Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Froth


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

Froth
Final (57/35/19); Ended Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:18:42 UTC

- I am a prolific Wikipedian (nearly 5000 edits since July 2005) interested in gaining access to the sysop tools. I am a behind-the-scenes editor, mostly performing maintenance, doing technical work, adjusting formatting, and writing template code. I'm primarily interested in adminship to make my maintenance work easier- moving a page to a page that already exists, deleting template subpages that no longer hold content, tweaking layout of protected pages, and other things like that. My wiki-philosophy is highly metapedian- although I definitely know my way around the mainspace, I'm mostly interested in internal work. When I do deal with content changes on the mainspace, my philosophy lines up directly with the policy Trifecta. I'm very interested in Wikipedia legislation and I like reading through Arbitration Committee precedent and heated topics (Giano!) and the big xfd's like Esperanza. In conclusion, I definately wouldn't abuse the tools and they'd just be a big help to my work. --⁪froth T 03:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom.

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Probably none. Like I've said, the reason I want the tools is to make my life easier doing formatting and template work. Now that being said, though I don't anticipate helping with any sysop chores, I'll definately help out in each of those areas, however I'm not particularly interested in committing to any of those admin responsibilities.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Yes, I've made more than a thousand contributions to the Reference Desk, including an overhaul of the layout. I was heavily involved for months with the debates at WT:RD until they tapered off. I'm also an active participant in WP:FPC. I overhauled the Valve navigation templates. I also participate in xfd's, particularly in AfD. Until January I was a VandalProof moderator. I still have vandal-fighting access and I contribute there occasionally. I've never personally shepherded an article through GA or FA but I'm very familiar with the process.


 * 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 don't deal much with content, so this isn't really a problem for me. But as I've said previously, I was involved with the WT:RD policy debates- this is the closest thing to a conflict I've had on Wikipedia. I believe I dealt with it level headedly. The issue was never resolved but I don't feel that there's anything else to be done because consensus has proven impossible to find. If something else comes up, I plan to continue remaining civil and remaining loyal to consensus.


 * General comments


 * See Froth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) I find it incredibly funny that people are willing to support people who don't know how to use the tools but intend to use them, but not people who do know how to use the tools but don't intend to use them. If we get some occasional help with his tools, that's better than no help at all... -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. per Amarkov. Completely unconvincing opposes. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Needs the tools, and will not abuse them. Rettetast 08:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Even an admin who rarely uses the tools still helps out when he/she does use them. I see no evidence at all that there will be abuse from this editor.  auburn pilot   talk  08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Obviously will not abuse the tools, so why not? StayinAnon 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I do understand the opposers' reasoning: why hand out tools with which technical and sociological damage can be caused to someone who doesn't reason particularly strongly for having them? However, he does reason quite strongly in his nomination statement. Froth is clearly running into protected things and other barriers during the course of his usual work, and could simply sweep those things to one side if he had the button to do it with. I suspect they are in areas, specifically WP:RD where there is relatively little visibility for his requests, although they do eventually get seen to. He says he reads policy and ArbCom stuff a lot, and whilst that's not concretely provable, I do believe him (see predictable bluelink, but the candidate makes a good couple of references and gets the terminology right). The editor is clearly committed to the project, has stuck around and appears to know his stuff. He doesn't do much mainspace work, and an oppose on that basis can sometimes be reasonable: someone out of touch with that risks losing their way. But Froth does interact with the wider Wikipedia via the various work he does at WP:RD, and it's not like his mainspace edits are zero or anything. I also do not think there is a great deal of value in the asking of Q1 any longer: all it ever produces is a list of blah blah that survives, prehaps, a month into adminship after which point all us current admins tend to spend most of our efforts in what ever nook or cranny we feel most comfortable in. Thus, his well-targetted request for adminship seems ok to me. In sum, a committed editor, a knowledgeable editor, a helpful editor, an editor with a clear and precise rational for admin tools. Splash - tk 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to candidate: You'll get more than you bargain for. Once you have the admin buttons, you'll eventually be drawn into doing things you hadn't expected. Do so carefully and you'll be fine. This being the case for all new admins, it's not something to worry excessively about given the other good points of the candidate. Splash - tk 16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) support --dario vet (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I thought You were an Admin..Good Editor..-- Cometstyles 16:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Seems a good user, being here since 2005 shows he/she is interested in Wikipedia and cares about what goes on here. and would benefit the tools greatly! Good luck - Aquasplash 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good editor, and tenaciously productive when he's made up his mind. I don't understand the "no-need-for-tools" argument, when froth explained why he thinks they might help him improve the project. These tools aren't a limited good, only to be handed out to those who vow and commit to spending most of their time dealing with the most pressing backlagging chores. There are plenty of excellent admins here who hardly ever use the mop and bucket, but are skilled in using the pin chuck or the micropipette, and require access to tools for this reason. This user sometimes speaks his mind and doesn't always mince words, but I can't picture him abusing the buttons. ---Sluzzelin  talk  01:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - there is no reason not to give the tools to this user. I hope that Froth doesn't become dejected at the inevitable failure of this RfA, and interpret it as disapproval of his good work. - Richardcavell 01:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Looks like the users who oppose based on Q1 have never tried to fix a protected template before. No reason not to trust froth, proposed use is narrow but well-defined, adminship isn't all about closing AfD's and whacking vandals. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - per amarkov, sluzzelin, trials. Any opposers haven't done WP:DEAD either - tons of copyvios, nn material. Besides, if user decides to start using the tools, we've already decided he's capable. Let's not stand around and oppose just becuase the user didn't answer the question in exactly X and Y proper way, even if the user is a good editor. This is just too much process-wonkery. Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Adminship is no big deal, right?  If we're confident that someone's not going to abuse them, why not give them the tools?  S/He's definitely not going to help with the backlogs if we don't grant the tools.  If they help with his/her work, and the work helps the encyclopedia, obviously it's going to be an overall benefit; s/he won't have to ask an admin to do something, it'll get done quicker, and the other admin can be off doing something else.  And if there's an emergency or request, they can help out.  Besides, s/he mentioned doing some vandal fighting, which the tools are definitely useful for.  Anyway, is there a minimum amount that someone should use the tools before it's worthwhile for them to have them?  Lastly, I appreciate the user's frankness and honesty in their responses.  delldot  talk  04:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Great user who has demonstrated need for the tools, is trustworthy and wouldn't abuse them, and if he gets bored, he can jump into the backlogs :) We do need admins who want to do the sort of thing he's talking about. – riana_dzasta 07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And to those who think his answer to Q1 means he won't help - he hasn't said that. He has said he doesn't anticipate helping out with standard admin backlogs, but he will pitch in if he is needed. Come on, guys, we're gagging for admins, and you're turning down a great user who will use the tools well, just because he isn't parroting out the same answer everyone else does? – riana_dzasta 09:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Amarkov, Riana Dzasta, and others. Seriously, guys. Grand  master  ka  08:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support — You appear trustable, you show a requirement for the extra buttons, adminship is "no big deal", so if you want it, then let's let you have it. Matthew 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support, despite the poor answer to Q1, I can't find a reason why this user can't be trusted with the tools.  Insane phantom 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Admins are needed to help with a wide variety of tasks.  Some may choose to concentrate on some tasks and some on others.  Just because somebody indicates there are some areas they don't anticipate helping in isn't a reason to oppose, if there are other areas where they clearly could make good use of the tools.  Dragomiloff 15:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Splash. Suspect you'll get sucked into using the tools more if you have them! Coricus 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support for answer to Q1. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Reedy Boy 20:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I support him because he will not abuse tools. I do not understand that if he will get tools and will not use them 100% then what harm that will cause? Hence I find no reason to oppose. ---  S And T Lets Talk  22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support No reason to believe he/she would abuse the tools. Dryman 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Despite the oppose concerns (including the answer to Q1), I see plenty of reasons to give this user the tools. Not all actions taken by admins are in the highly visible areas. Nuts and bolts work is important too. Wikignoming isn't glamorous and bragging rights to bringing articles up to FA status is unlikely, yet these small improvements benefit the project immensely. Not every admin needs to or should perform exactly the same functions. (/rant)  Pig mandialogue 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Froth is a good, hard-working user who won't misuse the buttons. I haven't seen an oppose column so unrelated to adminship in a long time. Picaroon 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support no reason not to have them. Even if he doesn't start wielding a flame thrower in the general direction of the admin backlogs, at least he won't contribute to them. Appears that he would benefit from having the tools and seems quite unlikely to abuse them. This might be a good test of how 'crats determine consensus... Viridae Talk 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued by what you mean by your closing statement, care to elaborate? Rockpock  e  t  22:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Completely silly to say "don't provide admin buttons because he won't be clicking them all the time." If it enhances his current contributions to Wikipedia at all, and the risk of abuse is somewhere in the basement, give it to him. Admin is not a status, not super special... all those things in the Wikipedia namespace that are mentioned. Some Admins will spend most of their time adminning, some will spend most of it writing, but both provide a great benefit by not being restrained if they've proven themselves. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Corollary: why give a police officer a powerful engine if he doesn't intend to be screaming around corners whenever he gets the chance? -- Auto ( talk /  contribs ) 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support don't admins decide which tasks they want to help on? If he wants to focus on editing/helping on protected content, is this a bad thing...? - Denny 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I think not dedicating oneself to clearing backlogs is fine. I see no reason that this user would either misuse or abuse the tools, so why should they be denied access. James086 Talk  10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Dedicated, very active, seems to help out all over the place. Bust out the mop. Gan fon  17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, Froth is a very dedicated Wikipedian and will not abuse sysop tools. --Cremepuff222  (talk, sign book , review me! ) 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - good editor and I appreciate the honesty of his answers, he seems like he hasn't gone out of his way to just say what he thinks the people want to hear - Arch NME 00:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support; I believe that there is no reason not to grant administrator tools to editors who show themselves to be trustworthy, helpful users over a long period of time; i.e., if there is no reason not to make someone an admin, why not do so? The more good, trustworthy administrators we have, the better. Froth definitely qualifies. Pyrospirit  Flames  Fire 01:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, seems trustworthy enough. Adminship is not a job where you have to commit yourself to clean the backlogs. Kusma (t) 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - the question is whether or not the user is trustworthy. If half of Wikipedia opposes anyone who "doesn't need the tools" (whatever that means, nobody needs the tools) and the other half opposes anyone who does need the tools because they don't write enough articles, then we're in bad shape. Is he going to abuse the tools? Nobody has given me any reason to believe that would be the case and thus I support. --BigDT 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Olando 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support We should give the tools to anyone who wont abuse them. Froth most likely will not.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I really don't understnad the metapedian philosophy and this is the root of much of his problems on ref desk. He sides for a more chatty and casual environment. I and others who have commented below (Hipocrite, Rocketpocket and Friday) do not agree and have tried to get the ref desk to be more professional and avoid best quesses or at least to cite references that might back up such claims. In general, i have seen Froth be respectful and communicative in this debate and that is all I can ask. With respect to coming across protected templates and wishing to protect templates, this is a valid reason to need the tools. I think he could be much more productive if he had that ability.  Due to his proven ability to communicate I have no reason to mistrust his use of the blocking part of the kit. David D. (Talk) 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per all above. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Per reply to PMC in the neutral section. IronGargoyle 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) SupportFroth seems to have knowledge, though Q1 is highly unimpressive. VD649  9  2  00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support after due consideration. David D.'s reasoning above convinced me to change to support from neutral. Like him, Friday, Hipocrite et al, I have a real concern with the use of the RD as a forum for opinion and/or conjecture. Nevertheless, and even though I don't agree with making a distinction myself, as long as an editor is clear that articlespace should not be treated in the same manner then the risk of misuse of the tools is small. I also think Froth would certainly use the tools to our advantage, within the limited scope he envisages, and thus have little concern about his response to Q1. My only remaining concern is that some of the metapedian discussion at RD, at which he contributes, is in clear violation of WP:NPA. I would hope, whether this passes or not, Froth would consider whether participating in such discussion serves the project well. Rockpock  e  t  01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) SupportQ1 response fine by me. He has stuff to do & if he doesn't use the more standard tools & powers, he can't abuse them. Johnbod 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Not likely to abuse tools, and he's laid out the reasons he needs them in the nomination statement. I guess I don't understand opposing someone who may not help out with backlogs but who would like to use them while editing the encyclopedia. RxS 04:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per no indication of potential for abuse and a small but real need for the tools.--Chaser - T 12:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I appreciate his honesty in his answer to Q1, and I feel that trust is the ultimate decision-maker in adminship. The whole "debate" around the answer as to how he intends to fulfil the role is less relevant. A school needs janitors, as well as teachers and principals, and all the roles are necessary. -- Richard D. LeCour ( talk / contribs ) 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong support An excellent editor and contributor to Wikipedia with unique interests and strong abilities. -t h b 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong support In my opinion, being an admin is mostly about Wikignoming, not about attracting attention. Eli Falk 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Definitely a good admin candidate, helpful and all that. Excellent contributor at the Refdesk, where I got to know him as a Wikipedian. I thought he already was an admin, to be fair. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support My encounters with him have been professional and helpful, which, along with experience, are my main criteria for an administrator. He is also honest, which, due to his answer on Q1, seems to be hurting his chances... Katalaveno TC 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. I agree with Katalaveno. Plus, we should give him a chance. Shindo9 Hikaru  01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Garion96 (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support I don't mind Q1 response. Seems a fully qualified candidate for the mop. S. Miyano 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. While he would be different than most admins in the work he's doing, the work he's doing is still very valuable and does require the use of admin tools (protected moves, deletion, etc.) fairly regularly, especially now that many templates and related pages are protected. He has also indicated that he's willing to help out on occasion with standard admin chores, so I see no reason to oppose. I do not think he would abuse the twiddled bit should he receive it. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Seems trustworthy. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Many hands make light work. Even doing a few admin things now and then will help. Kla'quot 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose - Answer to Q1 seems far from impressive. TML 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I really hate to oppose, but when you stated you do not anticipate helping with any sysop chores I really do not see why you should then be granted the sysop status. While I am glad you help out vigorously in many "Wikignome" activities, bestowing sysop capabilities to someone who is only going to use them for their needs is not something I am comfortable with. Perhaps my view of administrators is a little askew, but someone applying for administrative status should be prepared to help out with sysop chores beyond the scope of what they normally prefer to focus on. --Ozgod 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I am opposing for a number of reasons. As stated above, you haven't shown that you'd make use of the tools in a way that would justify you having them. You do not need administrator tools for formatting and template work. You've also stated on your user page that if I can ever get my mainspace count up I may try to RfA. It seems that you find your edit count to be a a mark of your value to the Wikipedia community and I find this a little concerning. Your edit summary usage recently is too low for my liking (32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits (more usage for minor than major?!?)). Overall, I believe you do not understand the role of an administrator and this would be extremely worrying if you were promoted. Harryboyles 06:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that sysop tools should be given out to anyone who isn't going to abuse them and can make some use of them. That comment about edit count is on my userpage because I think that vision has been skewed or lost- adminship is given based on pedantry like edit count and (dare I say?) edit summary usage. And the admin tools are useful for general wiki improvery, including and especially "wikignome" work. --⁪froth T 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The greater threat, I feel, Froth, is the abuse of administrative tools. While it is wonderful you do want to do much wikignome work, the role of sysop does require some "community service" and to help out beyond the scope of personal projects. --Ozgod 06:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Q1; no apparent need for the tools. Sandstein 12:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose While I am sure that you would not abuse the tools, if you have a declared intention of not undertaking any sysop activities, then there seems no reason why you should have them. I do not really think that making your life easier is a valid qualification for sysop status.--Anthony.bradbury 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Ozgod and Harryboyles. Dorange 15:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, obviously. Per the user's own addmission he has no actual need for the tools in order to continue to do the work he is doing now. His apathy towards helping other administators with the urgent backlog of their work and non-participation in many important elements of wikipedia process is a huge red flag for me. NeoFreak 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. When I go more or less randomly looking for an administrator, a task I prefer to spread around, I don't want to stumble across one with this attitude. I don't anticipate helping with any sysop chores. Carptrash
 * Fair point, but he doesn't say "I won't help with admin requests", he simply doesn't intend to go trawling CAT:CSD, etc, most of which are pretty mind-numbing tasks for much of the time. Froth wouldn't turn you down if you said on his talk page "could you fix this cut-and-paste move for me", (right, Froth?), he just wouldn't go looking for cnp moves to fix, having things he finds more interesting to work on and which sometimes require admin rights he would find useful. Splash - tk 16:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly what I'm saying --⁪froth T 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)  Oppose per Ozgod and Harryboyles. --Masterpedia 19:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. User may have his first edit in 2005, but he had around 250 edits for all of his first year here. More than half his edits come from the last 60 days. A few more months needed, IMO. - grubber 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Give someone the tools when they probably wouldn't use them. Just one question. Why ? -- Nick  <sup style="color:blue;">t  20:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'm primarily interested in adminship to ... moving a page to a page that already exists, deleting template subpages that no longer hold content, tweaking layout of protected pages, and other things like that". He's a well-identified set of purposes and indicates above he'd drop by other areas when he's bored. We're getting too hung up on this question 1 business. Splash - tk 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose No need for the tools. -Mschel 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Anthony.bradbury. TomTheHand 21:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose concerns cited cause my vote. Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose don't need tools. --Joe Wells 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Answer to Question 1 is really silly - besides demonstrating no desire to help, it calls into question candidate's communication skills. Xoloz 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Per answer to Question 1. User doesn't need the tools and we don't need an admin who won't be doing many sysop chores. --Folantin 10:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose answer to Q1 shows that the user doesn't need the tools.--Jersey Devil 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose As mentioned by many - the answer to Q1 is the killer question. They need to read up a bit on some roles of Admin before given a change at adminship Munta 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose The job requires a commitment. Michael 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Commitment? We're a volunteer-written encyclopedia, last I checked. Why, exactly, does adminship require a commitment? Is Wikipedia harmed in any way if his life, or even his time spent onwiki, doesn't revolve around adminship? Picaroon 00:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Volunteer we are. However, if adminship does not require a commitment to Wikipedia, why do we even have admins? What good is RfA if we cannot prevent users from getting adminship because of a lack of commitment? Captain  panda   In   vino   veritas  05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose : The editor seems to be doing fine as an editor; it seems he doesn't really require the tools as such, until he can think up a few really good reasons.  Gardener of  Geda  | Message Me.... 01:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Opppose - While I guess that editing protected templates is a potential reason to need admin status, the answer to Q1 is part of the overall attitude of this user that I think gives me (and apparently quite a few others) pause. It's possible that this user is more than qualified and just sucks at filling out a rfa candidacy...in which case I hope to support at a later date. Savidan 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose per above. Yuser31415 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose actively disruptive to the Reference Desks. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Actively disruptive" is kinda a serious charge to make. Do you have any evidence for this? -Amarkov moo! 15:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly. You will want to review only his disruption over the last month - allow me to assue you that it streaches far, far back. You can see him support the inclusion of dangerous advice on the desk, you can see him insert unverifiable content (aka "false") here, and you can see him opposing any attempt to remove unverifiable content, like the crap he inserts, here. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About the first link: what does that have to do with dangerous advice? Also notice that comment has been retracted for awhile now- the language was a little uncalled-for but frustratingly you were stirring up trouble again for no reason. Remember this? Or how about the rest of the section that you linked? You were:
 * Hipocrite, you're becoming increasingly hostile. If you aren't capable of maintaining civility, then I'd request that you simply take a bit of a breather, and then come back. But personal attacks aren't necessary. Bladestorm 18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and my comment was an ironic overreaction to another absurd "final warning". About the second link.. how is that untrue? I was making no attempt to present verifiable facts, it was my personal reason for disliking apple since the entire question was about opinions on operating systems. These type of discussions have proven invaluable to posters on the RD countless times and if you think that's wrong start another section at WT:RD and I'd be happy to continue the debate. Unless you mean the bit about the apple warranty which Friday has objected to twice.. a rather minor detail and anyway I'm right :) As for the third link, what's even wrong with that? I can somewhat understand if you disagree but surely you see that my position is a valid position, not "crap". Wikipedia is infamous for its lack of academic credibility. And my last point has been argued again and again by multiple people- it's not logistically feasible nor even desirable to try to edit or remove others' comments and keep track of revisions on such a high-traffic page. The best way of doing it is basically to use it like a talk page- disagree with someone if you want but don't go removing their comments.. all you can do is post a reply. And how are you supposed to prove someone's incorrect comment to be wrong if you can't attack their comment? There's a difference between attacking an editor and "attacking" the content of a comment. that's the main point of that diff. --⁪frotht 07:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose As stated numerous times above, shows no need for the tools, therefor admin is not required either. PeteShanosky 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Definite Oppose with the response to Q1 as the stumbling block. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, but the objections on the grounds that he won't use the tools much are silly. Someone making good use of the tools for 10 minutes a year is better than us not having those 10 minutes of contributions. However I oppose because I'm not comfortable with this editor's acceptance of policy or his understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia.  I suspect what Hipocrite is referring to above about the ref desk is the same behavior I'm uncomfortable with- this editor seems to think Wikipedia is for general forum-like chatting.  He does not seem to care about verifiability and presents unsourced assertions as though they're appropriate content for Wikipedia.  Friday (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah hey friday. Remember that the question was whether the ref desk would be strict like the rest of wikipedia or not- I fully understand that "the rest of wikipedia" is not a place for non-verifiable info and chattiness. But I also understand where you're coming from and your oppose argument is still viable even though "this editor seems to think Wikipedia is for general forum-like chatting" isn't true --⁪frotht 23:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Q1. --<font color="CEBE70">MECU ≈ talk 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Friday and Sandstein. Anchoress 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Oppose per Hipocrite. ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per Question 1. --Tbeatty 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Question 1 tells me that you don't need tools.-- Pre ston  H (Review Me!) •  (Sign Here!) 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Opposing per Question 1 is pretty stupid, but some of the ref desk stuff concerns me, particularly the edit saying "If you're okay with pirating, then use MS Office" - administrators should not even indirectly encourage illegal activity.  Ral315 » 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Froth seems to me to be a good user who does not need the admin tools at this time. I hope Froth will continue to be a valualbe editor. Johntex\talk 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Per Q1. Dionyseus 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral, not against you having the tools, but Q1 doesn't push my support button either... <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">z</FONT> talk 05:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral as Deiz, admins ought to be active within the community in my opinion. The Rambling Man 08:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral nothing worth opposing for, you're a good user, but the fact that you aren't willing to help in sysop chores means you're not going to need those tools, which are given to help the community. - <font color="Black">An <font color="Grey">as <font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 09:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral I don't see a reason to oppose your nomination, but I also don't feel comfortable supporting someone who essentially doesn't want to do anything an admin is expected to do. Trustworthiness is certainly a factor, and you're not untrustworthy, but a need for the tools is another, and I'm not convinced that you need them. On a side note, edit summary usage is not "pedantry". 32% for major edits and 62% for minor edits is extremely low. It doesn't have to be 100%, but good edit summaries are essential for collaboration. <b style="color:CornflowerBlue;">Leebo</b> <sup style="color:#B22222;">T / C  14:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. I don't violently oppose, and I certainly don't think you'll implode Wikipedia if you get the Big Red Buttons, but I do think that an admin should at least vaguely care about admin chores - at least be willing to wander by CAT:CSD once in a blue moon and hit delete. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's exactly what I said! That while I probably won't really help out with any particular admin project, I'm more than happy to drop in more than once every blue moon and clean things up --⁪froth T 18:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. An experienced editor and there are some similarities to Requests for adminship/Art LaPella, but the rationale offered by Froth is much less convincing than Art's. We don't give admin buttons for your convenience, as Anthony Bradbury notes, but for the benefit of the community. How would we benefit here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, currently, but I will come back and assess again before close. Main concerns are poor use of edit summary, and general need for tools low. Cheers Lethaniol 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, Froth has done some excellent work on the Reference Desk templates and layout, and admin tools would probably make that work much easier. However, based on his contributions to the ref desk debates, and some of his contributions on the desks themselves, i think that Froth either does not understand some of the core Wikipedia policies, or chooses at times to simply ignore them. His opinion that policies such as WP:V,WP:NOR and WP:NOT do not really apply to reference desk is not much of a problem&mdash;there are many others who share that opinion&mdash;but is there any evidence he understands how these policies should apply to article space? Reluctantly neutral as this editor is doing good work and has a good reason for requesting admin tools.&mdash;eric 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reluctance to support- I knew this would be a problem. I really do know my way around the article space policies very well, but I realize there's unfortunately very little evidence for that.. I just don't do very much work with article content. But please consider that since I don't deal with mainspace content then you don't need to worry about me messing up the mainspace :) --⁪froth T 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral per eric. Froth has done a sterling job with templates and formatting at the RD. That said, I too have concerns about his interpretation of core policies with regards to the RD and how that reflects on his understanding in article space. I have also seen some unseemly bickering with other editors at the RD, this being an example of how his comments contributed to a needless personal dispute, rather than diffusing it. Not ideal. Nevertheless, I'm aware that admins are human too and it would be unfair to oppose on the basis of a single exchange. So will sit of the fence at the moment and consider if anything is said in support or opposition that can convince me either way. Rockpock  e  t  20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)  Changed to support -  Rockpock  e  t  01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Sorry, but when you yourself state that you have no need for, and no intentions of using, the sysop tools, then I have no choice but to remain neutral. Alex43223Talk 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral You shot yourself in the foot with Q1. You're a good editor, but why do you need the tools if you don't need them. Neutral, per above. The Evil Clown 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral-Any help we can get is great, but Q1 just makes me think that you being an admin won't help that us that much. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@ 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - was originally support, but diff provided by rockpuppet is troubling. People mis-accusing others of "personal attacks" in a dispute really pushes my buttons. Part Deux 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC) changed to support, Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what was going on. Here's the whole section. --⁪froth T 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you have misinterpreted my diff, Part Deux. Froth didn't remove the comment, he had written the comment that was removed. I (personally) don't believe it was a personal attack either, but it was among a number of comments from Froth that inflamed a needless and personal dispute and I believe our admins should be setting a better example. Sorry if my diff was confusing Rockpock  e  t  (with an 'ocket)
 * Fair enough. We all make mistakes, and I won't oppose based on one mistake. Heaven knows I have a few. Part Deux 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I trust Froth, and have found him to be intelligent. However, I believe he still needs some refinement in policy and etiquette. I want to make certain that he gains this knowledge before he enters into any admin fields. I would ask that he study policy, to become more familiar with it. Once he does that, I am certain that he will not harm the project, will not abuse the tools, and that sysophood will, in however small a way, help him, and the project. Read up Froth, and come back soon.* Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Looking at this user's edits, I've seen that he sometimes lacks in the proper policy and etiquette that I think Wikipedia administrators need. I agree with Prodego in most of what he thinks about this canidate, and also I question his "need" for the tools. It seems that froth would not really benefit from having these additional tools.  Just my opinion.  (Are non-admins allowed to vote?)  N  o  l  888 ( Talk )(Review me please) 02:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, non-admins may comment. It's not exacly a ballot. See Requests for adminship -- Yellowdesk 06:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral ... —Meteoroid » 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per underwhelming answer to Q1.-- danntm T C 18:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. You say you want the tools yet won't really use them? Can't support then. But you seem like a good user,so I can't oppose.-- Wizardman 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Q1 is somewhat of a dealbreaker. alphachimp  19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral He would probably do no harm with the tools. Haven't seen a Q1 answer like that before though —SaxTeacher (talk)  20:22, 15 March 2007 (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.