Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adam1213 3


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

Adam1213
final (12/32/8) ended 13:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

– Adam1213 was nominated in the past but was not accepted for adminship. I believe this user should be administrator because he has a high edit count, is committed to counter vandalism. He is an experienced programmer that can use his skills to better the encyclopedia. Adam (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I accept --  A dam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This user has requested feedback on what he's doing wrong. If you have some advice for him, let him know -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support - I trust him. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 01:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) weak support he's a good faithed user, a bit stubborn sometimes, but I think with some coaching he will be better. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support. Just lending some, because a massively failing RfA can get to ya. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. then again not giving you admin powers is letting vandals win. -- Cool CatTalk 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Philwelch --Ichiro (会話| + |投稿記録|メール) 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Ø  tVaughn05 talkcontribs 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Symbolic support, if nothing else, because of your courage to keep this RfA open till the end in order to learn how to improve, and because you could definiteley use some Wikilove in the process. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support--Bling-chav 13:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--Moral support, user doesn't seem to want to withdraw and I just don't like gang justice.--Pomegranite 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Pom. One day you'll be ready, Adam. --Aaron 18:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good editor, willing to learn, would make a nice admin. NoSeptember   talk  12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support--Has made valuable contributions.-- Dakota ~  ε  19:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry, I do not conider this user to be familiarised with workings of Wikipedia policy yet. Please see my talk page comment. Secondly, blanking of comments on his own RFA Apparently edit conflict caused this, believe or not, up to reader. NSL E (T+C) 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose now per Sarahe below in oppose #28 and follow-up comments from Adam. I've already indicated my displeasure at him going after every single oppose, and it's not helping his chances. NSL E (T+C) 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum; high edit count does not mean one should be an administrator. NSL E (T+C) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agrea with you NSLE that I high edit count does not mean that you should be an admin, A person's policy does. I have a policy of following wikipedia policy and also what the majority wants. If you think I don't know the policy because of 1st or/and 2nd RFA you should realise the number of days I had edited wikipedia before them and that I was new to wikipedia.
 * I probably know the policies that you would feal I do not know as your reasoning for me not knowing it seams to be just the RFA's and probably edits ages ago. Thanks for your vote. I hope that I can convince you that I do know the policy and that I would make a good admin --  A dam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You have problems spelling as well, and you don't seem to know that you need a # before your colon (punctuation) when indenting in RFAs to keep the numbering, which to me is a bit of inexperience showing. NSL E (T+C) 09:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot that, thanks for reminding me. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Spelling is an excuse to oppose adminship now? How degraded are RFAs getting... -- Cool CatTalk 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My spelling in articles where it matters is better. Also why don't you quiz me on wikipedia policy, Also may I point out while my spelling where it does not really matter is not all that good “I do not conider this user” -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Can't support someone who's self-nominated twice in a week. -lethe talk 09:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should of mentioned I stopped the first RFA and it was my 15th day aprox of making edits I was new I should not of been running for adminship but you should try to look at how I have improved and read Please do not bite the newcomers
 * Also it was not twice in a week) --  A dam1213 Talk + 09:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that Kungfuadam nominated Adam1213; this isn't a self-nom. --Deathphoenix 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That he is right Adam1213 you shouldnt have had an RfA this early. You just give people excuses to oppose, they generaly dont have logical reasons anyways. -- Cool CatTalk 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose For now. Having spoken to Adam in IRC on several occassions I know he is very keen to help wikipedia which is good even if I'm sometime not convinced his focus is "right". However from some of those discussions and the answers below I'm not convinced he has the overall grasp of what wikipedia is "really" about and the ability to deal with the situations and decisions he is likely to meet as an admin. I'm not sure on the relevance between being able to put together an IRC client and the need to be an admin or being capable as an admin. The overall edit count is reaonable (2200) but the break down doesn't seem too good about 1400 of those on User and User_talk pages, Only 295 on Article pages (which for someone who reverts a lot of vandalism seems very low over the 4 months he has been active) and a looking through the history seems to indicate difficulty getting things right first time, which suggest unfamiliarity (we all have problems there sometimes, but I seem to see lots of "clusters"). Given that I know Adam I was in two minds as to if I should oppose or just add my comments as Neutral, but I feel I have opposed better candidates so... --pgk( talk ) 10:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Struck out the above, since this seems to be a bit confused as to where it fits in Adam's response and so the comment maybe a little unfair, so I'll assume it's just one of his contributions to the projects, though I'm not sure if it's complete or anyone else is using it. --pgk( talk ) 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please think of how being an admin would benefit wikipedia (blocking vandals that will not stop) and for now you should be in #wikipedia-en-vandalism2 as there is a lot of vandalism and only me in both rooms active. --  A dam1213 Talk + 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just worded that badly, but I'm trying to think how overall being an admin would benefit Wikipedia, not to benefit you. --pgk( talk ) 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Given timezones, there's bound to be at least one admin active (either in the channel or elsewhere) at any certain time. The question is wheher you getting the powers would necessarily benefit Wikipedia, it may, or it may not, we don't know. Until then, WP:AIV is watched by most admins. NSL E (T+C) 10:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IRC... all I met on IRC (in #wikipedia that is) idiots who would ban me instead of marmot, arrogant admins that constantly lecture me on the slightest error as if they are flawless, countless irritaing people who just spend their time irritating me (aka trolls). I got people complaining about the access restirctions to the channel my bot runs on and never bother to use the bot once they talk me to remove modify such restrictions. We have arbitrators/ex-arbitrators who ban good users instead of marmot on IRC. If you want to be taken serriously dont ever use IRC to judge people. -- Cool CatTalk 15:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I appreciate his earnestness, but I just don't think he's ready yet &mdash; and won't be for quite a while. I'm also concerned that he's placed his userpage in Category:Pages watched by the Counter Vandalism Unit; I don't think I could trust anyone who uses the "watched by CVU" template or category to have a strong enough grasp of common sense and its application on Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably should not of added that category but it was because if an IP edited the page unless it is me its vandalism 99% of the time You are right, I should not of added that category, I have removed that. --  A dam1213 Talk + 10:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That proves my point, Adam. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant to say benefit wikipedia. As being an admin does not benefit me directly. It benefit's wikipedia. Wikipedia being benefited, benefits me by having a good online encyclopaedia. --  A dam1213 Talk + 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could trust anyone who uses the "watched by CVU" template or category .. To say such a thing... what kind of a nerve do you have?!! The point of that template is that it is a vandal magnet so idiots vandalise our userpages and pages its linked to and not article namespace just like drinis vandal proof userpage. Anyone voting oppose because of any reason that has to do with CVU is an idiot. Yes that includes you fuddlemark. Dont you ever dare talk to me on IRC or ever post anything on my talk page. Geez these arrogant admins... -- Cool CatTalk 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * not ready yet and not ready for a while... can you please rephrase that too something like if you make edits relating to... or .... you will be able to show that you are ready to be an admin. -- A dam1213 Talk + 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, very few edits to article namespace for someone who is committed to counter-vandalism. The answers to the questions (especially the optional ones) would indicate that he is not familiar enough with policy. And I don't think he expresses himself clearly enough, as I'm having a hard time discerning what he means in some of his answers here. - Bobet 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * what answerers are you unhappy about? -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, as personal experience and actions makes me believe that he is not admin material. Ral315 (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What actions exactly are you talking about? -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Define what the hell is "admin material". I am not pleased with the current admins we have and their arrogance. I doubt many of the admins are admin material. Your oppose reasion is not better than of the one Davenbelle had. -- Cool CatTalk 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine- if you want a better reason, I can give it. First of all, I like both of you and I think that both of you are good people whom I respect.  Both of you have great knowledge of programming, and have made great strides in vandalism-fighting with your IRC bots.  But that doesn't mean you'd make good administrators.  Being an administrator requires a knowledge of Wikipedia policy, which I don't believe Adam1213 has.  His mention of "Google rankings" on question #6 about WP:CSD shows a fundamental misunderstanding about speedy deletion.  His answer to question #9 shows that he doesn't understand consensus, a pivotal part of being an administrator.  His answer to question #10 is horribly wrong- WP:IAR has many different interpretations, none of which fit with his.  And his response to my vote and other's votes tells me he's not ready.  If Adam1213 truly wanted to know why I voted the way I did, the best way would have been to leave a message on my talk page.  Ral315 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. You seem like you might make a good admin some day, but I don't think you are familiar enough with the way things work as yet.  Please try again in a couple of months. -Colin Kimbrell 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What things exactly are you concerned about? -- A dam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. This user has a controversial history, including his 2 failed RFA self-noms. he also has a history of self advertising and spamming pages for support. He has, ever since he joined, been constantly in search of that adminship bid. For example, on an October 2005 TfD, User:Robchurch said We don't give out administrator status to those users who make a big thing of it, as far as I know. In addition, the creator (User:Adam1213) likely created this after making a big song-and-dance about his two failed Requests for Adminship, and supplemented it all with spamming Jimbo's talk page demanding adminship. Moreover, this user has too few edits to article namespace (IMO) and his challenging every vote seems immature.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not spam Jimbo's talk page. I asked what exactly I should improve on to become an admin, I got one part of the answer signature, I have changed it and keep changing it comply with what the majority wants. -- A dam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose because this is yet another nomination seeking to use edit count, rather than suitability for the job, as justification for adminship Cynical 17:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what one of the things that I was nominated for but why not look at those edits? -- A dam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. His edit count isn't really that high. Also more edits to his own userpage than to articles . &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  18:19, Jan. 24, 2006
 * One oppose for edit count reason high one.... next its not that high oppose (edit count freaks and anti ones!) -- A dam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The answer to question 4 bothers me quite a lot as it seems to misunderstand the meaning of "blatant vandalism." (ESkog)(Talk) 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I Agrea with you I should of given a better answer and have fixed it up I hope you like my answer. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose. Adam has yet to grasp Wikipedia policy, or demonstrate the level of maturity and coolheadedness required of an administrator. His interactions with other users leave much to be desired; Adam has a desire for power not for the betterment of the project, but rather, for the inflation of his own ego. Adminship is a position of community trust, a stewardship of the community's best interests, not a way to make yourself feel more important. Essjay Talk • Contact 22:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to help wikipedia. If this is about that issue I remember you saying to forget about it. Oh by the way your right I do have a desire for power, that’s why I am part of The Electronics project. Essjay you want power for your computer right don’t we all? But referring to the actual point I don’t have a want for power. But I know why you think that Essjay and I think you still don’t want it discussed. Also what policies exactly do you feel that I do not know; why not quiz me on them? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - without prejudice in the future. Adam acts in good faith, but hasn't quite got it yet. It will come in time, I am confident of it. Rob Church (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Got what... please tell me I would like to know what exactly I need to get-- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Essjay. -- Nacon Kantari   e |t||c|m 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I found Essjay a little vague this oppose vote because a little more vague. Can you please specify your exact reasoning -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - while I appreciate this user's enthusiasm, I don't think now is the time. (I will be happy to elaborate if the candidate wishes, but will leave it at that for now.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think I need to improve on? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, since you requested it, I will give my truthful feelings. And please don't be offended - while I may be extremely blunt in my reply (since you asked for it), I appreciate your eagerness and willingness to improve. First, you appear a little too eager for adminship. Adminship is not a "reward" nor is it something you "seek" or "gain"; my view of adminship is that it should come "naturally" for deserving editors. As such, you don't actively seek to become an admin, as your self noms and the template that you made ("This user wants to become an admin" or something similar) demonstrated. Second, there were some incidents and comments with other users that I reviewed which made me uneasy - for example, some interactions with Essjay and Cool Cat could have been handled a lot better. Third, your brief answers to the questions (like number 1, for example) don't give me confidence that you understand policy. Fourth, while I'm not getting into editcountitis, you have an extremely low number of article edits, and nearly a third of your overall edits are to the user: namespace. Finally, you can also work on improving your typing abilities - while this is certainly not a criteria to be an administrator, it is human nature to take people who use correct grammar and spelling more seriously. (Note that I consider this extremely minor, but since you asked me how you could improve, this is an area where you can and should strive to improve.) Overall, I'm not too sure you are ready for adminship yet. Please give it more time (half a year or more), and I will reconsider. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I would definitely consider supporting Adam in the future for adminship however I still don't think he's shown the maturity and grasp of policy that is expected of an administrator. Jtkiefer T   00:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly makes you think I don't know the policy? Why not quiz me on it?-- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per previous RfAs; also (and you can clarify this) it seems that you just want a rollback button by your answers. If you change this, I'd gladly reconsider my vote. Also, your answer to question 4 is quite confusing to me. Can you explain, please? (Pardon me for saying this, but it seems you don't understand what is for as it is currently worded.) So to sum it up, maybe later, but not now. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC) moving to Neutral.
 * I would really like to ban vandals that just wont stop -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like to do the same, I just report them to AIV and let that take care of itself (which you've never used, but then again, you're on IRC, so you don't need to use it...). Basically, I'm going to give the same reason I gave for Samuelsen: I frankly don't see why you need administrator status. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @
 * I should probably be asking a better question but why not? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See, your answer to #11 gives me reason to believe you can be admin; the simple reason to your former question would have been because RC Patrol!=administrator. It is convinient, yes, but absolutely needed, no. That is also true for most of the admins out there, though I suppose we do need quite a few to keep the place running. Try again in a month or two; you will more than likely have my support by then. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you RC Patrol!=administrator but I believe my policy (within wikipedia guidelines) might. RC Patrol + My policy + Contributions to wikipedia + Following wikipedia's rules (easy to do) + Support from the wikipedia community=administrator. Currently I think that I am only missing Support from the wikipedia community and some other things that I can easily improve on just tell me what and it helps if you suggest how -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, honestly, I don't know. Part of the problem is the fact that you're making adminship seem like a big deal. You have to remember that even though it may seem like the entire community is making it a big deal, it really isn't. The fact that you've been able to RC Patrol for this time with only a few frustrations here and there shows that.  Other than that, I really can't put a finger on anything.  Most people just believe you need a bit more time or a bit more experience, and those things go hand in hand, which is why I said I'd be willing to support you in a month. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Almost there, but not quite ready. A tad better grasp of the Wikipedia namespace (policies and processes) is all that is needed. --Wikiacc (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which policies exactly -- A dam1213 Talk + 02:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Having worked closely with Adam on many things, Wikipedia-related and non-Wikipedia-related, I know he has good intentions and is unlikely to abuse admin tools. However, there are a number of things that concern me. He did not sign his reply to an oppose vote here and has also not signed in many other places such as some of his replies in this diff. I think anyone who is an admin should at least follow basic WP:SIG. Most non-admins manage that. Also, regarding this edit conflict, even if he didn't mean to blank the oppose votes, an admin should know how to deal with edit conflicts and be able to merge their changes with other people's changes appropriately, like most users can do. Also tends to not use common sense in some areas such as here, where he added his own "questions for the candidate" to the bottom of the RfA. Wouldn't a sensible user realise that they are being asked the questions rather than asking themself more questions? Finally, I am not happy with his edit count breakdown, which consists of only 305 edits in the article namespace out of 2327 total edits. If this user really wants the admin tools to revert vandalism, he should put more effort in reverting vandalism on articles. Overall, I think he needs to improve his editing style and get more practice, based on the evidence I have provided. -- Daverocks (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While it is not an excuse I did not realise there was an edit conflict as it did not say anything however after each edit past that on here I have looked at history to avoid it happening again. While it is not an excuse I was replying to so many things that I just forgot to sign some of them. I removed the questions and fixed that up. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Anyone who pisses off Essjay enough to leave doesn't deserve the mop and bucket. - Mys  e  kurity 05:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not piss of Essjay enough to leave and I did not want Essjay to leave and I am happy that Essjay came back and I asked Essjay not to leave. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Need a little more EQ, I recommand visiting the chatrooms more often. --Masssiveego 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggestiong what I should do but I am in the chat rooms often, you can find me in #wikipedia-en-vandalism, #wikipedia-en-vandalism2, #wikipedia and #adam1213 -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Ambi 10:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While there are many reasons listed to oppose why exactly did you oppose? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose To be honest, I find Adam's editing manner a little erratic. I'm not confident that he's yet ready for adminship.--cj | talk 10:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you not confident that I am ready for adminship yet and what would make you confident that I was? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. You seem like a good person, but your behavior is too immature and you're too inexperienced right now. Settle down and be patient. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that I am too immature and inexperienced, what do you think I am inexperienced with? How do you think I can improve?-- A dam1213 Talk + 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose seems still to inexperienced with what goes on here... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that I am inexperienced, what do you think I am inexperienced with? How do you think I can improve?-- A dam1213 Talk + 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason for opposing as this will let me improve -- A dam1213 Talk + 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pile on --152.163.100.197 00:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, anons don't get a vote.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The jokes on his user page aren't funny. CDThieme 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of them are not and not everyone find them funny (some people may) but I don’t think that this is a good reason to oppose. Please think of a good reason with reasons for thinking it and how to improve. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for most of the reasons given above, but also his insistence on challenging every oppose vote makes me question his maturity. Sarah Ewart 02:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have mostly not criticized the fact that anyone voted oppose. I have asked to know what exactly I am doing wrong / need to prove and ideas on how to improve. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you criticised; I said you challeneged. And you have. I appreciate and respect the fact that you are wanting to learn how to improve yourself, however, I personally find it distasteful and immature to respond to every oppose vote. You've stated you'd like further feedback so you can improve, it seems unnecessary to then also respond to every single person who opposes you. Sorry, I don't mean to upset you or add to the pile on, I just don't like it. Sarah Ewart 03:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I think that one of the reasons you don’t see many people respond to heaps of oppose votes on RFAs is that they don’t have so many. If there were three and I responded you would not say that would you? Because of the amount of oppose votes and commenting I get another one! Nevertheless, I still do agree that it is not often that someone responds to every oppose vote with this many. -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say exactly the same thing if I thought the person was needlessly challenging each oppose vote, regardless of whether there were 3 or 33 oppose votes. I have seen this practice of challenging and questioning each opposer before and it always gives me the impression the person lacks maturity and it makes me wonder how they would handle having their Admin actions questioned or critiqued. Sarah Ewart 10:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that challenging each oppose vote is not good practice, asking what the person is referring to and how to improve I believe is a good practice. Do you agree with this? -- A dam1213 Talk + 13:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it is good to get advice on how to improve yourself. I do not agree that an RfA is necessarily the best place to do it. Nor do I agree that questioning every single opposer is appropriate. Sarah Ewart 01:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that criticising every single person that opposed is not appropriate. I should not of criticised so many of them (all) -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At the start of the RFA I did not plan on having it defiantly fail. However, something can come out of this RFA anyway, which will be that I will improve. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad to know you might take some positives away from this RFA, and hopefully that will help your next attempt reach a more favorable outcome. However, I have never accused you of criticising anyone. I have only ever used the words challenge and question in reference to your responses to oppose voters. I have no idea why you insist on implying that I have accused you of criticising, despite the fact I clarified in my second comment that I was not accusing you of criticising. Sarah Ewart 04:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your right that you did not use the word criticising, I thought it may of been implied because that I did not feel that I was challenging most votes. Mainly I was just asking for someone’s specific reasons for opposing and how to improve, without saying that they should not oppose in most cases. However, I do not dispute the fact that it may have been implied that I was challenging votes. -- A dam1213 Talk + 05:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose An Admin should be able to look at big picture without getting bogged down in minor details. Replying to every oppose vote seems to be getting stuck in the latter. I'm also concerned that replying to every reply on a rfa might indicate a desire to always have the last word, which is an undesirable trait of an admin, IMO - an admin should only have the last word when they are required to, not because they want to. MartinRe 10:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sorry Adam, I just can't support you. You are far too impatient to be an admin. You seem to want to block people as soon as they vandalize. You don't really grasp our policies. You as an admin would really worry me. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, lack of maturity as displayed in this RFA. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) 'Oppose My main reason for opposing him is not the same as all of the rhetoric above - it's because he's so active in his RfA! If Adam was a good, moral candidate, he would eagerly watch the votes, maybe update the tally now and then, answer any questions in the questions section, and that's all.  Instead, he personally responds to and argues with every vote of opposition.  And he wrote a whole section right before the questions advocating why we should vote for him!  I will not vote for such a candidate - sorry Adam. -- M  @  th  wiz  2020  21:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - sorry, but the block capitals rant below mean I'm not even going to look into his edit history. His attitude on this RfA is enough to make me opposite it. --Whouk (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * I hereby vote neutral. Adam1213 it has nothing to do with you. I have no reason not to trust you to hand "admin power" to you. However...
 * Adminship critaria is not determined based on how much ones worth for adminship. It would be an isult for me to vote support untill RFA is fixed.
 * Currently RFA is just peolpe finding excuses to oppose handing people adminship power (aka power to block vandals etc....)
 * An admin supposed to be a person the community trusts. I trust fewer and fewer admins everyday.
 * I figured adminship was broken. I cannot put you in the same category as some of our current admins.
 * -- Cool CatTalk 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Changed to support -- Cool CatTalk 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1) Neutral A very enthusiatic guy from what I have seen, but comes off as a little immature. Tintin Talk 16:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do I can off as a little immature, how do you think I should fix this. -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per the oppose reasons, to avoid a pile on --Jaranda wat's sup 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I don't think Adam1213 is quite ready for adminship yet but I don't want to pile on the "oppose" votes. J I P | Talk 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote, I was wondering what you think I should do to improve? -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Moved from oppose. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 00:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Not sure yet. --King of All the Franks 02:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hopefully in June you will be sure -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems like a good editor, but lacks patience, experience, and a tad inclined to argue everyone's opinion. Please review more guidelines and depict more leeway for critisim in the future, and I'll gladly support. -ZeroTalk 18:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vote, I was just wondering what guidlines do you think I should review? -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, I am not quite sure why he accepted this at this time. ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  14:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well orignaly I was planning an RFA in June that would be over one year of editing wikipedia. But this came up... While most people think this RFA is a waist and completely a stuff up in a way it is not as I will get information on what I need to improve on and/or prove to people and suggestions on how. -- A dam1213 Talk + 15:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Adam, an RFA is a microcosm of what an Admin has to deal with -- trust me, many have been treated far worse than you have here, yet you continue to pester the opposers, albeit in a good faith way(next time, do it discreetly if you want advice like that, or ask someone else to ask.) Basically that says to us here that you'd just be pestering others like with those questions above.
 * You're going to make it in eventually if you keep this spirit up, there's no doubt on that, but in the meantime watch and listen -- see what the successful rfas look like, or see what the admins do and try to emulate that. To paraphrase Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask what it is to be an admin, you'll never know." Just relax, take it all in, and believe to be so, and it'll be so. Karm  a  fist  20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 75% for major edits and 78% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 27 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 09:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See information about Adam1213's edits with Interiot's edit count tool or Interiot's edit history tool.


 * First RFA; second RFA NSL E (T+C) 03:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned after you beat me to mentioning these RFAs I had not edited wikipedia on more than 16 days. Thanks for mentioning them you saved me the time of having to make a link (0.5 secs) --  A dam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I do RC patrol but recently have been working on my IRC client. While I do admit to stuffing up some of my early edits, the edits after hem have been have been good edits 99% Most of the time that I stuff up, I soon realise and go back to fix it. I recommend looking through my contributions starting at my first edit and going through and looking at the improvement. I am familiarised with a lot of the workings of Wikipedia policy I admit that in the past I did not know much of it.

Some of my stuff ups:
 * 1) RFA 1 - 10 September 2005 - 6th day that I had edited wikipedia - I stoped this RFA
 * 2) RFA 2 - 3 October 2005 - 15 aprox day that I had edited wikipedia.
 * the fact that I kept editing the page which caused some oppose votes to be removed accidentally
 * later wanting to keep it open for remaining time


 * 1) Arbcom edit somewhere (should not of made it)
 * 2) A joke made on IRC that to most people would seam small and I said I was kidding but ended up causing problems (note that this issue can't be discussed [for reason's that I am not allowed to mention])

I feel that I respect other contributors. (excluding simple vandalism)

I have forced edit summaries in my monobook so I will be making a lot more edits with edit summaries. --  A dam1213 Talk + 07:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)''

My IRC client. Its code is approximately 123 kb 74 pages 3697 lines. It is almost done. It has plug-ins for computer2 (CVU bot) (it displays the words diff and revert which are hyperlinked instead of the long URLs) I have almost finished plug-ins for pgkbot. It has wikipedia links (directly helped by User:Daverocks's code for hyperlinks (he also did connect 4))
 * Very annoying sig. &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just changed my sig -- A dam1213 Talk + 16:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you asked for more feedback on what we feel you might not be understanding about Wikipedia, I've answered some of your answers below, and added a couple of questions of my own for you to think about. Let me know if you feel it's helpful or not. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was helpful -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT MY CONTRIBUTIONS? And also have read this ? -- A dam1213 Talk + 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the questions for the candidate, it seems obvious that this RfA will not go through. So can't Adam be left alone instead of being put through more of this torture ? Tintin Talk 05:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, the main thing I want out of this is to know what to improve on and / or prove to people. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the harassment of oppose voters, Adam, look at the RfA archives. In how many of them do you see the candidate harassing everyone who votes oppose demanding that they explain themselves? I for one gave a fairly detailed response; I don't feel the need to lay out diffs explaining my vote, and there is no precedent on RfA for doing so. This a demonstration of what I am talking about: You just don't get it. Harassing the oppose voters doesn't get you more support, it gets you more opposition. My vote has nothing to do with the problems we have had in the past, with the exception that our issues are a demonstration of the same issues other contributors have: You don't know when to let things go and just accept that it didn't go your way. Learn to drop it when it's over, and stop beating a dead horse into the ground. Once you've matured and learned to interact well with the community, then come back for adminship. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully second Essjay. Like I told you in IRC, you should stop pushing it, it'll only make people want to oppose even more strongly – I myself have half a mind to. NSL E (T+C) 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying ho harass anyone, I just would like to know why someone thinks something, what things exactly they are referring to and how I can improve. If I have that info I am happy that the person opposed as I get information on how to improve -- A dam1213 Talk + 06:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My policy page... Still needs more work User:Adam1213/Policy -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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. I would ban persistent vandals and impostors.with it.
 * I would use rollback but be careful


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. WP:CVU/Elections I liked automating tasks and automating the nomination (RFA nomination and wiki help made it easy) and also putting the results in a table. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. I try to avoid conflicts example User talk:Mpatel Talking to the person can avoid / solve a conflict.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking the questions --  A dam1213 Talk + 12:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. When would you use &#123;{test4}}, and when would you use &#123;{bv}}?
 * A. Mostly after someone has vandalised I do test, test2, test3, test4 after that more test4s and report it in #wikipedia-en-vandalism, if no response #wikipedia-en-vandalism2 if no response #wikipedia if no response I will report it on Administrator intervention against vandalism
 * I would use it in the case of a user that seams their intention is obviously to vandalise wikipedia.-- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
 * A. I have thought about what I would do in the past... I would write a message on the talk page right away asking for it to be put back before my edit and that I was sorry for breaking 3rr or contact someone asking them to put it back and say that in the summary
 * The question was, what would you, if you were an admin, do if someone else reverted an article four times in a little over 24 hours? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I miss read it because I did not think that would be asked... I would look at the edits, speak to the person, suggest the talk page and contacting others involved and depending on their reply decide, if they were strong on the idea that they are right and it should be like that block, if they instead apologies and went of trying to discuss it on the talk page and with the other people involved instead I would let it go. -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6. In your opinion, when should you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when should you nominate it for an AFD instead?
 * A. One thing is the number of people that edited it also how many times it comes up on google (not the things site and about what the article is on) if more than 100 (depending on what it is) it should not be nominated for speedy deletion and google page rank. Also what the article is about. (something that is expanding rapidly / small and getting smaller)
 * Read A7 (and the other criteria) closely. CSD refers to the content of the article alone, not the notability of its subject.  If an article contains an assertion of notability, then it can't be speedied, it has to go to AfD.  With experience, it's possible to get a feel for what counts as an assertion and what doesn't.  Popularity on Google and so on is important for AfD, but that's the next step. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many things that may make an article notable, google is one of the ways, its a lot to do with the article its more a rule of thumb with some guidlines
 * 7. How would you apply NPOV to a controversial article that you are editing?
 * A. If a point may be controversial say it as some believe... while others believe that ... Discuss on the talk page about it as there will probably 2 groups (or more) about a way of stating both opinions. Also citing edit can help to provide evidence for the different ideas -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8. What are your greatest frustrations with Wikipedia?
 * A. Vandals that do not stop when no one is there to block them and they keep going. In addition, the length of RFA and how it works also the end result
 * Certain points need longer to be discussed and should be discussed, what the person needs to do to get rid of the reason for an oppose vote and the oppose vote. After it, what the person needs to do to become an admin.
 * Do you mean to say that you think it should be easier to become an admin, and that the RfA process should be shorter? What about those admins who passed their RfAs because of a late charge of support votes, for instance? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No I did not say that but I can see why you might of thought that, out of this RFA for example which will fail I would like to know what I need to improve on and/or prove to people. This benefits wikipedia as the person finds out exactly what to do after it. -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9 Why do you want to be an admin?
 * I would like to be an admin to ban vandals that will not stop, use admin rollback (carefully), help users that want help with their monobooks (could not help that much but a bit) probably delete some pages (after it has been decided that they should be deleted) and the main thing I probably will not do is delete images --  A dam1213 Talk + 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But what I meant is, what's in it for you? What motivates you to become an admin? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (from User_talk:Adam1213)
 * A. Well I guess having a good online encyclopaedia, and I am motivated to make programs that have integration of wikipedia by the fact that people will use what I program. Also I don't like letting vandals win --  A dam1213 Talk + 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8. What is Wikipedia?
 * A. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopaedia that any one can edit. Because anyone can edit wikipedia it makes it such a good encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is very accurate.
 * But "because anyone can edit Wikipedia" also leads to a lot of vandalism and incorrect information. The important thing, I think, when thinking about what Wikipedia is (and is not) is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, full stop.  We aim to write an encyclopaedia that's as good as any other in the world, if not better, and we have to try to be professional and not allow ourselves to be confused away from that single goal. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of the fact that this means people can vandalise wikipedia, however I am also aware that the CVU and RC patrolers are doing a great job most of the time, I had someone say that they never realised the ammount of vandalism that happens on wikipedia, which indicates that they system works. However a cookie with a number in it that someone could be blocked by would be useful in the case of ISPs like AOL. -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9. What is consensus?
 * A. Consensus is what the majority want and this is what should be followed (after the legal parts)
 * No. Consensus is, basically, the agreement of the community as a whole.  Since that can be extraordinarily difficult to achieve, Wikipedia operates on rough consensus, which is essentially "I Can't Believe It's Not Consensus!", a low-fat substitute.  When we hold discussions that involve voting, a majority can help us to gauge what the community wants, but it is not the be-all and end-all of gauging community feeling.  See Wikipedia is not a democracy, Wikipedia works by building consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant also that its what will happen in a way there is a certain amount of support needed for something to happen. (but also there is a rule of thumb) -- A dam1213 Talk + 04:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10. What is the purpose of WP:IAR?
 * A. the purpose of it is to tell people that the rules are obvious. For example if someone wants to vandalise wikipedia they should realise that it would be breaking the rules.
 * No. IAR goes back to "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia", above.  If what is best for the encyclopaedia is technically different from what the rules say, then do what's right.  It's best summed up as use your common sense.  Judging when it is safe to Ignore All Rules can be difficult, and many people say it shouldn't be used to justify admin actions (like controversial blocks). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I said obvious referring to common sense. It is also about the fact that you are free to do what you want on wikipedia (There is a limit). If someone comes and edits wikipedia for their first time, we are not going to force them to know every rule. They will get suggestions instead. Many of wikipedia's rules are guidelines for a reason. -- A dam1213 Talk + 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11. As I have noted above, you seem to want this adminship to have a rollback button and the ability to block. While the latter needs to be reported to WP:AIV or on IRC to the administrators, and the former can be easily emulated (but slower) and is mainly a convenience, the rest of fighting vandalism can be done easily by non-admins and admins alike.  Thus, I ask, are there any other admin chores which you would be willing to help out with if you are given administrator status?
 * A. I would enforce arbcom rulings, and where it is obvious that there is a consensus to delete an article delete it. I would try to stay away from deleting pictures. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12. ''I feel that I respect other contributors (excluding simple vandalism)
 * Do you not consider WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA et al. to apply even to the vandals?

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply to vandals that do not stop get blocked not exempt from rules, If someone is attacking a vandal it will probably provoke them and depending on what exactly is going on the person should be spoken to about it and a if it happens again it should be dealt with -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13. You use the term simple vandalism a lot. Can you tell the difference between a newbie edit and a malicious little twerp, and can you respond accurately to each?
 * Yes I can, the edit gives it a way often but also the contributions of someone and their talk page. I found the test warning a good warning to start with as it is not exactly a warning -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While doing RC patrolling I often come across new users that make good edits that I welcome to wikipedia. -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14. If this adminship fails, would you consider Requests for rollback as  a means of providing an acceptable anti-vandalism tool?
 * I would 01:18, 25 October 2005 is when I said on the page I would support it, as part of it but blocking is another thing. One thing I would like is to be able to block but have the block go onto a list for a certain admin (or more) to be able to confirm and put through, maybe place a 5 min block in which time an admin will look at it and either get rid of it or extend it this would be a great way of judging someone’s abilities to be an admin as they would be able to do almost the exact same things but limited and this would need to be approved of per user. What are other peoples ideas on this? -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.