less serious note, the error in this oppose made me laugh at the irony of all this 'attention to detail' talk. — neuro^(talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    What error? If you mean IMMHO, that's a genuine acronym. – iridescent 00:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    It was actually about his use of connectives, but let's not bother with this. My comment was a mere note, not something to be taken seriously. — neuro^(talk) 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    Ah, with you now. Feel free to remove my post and your reply if you want to save the server kitties. – iridescent 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

36. Oppose The answers to the questions, in particular 7 and 8, coupled with the recent Edge baronets AfD do little to convince me that Suntag is ready for adminship at this stage. This is more an experience issue than anything, I am sure these issues can and will be rectified in the near future. Rje (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose When I began reading this RfA, I thought I could easily support, but the more I read, the further I must oppose, per many issues raised above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Oppose The candidate has done impressive work on different forums like DYK and DRV, etc... but the replies to the oppose camp's objections has worried me more. I think candidate needs to work more on content building also. Surely the next RfA would be much more easier for candidate if he improves on these few points. But as of now, I am much worried to support or even go neutral. --GPPande 08:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

I trust the user, but I'm not sure if they are ready yet. — neuro^(talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Same opinion here. Vltava 68 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   move to weak opposeI don't know why, but something about this user makes me...I dunno. It's more than a neutral feeling, but it's not quite oppose. I'll plop myself here for now. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral per all above. Leujohn ^(talk) 04:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Leujohn. I appreciate your comment as well as Neurolysis, Vltava 68, and NuclearWarfare. I would be happy expand on any area that any area that is in need of more detail. At the moment, I need to get offline but will be back in about twelve or so hours. -- Suntag ☼ 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   I think that it might be that you offended Ottawa that I put my vote here, but I'm not quite sure if that is the main motive behind my vote... Leujohn ^(talk) 04:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

   SOB, I just spent an hour reviewing the co-nominator, before I realized I was looking at the wrong person. Since then, I've given Suntag a quick review. I am leaning towards oppose, but will have to look you over closer.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Moved to oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonTake the CSD Survey 17:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

3. The two times I have noticed Suntag's edits left a bad impression on me. First, the deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Announcements/French Christmas logo. The nomination was excusable because, until I made this edit, the page nominated for deletion could quite easily have been mistaken for a hoax. However the fact that he didn't seem to come back to the nomination sends alarm bells ringing in my head; a deletion nomination is potentially the most drastic action that can be performed on a page, and it's imperative that nominators watch their deletion noms closely. He was quite active on Wikipedia at the time. Secondly, the conversation here and here, that I found through the what links here tool, is interesting. It's good that he has the curiosity to go this deep into the bowels of Wikipedia, but it's fairly easy to find out that I'm an administrator from my user page and Special:Listusers, so it would have been more logical to ask me directly why I made that crazy edit summary (which was a joke, seeing as I've done a lot of admin work in the sandbox). I realise that these edits are to unusual topics, and I'm more fascinated with the history of Wikipedia than most people around here, but something seems ... off here. I don't feel strongly enough about it to oppose, and there are possible good faith explanations for these edits, so I'm !voting neutral. Merry Christmas to all, Graham87 10:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   My approach to XfD is to post my reasoning and let other's do the same. I generally don't feel that my replying to another's post with a rebuttal adds to the discussion, particularly if I will be repeating something I already posted to some degree in the discussion. The closing admin has my reasoning to weigh against the reasoning of others and my repeating my views probably won't give them more weight on close. I learned this approach by watching the admins and others who post at DRV. In general, this approach seems to provide a viable contribution to the deletion discussion to give the closer something to weigh and help minimize escalating tension. That being said, it is clear that I should have returned to and replied to your post in the logo MfD. Your reply did fully answer my initial reasoning and it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that as nominator. I'd have to say I spread myself too thin at that time. In regards to the second matter, I recreated the discussion here. I saw the Sandbox/Archive2 page, then looked at the edit history,[5] and then posted a quick note on Random832's talk page, essentially hoping that Random832 would review the matter and address it if there was a need. On receiving Random832's reply "how do you mean?", I again looked over things and clarified that my primary concern was "I'm not sure what the point of this page is" The matter related to the edit summary was secondary in my mind and something that would be of concern only if Random832 felt it of concern. My interest there was not to resolve the matter myself but have Random832 give it a review. On learning from Random832 that the original idea was to do this periodically for older history from the sandbox, I felt the matter resolved and moved on to something else. In the end, the matter was resolved in 15 minutes with a few quick exchanges of information. -- Suntag ☼ 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks for your response. Regarding the first point, it is certainly best not to reply to every vote. Maybe it comes down to editing styles: when I make an XFD nom, I usually watch it like a hawk, waiting for any new comments to come up. The second point was a bit trivial ... in fact, if you'd asked me, the conversation would have taken much longer than 15 minutes because I was asleep at 19:47 UTC. In case you're curious about the background of the newer sandbox archives, see this entry at the village stocks. Graham87 01:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - I'm just not sure yet... ayematthew ✡ 13:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to oppose. ayematthew @ 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral while I await the answer to Q9. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 14:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Q9 has been answered, and provided with a superb answer. Switching to support. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 20:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'll try to find a stretch of time later today to provide sufficient responses to the above requests. -- Suntag ☼ 15:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

   Something about this... I just need time to think... VX!^~~~ 05:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC) _{Moving to Oppose}

4. Neutral leaning toward oppose. I just can't plop myself elsewhere, because I do trust the user, but User:Ottava Rima is gonna kill my support. Sorry though! K50 Dude ROCKS! 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

   Haha. Vote support. No one listens to me anyway, and there are many of people who supported because I opposed. You trust him, isn't that enough? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning Oppose, per User:Wehwalt. The ducking and weaving that the editor engaged in is not a good look. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC).Moved to Oppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC).

   Neutral Too many concerns raised above in the oppose section. Although I've noticed your very good work at DYK, these concerns kind of dwell on you a bit. I can't oppose, but I can't support, sorry.

   Switched to oppose. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral Concerns and reasons to support are imho equally divided, so I cannot support or oppose. Regards SoWhy 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral - I'm not opposed to editors being nominated before the hypothetical six month benchmark, but I am concerned about editors who don't hold trust in the areas in which they work. I understand that we encourage new editors to be bold in what they do, but that has to go hand in hand with being careful - making sure that the action you're going to carry out isn't going to cause a heapload of work for others to fix if it's wrong, or that you ask around for advice/guidance before carrying out something that may be controversial. I hope that makes sense, and I'm really sorry if it comes over as unduly negative, but I hope that it'll help you in your own development on-wiki. Many thanks Gazimoff 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral - lots of good and lots of not so good, and the not so good is too recent to ignore. Try again in 6 months, and spend that time in other areas of the project that will force you to get a better grip on the rules. You've got a decent grip, and you know where to find the rules which is good, but I'm afraid if I give you the bit now you'll embarrass yourself and hurt someone else unintentionally a few times before you get your footing. Hang around in xDF, deletion review, BLP patrol, prod and speedy patrol, etc., watch and learn, and do the adminish things that don't require the bit and you'll be ready to reapply in 3-6 months. I'd wait 6 months just to be on the safe side though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral - a first for me. I cannot support (see my comments re DYK in the Oppose, for one problem) but neither can I in all good faith and conscience oppose a candidate who is no worse than evidently inexperienced and - through no fault of his own, I suspect - concentrating his efforts in areas that have been poorly evaluated and don't offer the requisite breadth and depth of decision-making and content building. My opposes are invariably based on the contrib. consideration but are also swayed by unsuitable temperament/maturity/motivation (viz. the kind of things that, sadly, can be reasonably predicted to go the same way a few months hence). Don't think that here. So. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.