Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gay Cdn


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

Gay Cdn
Final (43/35/6); Ended Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:00:35 UTC

- I'd like to nominate Gay Cdn for adminship. He is a hard worker on Wikipedia and does an unbelievable job with images. Patrolling unused images is largely a thankless maintenance task and Gay Cdn's work does a tremendous service for Wikipedia. I have found him to always be polite and have found him to have a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures, as demonstrated on WP:IFD. Gay Cdn would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin and his adminship would give us another person to help out in an area that is in dire need of knowledgeable admins. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, BigDT 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination

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:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A:  I anticipate there will be three main areas I will work on initially.  First, dealing with the backlog of nominations at WP:IFD given that as a nominator, I have helped contribute to that backlog.  Second, I will work on speedy deletions, especially around the issues of db-attack images and articles.  I believe that these attack deletions are paramount given the potential harm.  Third, I will work around the backlog of nominations at WP:AFD.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: The contribution to Wikipedia that I am most pleased with would be the admin-like work I have done around the IfD, AfD, Prod and New pages patrol. These contributions are more "administrative" and play to my organizational and process skills. The article I am the most pleased about my contribution would be Foundation for Equal Families.  This article was one I created from scratch and I will freely admit it is less then feature status.  My strengths are not within the writing and composing of articles.


 * 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: There have been a couple of conflicts earlier in my time at Wikipedia. These conflicts generally dealt with my nomination of an article on AfD.  The main discussions which appeared on my talk page I moved to a sub page, User:Gay Cdn/archive uncivil, a page I set up early in my time here and discontinued quite a while back.  The article and Afd at the base of the main issue are List of people associated with San Francisco and Articles for deletion/List of people from San Francisco between myself and User:Badbilltucker.   The interactions, which were 6 months ago, between the two of us did get a bit out of hand, but I did tried to suggest we take a step back in my note in the Afd.  My main mechanism to deal with stress and conflict is to make sure my thought process is based on policy and guidelines.

'''Optional questions from &mdash;Malber (talk • contribs • game) 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. What are each of the five pillars of Wikipedia and why is each one important?
 * A: The five pillars are the underpinning processes that allow for consensus and growth of Wikipedia.


 * First and foremost, is that WP is an encyclopaedia. It is a tertiary source – it is not about publishing your thesis or reporting on the news.  Second, is a neutral point of view.  Understanding there is no right or only way.  Different and at time opposing views on a topic can and should exist in an article.  The main thing to remember is the need for verification and to have reliable sources for that verification.  Third, that WP is free.  That WP is for everyone, by everyone.  People can use the content of WP, including your contributions, for any purpose.  Fourth, there is a code of conduct expected of all.  The community operates by working together.  Activities and contributions that are not in the best interest of the community simply disrupt the work being done.  One point to remember is that the written word only conveys a fraction of the message.  Fifth, there are no firm rules.  Consensus is the basis of WP and only works when people can challenge and discuss the status quo.  The way the content expands and grows is by people being bold, but at the same time willing to work towards consensus in the face of objections.


 * 5. Why is wheel warring a Bad Thing and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
 * A: Wheel waring is bad for three main reasons:


 * First, just like any edit war, it makes the article or subject difficult for others to work on or with. Second, it can become externally divisive and counter-productive to reaching consensus.   Third, while in fact admins have no elevated status to any other user, they are sometimes seen, especially to newer users, to be the face of decision making.  Given this image, it is difficult to convince users to build consensus when admins can not do it themselves.


 * 6. Who has the authority to ban users?
 * A: The authority to ban a user is primarily done by the Arb Com as a remedy in arbitration. As I expected, as the founder Jimbo Wales also can ban a user.  It is equally unsurprising that the Foundation can also ban users, but as stated it has yet to happen here at English Wikipedia.  While possible, a community ban is unlikely to happen organically on an article talk page; it would likely form around a request for arbitration.


 * General comments


 * See Gay Cdn'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) Strong Support: I've had the pleasure of observing the work of this individual, and he has always shown great diligence in the tasks he takes care of. He'd be a great administrator.  . V .  [Talk 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Seen him on AFD, and liked what I've seen there.  Wouldn't it be nice for someone who adds so many {prods} to have the chance to clean it all up as well?  I trust him with the tools, and as we all know Adminship is not a big deal.  --Mnemeson 00:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support as nominator. Gay Cdn does a ton of great work now with some of the backlogs.  Take a look at that administrative backlogs - we need more administrators with experience in this area.  He would be a valuable asset to Wikipedia as an admin. --BigDT 00:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Writing articles has nothing to do with adminship - dealing consistently with hundreds of problem images does. It sounds like this user will be a great asset to the admin ranks. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 01:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) With regards to the comments in the oppose section, the scope of his editing is not what we should be judging; it is his capability to carry out the things listed in q1 that we should be judging. And he looks capable, so support. Picaroon 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What someone says in Q1 does not always replicate when he/she becomes an admin. I know for a fact that many admins have dabbed into other territories when they had stated in their RfA that they would not participate in X.X section.  Nish kid 64  02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look at where this user has contibuted. S/he is doing admin work currently, work that needs more people working on it, but without the admin bit.  I see lots of RfA nominees that primarily focus on vandalism, and while they get many of the same complaints about lack of article contributions, there seems to be less resistance to giving them the mop than for people who specialize in more neglected areas, such as the image backlog.  This is too bad because while we have an army of vandal fighters (good thing) and lots of tools to make non-admins pretty efficient at it (good thing), the project is sorely lacking in other areas, such as the image backlog (bad thing) where not being an admin adds a great deal of inefficiency (bad thing).  Also, from the nominee's extensive experience, I certainly feel comfortable that if Gay does dabble in other admin areas s/he will do so with care and restraint. —Doug Bell talk 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support Good user, but needs to step it up in article contributions. Alex43223Talk 02:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support In my dealing with this user thru IFD, I fully trust them with the mop. --MECU ≈ talk 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I'm not so fussed about article-writing given that he shows a need for the tools. I would be more hesitant if there was some evidence of true deletionism, but tagging lots of speedy deletions is not inherently deletionist. —Cuiviénen 03:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good work. WP:IFD and WP:AFD surely need more admins.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I can edit count with the best of them, but I also recognize where some users provide needed contributions in narrow areas that would benefit from the admin bit.  The focus on dealing with the large backlog in images is certainly one of those areas.  His discretion between tagging items with PROD or speedy tags shows an understanding of the relevant policies.  Frankly, although I haven't interacted with this editor before, this is exactly the type of admin we need more of.  Not every admin needs to participate in all areas.  Give him a mop. —Doug Bell talk 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support article writing is not a part of admin work, dealing with the stuff you do is. Good luck Viridae Talk 05:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Husond. riana_dzasta 08:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. This user concentrates on the tasks he does best, and I see no evidence that he is not qualified to be trusted with tools. - Gilliam 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, will make an excellent admin. —Angr 10:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Terence Ong 10:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, seen his IFD stuff from time to time, and it always seems sensible. And I usually trust Angr's judgement.  Proto ::  ►  11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support I like your answers. I also like your edit count.  You seem determined and willing to go the extra mile (even though you forgot to sign your acceptance). I also trust BigDT's judgment.  Best of luck. Gan fon  13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support.irony mode on:....if you pledge to help to bring down the image backlogs irony mode off; Lectonar 14:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Willing and able to put his nose to the grindstone, concerns raised below are trivial or counterfactual. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, nothing but positive experiences with this caring user. I also trust his judgment more than I trust that of many of the other people who tag IFDs. Dekimasu が... 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - someone with over 13000 edits, strong experience of policy, active participation in AfDs, prods etc? How can anyone not vote Support on this RfA? All of the criticisms given by opposers, so far, are downright trivial and petty. Walton monarchist89 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - most admins don't help out with the image backlogs, so there is a strong need for people in this area. 100,000 images are not going to tag and delete themselves and bots can only do so much. BJ Talk 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - We don't need admins to write impressive articles, take nice photos, or participate in AfD; regular users can do that. We need admins to do the tedious stuff that he's willing to do. There's nothing wrong with a specialist. Kafziel Talk 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support: I'm willing to support the nominee. I had certainly noticed the candidate in the first few months since the account was created, it doesn't surprise me to now see this nomination. I agree that the low number of mainspace edits may be of some concern, but on considering all the circumstances, I think the nominee's overall contribution demonstrates that the candidate is trustworthy and will use the tools properly. Agent 86 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support per nom and there's nothing wrong with a specialist. Nothing left to add to that.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. I have no problem with a specialist becoming an admin, as long as they promise to use their powers mainly in their "home" area. I see no reason to question that here. People should to contribute how they best see fit. RoyalbroilT : C 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support I would prefer more article writing but as far as I can tell the user is trustworthy, won't abuse the tools and won't use them outside his narrow domain. Within his domain the user has a large amount of experience and so far has been using tags fine. JoshuaZ 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Article writing is a plus but not a litmus test.  Gay Cdn seems trustworthy and wants to work on a backlogged area.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, focused editor would make focused admin, I have much trust in nominator and see no real reason to oppose Gay Cdn, after all, this is no big deal, right? The Rambling Man 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) -- I don't see how a lack of article writing should have anything to do with whether someone is made an administrator or not. Sysop abilities have nothing to do with article writing. In fact, this user would probably make more use of sysop tools than someone who spends more of their time writing articles. Neither does edit count have anything to do with whether someone should be given sysop. RfAs are meant to be about whether someone can be trusted with the tools, and this user obviously can. I do not believe that this user being given the tools would detract anything from Wikipedia, and so I obviously support. Anyone else find the tradition of bolding opinions rather strange? Oh well. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support -- based on BigDT's comments below about his extensive experience working with Gay Cdn on IfD. --A. B. (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, we could need an image specialist as an admin. Can't see any evidence that tools will be abused. Kusma (討論) 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Gnomes tend to make good admins. We should not a priori assume he's going to abuse anything since there's no evidence of that at all.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against gnomes, but I do not see how this candidate fits that description. Let me know if I'm missing something. — freak([ talk]) 20:29, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support based on his experience in the deletion process. YechielMan 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) eSupport- an excellent editor, good username also Astrotrain 12:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I do not understand the oppose votes - this is about adminship and not an competition to select a new renaissance genius. Without GayCdn IfD would be moribund. If that's not enough I can't imagine what kind of miracle is expected from a would-be admin. Pavel Vozenilek 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Doug Bell and Christopher Parham, albeit without much enthusiasm for the reasons noted by Blnguyen (and Jeff); there's nothing wrong with specialisation and, per Q1, the candidate proposes to stick largely to their speciality. Still, all IFD and no article writing makes even the Gayest Cdn a dull editor. Try adding a bit of variety. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support - I'm not going to oppose because the % in mainspace edits is low, but focus on the actual number itself. It could still be better, but I don't take that as an indicator that I won't be able to trust him/her with admin tools.  Insane phantom   (my Editor Review)  22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support Gay Cdn work at WP:IFD is greatly appreciated. He has tagged many orphan, unencyclopedic and incorrectly tagged images for deletion. I believe his work is fair and even-handed and his discussions on the deletions are intelligent and civil. We can sure use more help on keeping up with all the non-sourced, non-copyright tagged, orphan and/or encyclopedic images that come in every day and I believe Gay Cdn would be an asset in that area. -Nv8200p talk 14:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support I've seen this user at WP:IFD regularly and I'd defiitely trust him with the mop, the user always seems to be polite and Civil.Telly addict Editor review! 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Why The Hell Not? Ral315 (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support as per user:.V. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 01:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Trustworthy contributor. He will no doubt do good work on the various backlogs, allowing others who want to develop mainspace conent to have more time to do so. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, and his contributions seem to have been valuable. Adminship is no big deal. WjBscribe 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose sorry, but speaks volumes to me- the only interest taken in articles is to delete them, or put tags on them and Wikipedia is already flooded in tags.  I've deleted hundreds of articles myself, but constructing articles is important. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As an Admin, I delete at least 100 times more content then I add, probably much more. To me that's what being an Admin is about. We've got a few hundred thousand people adding content and only a few hundred Admins to keep it all in balance. I believe Gay Cdn has the temperment and enough experience to do the job. -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. 2300 edits in "main" space, if one includes images; only 600ish edits of actual articles. Only uploaded 2 images that I can easily see. Not enough expereince dealing with what most editors have to deal with all the time, including working on controversial articles and attempting to obtain quality images which meet Wikipedia's rather difficult and overly-narrowly interpreted requirements. GayCdn does seem to reasonable about his IfD nominations, and willing to discuss reasonably, which puts him ahead of many WP deletionists. Spend some time editing articles and finding images for them, and I'll support later. Argyriou (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per CanadianCaesar, good np patroler, lack of article writing, the answer for number 2 is very poor. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Peta 03:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per CanadianCaesar. Everyking 05:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Lack of article writing, and lack of RC patrol, which is even more important than NP patrol (any new articles are logged on RC, in case you are wondering). That besides, I don't (pardon me) appreciate your answer to q2. You don't seem very apologetic about your lack of article writing; if you were, I might have considered a support. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering all the other admin related tasks he takes on, why is RC patrol so important? Article writing is something some people don't enjoy. I myself have only started a few stubs, done a couple of merges of articles and started the article Brooke Brodack, which has taken on a life of its own because of her publicity. The only major major article edit I have done was of Gene therapy. However I don't believe that has meant I have suffered as an admin. Wikipedia has grown to the point that we no longer need every single user to be reguarly editing articles/adding content. Indeed, these days we have more of a need of admins who know what they are doing with images than article writers, there are admin backlogs all over the place (and I confess I haven't been doing much to help out these days, honours has started and I generally devote most of my time to that) and having admins that are prepared to use the tools doing menial tasks is very much required as most admin tasks involve just that, we do not/cannot use the tools to write great articles, we use them to keep the encyclopedia free of debris, be it vandalism, backlogs of unfree images or whatever. Viridae Talk 10:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, but 6% mainspace edits (and 600 odd not particularly big ones) combined with Q2 is not satisfactory. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Massive disapproval! — I've seen your rude attitude first hand. I've also seen you wade through peoples upload logs applying tags (in some cases that are not even appropriate). You show little knowledge of our actual fair use policies, You also (not long ago) tagged an image to which I did not upload, however, you saw fit to notify me. I also believe your name to be inappropriate still . Also your lack of contributions worries me, remember "adminship is no big deal" at present I can't see a reason as to why you'd need the tools, you do fine at present without them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Original) Absolutely not! I've seen you go through peoples upload logs to enact some sort of "revenge", you have a rude attitude and in my opinion you do not understand the image policies. I also think your name is inappropriate. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with the user name? Maybe his/her name is Gay and Cdn is for Canadian or an abreviation of the last name.  Please be civil.  Also, with strong condemnation comes strong requirements for evidence...would you please provide some diffs of the revenge and rude attitude? —Doug Bell talk 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It could also mean Cardinal. (Rewrote disapproval reason due to it being slightly convulsed) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide us with diffs of the rude attitude? If it exists, we should all have a chance to see it here.  --Mnemeson 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen Gay Cdn at IFD and, since becoming an admin, have looked at his contributions in the course of closing IFDs (one of the requirements is to make sure the uploader is notified). I have never seen anything that approaches rude.  FYI, for Matthew, most of us who work with images use a tool created by User:Howcheng that reduces the time it takes to tag an image.  Until recently, there was a ... umm ... "feature" where it would always notify the most recent uploader of an image, even if that individual were only reverting to a previous version and not the actual author.  So that may be what you are seeing - if you got a notification, it wasn't anything rude on Gay Cdn's part - it was just a quirk in the tool. Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you consider who needs the tools.  Someone who has shown a willingness to work on backlogged areas (we have over 100K orphaned images) has an obvious use for the tools and we would be shooting ourselves in the foot not to grant him the tools. --BigDT 13:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I want to see policy discussion to be able to tell you're familiar enough with policies, which I am not seeing. And no, IfD does not count, it involves next to no discussion. Plus, given your lack of substantial AfD discussion, I can't really trust that you'll close AfD nominations well, like you say you intend to. -Amark moo! 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of the AfD's I have created since being at WP.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oopsies, that got drowned out in your contributions by the IfD stuff. I'll reconsider. -Amark moo! 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gay Cnd may have a had a few missteps early on (didn't we all), but I believe he has matured as a Wikipedian and understands the policies and processes better and like BigDT noted, I have not seen anything rude. -Nv8200p talk 14:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per answer to Q2, especially the only article you mention isn't very well sourced. Also, only 55 talk page edits appears to indicate a lack of consensus building and dispute resolution. Addhoc 16:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per many of the comments already stated, but unarguably lack of talk page edits (essential for an admin) and arguably all-too-apparent preference for deletion over building an encyclopedia . --Dweller 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. It's become increasingly clear to me that the worst administrators are the ones that do not actually write articles.  Thus, I can't support you at this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I don't have a big hang-up about candidates who focus on administrative tasks instead of article writing, because admins have to focus on administrative tasks, but if your proudest accomplishment is deleting articles, you should get a more diverse experience.-- danntm T C 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Firstly, I see nothing wrong with Gay Cdn's username--it may mean "gay" as in homosexual or as in happy, but I don't see it being inappropriate in either case.  Secondly, if anything, I think the justified deletion (including speedy) of images is a plus.  However, and thirdly, having <700 mainspace article edits also makes me reluctant to support (although the number of edits in only 7 months is impressive).  I think admins should know through extensive firsthand experience the process of working on and creating articles, verifying sources, building consensus, etc.  Finally, the explicit partisan identification on the userpage bothers me.  It can be hard(er) to trust an admin if he or she specifically identifies as a deletionist or inclusionist.  If you remove that explicit identification and work more to contribute content to articles, I will likely support you in a future RFA.  Sorry, no hard feelings I hope.  Black Falcon 18:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per insane proportion of User Talk edits (compared to Main) -- Renesis (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are opposing on the basis of the ratio of two numbers that to all appearances were arbitrarily selected. It would be nice to hear more about why you feel this candidate cannot be trusted with the tools. Failing that, it would at least be interesting to know how many fewer User Talk edits he ought to have made in order to bring his ratio to a level where you could support him. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Main space and user talk are hardly arbitrarily selected. Normally I wouldn't oppose for a reason like this without close inspection of contribution patterns, but at 6461 User talk edits to 630 main space edits, I see an editor who spends far too much time on the social side at Wikipedia, and far too little on the encyclopedia itself (that's a 10 to 1 ratio!).  I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.  This is my main concern; however, I wouldn't likely support with only 630 main space edits no matter what. -- Renesis (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't see any evidence that Gay Cdn spends time on the social side of Wikipedia at all. Almost all of his last 1000 user talk contributions are warning users about image deletions.Kusma (討論) 06:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What's hard to understand is that according to your oppose rationale, you would be more likely to support had he made less useful contributions to the User_talk namespace. Your comment boils down to, "you are doing too much work on IFD," which is a very mysterious reason for opposing. Your further explanation underlines the fact that by basing your assessment on edit counts, you were dramatically misled. This user spends effectively no time on the social side of Wikipedia -- virtually 100% of his user_talk edits have been, as Kusma said above, process-related warnings. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "However, I wouldn't likely support with only 630 main space edits no matter what" -- Renesis (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Yuser31415, and others. I know writing articles is not a requirement to be an admin, but it is at the heart of what we do here, and understanding that process first-hand matters. Try your hand at composition, and come back in a few months. Coemgenus 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, no hard feelings -Yuser31415 hit what I was thinking on the nail. Adminship does not hang on article writing alone, its about the tools and wether he/she needs/can be trusted with them; however Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and I have a much higher regard for someone who actively makes it better on the front side. Visitors to the wiki looking for information will not notice the blocks, warnings, and cogs in the background; they will notice the content. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / frog blast the vent core! ) 02:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per CanadianCaesar and Jaranda. Dionyseus 03:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per CanadianCeasar's brief by to-the-point summary. Writing and heavily contributing articles demonstrates talent and intense interest in presenting information.  Right now, this editor has mostly demonstrated the opposite.  Contributions is one thing, but spending most of their time maintenence tagging images and articles, prodding and nominating for AfD aren't really showing administrator skills.--Oakshade 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per CanadianCaesar. Jahangard 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose lack of user talk edits at only 55 (discounting the image warnings which are greatly in the majority) shows a lack of interaction with the comminity, a skill that admins need and the answer to question 2 is not satisfactory. Improve on communication, article creation, mainspace edits, some RC patrol and try again in a few months.--Dakota 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per lack of mainspace edits. Arfan (Talk) 09:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. 630 article edits, frankly, suggests that you've only explored a tiny sliver of Wikipedia's vast topical range of coverage. For a self-proclaimed "self-proclaimed deletionist", that sounds like a fiasco waiting to happen... "Liek whut? We have articles about Farm to Market Roads?" Whatever the silver bullet for you would be (that example was my own), I hope it strikes you before you become an admin rather than afterward. Also, the 10-to-1 ratio of user_talk edits to article edits makes me want to scream "shut up and edit something, please...", — freak([ talk]) 15:51, Feb. 8, 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. < 700 mainspace+article talk out of 8000+ edits? I don't normally oppose for numerical reasons, but I'd sentimentally prefer admins with article and dispute experience to those who basically just delete things. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Oppose, improve your article-writing game and try RfA again at a later date. I mean, except for one 20-edit article, you really haven't worked on anything...-- Wizardman 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like without people quietly cleaning all the crap? If you are not willing to appreciate that at least try to keep your merciless judgement to yourselves, plase. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you seriously turn down the scathing comments a few notches? It is not helping anyone when you are berating another user for their vote. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 11:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The lack of talk page edits is a major concern here. Do not be discouraged because of this and improve the scope of your edits. Then try again after a few months. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Opppse per CanadianCaesar and Yusar31415 You are not admin material Captain  panda   Mussolini   ha sempre   tarche  02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Please pick an article that interests you and help construct it. Whether you agree with it or not, merely finding articles or images to delete is not going to get you adminship. Quadzilla99 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Your are not admin material --My Name Is Not Earl 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: this coming from a user whose contributions appear on [ newbie's contribs] page, 12 total edits, most of which are redundant RfA contribs - Gilliam 05:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Opppose The only article this user wrote, Foundation for Equal Families, shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He filed a request for feedback on the article, but does not appear to have addressed the concerns raised there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Does not demonstrate proper concern about assuring full and complete process for editors whose work is subject to deletion.Edivorce 02:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some examples, given one of the reasons for oppose above are the large number of usertalk edits resulting from notifications. Thanks.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your nom, your optional statement (which I believe you declined the opportunity to make) and the answers to your questions. You self-identify as a "Deletionist." I do not oppose AfD RfA merely because of this self identification, but once made I look for affirmative statements of the candidate, on the face of the AfD RfA, that the Nom will assure fair process.  I didn't see that here. See my user page. I hope this is helpful. Edivorce 18:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per Quadzilla99. Dhaifley 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose. While it is quite possible you could do well as an admin in your area of interest (deleting images), the rather low amount of experience in writing of articles is going to make me oppose unfortunately. Admin tools have a broad range of application, so I'd like to see that an admin has had a broader range of experience than the average user rather than less. Mathmo Talk 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But he never said he was going to apply them broadly. He intends to delete things, and he has plenty of experience in that. Why is his lack or article-writing relevant? Without specialization we'd never get anything done - on Wikipedia, and on this planet. Picaroon 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have been much happier if he'd even had much experience in contributing images. But he's shown no appreciation of the difficulties and possible gray areas which can trip up users trying to add images to Wikipedia. A deletionist with no sympathy for people trying to build isn't someone I want as an admin. Argyriou (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Picaroon, I understand your objection to my vote. And if I knew he would only be using his admin abilities in those areas then I'd quite possibly be supporting. But unfortunately there is no way we can know this, and I feel it would be unreasonable to assume this. There is a quite significant chance he could decide to use his admin abilities in say a few months from now in an area which he has next to no expertise. This is why all admins should have shown at least a basic understanding across a broad area. Giving broad powers naturally requires that. If there was such a class as an "Image Admin" then this would be a totally different matter. But there isn't, instead we have only one type of admin. So we should look at the candidate across the entire range. Sorry if this comes off harsh, it really is not meant to. The threshold is low. Mathmo Talk 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Caesar and Fenton. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk  03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Due to lack of content development experience. I believe a candidate should have extensive article writing experience to understand the challenges of the task when making admin decisions to use the tools. Alan.ca 11:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Quadzilla. Juppiter 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral The user would be be quite useful in dealing with image backlogs and such, but I still feel a bit worried about the low mainspace-edit count. An admin doesn't just deal with deletions and such; they also deal with dispute resolution and try to help other users with problems. The lack of mainspace edits seems to show that this user is not entirely experienced with article editing, and may not be able to help other users in times of need, as said in the previous sentence.  Nish kid 64  23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I have seen him around before and think he is a good editor, but his mainspace contributions are very low (and no other compelling reason to support). <b style="color:green;">Cbrown1023</b> <b style="color:#002bb8; font-size:smaller;">talk</b> 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I think he could assist with the image backlog, but I can't support due to the very low mainspace experience. I've looked through his mainspace contributions for the last 5 months or so and I could only find a handful that weren't minor or deletion related. ChazBeckett 10:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral basically per Nishkid. You look like a dedicated user though. I would gladly support in a future RfA if you have some articles in your pocket by then. Good luck. - <font color="Black">Anas <font size="-4"><font color="DodgerBlue">Talk? 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral A bit worried from some of the above comments, and i've found that disproportionate edit tallies can be indicative of somewhat overbearing behavior, and I haven't been dissuaded of that here, but i'm not sure enough to oppose yet either. Just H 02:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral, not this time. I would glad to see your next RfA with more mainspace edits. Shyam  ( T / C ) 21:39, 9 February 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.