Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wadester16 2

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

Wadester16

Final: (67/4/1); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Wadester16 (talk · contribs) – Wadester16's last RfA in February failed largely due to a lack of experience, though it was certainly close. I voted for him last time, and I still feel he would be an excellent admin. Since his previous request, he has exhibited the maturity, intelligence, and judgment we look for in our administrators. I've been "coaching" him for a couple months now, though it was more like a long-term test; throughout the course of the coaching period, his decisions were consistently accurate. Unlike many other candidates, this editor has a strong need for the tools, as evidenced by the dozens of deletion requests I've received. :)

Most of Wadester's work revolves around images, both here and at Commons, where he has accumulated 7,600 and 1,400 edits, respectively. He is well-known throughout the WP:FPC community, and is one of most active participants at WP:VPC. As an added bonus, he's an excellent photographer! (Some of his images are listed at User:Wadester16/Gallery.) Even so, he has written 5 DYKs, all of which are well-written and properly sourced. As a member of numerous WikiProjects, he collaborates well with other editors, and knows what it takes to get the job done.

I think we can easily trust this editor with a few extra buttons, and I'm confident you'll agree. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words, JC. I accept. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:02, 5 May 2009 (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: I do a lot of work around here on images. I have moved dozens of public domain and {{movetocommons}} images to Commons and typically end up flooding Juliancolton's talk page with deletion requests. Having admin tools would greatly facilitate this task and make me more efficient for the project. For one, I transferred every eligible featured picture to Commons that wasn't already there (some unnecessarily had a local copy and a Commons copy). This meant that after deletion took place, I had to replace the local FP template (and many times {{picture of the day}}) on the local image page so it was correctly listed here at en:wiki (see the list of transferred FPs). It became a grueling task because I didn't have the tools to delete.

In addition to image transfers, I would take part in page protection and vandal fighting, and I have completed some admin coaching relating to these subjects. I also plan to take part in granting rollback rights. I have had rollback since 3 February 2009 and am very aware of the level of trust expected of a user granted rollback.

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

A: My image work, by far. I have a large gallery of images—most of which are used in articles—and a number of FPs and VPs under my belt. I also have a significant presence at featured picture candidates and valued picture candidates, having become a closer at both places since my last RfA (see the complete list of closures; this was not done to show off at my RfA, but to receive permission to use MER-C's FPC closer). I also recently co-wrote a Signpost Dispatch with MER-C.

In an effort to not repeat myself, I will allow you to sift through my first RfA for my contributions prior to that. Since my previous RfA, I have been a major contributor to New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 (just recently nominated at GAN), Scott Murphy (politician), and Jim Tedisco. On these pages, I've tried to keep references updated and formatted correctly, in addition to keeping content updated, clear, and relevant. I also recently started the article Vevo, which looks like it will be a very popular website in the future (trivial, but fun).

I have since taken on an Adoptee and am in the midst of helping a college class in its effort to improve an article about its home institution.

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: You'll want to see my first RfA for the overview of my most notable disagreement. Since then, I've met some resistance to changing images at United States. Another minor argument came about from an FPC of a penis. I removed the image from the nom, leaving only a link, which apparently upset one user. I thought it was practical, feeling that FPC should be safe for work and family.

Like I said last time, I'm don't bring much drama with me and I can typically deal with a situation well. I recently offered insight into a very lame edit war. I had a strong opinion, but to keep from adding too much to the lame war, I aimed to only leave small, to-the-point comments (this discussion essentially flows to the end of the talk page).

Not-so-optional question from Wadester16

4. What's changed since your last RfA?

A: My last RfA failed because I was too general. I was underprepared for the RfA experience and becoming an admin, so I aimed to please the most users. My CSD work seemed to be my ultimate downfall, and fairly so. I have only done limited CSD work since, but they all seemed to have been deleted based on my suggestion or based on a very similar criteria. I don't plan on doing much with CSD or AfD, though I may work my way into UAA eventually (I remember reporting at least 2 usernames in the past and I have a pretty good understanding of the policy). I made an effort to take part in the areas I claimed I would during my last RfA, but frankly, some of them are just plain boring to me. I might as well stick to what insterests me to keep me here longer and make me the most productive I can possibly be.

And like I said, image work will be my main niche. I have ≈1400 edits at Commons, am trusted, and have rollback there, so adding the tools that come with the mop here will hopefully allow me to be as efficient as possible with my image work. That said, I don't consider myself a "Commons user". I do work at Commons for the benefit of en:wiki and other wikis (I do image work at the es:wiki on occasion as well). I see this all adding up to the general well-being of the English WP. I'm also knowledgeable about copyright (2 recent examples), but always ask if I'm unsure.

I have to say that my last RfA was a very positive experience overall. It was nice to hear that my work was appreciated and also to hear respectful constructive criticism. You've probably noticed that I've become more active at RfA, which I was not previously (a typical edit; note: I do pass my RfA criteria :) ). In general, I have branched out a lot more since my last RfA and feel I am much more experienced, diversified, and confident with the wiki. Oh, and I still promise to be a net positive and to not blow up the wiki. :-)

Optional questions from Cunard

5a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Would you speedy delete Emptoris, Inc. (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?

A: I would not speedy delete this article. A quick Google search shows that the company is plenty notable. In addition, news stories like [1], [2], and [3] give me reason to think an article here is deserved. That said, the article lacks any references and could be rewritten to sound less ad-like (though it's definitely not the worst ad-like article I've ever read). To its credit, the article is categorized, has an infobox, and has multiple sources out there that can be used for its development. Not even sure I'd vote delete in an AfD, to be honest.

5b. Share verification bureau (permalink) is tagged for speedy deletion by an IP. The IP gives only the {{db}} tag but no criterion. Would you speedy delete the article? (Choose from: A7, G3, G11). Would your decision be different if a new-page patroller or an admin tagged it for deletion?

A: This article has absolutely no respect for NPOV and is coming extremely close to libel, IMO. Stating what is said in the article would be fine as long as it is reported neutrally and with many sources backing the claims up. Currently, it is a defamatory article that almost appears to be written by someone that may have been disenfranchised by the company. There's not one news story listed on Google News and the top hit of a Google search brings up the WP article (the second is one of the sources in the article). G11 isn't for this, because this article isn't promoting anything; it's defaming something. I wouldn't go with A7 because I think this meets notability, but in the wrong way. I guess G3 is best, even though it's not exactly vandalism, but it seems to be the best choice.

5c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11).

A: I wouldn't speedy delete this article.

5d. You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?

A: How about I just delete that sentence? If it's not verifiable after a search online, it's probably not true. That said, unless it's verifiable, it can't be there. But the rest seems okay and the {{db}} was for attacks. Remove that sentence and there's no longer an attack. A stub template would be applicable too. :-)

But just to be clear, I don't really plan on doing much/any CSD work; I find it boring.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I admittedly don't really do a whole lot of work on BLPs. I did work on Scott Murphy (politician) and James Tedisco due to the local special election. Other than that my experience is limited. From my personal experience, I would say there's not too much of a problem with BLPs and when I work on them, I just use common sense. Strong statements must be backed up by strong sources (multiple, preferably), while neutral statements can be used while one waits for a source. For example. in Scott Murphy (politician), it states he graduated from David H. Hickman High School in Missouri. There's no citation, but for the time being, I'm AGF that it's true. Nothing bad comes from including this information.

6b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

For high-profile BLPs, I am in favor of flagged revisions. Anything from a US Congressman and up the hierarchy would be a good idea, including many celebrities, IMO. I don't think flagging is feasible in general currently, due to lack of resources (bodies, namely), but BLP flagging could work well if it was limited to high-profile BLPs. It would limit the amount of libelous content and hopefully not kill anybody off unnecessarily.

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

Not sure how I feel about limiting to trusted users only (or users granted the power from admins). I initially thought any user that can edit a semi-protected page should be allowed to patrol, but maybe a level just a bit higher than that is necessary. Otherwise, my answer is essentially identical to the one above.

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Liberal use; not everyone needs protection and it probably should be made case-by-case, but with a default reaction of semi-protect if requested.

6c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I think it has to do with the content. If the AfD is about notability, a no consensus should still revert to keep (why not?). If the content is only defamatory, then that's a completely different story.

6d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: Of course their argument is to be heard, but if the content is true (eh-hem, verifiable, from high-quality sources), and is a main aspect of their notability, then sure it belongs. Obviously the person's comments are inherently biased to begin with, but would it be fair to remove the entire Watergate section from Nixon's article if he asked us to (i.e. if he were still breathing)? No. The person in question became notable and has no right or power to change that and if this "negative" thing happened, then it happened. Too bad.

As a minor example, take John E. Sweeney, my former Congressman. He lost his last election because his wife filed a report against him with the police regarding domestic violence. Since losing the race, he has gotten two DWIs (one while a younger woman was sitting on his lap while driving), refused to pay a taxi fare, and got to see his replacement in Congress get promoted to the Senate; I know, seems too much to be a true story, but it is. If he made his way here and complained about that content, he'd be laughed at (at least by me) because it was covered in the Times Union (Albany) and even the New York Times. Granted his article will never go to AfD (he's obviously notable), but if that were raised, I'd hear him out... and then tell him he's wrong, placing many ^{[1][2][3][4][5]} after my statement of, "You're wrong."

Once notable, a living person no longer has control over their reputation or public image; rather they only have the power to influence it. And they best be careful lest they ruin it.

Follow-up: So you believe Richard Nixon and a former congressman are marginally notable individuals? I did specify that in my question.

Heh, no I don't. But marginally notable is still notable and the base argument still stands: if the notable occurrence is true, relevant, and verifiable, then it stays. Note that you didn't indicate the reason for the AfD. Is it for questionable notability? That would influence my answer further. I'm AGF that the individual is already notable enough to warrant an article.

Further follow-up: The specific reason for the AFD is irrelevant. What you overlooked is that the claims the subject is upset about were false, so there is no if in regard to that aspect of the discussion. What I read in your answer is that marginally notable is still notable, and for the notable, their reputation or public image is out of their control and they should accept it. I'm reading that your response to a notable person, marginal or otherwise, would be to laugh at him, "tell him he's wrong", then spam him with references. Am I reading this correctly?

No, I was saying I'd laugh at that one person; my disgraced, former Congressman. But I was being facetious anyway. But back to the serious part of the answer: maybe I'm missing something. I'm saying that if the statements are relevant and verifiable by reliable sources, then yes, the subject has a say, but fails to control their reputation, and I would not delete on those grounds. If the statement is questionable, then yes, it should probably be removed (especially if unsourced). At that point, I would see if the subject of the article still feels the article should be deleted. I mean, yea, the subject can make their claim, but if they're just trying to clean their reputation for the sake of their future and/or reputation, then no, they can't do that and I wouldn't weigh much to the user's comments, mainly because of POV and COI. Is this what you're looking for?

Okay. Let me word it differently. There were comments in the hypothetical BLP that were lies. Maybe that's more clear than false, which I thought was clear enough being the opposite of true. Actually, we'll just let this end here. The fact that you couldn't understand the question, even after clarification, is enough of an answer in itself.

See, I see false and lie being very different. A lie is a fallacy somebody purposefully and maliciously adds to make a point or affect a person's reputation (in a BLP). Something in an article that is false could very well not have been added out of spite, but because someone legitimately thought it was true, but didn't reference it (i.e. AGF). I thought I made it clear, though, that if there were a false statement, I would aim to remove it, and examine the article that way in making the AfD decision, and if the main reason for the AfD was that statement, then the AfD is no longer really warranted. And with reference to your use of the word "spamming", I don't think that telling someone they're incorrect and proving it with a number of reliable/verifiable sources is spamming. It's stating a fact and backing it up with facts, which is exactly what WP is about, no? But please don't forget: I didn't accept this nom to be a CSD and AfDer.

Additional optional questions from Nakon

7. You said in Q1 that you plan on working at WP:PERM to assign rollback rights. What would your criteria be for granting or denying this permission? What, in your opinion, shows that a user "demonstrates an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting"

A: A few hundred edits and evidence of fighting vandalism to some extent. I'd also like to see use of warnings and not just blatant reverting without acknowledgement. No blocks within at least the past few weeks and no pressing, legitimate complaints (about anything) on the requester's talk page. Basically a show of trustworthiness.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: This isn't really a concept I've ever sat down and thought about. For the most part, I'd say Wikipedians have the right to be members of this community without fear of harassment, personal attacks, being outted, etc. We also have the right to vanish. I'd say the way I'd protect those rights is by taking action against users that violate those rights: i.e. warnings, blocks, etc. for offending parties.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Wadester16
• Requests for adminship/Wadester16 2

• Links for Wadester16: Wadester16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wadester16 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wadester16 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js Edit counters posted as Wadester is slacking on his own RfA ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. →Nagy 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. ever more solid than last time I supported. Really like the answer to number 4, above. (and I generally don't read the Q&A). Shoulda passed last time. Keeper | 76 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes! Great image work. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Wadester does good work in the file area. The file area is in need of more help by users who has the buttons, but with experience in licensing/files, etc. I speak as an admin working in the file area. My interactions with Wadester has been OK, and it has shown he has enough clue for the extra buttons. I think he will be fine. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - as I did last time.  Frank  |  talk  18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. Last time you were "good enough" for me to support, though I had a few reservations. With a few months more experience and a better view of what you'll be doing with admin tools I am very happy to support again. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support The last time I assumed you'd be a good admin, this time I don't have to make that assumption! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. If I didn't support last time I was either away or very, very drunk.  GARDEN  18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Don't worry, you're safe. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Phew!  GARDEN  18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

11. I supported Wadester16's previous RfA, as I believed back then that he would make a good admin. Acalamari 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Synergy 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per work with images. I'm disappointed in that user did not gain more experience in CSD and AIV. I would recommend gaining much more experience in those areas before blocking vandals or deleting CSD's. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Change to strong support Dlohcierekim 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Response to oppose-- meets my standards for a specialist admin The candidate proposes to use the tools in working with images, where he has knowledge, and will be a net positive in those areas.] Dlohcierekim 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

14. Support I did last time. Nothing's changed that. Ray^Talk 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. (e/c) Support. I first came across Wadester16 yesterday here. No reason to oppose. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I supported the last time. We need more admins working images. --NrDg 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. I've seen this editor in action at FPC and was impressed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support No issues I can see. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Enthusiastic support. Wadester may not work in every area, but as far as I'm concerned, he has no weaknesses; he knows what he wants to do and does a lot of it, and he participates intelligently at RFA and elsewhere. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support per User:Wadester16/Awards and as candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user around in many areas of the project, seems helpful and can be trusted. Will make an excellent sysop. tempodivalse [☎] 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Seems sensible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Per above.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support based on overall record and comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Majorly talk 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Fully qualified candidate. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per above. One (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Seems to have a clue. Contributions look fine. Support. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support per nom. Won't misuse the tools. Timmeh! 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. -download ׀ sign! 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong support - About bloody time, too. ;) — neuro^(talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Aww, I'm late to the party. Wish I had noticed this before. — Jake Wartenberg // ER 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
35. I had this RfA watchlisted for some reason... perhaps to support? :) I supported last time around, and Wade has only improved since then. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
36. WP:AGF --Caspian blue 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Dependable as a person.  Marlith (Talk)  04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support In depth, well-thought-out answers to my CSD questions. You have improved greatly in your knowledge of CSD since your last RFA. For Q5d, I agree completely that that one sentence shouldn't mean the demise of the article. For Q5b, my wording is a little awkward; I meant that if the article didn't meet any of the criteria I listed, the article shouldn't be speedy deleted and should either be listed at AfD or left alone. However, {{db-attack}} is also a valid choice, even though I would have used AfD since this non-BLP article isn't too disparaging. Since CSD is not your thing, good luck with the tools in the other areas of Wikipedia! Cunard (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support as I trust Juliancolton's judgment that the candidate is ready and per Cunard. Candidate seems to have improved on their CSD knowledge and seems to be both more informed and more careful in that area. Disagree with Q5b though, although I guess some admins will probably have deleted the page for equal reasons (I tagged it for PROD btw). Good answers to the other CSD questions and I think that if the candidate ever considers venturing into CSD, he will be mature enough to ask for advice of one of the CSD-savvy admins like Pedro or "the artist formely known as Balloonman". Regards SoWhy 06:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
43. M&E gives his seal of approval. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Supported then and supporting now. FlyingToaster 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. If Julian thinks you're ready, you're ready. The drastic improvement over the past few months also indicates to me this fact. Valley2city^‽ 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Per your nominator, who has worked closely with you the past few months. On your first RfA, the community told you to that you that you lacked experience and to come back when you were ready. You have clearly worked hard on meeting the communities request and I would suggest that you are now fully qualified. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. He's the person I run to everytime I have a question or dont know how to do anything and even though I probably bother him with that stuff way too much, he always has time to look something over, come up with a thoughtful insight, and get back to me quickly.Camelbinky (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Good knowledge of policy and experience with image work. --J^mundo 04:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Good answers to the questions, I think he will be an asset to wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support tentatively. work suggests a greater-than-even chance can be trusted and hence a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support as this editor has the potential to do a lot of good work more efficiently by using the tools. I see no indication the tools would be abused, and as adminship is no big deal, support. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - experienced enough, admits to mistakes, good interaction with him. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support. Wizardman 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support. I found the honesty in this move exceptional. --candle•wicke 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Man this user is pretty amazing to me. He is BOLD, he's straight forward, has excellent image work and is an excellent photographer and can be very useful, good vandal fighter, and good civility. But I would like to see you have written at least one GA or FA.--(NGG) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    My first GAN was posted the other day. I believe NuclearWarfare is taking on the challenge. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hot dog and hot damn. Didn't see that coming.--(NGG) 10:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

57. Support Nakon 03:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Recognize him from some of his fine work at Commons where I am more active with images than here. I don't see any red flags or indicators of disruptive behaviors. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support as an adoptee. ƒingers^on_Roids 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I can trust him. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support User has been around since Aug 2006 and see no concerns as per track and do see concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Looks fine, seems like a helpful editor. AlexiusHoratius 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Why not? — Σxplicit 02:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I'm familiar with Wadester16 as I see him around at FPC a lot. I think he will make a good admin. Maedin\^talk 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I would like to see more experience and a greater diversity of contributions. A lot of your edits are in the last few months. Your contributions look good and dont' require the bit, so I hope you'll keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   In case it means anything to you... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, that was very honest of you. :) I like that. That's definitely worth a support. --candle•wicke 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I know that I'm going to be jumped on by quite a few people for opposing this, but I am uneasy to lend my support. It has only been about three months since Wadester's last RfA, and while this does not normally bother me, several other issues combined with this do make a large difference. Wadester says he, "made an effort to take part in the areas I claimed I would during my last RfA," which to me means that he has been working hard to pass RfA and pacify past opposers rather than to be a good administrator. This next bit might be sort of a stretch, but I feel I should bring it up anyway. You've been going around RfA and placing a "toolbox" for editors to use when considering users, and while I think this is a good idea, I question your motives behind posting this on each and every request--it looks most like a way to boost your edit count to Namespace pages and to get your name out to regular RfA voters. I am willing to assume good faith on this issue, but when I compare this to what I have already talked about, it just adds to my suspicions. There's no problem with wanting to become an administrator, but when you spend most of your time working to pass an upcoming RfA I become hesitant to lend my support even when one of the editors I trust the most has nominated you. This RfA was posted several months too early and I really do not know how well you have learned since your last one, especially when it looks as if most of your editing is geared toward passing. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is not meant as a quarrel with the oppose, but as an effort to understand it, or specifically the first part of it. You express concern that the candidate has spent time in the months since his last RfA working on areas where he was faulted previously for lacking experience. Is the suggestion here that the candidate would be more qualified for RfA #2 today if he had not worked on these areas? If we tell candidates "you are weak in (for example) XfD experience, and before you run again you should gain more experience in that area", and then we criticize them for working on XfD, just what is or was the candidate supposed to do? There can be little doubt that if he had avoided XfD, he would have been opposed strongly for "no effort to cure issues from last RfA." It seems to me that if others accepted this rationale, a true "Catch-22" situation for candidates might be created. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, I am saying that his comments make him sound like he improved upon these areas merely to pass RfA, not to improve on the areas he was lacking. As a strong supporter of Admin Coaching, I understand your viewpoint that by attempting to legitimately improve upon weaknesses through coaching and being opposed for it is unfair and a "Catch-22." The difference between this case and others where the editor is trying to improve lies mainly with the several points I saw and addressed. Like I hoped I made clear, none of the points I made would be enough to result in less than a support if I saw them alone, but when you put them all together I cannot help but see a user who failed at RfA, did his best to please the RfA regs and opposers, and ran three months later without learning anything. Editors who do this might appear to know all the policies down pat, but they do not know how to use discretion, allow reasonable exceptions to guidelines, and generally use WP:IAR effectively. This "wisdom" is important to making users feel more welcome at Wikipedia and giving the website a more positive image. I hope this has helped you to understand :). Malinaccier (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, it certainly helped me understand your point here, so thanks (although my own support stands). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. I agree with Malinaccier. We've had admin who jumped hoops and the rest just to pass RfA, but were not really qualified. Although I want people to be good at admin coaching, I want them to get something out it that is substance, and not just use it as a checklist to pass RfA. We have enough gaming RfA, and if we have people like MyWikiBiz stating that he is keeping a clean account, and another stating that he has three admin account, I think we need to make sure that we just don't pass people who are simply checklist admins. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per DougsTech. Caden ^{is cool} 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning to support leaning to Oppose. I am sorry to do this as candidate is one of the more likeable users in Wikipedia but his BLP answer in which he cited the article on John E. Sweeney concerns me. This is one of the worst articles I have read and I have just placed a tag on it. If candidate sees nothing wrong with the article then this may indicate problems with the treatment of BLP issues down the road. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I've never worked on the article, save for this. I was more referencing the man than the article in a complete hypothetical (it would never be AfD'ed). That said, your !vote is your !vote. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:57, 8 May 2009 (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.