Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cgoodwin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr. IP (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 2 August 2010 (→‎Support: strong support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cgoodwin

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (28/19/2); Scheduled to end 08:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Cgoodwin (talk · contribs) – A volunteer since 2006 with more than 13,000 edits, Cgoodwin is a tireless contributor. Focusing mostly on Australia and agricultural articles, they've created 81 articles and helped several make it to FA, GA and DYK. In discussion and debate, Cgoodwin keeps a cool head and knows how to keep the focus on the content at hand. In short, Cgoodwin is a longtime editor that I trust to be helpful to others and act judiciously with the sysop tools. Right now the 'pedia is failing to attract new talent in admins like we should. Successful RfAs are roughly down to 2003 levels. With that in mind, I hope you can join me in supporting the nomination of levelheaded and dedicated volunteers like Cgoodwin. Steven Walling 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A:Initially I would get more involved in spam and vandalism fighting, something I only do in an irregular way at the moment. Later I would hope to assist with some deletions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Difficult to answer, but Australian rodeo is one that comes to mind, along with Tranquil Star, and along with more input from other editors, Oxley Wild Rivers National Park, Walcha, New South Wales and the List of Thoroughbred racehorses which is still being constructed owing to the need for much research on this subject. The first 4 articles also required copyfree images which I also supplied, as there were few, if any, elsewhere.
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 have had disagreements with an editor of British Horseracing Hall of Fame and the Geier Hitch and took it to the talk pages there. Other conflicts would be dealt with in a similar manner as I’m not interested in slanging matches.
Additional optional question from Andrensath
4. Why do you have such a high number of edits to the User namespace (over double the number of edits to the Talk namespace, and more edits than all other namespaces bar Project combined)?
A:Many of the articles that I contributed to had little or no previous interest in them.
Additional optional question from Begoon
5. Looking at your edit count, one of the first thing to strike me is the very low number of edits in the Wikipedia namespace (41). This gives the impression that you haven't had much involvement with policy, or process matters. You do, however, have an enviable number of content contributions, seemingly over a long period, showing great commitment to the project over several years (although opting into the edit counter would make that a little easier to judge). Possibly your actual knowledge of admin processes and policies is therefore far higher than this number suggests in terms of involvement. Would you like to comment on that?
A:I started editing mainly to improve articles that needed a good deal of input, but now have been improved and I will now have more time to devote to admin processes and policies.
Additional optional question from Jimmy Pitt
6. You have a fine record in the areas of article creation and improvement, but don't appear to have done much in those areas that require the admin tools. Could you expand on why you think you have a need for them?
A:
Additional optional question from Rockfang
7. Why is there such a large gap between when your account was created and your first edit?
A:Unknown - No particular reason
Additional optional question from Avenged Eightfold
8. You want to be an administrator, yet just 0.31% of your edits are to the Wikipedia space. You seem to have little to no experience in admin related areas. Why do you deserve to be trusted with the tools?
A:I am mature and not ruthless.
Additional optional question from Kayau
9. Someone creates a page about a kindergarten. You've never heard of it before and it has only one google search result apart from its own website. After looking through the article you notice that the username of the user who created that article is the same as the principle of that school. Do you delete that article?
A:No, I would tag it.
Follow-up: tag it as what? Nsk92 (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One short and simple question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
10. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A:I support Wikipedia and wish to assist in any way possible to improve it.
Additional optional question (in three related parts) from ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣
11. According to you, should the practice of leaving well defined edit summaries (for example, greater than one word) be considered considerably important by/for Wikipedia editors? How well would you qualify on such a parameter? Finally, does such an editorial quality (of leaving well-expressed editorial summaries) or lack of it, have any correlation with the performance of any administrative responsibility?
A:
Questions from —fetch·comms
12. Explain, in your own words, CSD criteria A1 and G3.
A:
13. When, if ever, is it OK to block any user who has not yet been warned, or received a sufficient number of warnings?
A:Have not struck such a situation, yet.
14. What is your opinion of the current BLP policy? Is it sufficient, or could it be improved in any way, and how?
A:I agree with Wikipedia's three core content policies on these biographies.
Additional optional questions from Allmightyduck
15. Have you held any accounts before this one?
A:No.
16. It appears you have never made a report to WP:AIV. Since you said you wanted to fight vandals, is there anything you want to say pertaining to this?
A:No
Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano
17. When, if ever, would you indef an IP user?
A:
Additional optional question from Nsk92
18. Could you explain, in your own words, the difference between a block and a ban?
A:
Question from WFC
19. What is your response to people who have opposed (or are considering opposing) based on the fact that you have given us no idea what sort of admin you would be?
A.:


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Steven Walling 08:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - Very unusual for me to be this high up the list, but this is a candidate in my timezone. I was rather amused by the restraint that the candidate showed in relation to this and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Handicapper. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Long-time productive contributor. Not all admins need be "professional admins" in the sense of being well-versed in backroom policy wonkery. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To an extent I agree, but blocking and deleting are not what I consider to be "backroom policy wonkery". --WFC-- 10:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But can we trust him to be well-enough versed and competent if he decides to become active in those areas? I can. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I've seen Cgoodwin around and just now spend quite some time looking through the contributions history. What I see is a mature and serious editor who clearly has the betterment of Wikipedia at heart - certainly an editor who is sufficiently possessed of time here and common sense, to get the proper use of those few extra buttons. PS: Andrensath the answer to Q4 is lots of sandbox edits polishing drafts. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - We need more admins who still edit content. I see no reason not to give this editor admin rights. He or she seems bright enough to figure out how all the details work once they have the ability to use them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support candidate is a longterm editor with a clean block log. Judging from their 78 created articles, and looking through their deleted contributions, the candidate was ready for the Autopatroller flag, and I've just actioned that. As for knowing whether articles should or should not be deleted we can only judge them from their proven ability to create articles that don't get deleted. Many of us are used to judging candidates by their record of identifying what should be deleted, but that is to an extent the other side of the same coin. Looking through the candidate's contributions I did see the occasional reversion of vandalism, though without the follow through of warning the vandal. I noticed the concern about their large number of user space edits - but looking at those edits they are clearly article building in their sandbox before copying articles into mainspace. If this RFA fails, and I hope it doesn't, I would suggest that in future when a draft is ready, moving if from sandbox into mainspace rather than copy pasting its contents into mainspace would prevent future misunderstandings of that nature. ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So they haven't been active in admin areas yet. Usually, I'd be concerned, but they're clearly trustworthy and I have no problem with them receiving the tools. ceranthor 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I see nothing wrong here.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 17:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Diego Grez what's up? 18:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Absolutely no concerns. Cgoodwin builds the encyclopedia, and that is a good thing. Many people are given the mop because they prove they are good at tagging things that should be deleted by hanging around the right message board, but this creates a systemic bias wherein we promote people who want the mop for the sake of having the mop. This is an editor who doesn't show a great deal of motivation to have the mop, but who just enjoys working on Wikipedia. There is no harm in granting the tools to someone like this, because there isn't a quota for admin actions because you want to have the tools in the hands of trusted and committed editors to allow them to take admin action when they see it, rather than waste time calling one of us. Personally, I've barely used my mop recently, taking the opportunity to simply enjoy reading articles for the past few months, but I'm ready to take action if the need presents itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Long term contributor with the good of the encyclopedia at heart. No way will he/she mess things up. While I understand the concerns of the opposes, I do feel that 'need for the tools' is overrated. In fact, I could argue that if someone has a need for the tools it may not be desirable to hand them over! In addition to professional admins, we also need content builders who are willing to lend a hand where ever necessary. In general, many admins doing light work will make this a better encyclopedia than a few admins doing heavy work. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Never heard of you, but if the (pretty much universally ridiculous) "arguments" in the oppose column are the worst anyone can find to say, I'm sure you'll do fine. – iridescent 19:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please talk about the candidate and their attributes, not the other participants in this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Spare me the lecture. When there's a reasonable oppose rationale, it'll be treated with the respect it deserves. Until then, the nonsense below ("Oppose, only 17 deleted edits"?) is being treated with the respect it deserves. (For the record: number of RFPP reports at the time of my RFA=0 and I'd never once even considered recent changes patrolling.) – iridescent 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll spare the lecture after you read what arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. You could have said exactly what you said in your opinion in a respectful way and I hope you decide to redact your opinion and following comment to make it more respectful, otherwise i'd ask the closing 'crat to take that into account in their decision regarding this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Clearly a user who has their head screwed on straight. Why not! Acps110 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Our very raison d'être is to write and maintain an encyclopaedia- everything else we do is subservient to that overarching goal. Candidates who are good at advancing that should not be prejudiced against at RFA for not actively involving themselves in the behind the scenes activity of the 'pedia. (Further, there are several good uses of the tools on the content side that will never generate logged actions; being able to look at deleted content being the most obvious.) Courcelles (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. The opposition is utterly unconvincing. You don't have to spend years on Huggle or requesting page protection to make a good administrator. Cgoodwin already has extensive experience as to what warrants deletion based on his solid and extensive mainspace work. Furthermore, I have no reason to doubt he's any more unfamiliar with the various admin policies. This is definitely a net positive. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please talk about the candidate and their attributes, not the other participants in this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I've looked through his contributions and talk-page interactions and I find him to be calm, level-headed, mature, and an excellent content contributor. These are exactly the kinds of people we should be promoting. This isn't someone who is going to abuse the tools. Antandrus (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as nominator. Clearly a trustworthy user & we don't have enough successful RfAs.David Ludwig (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cgoodwin is evidently someone who knows what he's doing at Wikipedia, and he's been doing good work for a while. Calls that he needs "more experience" are unconvincing; he will administrate the encyclopedia he is helping to build himself. Ucucha 20:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support No real issues here. It's refreshing to see a candidate more interested in working with articles than anything else. Aiken ♫ 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Fine candidate; oppose rationales are idiotic. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger, but that sounds like a ridiculous support rationale. "Oppose rationales are idiotic"? I don't think so. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. I would ask the 'crat closing this conversation to ignore this opinion in their decision. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like the bureaucrat to ignore all the opposition, but really, I think they're able to make their own mind up. Aiken ♫ 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They can make their own decisions, but we can point out inappropriate comments that should be given less weight than others. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Looks fine, overall. Lack of project space edits aren't that big of a deal for me. Knowing how to write articles and keeping your cool goes further than racking up edits to AIV, in my opinion. AlexiusHoratius 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support The high ratio of User: to Talk: namespace edits was initially worrying, but looking into them, most are sandbox article drafting and polishing, which is a good thing. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Weak Support On balance, I trust that such an experienced long term contributor would be initially circumspect with the tools in new areas, and seek advice or thoroughly check precedent when uncertain. The point made that creating many good articles will help in determination of what should be deleted is a good point, although not quite the entire story - content in areas with which the candidate is unfamiliar would still need understanding to assess. It's clear to me, though, that this is a sensible, mature, dedicated editor who would certainly not abuse the tools intentionally, and is intelligent enough to take the necessary steps not to do so unintentionally. A net positive result from granting the tools seems apparent to me.  Begoontalk 03:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting I changed to weak support, because I do find the lack of detail in the answers to the questions a bit discouraging. I'll consider a move to Neutral when it's apparent whether those were just rushed answers which will be expanded later.  Begoontalk 06:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Yeah - Dwayne was here! ♫ 03:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support No reason not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Hiberniantears. The opposes are unconvincing. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I'm leaning to Neutral but I have no reason not to trust you with the mop. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 06:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support — I know that Cgoodwin should be punished for focusing on content creation rather than content removal (tagging, obsessing over policy, hanging out in WP namespace to make new rules for everyone)...but geez, I can't find it in my heart to do it! His edits on his own talk and in article talk show that he understands policy perfectly well, and is capable of working with others. He also has the trait of being short and to the point, which is rare among WP admins (and will apparently remain rare, from the looks of where this RFA is going). Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Reluctantly (more certain of my decision to oppose given the nominator's subsequent comment) Cgoodwin is a fantastic content creator, but the DYK/GA/FL/FA processes are considered rewards until themselves. By contrast, adminship is not a reward or a status. You haven't made a case for why you need the tools, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that you understand how to use the block and delete buttons, both of which you state an intention to use. --WFC-- 10:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No one needs the tools. Wikipedia needs volunteers who are experienced and trustworthy to be willing to step up and use the tools where appropriate. Clearly Cgoodwin is calm and experienced enough to not use the tools rashly, and Wikipedia sorely needs new blood in admins. I would ask that you assume good faith in an experienced mainspace editor and help Wikipedia out by reconsidering. Steven Walling 18:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact remains that he is asking for two primary functions (block and delete) that he has shown absolutely no experience in. I reject the implication that pointing this out somehow means I am lacking in good faith. --WFC-- 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven, I respect your comment, but I would ask that you remove your third sentence, particularly because I think the first sentence is very apt and that no non-admin has experience with blocking or deletion. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - I don't see why this user needs the tools. He or she has tons of mainspace edits with high quality articles, but he or she is inexperienced in other areas. For example, even his or her userspace edits are more than his or her project space edits. He or she is not a rollbacker, which means he or she seldom does recent changes patrolling. His or her lack of deleted edits shows his or her lack of experience in new page patrolliong. All in all, if there's anything that this user needs, it's the autopatrolled userright, and not the admin userright. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Overall the candidate seems to be a positive for the project, but I don't see enough experience outside of article writing to warrant adminship (only 41 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace for example). I would recommend gaining experience in areas such as RfA, AfD, AIV, etc and come back in 6-8 months. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 12:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sad Oppose. You're a great content contributor; however, I don't think you have the experience I'd like to see in an admin candidate, yet; too few project space edits, only 17 deleted edits - which means almost no new page patrolling experience - and as far as I can see almost no vandalism fighting. If you're sysopped, you'll be able to block people and delete pages; I'd really like to make sure you know your way around those areas... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly Cgoodwin is experienced in editing and is trustworthy. I would suggest that if you have a question regarding competence in a specific area, such as blocking or deletion, that you ask a question to make clear the candidate understands the policy. Steven Walling 18:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose You don't seem to need the admin tools, your answers to the questions are lacking depth and/or nonexistent, and almost all of your edits are to article space, and almost none to projectspace, so I can't be sure you have a deep enough understanding of Wikipedia to be an admin. Access Denied(t|c|g|d|s) 18:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - Excellent work on articles and I disagree with people working off of percentage (for example, I have about 75% article work, but a few hundred edits to wikipedia space, but this would be judged badly). However, that flies out of the window when the user only has 41 edits to wiki space. Moral support, but more experience is needed. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Exemplary content building, but with limited experience with vandal fighting (you don't even have rollback), CSD, and other assorted admin tasks, I just can't yet see how you will use the tools. Also, with less than 50 projectspace edits and less than 20 projecttalkspace edits, I see very little involvement in discussions, whether they be about policy, AfD, or really anything else. Sorry, but I'm looking for much more diversified experience. —fetch·comms 20:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose – You are undoubtedly a great content creator/writer, but you have not shown any need for the mop, as echoed above by the other opposers. With only 41 edits to the project namespace, this shows that you do not have enough experience with the admin areas you plan to work in. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose clearly an asset to the project, I feel bad opposing, but Wikipedia adminship is a queer beast that takes much familiarity to understand. I do believe that extensive contribution to, and collaboration in the article space is indicative the the best qualities that an admin can have but experience is still a requisite. Just as in the way that academics who have years of experience writing can come to Wikipedia and get keel hauled by a system they don't understand so to can users who have long had experience in the article space flounder when they try to get involved in the maintenance processes, the rules of which are not at all obvious. This is evidenced in the record, looking at Cgoodwin's most recent contribution to an AfD: "Please do not delete. There are other worse, poor, non notable and even hoax articles and comments that are still in existence on WP.", I would have pegged him as a newbie. To the candidate: You are wonderful, sir! But I can't support you for adminship until you have taken the time to observe and experiment with the the way the system works, which I hope you do. We always need more admins! extransit (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone interested, here's the link to the AFD. Townlake (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose The content work is admirable, but the lack of project space and the tone of the edit summaries here and here from earlier today cause concern at first glance. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose You have some great content work, but you have almost no experience in admin-related areas. Experience in those areas is a huge factor in becoming a sysop. Sorry. A8x (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Strong Oppose per question answers that lack extremely in depth (8, 9, 13, 14, 16). Your answer to my question can not be justifitd. Can you show me when you have been "mature and nor ruthless"? A8x (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Your content work is great, but I do not see why you would need the tools. More experience in the project namespace is a must, as well as a better knowledge of policy. -download ׀ sign! 00:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Great content work, but tools are unneeded. Your answer to Q16 wasn't what I was looking for. If you elaborate more, I would gladly reconsider. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The candidate most certainly has excellent content contributions, but the areas that he would like to work in, he has no experience in them. One question that bothered me was his answer to 16; I would think there would be something to say if he wants to help as an admin in an area that he has an extremely low level of experience in. Questions 8, 9, and 13 also bothered me a little bit; just saying that he is mature and not ruthless, just saying that he would "tag the article", and then not knowing how to answer 13, all make me want to oppose. More in depth answers for all of these would make me reconsider my position, however. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 04:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose- moved from neutral. The answers given to some of the optional questions strike me as being dismissively blunt, and demonstrate a lack of understanding. Reyk YO! 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose There is no great mystery to being an admin, so I have no problem with Cgoodwin focusing on content creation rather than NP patrol, or whatever, prior to his nom. However, that does mean that he has yet to demonstrate his knowledge of and engagement with established policy and practice. The questions above are the ideal opportunity to do that, so the answers just make me wonder what he expects from this process, and what he expects from adminship in general. To be honest, the bluntness of the answers do nt convince me that Cgoodwin even wants to be an admin, let alone whether he is ready for it. Rje (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Like Reyk, moved from neutral based on the trite answers to serious questions. Please, take a few months, watch how a few RfA's go, and consider coming back when you're ready to address the community's concerns in a bit more verbose manner. No hard feelings, but just "no" at this point. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Same reasons I was neutral below, but the terse answers are insulting at worst, and naive at best. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - per professed lack of experience in areas where the candidate wants to work. The candidate's responses to questions are so terse as to make me concerned about his/her ability to communicate productively with other users, a skill I consider vital for an admin. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Content wise we have a person who tops the charts here. but the motivation for the tools is for usage in areas where experience seems to be a bit laxed, ie vandal fighting etc. obviously theres policy and content knowledge with the article development. Id like to see more answers in the queries before making a final decision, i could see some avenues where admin tools would help a great deal, Im certaintly am optimistic about supporting, but id like to just hold off for a tad longer. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaning support. This user appears to be a fine editor indeed, but as there appears to be a comparative lack of experience in admin sectors, I am not comfortable supporting until I can make more of a judgement based on their answers or any further evidence. sonia♫♪ 12:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You are obviously a fantastic editor content wise, but I see fairly little contribution in the maintenance departments where administrators tend to work. As of such, I cannot really judge your knowledge of the policies in these areas - for example, you mention that you wish to assist with deletions, but your deleted contributions contain no CSD, AFD or prod tags. As a result, I will vote neutral for now, and see later on if I should move my vote elsewhere. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My heart wants to support because the candidate has made some fantastic content contributions to the project; however, my mind says that the points raised in #3 & #4 oppose above are right on the mark. More experience is needed in the areas where you'll be using the mop.--Hokeman (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how to perceive the arguments regarding lack of work in project space. Some people do have massive percentages in article work compared to project work, but still amass a decent amount of edits to the wikipedia pages. Leaning towards oppose; will search further. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC) - Moved to oppose.[reply]
    I am not super impressed with some of the oppose reasons given so far, particularly "has no need for the tools", and I can see no evidence that you don't understand admin-related policies. But your answers to the mandatory questions are too brief so I'd like to see your answers to some of the others before I make up my mind. Reyk YO! 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Moved to oppose.[reply]
    Per Reyk. Moved to oppose. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I would like to see better answers to the questions. I get the impression you may have not realized there would be a rush of questions right after the RfA went live and that that is why you havent answered them. —Soap— 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Staying neutral. I had hoped for answers that would show more evidence of knowledge of policies, even if you haven't gotten actual experience with certain situations yet, but I won't oppose either because I don't think you'd do anything harmful as an administrator. —Soap— 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral moved to oppose - And likely to stay that way. While I think the "don't need the tools" explanation is useful, I don't think it's accurate. The underlying assumption is that the editor doesn't know how to use the tools, or maybe better, we don't know how the editor would use the tools. We use things like speedies, rc patrol, and other functions as proxies for how the editor might behave. I think this is a sensible and good editor, but part of the admin process is knowing what the problems are and how they appear in practice. That takes practice and I just don't see a comfortable level of experience with that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral for now. Clearly a great content creator, and we definitely do need those in admin. But from the answers to the questions, I just can't really tell whether the candidate understands what admin tools are there and how, when and why they should be used. The answers are brief to the point of being curt, and in some cases (eg Q4) don't even answer the question. An admin needs to be able to express themselves well in discussion and properly explain what they're doing and why (and in some ways, I think that's a more important attribute than knowing what buttons to press). However, I appreciate that this RfA is still young, that a lot of questions have been asked, and that the candidate might simply have been a bit overwhelmed by them and hasn't really had time to answer them properly. So I'm neutral for now, and hoping for some expansions of the answers (inc Q8, 9, 12, 13, 16) to help me decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cgoodwin&oldid=376725592"