Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ginsuloft


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

Ginsuloft
'''Final (21/23/17); ended 02:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) - Unsuccessful (non-bureaucrat closure). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– Hello, I am Ginsuloft. I'm a recent changes patroller and you may have seen my reverts on articles, as well as some of my reports on AIV. Although vandal patrolling is the main thing I do on Wikipedia and the most likely reason you recognize my username if you do, I have also participated in some CSD tagging, mainly blatant vandalism, spam and non-notable people/companies and db-spamuser tags on userpages I saw at Special:AbuseLog. I believe I have learned and experienced a vast amount of knowledge during the months I've been editing and now understand policies much better. You may of course ask and test me here. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: Because RC patrol is my strength, I intend to block vandals, delete test/nonsense pages, and help out at AIV. I have noticed AIV has lately been backlogged a lot and I believe being able to not only cut the middleman and block users myself instead of reporting and waiting, but also to clear out other reports of fellow patrollers would help. Another area that interests me is long-term abuse; although I don't have much experience in it yet, I intend to learn to recognize (and deny that I did) while being an administrator.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My main contribution to Wikipedia comes from RC patrolling and reverting, but I have made some minor typo fixes and other cleanup (I try to do this whenever I notice). Apart from that, I have created lots of redirects (mostly to templates). Although my content work is sort of poor in this sense, I believe I have a basic understanding of the MOS by now, which should be good enough for the admin areas I intend to work at.


 * 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 assume this question means edit wars and the sort; if so, then no. My user and talk pages get vandalized a lot but that's something to be expected for a RC patroller. I don't personally dislike any Wikipedian and try to avoid implying anything personal in my messages/comments. Although I want to enforce policies like NPOV and BLP in a neutral way, I don't wish to ever be involved in a dispute and would quickly back away if I found myself to be part of one, as there's no need to fight against consensus.
 * Note: See clarification in the "neutral" comment section, answered to !vote 5 there by Monty845. Ginsuloft (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Ottawahitech
 * 4. When should edit summaries be used? Please elaborate. Thank you.
 * A: As often as possible, that is, when it isn't extremely obvious from the page history what you did. Also, as you may have noticed, I prefer to let the software create an automatic summary when creating a page for example, instead of the superficial "create" or "cr", which actually provides less information. When should an edit summary not be used, when an automatic one won't be provided? My answer is that there is no case where it should be left out, but it may sometimes be left out for reasons such as workflow: I'm vandal patrolling and warn a vandal who had one previous warning and exactly one edit in the history (the creation), I may have left it out because typing one would have been counterproductive (everyone can clearly see that I warned the vandal, and during the time I typed it out, I could have reverted one more vandal). However, if people want me to use an edit summary every single time as an admin, even if superficial, I have no problems with promising to do so and enabling the corresponding user preference (please say, if you want me to do so). Ginsuloft (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Stfg
 * 5. Have you ever edited from any account other than this Ginsuloft account? Have you ever edited extensively as an IP?
 * A: No to both. Ginsuloft (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from John Cline
 * 6. Considering your interest in helping at wp:aiv, please tell me how you would handle a report alleging a new account as "vandalism only", where the new account has only one edit—a zero tolerance violation, no warnings on their talk page, and a grossly insulting, degrading, and offensive username that thoroughly disparages a living person who could experience negative ramifications in real life because of its offensive message? Please be through in answering this question. Thank you.
 * A: My first reaction would be to indefinitely hardblock the account as a vandalism-only account (no talk, no e-mail, no block notice on their talk page) and hide the attacking username from the page history, with RD2 as the reason. To hide, I would use revision deletion if it was reverted and/or the page is a highly visible page (or has a long history). Otherwise, I would use selective deletion, e.g. if the page is a stub. If the username is seriously degrading (e.g. contains personal info) and not simple vandalism like "Jason is gay", I would then check global contributions at Special:CentralAuth, and if the account was only registered on en.wiki, e-mail User:Oversight to request oversight, otherwise e-mail stewards to request global oversight. Ginsuloft (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that thoughtful reply. I am pleased to admit that you have elevated your stature in my eyes; proving yourself worthy of serious consideration. I'd like to offer a suggestion to cover an important eventuality as it relates to this question. Because the username is blatantly offensive, it is quite possible that a report could have been filed at wp:uaa! Please ensure that you also review that board in case it requires suppression as well.—John Cline (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Trevj
 * 7. Accounts sharing your username have edited at fi.wikipedia.org and wikidata. Are these accounts yours? The corresponding article on en-wp shows no edits under your username. What content areas of Wikipedia are of most interest to you and, other than the MOS mentioned in your answer to q2, what other aspects should editors and admins be familiar with when working with/discussing article space material? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A: Yes, they're part of my SUL account. I created a stub on the Unthinkable movie because the Finnish Wikipedia didn't have one yet and I wanted to try creating an article. Some of the content areas that personally interest me, although I don't intend to edit them, are St. Petersburg paradox, Superfunction, Abel function, Schröder's equation, Universal generalization, Paraconsistent logic, List of Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion. You may see me not using an edit summary on some of those, but I have since improved. For your last question, I believe WP:BRD is something everyone should know/follow, and the five pillars of course. WP:BLP is a very important policy that takes precedence even over the edit warring policy and I interpret it as such that any statement, even if remotely dubious, can be removed, if unsourced, and whoever restores said material is responsible for the content and the burden of proof is strictly on them, not the one removing the material. (However, do not be pointy about this.) Last, but not least, Wikipedia is not a battleground and one should never be offended if it turns out people don't like your edit. Of course this is all basic stuff but since you asked... Ginsuloft (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional question from WereSpielChequers
 * 8. your answer to question 2 doesn't mention any instances where you have added reliably sourced content to the pedia, and checking through your many edits for examples of that would be hard work. Could you give us some examples of articles that you have added reliably sourced content to?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Ginsuloft:
 * Edit summary usage for Ginsuloft can be found here.
 * Editing stats posted on RfA talk page.—John Cline (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Support

 * 1) Moral Support - Ginsuloft's patrolling reverts look to generally be spot on, his activities on WP:AIV indicate he will probably be a net positive when blocking (Example). Talk page and archive indicate a thick skin, but also a willingness to learn from past mistakes. Has only been here for four months, but he seems to 'get' Wikipedia, and rollbacker and reviewer indicate he is trustworthy. Chris857 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I'm going to stick my head out and support this RFA. He has amassed an extremely respectable edit count in a very short space of time, and despite (as noted) a comparative lack of content creation, I don't think that disqualifies him in any way. He understands the processes by which Wikipedia works, and is willing to protect against vandalism other disruptions to that process. Another user helping out at AIV would be a massive help, with queries sometimes taking 40 minutes to be seen, as well as other areas where administrator backlogs can accumulate. I don't (personally) agree with SilkTork's comment that he is doomed to fail, as admins, with the same privileges as they have now, used to require about 3 months and 3500 edits to get waved through. Whilst much has changed, I don't think the fundamental principle of reliable level-headedness has. Would his having admin tools be a net gain to the community? I think so, yes. Jamesx12345 23:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support - Ultimately, English Wikipedia's community seems to want to see a year's experience before giving someone the mop. Everyone here seems to have nice things to say about you, so it's just a matter of keeping up the good work. I recommend you look at User:Sven Manguard/Failed RfA Advice, as it lists some areas where you can help out if you're looking for alternatives to article writing.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Editor seems trustworthy enough at WP:AIV. Sure he'll net positive, even if he's a little young. buffbills7701 02:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, after further consideration, per those above. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Moral Support - I've seen you around enough while fighting vandalism; I know you know what you're doing and will be a good admin someday, but because you've only been editing a few months, I don't see the rest of the community supporting you yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Ditto ditto Just keep it up past the year mark, avoid drama, and you'll be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support When fighting vandals myself I've often been beaten by multiple users; your name has come up many a time in tools such as Huggle, beating me to reverts. Keep it up! -- t  numbermaniac  c  04:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I see smart, professional, and focused. Those qualities aren't a function of age and/or experience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Ginsuloft is very short on experience by today's standards. That said, his nomination statement and the answers he gave to the standard RfA questions leave me confident in his judgment. He will definitely be beneficial to the project as an administrator, so I've decided to support him. This RfA may not gather the consensus needed for promotion, in which case I would strongly advise the candidate to continue on as he has been for the next six months or so, perhaps even a year for safe measure. Assuming he continues on as he's been doing, I doubt he'll have any issues on his second go. Good luck, Ginsuloft. :-) Kurtis (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - the AIV board has been backlogged recently, and a willingness to volunteer in dealing with vandalism is appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Having seen Ginsuloft in action, there are no real concerns. The level of experience is admittedly short, but this should not be held against the RFA. If Ginsuloft uses the tools to fight vandalism, I can't see any reason to oppose.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 17:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Moral Support Every time when I look around, I see Ginsuloft reverting vandalism. Will be a great help to WP:AIV as an admin. You have all my support. Good luck. ''' Jianhui67    Talk   07:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support What's the big deal?  SQL Query me!  07:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per PhilKnight, we definitely need more help in tackling backlogs. Legoktm (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 16)  Weak support per Jamesx12345, Numbermaniac. If this RfA fails, am I likely to support a 2nd run? Probably Possibly yes, so I might as well support right now, per WP:DEAL. -- Trevj (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm now checking a few more things and may revisit this. -- Trevj (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak support. Lack of content creation is a minor concern. Despite the relatively short time editing Wikipedia, his edits are generally good.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support RC patrollers are as important or many times more important than any content creator in WP. When people say the editor is using just an automated revert and deem it with less value, it is shameful as that needs more quicker decisive response than normal content creation. Conflict management and abuse management is a needed trait when doing these so called automated reverts(which can be visible from the editors talk page where there is no dirth of vandals and editors trying to justify their edits). And the fact that AIV is more backlogged nowadays is valid, if a thousand admins are busy doing something else then we need someone to keep a watch on AIV too because I have been there when you are reverting dozens of stupid edits by a persistent reported vandal and no one is looking at AIV when really a block is needed and just waiting for those valuable minutes for some admin to take a peak at it. If this RFA passes I am sure I have an admin more eagerly watching over the AIV.  A m i t  웃  15:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I'm going to support this RFA. He's done a great work on reverting vandalism. Keep up the great work on reverting vandalism! Thewikiguru1 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support I wasn't going to, but when I look at your contributions and edit count it seems you take the time to put a notice on the talk page of everyone when you revert vandalism. How tedious, but well done of you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC))
 * 5) Support, I doubt this will pass unfortunately, but I don't see any huge blunders that would rule me out from supporting you. Please re-apply again in 6-12 months, I'm sure that an application would be more successful then.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC).

Oppose

 * 1) Moral support Unfortunately, I have to oppose. As SilkTork said on your talk page, you have 3 months of editing.  I decided to overlook that and give you a better glance and you look like a good future candidate, but I see a severe lack of content creation.  You have a lot of article space edits, but they are mostly reverting it seems.  We're still an encyclopedia and while content creation isn't a necessity of all editors and everyone is valued, administrators often have to be able to interpret and enforce content policies like WP:BLP.  I can't support without seeing you creating article and implementing policies, not just enforcing them.  I'm also slightly concerned about User_talk:Ginsuloft because it seems to suggest paid editing, maybe?  All in all, although you do good work in RC patrol, I don't see enough experience to overcome the 3 months of editing.  I don't mean to diminish your work, but there are a lot of editors who have 3 months of RC patrol experience.  Try to diversify.  Keep up the good work, and try again in 6 months or try the simple Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 22:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I peeked at the edits of the IP that left the 'meetings' message, and he seemed to be randomly posting similar babble other places (articles, main page, another editor talk page) so that shouldn't reflect on Ginsuloft at all. Chris857 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong Section. SQL Query me!  07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. That suggests we have !votes, when we do not.  The content of my opinion is an oppose despite what it says in bold.--v/r - TP 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why try the Simple English Wikipedia? They also want a lengthy tenure of editing there, too... --Rschen7754 07:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I too am baffled at the last sentence. I've been vandal fighting at SEWP (though not nearly as extensively as Ginsuloft has been here) for four or five months and there's no way I'd pass their RfA. T  C  N7 JM  12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Likewise Moral support. I've encountered Ginsuloft a few times so far and I like what I see, but this is too early. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong Section. SQL Query me!  07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Opppose simply because I'd like to see more experience before one is made an admin. wctaiwan (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How much experience does your criterion require? 6 months? 9 months? 12? Please elaborate. SQL Query me!  07:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * About one year of editing, and a greater breadth in their work. Others expressing a similar sentiment have given more comprehensive and eloquent rationales below. wctaiwan (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too soon. Keep at it for several more months, and add some content creation work in there- write/expand some articles. That's the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and I personally find that important for any administrator to have experience in, regardless of what they intend to concentrate on when they get the mop. But I do appreciate your enthusiasm, and thank you for all the work you do.--Slon02 (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be opposing based on the age of the account. What age of account is appropriate for you? SQL Query me!  07:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose a well intentioned but naive request given the inadequate depth of experience of the candidate. Q1 raises alarm bells - blocking vandals is great, personally I would indef. any proven vandal rather that the namby pamby 31 hours or whatever. However, as someone who has also patrolled recent changes, all is not what it might seem in the world of disputed content and when the intention of this 3 months newbie is to use his block button it must be remembered that a block record is permanent. It is quite impossible to have acquired sufficient detailed, working experience in 3 months to ensure that their blocking decisions are error free. Try again in 12 months. Leaky  Caldron  10:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Length, but mainly breadth of experience is lacking. The answer to Q3 about conflict is fine for editors but not for admins. I wouldn't put any kind of time frame as to when you might want to try again. Rather, when you think you're ready, meaning you feel you've addressed the concerns expressed here, go to two admins (or very experienced editors) you respect and ask for feedback. If they respond positively and are willing to nominate you, then maybe you're ready. In the meantime, challenge yourself and do things that don't come easily for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose for now. What you do, you do very competently, and it's valuable. But a very high proportion of your edits are simple and obvious vandalism reversions and the associated user talk page warnings by means of standard templates. Although I don't oppose single-purpose RFAs on principle, I still want to see a rounded Wikipedian with broad understanding of the project, and I don't see that the backlogs you're interested in are bad enough to need to bypass that. Bbb23's advice immediately above seems right to me. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per recent research, "We find a surprisingly large number of editors who change their behavior and begin focusing more on a particular controversial topic once they are promoted to administrator status." The problem seems clear when we compare this RfA with the concurrent one for User:Wikid77.  That other user seems quite active, intelligent and productive but has been too vigorous in editing and so has made waves.  The candidate here has just made innocuous edits in their brief history but that is a poor guide to what they would do as an admin. Warden (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That research talks about new admins in general. What makes Ginsuloft more likely to follow that pattern than anyone else? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Their lack of content creation and their youth, perhaps. And I notice that their first edit was to create a redirect.  This seems quite sophisticated for a new user who had not edited as an IP.  We must allow for the possibility that this is a trojan horse account.  Warden (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We must allow for the possibility of assuming good faith. — ΛΧΣ  21  19:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we assume faith in a naive way then we would allow anyone to become an admin. The point of this process is to be discriminating and the evidence of the research is that we are being hoodwinked. Warden (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "The evidence...is that we are being hoodwinked"? I thought the problem here was that there's not enough evidence that we're not being hoodwinked. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest we are, and it's arguably a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS to say we are. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as way too soon, It's great you want to be more involved but IMO you're way to inexperienced atm. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  20:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - 10,000 edits in one month? Probably just running a bot, while actually sleeping. Admins should be people, not machines. Kraxler (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm used to bad opposes at RfC, but I have to ask if you even bothered to look at the edits? It would take about seventeen seconds to realize how he's putting numbers that high up, and it's not using bots. Your comment here is insulting, both in the assumption of bad faith you make, and in the overall lack of respect in this process that you are displaying.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at his last contributions: it's one half reverts, and one half copy/paste caution notices. How does he know where there is vandalism? Actually reading through thousands of articles, or running a bot? And do the machine-like sent notices have any personal touch? Does it make sense to send these notices to IPs? (The IP changes every time you disconnect your net connection, so the notice will probably be read by anybody but the vandal.) Kraxler (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about how Ginsuloft knows where the vandalism is, I'd say he probably patrols Recent Changes. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Automatic Strikeout. And that seems to be the only thing he does. No experience at all in other areas. Kraxler (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - For now. A lot of the edits look like there from automated software (and there's nothing wrong with using that, even extensively), but I'd like to see more edits and time and see how the user interacts with others in the community before giving him/her the tools. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Three months simple reverting without evidence of understanding the ways of Wikipedia or how the user will handle stress situations is insufficient to hand over restricted tools. I don't like to speak out against others who vote a different way, as we are a community which works by consensus, and we embrace a range of views, but I am somewhat disappointed that the moral supports are piling up in such a way to give hope to this user. And if the moral supports continue too far, a snowball effect occurs, and an untested user could become an admin which sets up an awkward precedent. We have an unofficial limit of 12 months activity for a reason. A banned user could easily spend three months doing straightforward vandal reverting while still bearing a grudge against Wikipedia or certain users, but 12 months is long enough for them to have changed for the better. We also like to have users stick around for 12 months to see evidence of them coping with disputes in which they are emotionally involved, so we can see that they are not the sort to abuse the restricted tools under stress. I'm not implying that Ginsuloft is a returning banned user, but that we need to be very careful when lowering the standards for acquiring restricted tools as this sends out the wrong message.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. What you  have been doing  in the areas where you  have been active is truly  admirable. However, and based on  your tenure, it  looks to  me as if it  could possibly  be a race to  become an admin  in  the shortest  possible time, believing  that  a high  edit  count  is the most  important  factor. The problem  is that  those edits are not  in  the areas that show the kind of judgement  that  is required of admins. Notwithstanding  the short tenure, if half  those edits had been in  the areas I  look  for, I'm  sure you  would have brilliantly  demonstrated your knowledge of policies, deletions, copyvio, SPI, closures, helping  others, creating  content, etc., but  as many  have mentioned, your experience is not  broad enough for us to have any  metrics of what  you might  do  if you  had all  the admin  tools. I  think  among  others, that  Stfg and TParis, and SilkTork  have summed up  well  anything  else I  could have said, except  perhaps that  if you  were to  slow down a bit, do  some edits that  take a long  time such  as unraveling complicated issues, and broaden your experience to  cover  my  RfA criteria, then I'm  sure I  would be a firm  supporter of a future run, but  I  strongly  recommend taking  your time  in  getting  there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Tenure, content, conflict. The edit count is ostensibly fine, and the number AIV and UAA reports are a huge plus. With a stronger Q3, I could easily be in the support column. In my normal editing today, I came across two of your reverts, so your patrolling is a plus for me personally. The short tenure gives me pause, and the lack of conflict makes me nervous. I want to know how candidates respond to conflict, so Q3 has great weight. I'm not big on content creation, but it does expose editors to conflict. It's one thing to revert an obvious vandal, but it's something else to get into a content debate. Glrx (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for now. TParis, Kudpung, and others make good points. It's not a race. Of course having the tools would be helpful in getting things done, but patience is a virtue. Just keep doing good work, create some content, and diversify, as has been mentioned. ● Thane &mdash; formerly Guðsþegn  00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, unfortunately. As much as you seem like a good editor and possess a formidable knowledge of vandal-fighting, administrators should be well-rounded. For the next few months, get involved in writing an article or two. Don't stop patrolling or vandal-fighting, but maybe split your time. Lack of content contribution is the only thing preventing me from supporting. the  one  sean  16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Time permitting, it wouldn't be impossible for the candidate to create/significantly improve some content during the course of this RfA. -- Trevj (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough experience (time or breadth) for me. As others have mentioned, it's not a race. Intothatdarkness 22:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose, and this is the first time I've opposed an RFA in a while — largely based on tenure. Your track record looks good, but it really would be good to have something like six months' tenure.  I'm not throwing this out there for some arbitrary reason: it's simply that the routines of real life can intervene and have weird effects on the way we edit.  Give it a few more months of good work and I expect I'll support, but right yet, you've simply not had enough real-life things happen since you became active on Wikipedia.  Please note that there's nothing that I think is wrong with you or your work; it's simply that you don't yet have "enough" of what I'd say is important for the admin candidate to have.  Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose but Moral Support I'm not one to require participation in specific content processes (DYK, GA, FA etc.) but some content work seems to be a fairly trivial requirement. The least I expect in Q2 is being able to point to something you've written—a stub, a DYK, a section of an existing article. Hell even an essay or project namespace page. We have Q2 because we expect admins to be able to write with some degree of competence if they are going to be put in the position of closing community decisions on deleting the hard work other people have done, trying to help resolve disputes on talk pages and so on. Get some article writing under your belt in addition to the useful work you are doing fighting vandalism. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose, Nyttend captures my view the best. If you keep on the same track, I would expect to move to weak support in the spring and support next summer.I am One of Many (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, per Nyttend. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Simply on the basis of timing, without looking at anything else this is enough for me. The admin task is not technically difficult, instead it's about judgement, and perhaps more importantly, having some sense, if not congruence with the norms of the wiki. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, your "wrong section" responses to the "moral supports" demonstrate a certain tone-deafness that I think extends well beyond experience concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * those "wrong section" responses were by User:SQL, not by the candidate. --Stfg (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Amateur mistake on my part. Thank you for pointing that out. Shadowjams (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, too many questionable opinions now, such as Q2 with creating redirects to templates, which can lead to confusion of names or require protections of popular redirects plus clutter lists of templates with various prefixes, as equivalent to creating redirects for many misspelled names when I think redlinks (or common-typo lists) should be the result of most garbled spellings which already offer to "Search" with a "Did-you-mean" suggestion. Also, the stated preference in Q3 as, "I don't wish to ever be involved in a dispute" just seems contrary to the task of an admin facing hostile users in a dispute where they should be confronted and advised to remain civil or be blocked. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Per TParis - but I think you'll be a very good candidate in 9 months, so please do not be dissuaded. --Rschen7754 22:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) You look like being definitely on route, but four months is too short. Don't feel discouraged, just keep up the good work and I'm sure that when you reach a year, you will have very much chances to pass. — ΛΧΣ  21  23:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * moving to support I think the remarks by Jamesx12345 are certainly worth agreeing with and I don't find there to be anything magical about the popular one-year-of-experience criterion, but then again, Ginsuloft really isn't even close to one year. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 00:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support - in 6 months; I really like what I see, but three plus months is just not enough time to accrue enough experience to make me comfortable voting support. I am not going to oppose either, but I cannot justify giving the tools to someone less than six months from their first edit. That said, please keep up the excellent work in one of our most needed fields, and come back in six months.  Go  Phightins  !  02:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) There's nothing here that could make me oppose, I just think it would be better for you if you waited a little while, and perhaps tried to broaden your experiences on Wikipedia. You vandal fighting is great, but you could do with experience of other areas of Wikipedia - content creation, AfD, a bit more CSD, etc. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) This RFA gets into the tricky question of what counts for experience, time or edit quantity. While I'm mostly in favor of looking at edit quantity, there still needs to be a certain minimum length of activity prior to RFA, and I think the candidate here has not yet met that requirement. Also, I agree with the concern regarding question 3, while avoiding and disengaging from controversies is generally a positive thing, an admin may not always be in a position where quick disengagement is appropriate, and must at times see a discussion through to conclusion, even if they would prefer not to be in the middle of it. Monty  845  15:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I'd like to clarify here that by my answer to Q3 I did not mean that I'd give up responsibility. What I meant was that suppose I saw a vandal insert deliberately incorrect information which I know for a fact to be false, I would revert and warn at first (referencing etc), but if it turned out to be controversial, I would not continue to re-revert and break the 3RR. Ginsuloft (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:NOT3RR, especially item 4. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "deliberately incorrect information" isn't "obvious vandalism" though, as it's just one editor's opinion that it's incorrect and thus this is only a content issue. You can still be blocked for reverting such, even before 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, thanks. I guess, though, that I was tripped up by the "deliberately". If it turns out to be controversial, how did we know that it was deliberately incorrect? And if we don't know that, issuing a warning was a mistake, wasn't it? We can all make mistakes, but in that case what I'd have liked to read isn't "I wouldn't continue to revert", but "I'd acknowledge the mistaken warning and discuss the content issue". It might just be a case of citation needed. Am I missing anything? --Stfg (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always unsafe to exceed 3RR, because 3RR is objective and unarguable, whereas "obvious" is still a judgement call. Some admins would use this opportunity for another notch in their blockhammer, rather than do something that benefits the encyclopedia. If I'm caught in this, I just throw it at AIV or AN3 and hope that someone with a clue recognises what's going on. Usually it works, sometimes you get blocked for reverting "But I think black is white!!!" without even reaching 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I would really like to see more evidence of article creation and editing before a contributor goes for adminship. I have no reason to doubt your ability and will be ready to support when you have shown you have staying power, eg. after a year of contributing. Deb (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Although what you have done since joining is great, and I'd love to see more new users so eager, it might be best to wait, gather edits, and broaden your horizons. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  19:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I love your countervandalism work, but this is a bit too early. Keep up the good work and I'll support you in three or four months. (Oh, and some content work wouldn't hurt.) T  C  N7 JM  00:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) You've only been editing for 3 months, but your contributions are great. It's still a little too early. Keep up the great work, and I'll support in a few months, after you gain enough experience to be an admin. StevenD99  Talk &#124;  Stalk  &#124;  Sign! 00:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How many months is enough months? SQL Query me!  07:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Good work so far, but simply not enough of it. Keep on truckin' and come back in a year or so, when I'll be more than happy to support. GiantSnowman 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Tough one. Positive and prolific editor, but lack of length and breadth keeps me in neutral.  There are things to learn that I don't think you can pick up in three months.  Give it 6 to 9 more months, and presuming Ginsuloft doesn't suffer burnout I will be very happy to fully support.  Until then, the community should be grateful for all your contributions.    78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Honestly, I don't see any specific things that worry me, which Is why I am not opposing, but I feel your tenure at Wikipedia has been too brief for me to support at this time. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong moral support The answers are weak (for example, anyone doing AIV/CSD MUST have had a run-in with someone, somewhere, sometime) but this just likely shows overall inexperience - which simply highlights the short period of time they've been here. Over the next 6 months, make "friends" with some good people - when you're ready for adminship, someone credible will volunteer to nominate you (or co-nominate).  You're following a good path so far, but I would want to see how you respond when nastiness arises  ES  &#38;L  15:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Too soon per User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral What's the rush? Regardless, keep up the good work  Jebus989 ✰ 21:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I'm impressed by the RC work but I'd like to see a broader range of experience. Definitely someone I would be comfortable supporting down the track. Specifically (for whatever my opinion might be worth) I think it would be good to see some more editing on article talk pages. You spend lots of time reverting (which is of value to the project) but I can't see where you've made a huge amount of effort to interact with the community and discuss content in a meaningful way. Reading your contributions above, it would certainly seem you have that capacity so it shouldn't be hard. About half of your WP-space edits are to AIV so a broader scope there would help too. Keep up the good work - you're not far away. Stalwart 111  12:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I don't want to pile on. For me, this is not a question of a rigid amount of time as an editor, but instead a matter of demonstrated experience. Please take some time editing here, and, sooner or later, some kind of discussion about content will find you. I want to see experience in which you have found yourself in disputes, and been able to navigate those disputes in a manner that demonstrates that you know how policies and guidelines apply to dispute resolution, and you know how to conduct yourself in a manner that is a positive, not a negative, to the project of building an encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2013 (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.