Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Access Denied


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

Access Denied
'''Final (20/34/11); ended 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. - The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 03:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I have been editing Wikipedia since May this year and have amassed over 8,000 edits. Most of this is through vandal fighting. I must admit that I am not much of a content creator, but I have experience in some areas outside of simple whack-a-mole vandal fighting. For example, I have helped mentor and assisted in his massive improvement after a series of issues that included his Twinkle access being blacklisted. I also make occasional small scale AWB runs, which I plan to continue doing. I also patrol new pages, report username violations, deal with sockpuppets, and help out at AN/I among other things. I would be more than happy to serve Wikipedia as an administrator, and I hope the community will accept my request.  Access Denied –  talk to me  04:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I withdraw this adminship request.  Access Denied –  talk to me  02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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: I have often been seeing increasingly high backlog the past few weeks, especially at UAA, which always seems to have a massive backlog. I would work AIV and UAA, respond to ANI reports and take appropriate action, block obvious sockpuppets, delete attack pages and other bad faith page creations, and close overdue MfDs, among other things. I also am often online at around 6 to 10 UTC, which is a time period when very few admins are online and urgent requests often go unanswered for several hours.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I would have to say that my best contributions would be in the areas of vandal fighting, cleaning up after blocked sockpuppets, and assisting/mentoring new users. I also am knowledgeable on the technical side of things, and have some experience helping otter users with general coding issues.


 * 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 like to think that I am good at staying civil and understanding with new users and also refraining from personal attacks, and my block log reflects that. There is one incident which I deeply regret though. When User:AndyTheGrump blanked out a good portion of the communist terrorism article, I forgot to assume good faith, and I overreacted. Then the Andy raised a concern that my user name led him to believe that I was a sysop. Instead of calmly explaining the username policy and explaining that it wasn't a violation, I instead got into a long argument and then took it to ANI, which I absolutely should not have done. In retrospect, I handled that very poorly and I now strive to make sure that I am civil and not bitey with newbie editors.


 * Additional optional questions from MC10
 * 4. When, if ever, is it appropriate to indef block a vandalizing IP editor?
 * A: Very rarely. For open proxies, I would indefinitely block and contact a steward to block globally. If an IP made a legal threat I would block indef until the IP retracted the threat. For outing, I would block indef, RevDel the outing, and unblock when I was confident that the ip had moved on to a new person. I would block indef for threats of violence pending an investigation by a Wikimedia Foundation representative.
 * 5. When, if ever, is it acceptable to block a user reported at WP:AIV whom has not yet received a total of 4 warnings?
 * A: I would block immediately in cases of severe libel like this. I would do the same if the editor appeared to be an obvious sock of a banned user, or if they were making any threats of any kind (legal, suicide, violence to others) as well as outing. I would probably block before 4 warnings in cases of true defamation, attack pages, or trolls. In addition 4chan vandals should always be immediately blocked because they have one thing in mind (vandalizing at all costs) and don't care about warnings.


 * Additional optional question from Guoguo12
 * 6. What is your stance on admin recall?
 * A: I would definitely be open for recall and would be more than willing to go through recall if it was warranted.

General comments

 * Links for Access Denied:
 * Edit summary usage for Access Denied can be found here.

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to talk —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 7:56pm • 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, answer to Q5 is concerning. Generally a warning is issued when posting a legal threat or outing, only in the more serious cases are the party(ies) in question blocked. —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 7:56pm • 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Support Vandal fighter and Civil User and feel the project only gains with the user having tools.See no scope for misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) You seem to do a good job at fighting vandals, and the more people who help at AIV the better. And your work with otter users (as you mentioned in Q2) is a plus.  DC   T • C   05:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) x2 Support sure. Knowledgable and helpful user; all experiences with him have been positive.  Airplaneman   ✈  05:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support – Knowledgeable and experienced user. — MC10  ( T • C • GB •L)  05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please give some rationale, in light of the Opposes, for "knowledgeable and experienced user"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support Great user, really knows what he's doing. Giving him the extra tools will majorly benefit the community. Keep up the good work! -- Addi hockey  10 e-mail 05:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support While you've done a good job reverting vandalism, You seem to do a lot of cleanup of pagemove-vandalism according to your talk page contributions. I think you would do well with the mop. Minima  c  ( talk ) 07:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that was from cleaning up the mess left behind by a banned user who thinks that his own personal preference overrides the manual of style.  Access Denied –  talk to me  07:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Excellent User. Excellent Editor. Excellent Help. Hell Yes-- intelati  talk 07:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I see know need why admins need to be authors, this user exhibits good work, always remains civil and his work will only be improved by the mop. Acather96 (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - article writing is a fallacy, requiring users to be on Wikipedia for more than 1 year is also another fallacy, the concerns raised by the Opposers are valid but I trust this user's judgment to the extent that I trust them with the mop. —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 7:25pm • 08:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support trustworthy and capable editor Rahul Text me  09:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support. While content creation is important, it's definitely not the most important thing. Lack of content creation doesn't show me how you would abuse the tools, so I have no reason to oppose. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You voted neutral in the below RfA saying: 'I know content creation isn't exactly exciting for some people, but when I think admin, I look for someone who can do tedious work that they are a bit uncomfortable with' ...?  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 16:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By tedious work I was not referring to content creation in general. Vandal fighting can be tedious. But that's why I only voted weak support. The Utahraptor&#39;s sock (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Some support. I greatly appreciate the work you do fighting vandals, but seeing some content contributions would probably help me decide better how you know what is and isn't important for the encyclopedia. (If non-admins are not allowed to vote in RfA's, feel free to remove this vote.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see this Support rationale often at RFA. Considering there are diffs in the opposes showing he has already misused vandal-whacking tools, could you please explain your reasoning?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please dont badger supporters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your choice not to give the closing 'crat rationale to consider your Support. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Im sure you mean well, but a support vote doesnt need a rationale. I declined to justify my vote as it would add to the precedent youre at risk of creating that supporters are expected to provide a justification. Support is the default position in RfA and needs no justification, with the current pass threshold only opposers should feel the need to defend their vote. Sorry if my last reply seemned curt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That needs to change (as evidenced in this RFA), but that discussion is occuring elsewhere. Best,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support. Do not have reason to oppose him. Arie Scheurwater (User Page 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support I think it's too soon, but I don't want you to be downhearted. You're doing some good things, and you're clearly learning, and intend to be here to improve the encyclopaedia. I disagree with those who say you need to write a featured article (takes skill - I've never managed it) but I do think you could do with writing some content.  Pick a stub off NPP and add some references.  Hit random changes and see what you can add to whatever pops up.  --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Of course. He started in May, but I see no problem in that, as he's otherwise very active, friendly and trusted editor. Does a lot of different tasks here, such as patrolling. Not really much content work, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I strongly disagree with those who think that working with articles is so essential for adminship. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 20:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I've encountered him before and I believe that he is a responsible vandal fighter. I also agree with User:DARTH SIDIOUS 2 above: "I strongly disagree with those who think that working with articles is so essential for adminship." Guoguo12  --Talk--  21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support'''A very experienced user.Would be a good admin.Elektrik Band
 * 6) Support Speaking from a modestly long track record of interactions with this user, I am going to support him. It's too bad this thing is sunk before I even saw it, but I'm still going on the record with a support !vote. Sven Manguard  Talk  00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Candidate's talk page is mostly used for socializing. Per talk archive, as recently as a week ago candidate was having trouble even bringing his own signature into compliance with project best practices. Candidate is currently trying to push addition of busywork questions to RFA template. No thanks. Townlake (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Although there aren't any specific problems per se, I feel as if this user sees adminship as a trophy, and has been setting himself up for this for quite some time. Purely gut instinct. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-nom at "Editors for deletion" supports this line of reasoning. This looks to me like a go at a social promotion. Townlake (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose, and I'll be back with more diffs as needed.  As little as a month ago, an IP had to contact Access on his/her user talk to remind him that this reversion was incorrect (which Access corrected after the IP contacted him).  His talk page archives show a lot of similar. Access has no content creation whatsoever (highest edit count on any one article is 12 edits), but his/her user talk shows a limited understanding of vandal fighting in addition to the lack of content creation.  Five months on Wiki, half  dozen edits on any one article, is not enough time to evidence s/he is ready for the tools (it might be for an extraordinary editor, but hasn't been for Access).  Also seems to have a crystal ball that s/he would apply to blocks.  This RFA doesn't indicate Access understands the skill level needed in an admin.  More diffs evidencing immaturity can be found at ANI and WT:RFA if needed (just found this one, and wildly supporting a proposal to lower RFA standards a few weeks before standing at RFA doesn't show particularly good judgment). Also, this Huggle revert, only in August.  Come back in a year, with more experience Wikiwide, less unhelpful posts at ANI, and better evidence of, if not more than vandal whacking with tools, at least accurate vandal whacking (all IPs aren't vandals).  And a new sig.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Back with more. Before he ever made a single edit outside of his userspace, this was Access's userpage: full of juvenile humor and with two templates indicating he aspired to be an admin.  Considering the incorrect use of vandal whacking and immature proposals at WT:RFA, I suggest WP:WQA is a more appropriate venue at this time.  Wikipedia is intended to be a serious venture, not a place for play.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "lowering standards" proposal wasn't me.  Access Denied –  talk to me  05:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, reworded to Support for. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. Lack of content creation, coupled with concerns with maturity and comprehension of policies and guidelines: (1) Cluelessness at Articles for deletion/Palo y hueso: "Because it's listed in IMDB it probably fails A7". Absolutely not. (2) Subpage that goes against WP:REMOVE.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 05:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That subpage is a very old draft from before I knew all Wikipedia's policies.  Access Denied –  talk to me  07:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * then why is it still there? db-user perhaps, and the redirect from your other account too? East of Borschov 16:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That does not excuse the fact that you are hosting in your userspace inaccurate warning templates that have the potential to be misused.  Goodvac   ( talk ) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Concur with SandyGeorgia's assessment, particularly regarding concerns about maturity. On the positive side, Access Denied generally does good work in deletion, apart from the above-mentioned AfD, and a few other pages that could've been handled differently. Overall, I see a slight tendency towards reaching for the "XFD" button before actually trying to understand the subject. Regards,  (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Per above.  Concerns with experience, judgement, policy knowledge, and maturity.  Sorry,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 08:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Not enough experience to warrant the mop at this time, sorry. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Inexperienced. AD 09:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, I do think AD could be a helpful admin one day, lack of content does not bother me, but still a little too much messing around. Take Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Access Denied/Fooled you which seems to be connected to a spoof "new message" box. A certain amount of experimenting can be tolerated early in a users time on wikipedia, but this was created only a couple of months ago. I would need to see a longer period pass without this sort thing.--Salix (talk): 10:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I don't care about content creation, but I do remember seeing various instances of cluelessness. I'll put up diffs if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose No content creation makes me a sad Parrot. Parrot of Doom 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean a sad panda? Sven Manguard  Talk  00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As far as I can tell, you literally have no content experience of any kind other than reverts, other than the creation of a sub-stub which failed WP:NSONGS and was promptly removed, and have roughly as many edits to your own userpage as to the entire Talk: namespace. My usual argument applies: I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with when and why tempers can become heated, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. The repeated mentions of the fact that you intend to indefblock IPs (on five different occasions, so it's not a slip of the fingers) also show a glaring lack of clue as to how Wikipedia actually works, and in a field where a trigger-happy admin can do serious damage. – iridescent  12:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Lack of content-creation is a concern. Amassing edits through vandal-fighting with automated tools is, while undeniably useful, no substitute for creating, improving and occasionally defending content.-- K orr u ski Talk 12:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Five months spent mostly in vandal fighting will likely result in a skewed notion of what this project is about. The concerns expressed above support that notion and I suggest that Access Denied seek out other areas so as to broaden his/her experience and vision of the project before reapplying. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Inexperienced, No Content creation, viewing Adminship as a trophy. Doesn't know what Adminship is about. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) "You have been blocked from editing. --Access Denied!" Clever name, but not to newbies. ( X! ·  talk )  · @662  · 14:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That got under my nose as a newbie. Admittedly I overreacted to it, but Access Denied didn't seem to get the point at all. Having got into a debate with him over this, and over his description of my participation in a debate/edit war as 'vandalism', I'd probably best not vote here: I'm too new to make a valid judgement anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! I've just realised that AD has talked about this incident above. Sorry, AD, if I'd seen that I might not have raised it again - water under the bridge etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Most edited article has 12 edits... which I assume are vandalism reverts. The candidate has never really been involved in any article aside from the single stub he created  Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Highly imature too recently. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose at this point in time. It's early in the career of this editor whom I hope to see continue in wikipedia and stand for adminship at some time in the future. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, concerns about experience, maturity, and temperament. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with recommendation to withdraw. Keepscases (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose At least some meaningful content creation is necessary; admin-related work is also limited. And answer to Q4 is wrong. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppoes, good points raised by other opposers, but I was particularly put off by this conversation. Firstly, everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding content work at RFA. However, you seem to be completely unaware of what makes some RFA voters value content work, dismissing it as a "silly idea that everyone needs to spend all their time on FA writing". That makes me think that you haven't read those kinds of opposes properly, or haven't really thought about where they come from. Secondly, it seems that you said that you avoid article writing for fear of being blocked for tendentious editing or edit warring. That's worrying. Thirdly, you talk about "the way-too-frequent situation of having a blatant G10 sit there all night". There is no reason for a blatant G10 to sit there all night if one editor has seen it. If you see a G10, you should blank it while waiting for it to be deleted. Great work on vandal-fighting, although I'd like to see you slow down a little to reduce some of the mistakes mentioned. I suggest getting some more experience around the project and either getting involved in content writing, or finding some other way to show that you are right for the tools.-- Beloved Freak  16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Regretful oppose While your vandal-fighting work is decent, I think you're trying to move up the ranks much too quickly. You're more like... a relatively new version of myself, in that you have barely any content creation, your maturity needs improving, and your policy knowledge needs improving. Try doing what I'm doing, get off of Huggle and try creating some content... whether it's creating a whole new article, adding a source to an article, or improving the wording of one. Media contributions could do you some good as well, like uploading pictures for articles that need them, that sort of stuff. The sock that should not be (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I don't think you have the experience, maturity, and temperament I'd like to see in an admin candidate yet. I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Maturity concerns.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#F2F9FA;color=#00AA00">Snotty Wong   squeal 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Some of the "not enough content creation" opposes at RfA have been known to irritate me, but there's a huge difference between that and "practically no content creation".  Sorry. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose SandyGeorgia is persuasive here. This fella is not foreman material. MtD (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Per SandyGeorgia's very convincing arguments. I would also like to see this editor not only get a little more diverse experience but also be on the project for a little longer before being handed a mop. Having said that, please keep up the work vandal-fighting, just with a little more care. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose and withdraw ASAP. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose More experience is needed with content creation, along with working on developing the right temperament to be an admin, maturity, broader and longer experience on Wikipedia, and a more well-rounded understanding of policies. These can all be developed in good time, so I would encourage you to work on them and try again in about a year. First Light (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Rather inexperienced. Not ready for adminship. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Drama firestorm. Amount of content creation is also unacceptable. Vodello (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. I love our RfA problem. ǝɥʇ M0N0 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, leaning support. I've seen you around quite a lot, but most of your edits are reverting vandalism. I'm not sure the six months you've been here will be enough experience to prepare you for adminship. -- King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I'm torn here. I see lots of good vandal-fighting, and peripheral cleaning up too. I see valid oppose reasons, but I would tend to see those as probably down to a bit of early over-enthusiasm coupled with inexperience - but at this stage I can't be sure. And I am a bit concerned over experience. I'm not much of an edit count stickler, but I see what looks like a big push for edits lasting just over a month, immediately followed by an RfA. So while the candidate has been here for 6 months, the bulk is very recent. I think a longer period of experience would be beneficial, and perhaps a bit of branching out to wider things. But I'm not sufficiently swayed to Oppose, and I can see myself supporting a future run in, say, 6 months time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - My first gut feeling was to support, but I'm not ready to do so until you've had a bit more experience. Thanks,  ∙:∙:.:  pepper  :.:∙:∙   11:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral leaning towards oppose for now based on BLP concerns; see User talk:Access Denied. While technically Access Denied was correct in warning this IP for removing an AfD template, it sure looked to me as if the anonymous editor might be the actual subject of the article after reviewing the article's history, the AfD and the IP's edit history (as well as that of similar IPs). Whois and traceroute also indicate these IPs are located in same area as the article's subject. I think we owe it to the subjects of articles to err on the side of tact when dealing with them and our policy encourages this (Biographies of living persons). A good admin can maintain our standards for notability, conflict of interest and proper AfD behaviour with kindness and diplomacy. Not only that but an admin sets an example for other editors; I learned of this situation when another editor added a 4th warning on top of Access Denied's 2nd and 3rd level warnings, then took the IP to WP:AIV. The second editor later cited Access Denied's 2 warnings as precedent. That's not exactly Access Denied's fault but it's an example of questionable judgment snowballing into an unfortunate situation; the added credibility that comes with adminship will give warnings and actions still greater weight. Finally, is it just me or do others find "Access Denied" an off-putting user name for an admin to use? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS This incident occurred 12 hours ago, not in the distant past. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Access Denied" is considerably better than his former name of User:I like pie it tastes good… – iridescent  12:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the medical articles I follow, IPs frequently show up and make helpful edits that indicate the IP is most likely a qualified medical person or a physician, or alternately, someone with a COI. Considering the damage done by the kind of vandal whacking via automated tools shown in this RFA, I'm wondering if this RFA should be redirected to WP:WQA?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly it should not, and comments like that are very much beneath you SG. I know you've had a rough time recently including RL stuff, but honestly that's not called for and, frankly, suprising coming from you. Pedro : Chat  21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but with strong moral support. You're definitely a notable vandal fighter, and while your anti-vandalism work is impressive, your lack of content work pushes me into neutral. I hope this doesn't discourage you too much; you're definitely a valuable contributor, and if you were to come back in six months to a year with content experience other than vandal fighting, I'd be happy to support. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Moved to support.  The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral...my thoughts go along the same lines as Pepper's above...my gut instinct is to support, however experince level makes me hesitate attm. No doubt at some point after another few months experience under his belt he would make for a very good admin, but attm it is too soon, in my opinion. Not enough concern to make me oppose, but enough to make me not support. <b style="color:#009900;">Ks0stm</b> (T•C•G) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral because I see no need to pile on in what is obviously a failing effort. I've seen Access Denied around a lot (haven't we all), and I think he's an asset to the project. Victorian Mutant (Talk) 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral&mdash;needs more experience and a boost of maturity. There are issues with subpages and interactions with IP addresses, which are outlined in the opposes. This is also not governed like a web forum; we do not block "trolls" per se. I don't see enough evidence to signal the potential for excessive misuse of the tools, but I certainly see a few opportunities for error. I also notice a trend of young student "vandal fighters"&mdash;they do not realize that there is more to adminship than fighting vandalism. How do you judge consensus? How long do you block? What is the main purpose of administrators? Why is Wikipedia here? There is nothing wrong with being a vandal fighter, and blocking tools will help in your endeavors, but with that tool comes many others that must be understood. Participate in more AfDs, policy discussions, and so forth &mdash; as someone who will be responsible for judging consensus and dealing with conflict, you should have experience in discussions beyond social loafing. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose&mdash;based on the examples in this RfA, I see that AD may lack the level of judgment necessary for proper use of the tools. The examples note a lack of understanding for why things are the way they are, as well as a black-and-white viewpoint at times. &mdash;Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I know you're a good editor, but the opposes raise up some eye raising concerns. Derild  49  21  ☼  20:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - I see mostly good things and a couple bad things. I think you've learned a lot about WP and will make a good admin someday. I think it comes down to experience and time. Maybe come back in the spring and I'd be likely to support. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 20:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Something really doesn't sit right with me. This user has been very helpful though so I'm closer to supporting than opposing. I n k a <sup style="color:black;">888  20:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Not wishing to pile on, and personally I've found the candidate to be a pleasent, well meaning editor who simply needs to get more "into" Wikipedia if they want the bits. Let's be fair - there's lots of good stuff here but the lack of content is even less than mine (and that's saying something) and there does seem to be a, well, desperation for the admin bits from almost day one of editing. I'd suggest the feedback from this RFA is taken positively, and as others above have suggested perhaps hitting "random article" and doing some fix up stuff, and generally trying to view the project more on it's net output (a clean, tidy, accurate and reasonably detailed learning resource). I'd suggest withdrawl at this time - I'm not sure you're going to get much more in the way of feedback that has not been said and I'm afraid this will clearly fail. Pedro : Chat  21:04, 10 November 2010 (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.