User:IntoThinAir/RFA

My second RFA (and first under this username) took place in April 2015. (See WP:Requests for adminship/Everymorning). It was unsuccessful and I withdrew it myself on April 7, 3 days after I nominated myself. This page exists so I can reflect on what I have learned from this and how I can address the concerns raised by the non-supporters in that RFA.
 * First of all, I want to explain why some of my answers to the questions seemed rushed. I didn't want to get into an edit conflict so I threw my answers together relatively quickly.
 * Some concern has also been expressed that I have made too many edits over too little a period of time. The following is a quote from Kudpung on his own talk page, annotated with my comments in parentheses: "I've been watching over Everymorning ever since he first started editing as Jinkinson. He keeps also asking me for advice which demonstrates that he is still not sufficiently clear on some things. (I have made 3 edits to Kudpung's talk page that have to do with adminship over a period of about 15 months. I have also made 3 other edits that were unrelated to adminship. ) Other voters have pointed out specific items, while like you I have more of a gut feeling. My main concern is the extremely high number of edits at an almost impossible cadence. That kind of editing even for an experienced user is going to invite errors. A mature sense of judgement also only comes with age and at this user's age (20), unless he is a child prodigy, will need a few years more before reaching adulthood by any country's standards. We have had some excellent admins in the past, I believe the youngest was 12 until something went wrong. It's not a risk I'm likely to support but that doesn't make me the child hater that some Wikichildren have stamped me with. I worked with children for 30 years."
 * The following is a quote from Jusdafax (the second opposer), broken up point by point and once again with my comments in parentheses. "Kudpung speaks for me on the unease I experience when editors of this type ask for the admin buttons."
 * "The candidate's user page lists the specific edits made at 3,000 edits, 4,000, and onward up to 13k. (Since removed.) Aside from WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, it looks very much to me like there is an obsessive need in play here. *Kudpung has been a keen observer of the Rfa page, and I defer to his judgement, but there is another matter that I should mention, Everymorning's nominations at WP:ITN, a couple of which I !voted against in the past day. The judgement is, well, a bit off. Yes he has been earnest... But somehow, a bit too earnest. Similarly, Mkativerata said he opposed because of, among other things, "The exceptionally frequent posting of doomed-to-fail nominations at WP:ITN/C." (There's definitely something about ITN notability that I don't understand, which is why I have argued that there should be detailed criteria for what kind of stuff gets posted there and what doesn't, an idea that has not been met with very positive reception.)
 * Again, Everymorning comes off to me as someone anxious to prove something, and who could well become a problematic admin. (I suppose what I should take from this is that I am displaying too much mop-seeking behavior and, one might say, "trying too hard".) I thank them for their service, quite sincerely, but I suggest they take a step or two back from Wikipedia, take a deep breath, and relax. (Do they mean retire temporarily?) As Kudpung notes in his direct advice, "give it time." A year from now would be better, in my view." (Only 8 months to go, wonderful!)
 * You may have noticed a theme here--people saying I am untrustworthy and that they have a vague feeling that this is so but that they can't specify what makes me untrustworthy. Similarly, admin FreeRangeFrog said that "There's something about the candidate that makes me apprehensive and I can't quite put my finger on it - I'm not sure if it's the editcountitis or some of these answers or what, but I don't think it would be a good idea for them to be a sysop, at least at this time. There's an intangible je ne sais quoi thing with some of these candidacies where I find myself reacting to them rather viscerally with "oh boy yes" and "better not" and this one is the latter."

Recurring concerns

 * Q: How many !voters in my RFA voiced concern about my ITN nominations getting repeatedly shot down?
 * A: Three: Mkativerata, Kharkiv07, and Davey2010.
 * Q: What about EDITCOUNTITIS?
 * A: Four.
 * Q: What about me not being mature enough?
 * A: The words "mature" and "maturity" were used 12 times in the RFA. Consider, for example, Dennis Brown's comment in his oppose vote in which he said, "I don't question Everymorning's dedication or enthusiasm, but I do have a great deal of reservation about their motivation, maturity and judgement." Also, Cullen voted oppose and said that he "see[s] too much evidence of impulsive, immature behavior."
 * Q: What about my answers to the questions?
 * A: This was a particularly common concern: Of the 25 opposers, 9 criticized my answers to the questions.

Preparing to answer questions

 * 1) What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: At first, blocking vandals, deleting inappropriate pages per the criteria for speedy deletion, closing AFDs, and protecting pages that are frequently vandalized/targeted by socks. This means that, if this is successful, I will at first spend most of my administrative time at AIV, RFPP, AFD and UAA. Later on I might move towards patrolling ANI and seeing how I think threads should be closed and actually closing them.


 * 1) What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I don't think there was anything wrong with my answer at my previous RFA, so I will reproduce it here with numbers adjusted for the DYKs I have gotten since then: "Primary Colours (Eddy Current Suppression Ring album) and Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, both GAs that I wrote the majority of myself. [As noted above] I have also created 29 articles that have been posted in the DYK section on the main page."


 * 1) 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?
 * Yes. I have made many edits to Homeopathy that have been reverted. It is my opinion that scientific evidence supporting this system exists and should be included in the article. However my additions of such content have almost invariably been reverted. One issue is the WP:REDFLAG policy and the fact that multiple sources are needed for "extraordinary claims", which I did not "get" for some time. That aside, there is a fundamental disagreement between myself and other anti-homeopathy editors regarding these sources and whether they are reliable enough to include--I think they are, other editors, such as Manul and Yobol, (the editors who usually revert my edits to that page) do not. Frequently it is asserted that my changes are UNDUE, a charge I disagree with. At times it seems that the bar for what can be included to support pro-homeopathy content is impossibly high.