Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rmrfstar 2

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


Rmrfstar

Final (45/20/8) Ended 13:06, 2006-08-09 (UTC)

Rmrfstar (Talk - Contributions) has over 2,500 edits under his belt, and after going 18-18-5 with his last nomination about a thousand edits ago, I feel that he is more fit and ready now to do it. --How dare you? 02:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: I accept. But I'll say now that I shan't defend myself and argue with anyone so that I may spend my time working on, among other things, Atomic line filter's FAC and List of polymaths Afd. I'll also say that while I may not spend hours doing RC patrol or closing AfD debates, I shall use "the mop", but mostly for minor things: reverting extreme vandalism, fixing typos on the main page, etc. I will however take on the extra responsibility that comes with being an administrator, resolving disputes, for instance. -- Rmrfstar 13:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum to my previous statement: I don't think that one should have to use the tools often (as I admittedly won't) in order to become an admin. As I did in my last nom, I'll quote Wikipedia:Administrators. "Wikipedia's practice is to grant this access to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community.". Thank you. -- Rmrfstar 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing bureaucrat; any chance of an extension here? Many oppose votes were on basis of candidate's poor initial answers, which have been changed. It seems to be swinging towards support, quite a few votes have changed. Apologies if this is seen as telling you how to do your job! --Guinnog 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be helpful. The vote is supposed to end today and it appears that he doesn't have a 75-80% consensus as needed to gain adminship. --How dare you? 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

As I have been called upon to elaborate on my answers to these questions, I shall. I'd, too, like to apologize for my very curt answers from before. Hell, I wouldn't have voted for myself if I hadn't put the time into writing real responses to important questions. -- Rmrfstar 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As per above, I'd plan on only using the mop for small things. Doing RC patrol, closing AfD and cleaning backlogs are not things that I often help with, so I do not need the admin tools in this respect; giving me them will not significantly decrease the amount of this work that anyone does. I probably will, however, make use of the tools often enough that they are worth giving to me. As per above, in my 17 months here, I've wished not a few times that I could execute some action more efficiently with an administrator's tools. I've requested page moves, nominated a few articles for speedy deletion, found and pointed out typos or other errors on the Main Page, and more. I think of myself of an established editor of Wikipedia, a decidedly positive user and undeniably good-willed; I don't think I'd be likely to misuse or abuse "the mop", and I swear that (if this nom passes) I'll be quite conservative with regards to my use of it.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: Yes! You see, I love writing articles from scratch, often about topics that I initially know nothing about. A few of these in particular stand out, as I have taken them the farthest. Sylvia (ballet) was written after I saw my first ballet, and I worked for months researching and writing it, largely by myself. I never did nominate it for FAC; a friend did (Cpl.Luke): I was not confident enough of its qualifications. It did pass, though, and I've been proud of it ever since. Another work of mine with which I'm particularly pleased is Roman Vishniac, who was actually a friend of my father's and, I thought, greatly deserving of a good article. My current pet article is Atomic line filter, (now an FAC). This article I'm particularly pleased with because the topic is so obscure and so esoteric that I think it an accomplishment that I wrote so much on it, and I feel I've learned a lot in the process of writing it. Really though, I learn a lot whenever I edit Wikipedia. But I'm "particularly pleased" with the three mentioned above, as I have worked the hardest on them and they've come out the best, (I think).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: To quote my last nom, "There is one particular conflict which I should mention. I once uploaded a work of art off of User:Jinwicked's homepage and used it in Universal Turing Machine, improperly claiming fair-use. User:Jinwicked discovered it, notified me and had it deleted. See the discussion on her talk page and on mine. If a dispute ever again happens, I will deal with it the way I did that one, calmly, respectfully and humbly."

I've been in no conflicts, nor had any negative interactions with any users since then, and my philosophy on the subject stays the same. -- Rmrfstar 13:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from tariqabjotu (joturner)

4. You mention reverting vandalism as one of the things you would like to get involved in. However, I don't see any warnings posted to user talk pages in your history. Can you point me to some evidence of vandal-fighting? Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A:I'm hardly a vandal-fighter, and I do not see myself becoming a greater one if I were to become an admin. I have reverted vandalism in the past, though they, I think, have been singular acts, and not repeated. See User:Rmrfstar/reverts for a list of edits I made since late Sept last year that had the word "vandal" in the edit summary.

To clarify, I don't want to spend my time reverting vandalism or doing RC patrol. I don't know where I mentioned that I do.

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)

I shall answer these; I do not have time right now. -- Rmrfstar 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A I would deal with it slowly and carefully, especially so, as I've never dealt with such a situation before. I'd read the policy, see if a precedent has been set and maybe email a more experienced admin and ask for advice. Such abuse does not have to be dealt with particularly quickly, but more importantly effectivly and in a way that hurts the encyclopedia least in the long-term. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppets, all sockpuppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely and tagged accordingly. But before I do this, I think I would ask the editor himself if he has any explanation for what I percieve to be abusive sockpuppeting. I would talk to him; see if he denies it, apologizes or what... Depending on his reaction, I would tag him with Template:sockpuppeteer, and probably block him for a fixed period of time in the end. During and after this period, I'd monitor the editor for the creation of new sock puppets, using CheckUser (indirectly of course).
  1. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  2. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  3. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A By User:Mindspillage/admin, the user would have to be comitting, "blatant, fast-moving vandalism (page-move vandals, mass insertion of disgusting images or hate speech)" or showing no signs of reforming after a few acts.
  4. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain comments / discussions that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  5. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A I've not spent enough time on AfD to judge.
  6. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A
  7. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    AMostly so that I may use the tools that come with being one. I also consider myself, "an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for a while, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia policy, and is generally a known and trusted member of the community."Wikipedia:Administrators
  8. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A

Optional question from User:Dlohcierekim. Hello, Rmrfstar. On your previous RfA, I voted NEUTRAL, then changed to WEAK SUPPORT. At the time, I recommended, "more work in RFAs and AFDs". What has changed since then? Thanks,  :) Dlohcierekim 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, all I can think of is my very recent nom of List of polymaths for deletion. And you're absolutely right below: if my primary goal were to become an admin, I would spend more of my time on RfA, AfD and RC patrol. But my primary goal is to be an editor and it'd only be nice to be an admin. I strongly disagree, per my interpretation of Wiki policy and philosophy, that I should have to do these things. I don't want to do them; I want to do other things, and I think this won't change any time soon. I do think I should be an admin; I even want to be an admin. But the admin tools, to me, are the means, not the end, and I shall not pursue them to the point where I must neglect my true interests and skills. -- Rmrfstar 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. It can come in handy to be an admin when the AIV list backs up. The 2 FA's swayed me to support. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lar:

One big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Concerning the recall/review: sure. That sounds like a fine idea, though I do worry that such a process could be abused by those who simply disagree with an admin's actions. I would probably place myself on such a list, just as I would make readily available a log of all of my admin actions: I believe in that administrators should be accountable of and responsible for all of their actions. They should also, however, be able to excercise their own discretion when necessary without having a thousand users breathing down their necks.
I think I understand the Rouge Admins, and that if I were one, I'd not be a strong one. For the cabal does represent my own reservations about the above category. Again, though, I do believe in accountabliity and listening to the community when it disagrees with you.
In short, I believe that process is important, as I am as fallible as everyone else. But so are WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, for things must get done. I'm neither a policy or process wonk; neither is perfect... maybe I'm a product wonk: I believe the best philosophy lies somewhere in between the two, and so I might be in both of the above categories. That's my answer. -- Rmrfstar 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First Support Good user, experienced and deserves the mop. Seivad 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Good user —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as the nominator --How dare you? 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak support Good experience on Wikipedia, although I can't give full support because the answers to the questions aren't sufficient. --Gray Porpoise 18:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote changed to Strong support per improved answers to questions. A trustworthy editor. --Gray Porpoise 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC
  5. Support, 2FAs, have proven his worth. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, unlikely to abuse tools. Molerat 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse–even avolitionally–the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies). Joe 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Not everyone has all the time in the world, and I happily accept that the candidate could not initially answer the questions to the greatest extent. Having now completed them, I will happily support him and see no reason why oppose votes relating to 'weak answers' not do the same. --Draicone (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support I know the user personally, he has written two featured articles almost entirely by himself and has anouther one on its way up that was written almost entirely by himself. He's dedicated to wikipedia to a fault (believe me, I sometimes ponder an intervention), and knows the wiki policy to the letter. He would make a fine admin. Cpl.Luke 16:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support per Luke and others. Great work on Roman Vishniac and elsewhere. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - anybody who is too busy on other improvements to defend themselves here automatically gets my approval. Yomangani 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support now that answers are longer, experinced in writing articles Jaranda wat's sup 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support-- meets User:Mailer diablo/One Featured Article with Roman Vishniac and Sylvia (ballet). However, still needs to spend more time RCPatrolling and participating at AfD. Cheers.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good user with strong record of significant contributions. Dryman 23:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Has been a positive contributor for quite some time and understands Wikipedia well. Zaxem 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. They has the preciousss! -- Миборовский 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Changed vote due to vastly improved answers to questions. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Support I like the answers above, and don't see much reason why this 2 time FA editor shouldn't have the mop at his disposal, though I do appreciate that a low mainspace edit-count could indicate weak knowledge of policy. TewfikTalk 17:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. - Mailer Diablo 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I think the convention is one editor, one vote... Gwernol 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppps, didn't realise I double-voted. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 07:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Passes my admin criteria of WP:TRI policy trifecta and m:Foundation issues. Also passes my nomination criteria, I would have nominated this person. Kim Bruning 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support This user is straightforward and says he will not use the tools often; I'd prefer that to the many users who claim they will be great admins and let the tools grow dusty. He also meets my 2k and civility criteria. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support After in-person discussion at Wikimania 2006, I support this nomination. This overcame any weakness in the written answers above, for me. BCorr|Брайен 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. His participation and my conversation with him at Wikimania convince me that he is eminently qualified to be an admin. We would be silly to reject this candidate. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user not to abuse admin tools", not "do I like his eyes?". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. :) -- Avenue 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Fine editor with a straightforward approach to most situations. Æon Insane Ward 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am glad to see an improvement in the vote tally. Judging by his attitude towards Wikipedia, having been featured in his school's newspaper about it, writing 2 FA's, and having developed the idea for the Staples High Wiki, I can't see him not being an admin on this wiki as well as the Staples one. --How dare you? 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Has written 2 FAs and is well suited for the position. WAZAAAA 16:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I met him at Wikimania and he seems entirely well-grounded and has good ideas for improving Wikipedia. I would support this RFA more strongly than RFAs of any users I have never met. --Cyde Weys 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. support Works well with others. Even if he won't use the tools often, I'm sure he won't abuse them, so we might as well give them to him for the few times he will. If anything, a lack of desire to use the tools frequently could be a good thing, since it means he will only use them when he absolutely needs to. There is no worry that such a user will abuse them. JoshuaZ 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No concerns and the answers are a lot better now. --Guinnog 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Guinnog. — FireFox (talk) 12:09, 8 August '06
  29. Support changed from oppose.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support-- changed from oppose after candidate expanded on his answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. DarthVader 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. We either trust the user or we don't. Any other point is irrelevant. ed g2s • talk 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support excellent contributions to article space. Looks reasonable based on updated answers. -- Samir धर्म 01:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support with updated answers to questions. Kimchi.sg 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as I did last time for the same reasons only now improved by his (and my) extra wiki experience, namely that this is the type of individual we need to hold admin powers, intelligent, sensible, fair and open minded, and balanced even under criticism. Whatever he says now, he will of course quickly learn to use admin powers properly and nothing will hold him back. He's the quiet type who means things and needs trust, which will be well placed. Tyrenius 08:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: Only good editors make good administrators in the long run. --Bhadani 08:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, a good editor.-gadfium 09:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: on personal recommendation. Stephen B Streater 10:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Adminship should be no big deal and I don't see any reason to mistrust this user. --Ligulem 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support: No reason to deny access to the toolset.ALR 11:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, good and apparently trustworthy editor. -- Avenue 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I'm sure the nominee will find good use for the tools, somehow; I don't see anything to suggest otherwise. My oppose vote was changed to support because I misread the answer to question one (I didn't realize it said "are not things that [the nominee] often help[s] with"). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Adminship is no big deal. Almost certainly won't abuse the tools. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Rmrfstar is a good enditor, and I am more than confident he will not abuse the tools. Rje 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. The candidate's statements here suggest that he wouldn't take the time to explain his actions to other editors, which I feel is important for an admin. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Changed to[reply]
support per better answers. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Weak answers to the questions, low wikipedia namespace edits, less than 3,000 total. Wouldn't abuse the tools, but an admin to me is someone who helps behind the scenes and uses the tools actively, as opposed to breaking them out in rare cases when they're needed. Perhaps I could accept someone on this basis if they had, say, 9000 edits, but as the nomination stands now I have utterly no evidence that this candidate is intimately familiar with policy, and would apply it justly. AdamBiswanger1 13:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose Very weak answers to questions. Does not meet my 5-month requirement. See note below. --Tuspm (C | @) 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC) - Objection: User has been registered for almost 17 months thank you --How dare you? 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! That was my fault. I misread it, thinking it said 2006 but it said 2005. I'll change my vote to Weak Oppose. --Tuspm (C | @) 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Weak answers to questions.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Those are weak answers to the questions; if the user really has little desire or need for the tools, the user shouldn't have them. Many great editors simply have no need or want for the mop. Xoloz 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Weak answers to questions. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Answers show a limited desire to use admin. tools, few talk page edits. Michael 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of the internet maxim "beware of handing power to those who want it" ? Do you think it applies here? Kim Bruning 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, per above. --CharlotteWebb 19:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. I'm not convinced you're going to use the admin tools that much. Roy A.A. 21:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Roy and Aguerriero. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC) change to support following extended answers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per above. --Masssiveego 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose not active enough, time spent here to edit count ratio suggests they are not heavily involved. Putting editcountitis aside, I just don't feel the user is dedicated enough.--Andeh 08:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: Despite the good setup of edits, he isn't that willing to use his admin tools. I fear this RFA could be withdrawn because of this concern. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per WPspace edit count and doesn't seem to want the tools anyway. -- Steel 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, lack of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests low policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree, when I met him he spoke in a debate about consensus-forming that demonstrated an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policies. --Cyde Weys 16:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per above arguments.--cj | talk 03:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This sucks. The nominee was doing better in his LAST nomination, with 1,000 fewer edits. --How dare you? 19:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but I see nowhere where he followed my recommendations. SIGH From what I've seen, subsequent RfA's do better if they follow suggestions made by oppose voters. I supported before based on his strength as an editor and again based on 1FA.  :) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per above, regarding not having a use for the admin tools, and per the answer to my question. RC patrol and vandal-fighting are very similar; I'm not sure how one can want to do the former but say they rarely have and rarely will do the latter. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    !Vote changed to support not because of Kelly Martin's comment, but because I misread an answer to one of his questions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose, very weak editor. MonsterOfTheLake 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very weak, how? he has written 2 FAs. Jaranda wat's sup 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah exactly. And almost 3000 contributions as well. --How dare you? 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Oppose It's kind of hard to explain, normally when I cast a vote for an editor, I way in his/her communications, his editing background and my past history with them. As it seems, you have relatively weak communications with editors, per low talk, user talk and WP talk edits, on the other hand, your editing history looks quite good with the 2 Featured articles. On the third note, I've never really heard of you actually, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Generally, I try to judge on whether the user will abuse the tools, and, ironically, all the stuff above links to it. As you noted, you don't plan to use the tools majorly in backlogs, which like a lot of admins, opens you to helping non-admins carry out tasks. Because of that, you need good communication, but due to your lack of talk edits I must oppose. Apologies, Highway Return to Oz... 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a well reasoned response. Have you tried talking with rmrfstar yourself as well? Perhaps he speaks very carefully!
  16. Oppose Fails my criteria, especially with regard to the amount and level of Wikipedia project space edits. --Wisden17 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain how wikipedia project space edits make one a good administrator? What other criteria do you hold? Kim Bruning 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Wait till he has more experience.--Taxwoman 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Two featured articles is not enough experience? Interesting. That's ok. What are your standards then? Have you met them yourself as well? Kim Bruning 03:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose too few distinct pages edited, needs to explore more of the site. —freak(talk) 12:56, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak Oppose I highly doubt you will abuse these tools, but it sounds like you really don't need sysop tools. The Gerg 13:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The question being asked on RfA is "do we trust this user to not abuse admin tools", not "is this user likely to use them if we give them to him". Given your above stance, your vote should be "support". I encourage the closing bureaucrat to disregard this vote or count it as a support. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point has been made. Please stop badgering those who oppose -- Samir धर्म 01:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not badgering anyone; I'm just making suggestions to the closing bureaucrat. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's not your job. Either the bureaucrat is capable of handling any discrepancies on their own, or there's none to be handled. Stop putting on airs please, Kelly. -- nae'blis 02:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    She can make any statement she likes. If you think it's stupid to make it in each particular instance, well, you could be right, please address those instances. Note that on a first sampling, her reply to several people here seems to be essentially correct however. Several people have been making statements that do not actually answer the question asked by Requests for adminship. Kim Bruning 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Kim Bruning has already set the precedent that it is no longer the candidate who is the sitting duck for a roasting — it is the opposers. He he. Tyrenius 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, (late but it doesn't seem to bother others). I saw this earlier but was borderline so I figured I'd wait until he answered the additional questions (which he said he would). It took him a week and the answers are very weak, with two cut and pastings, one 'I don't know' and no answers to the rest. I really would expect an admin to be more timely and thorough with something he says he is going to do. - Bobet 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Seems like a good user, but your answers to the questions seem very vague to me. The answer to the first question, "As per above, I'd plan on only using the mop for small things" makes me wonder if this user actually needs the tools. I may support if the situation changes and/or answers are expanded on. — FireFox (talk) 13:26, 01 August '06 Changed to support.
Neutral. per FireFox --Guinnog 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Change to support as answers have improved.[reply]
  1. Neutral. I cannot bring myself to vote against such a high-quality editor. But none of the answers given actually require admin tools - also, fails my criteria by having less than 200 maintalk edits. The upside is that I think this user will not be overly upset if he does not get the tools, as he does not seem to really want them. Themindset 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral written 2 FAs, but answers, please clafify Jaranda wat's sup 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - not enough edits for me to vote for you at present, but I would think about it another time. Deb 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral You are a fantastic editor (keep up the good work) but I feel that you do not have enough of a need for the tools. ViridaeTalk 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, good editor, but your weak answers to questions worries me a bit. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 08:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral I have no reason to believe that you would misuse the tools, but I'd prefer administrators to demonstrate that they would use the tools in more than just a few cases - really, I'm looking for a minimal level of involvement before I consider the candidate's requirement for the tools great enough to support them. For that reason, although you're an excellent user, I'd like to see you involve yourself more in admin-related tasks before I vote to support. Sorry. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. I don't know what to do with this one. On one hand, you're a great editor with several FA's to your name. On the other hand, I find the answer to question 1 very underwhelming, I'm just not sensing you really want the tools that much. I really do hope you continue your excellent contributions, and I would probably support in a few months with more admin-related experience, but right now I'm just not convinced. BryanG(talk) 06:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral per BryanG; I loved the Vishniac article and wanted to say that though. Phr (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per the badgering of the oppose voters. I'll remove my vote if the reactionary comments above are removed or put in as footnotes. Attic Owl 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reactionary indeed. Did you know that requests for adminship is a consensus process? It still is in name, at the very least. So lets allow people to discuss and form consensus. This does not need to be at all acrimonious, of course! Kim Bruning 03:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, however Mr./Mrs. Bruning, discussion would be better served on the talk page or by footnote references like this ^ rather than cluttering this area where the potential for percieving acrimony like what may have been construed above. Personally, I construed Mr./Mrs. Kelly Martin's comments above as an attempt at intimidation of voters who disagree with his/her opinion, per his/her character described by many at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin2. If you would like, we can continue to discuss this on the talk page after moving all the breathing over peoples' shoulders. Until then, I will continue to hold my vote, which seems to be the Wikipedian version of voting for a mistrial. Attic Owl 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, RFA is still officially a consensus model, which is served well by discussion on the RFA page itself. If you state an opinion (it's not exactly a vote) on this page, you can expect people to want to try to discuss it. This is the correct venue to discuss a request for adminship however. I don't recall anyone officially suggesting any other venue. To keep the entire conversation visible and transparent, I'm keeping the discussion local to this page.
    Yes I do agree that certain people are making pointed statements where they would be better served asking polite questions. I don't entirely agree with making pointed statements like that, but I am sort of stuck having to defend peoples rights to make them. <scratches head>. Kim Bruning 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are people opposing now because other people want a debate at RfA? Stephen B Streater 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is supposed to be a debate towards consensus, not a vote. However, the idea of taking further discussion to talk seems a good one. --Guinnog 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username	Rmrfstar
Total edits	2793
Distinct pages edited	921
Average edits/page	3.033
First edit	22:25, March 5, 2005
	
(main)	1883
Talk	190
User	178
User talk	183
Image	83
Template	6
Template talk	2
Wikipedia	257
Wikipedia talk	6
Portal	4
Portal talk	1

--Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rmrfstar_2&oldid=1147968883"