Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Glane23


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

Glane23
Final (46/26/14); ended 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC) - closed as no consensus - Kingturtle = (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– I have been an editor since April, 2008. I am nominating myself primarily in response to concerns I've seen posted in WP:Signpost and elsewhere, regarding the decline in numbers of admins. Clearly, more hands willing to heft the bucket and exercise the mop are needed. I think I can do that. Geoff Who, me?  22:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I’m making this application because in the almost three years I’ve edited, I’ve encountered situations where my having the admin tools handy on a day to day basis would help move the encyclopedia forward; as in moving pages, deleting histories (especially regarding BLP articles), adding page protection, intervening in edit wars, giving vandals a cooling off period by blocking access for appropriate lengths of time and the like. I would like to be able to close AFDs once consensus has been reached. I’ve watched WP:AN/I (without contributing) for some time to try to gain an understanding of the processes at work. There my focus would be to participate in administrative actions as needed and as I learn to act as an admin. I plan to work on backlogs, as needed, at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV.
 * In response to those who wondered what I meant by using the term "cooling off," it is because I have noticed that disruptive users are issued blocks ranging from a few hours, to days, weeks, months and so on, up to banning. The circumstance determines the remedy, does it not? Geoff  Who, me?  02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea there is that someone that does not stop edit-warring after one 12-hour block may stop after 24, 48, 72, etc. Or at least the edit-warring will be contained. Escalating duration serves as a corrective. Escalating duration also contains disruption for longer each time, and preventing disruption is the primary goal of the blocking policy. "Cool down" is a loaded way to refer to blocks. It usually means blocking someone that is angry to give them time to cool down, even though they've not edit-warred, etc. See WP:COOLDOWN.--Chaser (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I stumbled across The Food Project shortly after I began editing and I decided to tackle the backlog of articles needing photographs. I helped reduce the backlog from about 750 articles to under 200 over the years, by seeking out free use or fair use images to upload here or to Commons and then adding them to the articles. Where I couldn’t find such images available, I created my own photographs. I learned the ins and outs of copyright law as applied here and at Commons, so that I could upload images that were usable under WP guidelines. I actually came in 3rd in the 2010 BaconCup Challenge, mainly due to the bacon-related photos I found or created and uploaded. I’ve created just one or two little articles (Peychaud’s Bitters and Zeeuws spek), but I’ve spent most of my time correcting minor spelling and punctuation errors as I’ve encountered them, adding refs and wikilinks where I could and reverting vandals using Twinkle and Huggle.


 * 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: No, I haven’t been in any conflicts, mainly because it takes more than one party to engage in a conflict. I’ve been sniped at a bit by some of the vandals due to vandalism reverts, but I’ve kept a level head and refrained from escalating conflicts from such reactions. I respond as best I can to each civil (or even semi-civil) comment that gets posted on my Talk page and I’ve adapted another user’s banner to head up my talk page to encourage dialogue. I’ve made some errors in reversions which have been pointed out to me by others and I’ve always taken advice and suggestions to heart. I make no claim to perfection, but I’m not easily moved to anger or rash reactions. In the main, I refuse to take myself too seriously, nor will I take negative comments personally.


 * Additional question from Franamax


 * 4 From looking at your most-edited's, last month's contribs &c, I get the impression that you focus strictly on Huggle-ing and some image work. Working back from today, what are examples of your work building articles? And what are your examples of engagement in other areas: working successfully with a new editor; policy space discussions; identifying multiple offenders (SPI requests)? Franamax (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A: My work building articles has been rather small and gnome-like. It can be argued that the bulk of the substantial articles have been created and are a part of the encyclopedia by this point in time. But, my oh my, what's here can sure use some spit and polish! I'm not a major article builder. As to working with new editors, policy discussions and such activities as SPI requests, those are examples of the areas I'd like to explore further as an admin. I claim no expertise in those areas, but I'm willing to learn. In keeping with the image of an admin as the custodian (mop-and-bucket), I'm just seeking to help clean the place, using the tools provided. My preference at this stage is to leave big questions of policy to those better suited. Geoff  Who, me?  02:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Glane23:
 * Edit summary usage for Glane23 can be found here.


 * Thank you to those supporting and also to those who, though opposing or neutral, took their time to offer comments and criticism. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this RFA, I will take all to heart. Regards, Geoff  Who, me?  23:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to talk. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. Do I have the honour of being the first? Long-standing editors with great records and a willingness to chip in with the cleanup tasks as and when needed are exactly what we want as admins, so I have no hesitation. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note the comments regarding "cooling off period", but I think that's perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words - it looks to me as if the candidate understands the point of escalating blocks, but just hadn't been aware that "cooling off" is a forbidden phrase round here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A perusal of talk archives all looks good. The odd error seems to have been quickly fixed. Clean block log and almost 50% edits in the main space - noted that a lot is vandalism reversion, but there is content creation and much wiki-gnoming as well. Good answers to Q1-3. In short - tenure, experience, stoic userpage, and a sensible and non-lycra clad pink flashing signature. That'll do for me. Pedro : Chat  22:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boing! above regarding the "cool down" comment - I must admit when I read the answers last night I never even interpreted his comment as being a reference to WP:COOLDOWN. Whilst the phrasing may be "unfortunate" I think the candidates further commentary under Q1 indicates it's more a turn of phrase. Well, that's my take on it anyway. Pedro : Chat  12:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I see only good things here :) Orphan Wiki  22:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support RfA candidates should not be punished for vandal-fighting. 28bytes (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As frustrating as the "too many automated edits" opposes are, I have to withdraw support over concerns over policy knowledge. I was willing to chalk up the "cooling off" language as an unfortunate turn of phrase, but Reaper Eternal's link demonstrates recent unfamiliarity with WP:BLANKING that suggests Glane23 could benefit from a few months of brushing up on the key policies and guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support 718smiley.svg -- Perseus  8235  22:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No issues here. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 23:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I'm not real happy with the answers above regarding blocks, and I view extremely suspiciously anyone who claims to have been on Wikipedia for two years without getting into a conflict, particularly when they're engaged in contentious work (eg. anti-vandalism). Frankly I just don't believe that.  HOWEVER, a review of GLane's contributions suggests that, in practice, there's no reason to believe he'd use the admin tools inappropriately, and that however poorly he may express himself above he has a sufficiently strong practical knowledge of Wikipedia operations to minimise the number of errors he makes.  He also seems open to self-improvement and constructive criticism, and he is engaged in an area of work where he would clearly benefit from the tools.  So - Support - but GLane, if you are successful, please don't hesitate to get advice and second opinions from other admins over your first couple of months with the tools! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Oh no! A high percentage of automated edits! Whatever will we do? (Great editor.) Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per NW is the oppose section. I don't really care that ~80% of his edits are automated when he has ~27,500 total edits. The cool-down block answer is worrisome, but not enough to sway me the other way. Good luck. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support if only to soothe the headache I get from the absurdity of the "too many automated edits" arguments. Let me get this straight. 7000 non-automated edits = good. 7000 non-automated edits + 20000 automated edits = bad. Seriously, the opposers need to think this through and decide whether Wikipedia would really be better off without Glane23 as an extra admin. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A net positive contributor. E. Fokker (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Keepscases (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I am a little concerned by Glane23's idea of "cooling off". Despite the large number of automated edits, the contributions are generally good.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A very good user. – Novice7 (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - seems sufficiently competent to be a trustworthy with the admin tools. The high percentage of automated edits doesn't bother me; not every admin can be a content builder. Also, I strongly disagree with the opposes over WP:COOLDOWN: it's an archaic policy that we should have dropped years ago, and doesn't accurately describe current practice. Whatever that page says, so-called 'cool-down blocks' do happen all the time, and rightly so. It's high time we recognised that reality and stopped pretending otherwise. Robofish (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Once I got passed the image work and huggling, I found a fair few comments at AfD, which gave calm and rational arguments. I'm not worried about the "cooling off" issue, as I see it as an unfortunate turn of phrase. You appear to be a net positive to the encyclopedia and I'd have no problem with you holding the tools   Worm    TT   13:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I think the umbrage being taken over the comment 'cooling off' is out of context and proportion. Editor looks responsible, acceptably versed in policy and highly committed. For a janitorial role, that's plenty. Manning (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support seems to have clearly demonstrated competence in vandal-fighting. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  17:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support I think this user has what it takes. Competent, polite and constructively responsive to other editors. Areas of concern outlined by opposers seem to be very minor. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Yes.  Wayne  Slam  21:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support: Competent, polite and constructively responsive to other editors. Areas of concern outlined by opposes are petty. The more I look at this candidate the more I think he will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Although I can understand the basis for some of the opposes, I do not find them persuasive, for the reasons outlined by several of the other supporters above. In particular, I have never understood the objection to a candidate's having lots of automated edits where he or she also has a good quantity and quality of "regular" edits; taken literally, that suggests that the candidate would be more qualified if he or she had helped the project less, which except in very unusual circumstances is not true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support This candidate has been around for two and a half years, has a clean blocklog and a record of helpful and civil communication. In my view the manual edits are sufficient to qualify him for adminship. He also has done quite a few automated edits, I count these as a positive, reverting vandalism is great experience for an admin to have. Opposing an otherwise well qualified candidate because they revert too much vandalism doesn't make sense to me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - If for no other reason than to oppose the reflexive "automated edits" !votes, against an editor with nearly 30,000 edits. I don't see a suggestion of coasting on numbers in the questions, nor any concern about it, which leaves simple prejudice against automated edits: something that's absolutely critical to this encyclopedia. Good people who know how to use automated tools are what keep this thing functioning. If that's a negative at RfA then that's a toxic trend that threatens the entire encyclopedia. Shadowjams (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, it's almost comical how RfA is infested with GotCha! questions. Cool off block seems like an old, but apparently still relevant, version of that. They seem like a reasonable question, unless you've intently been following RfA and Signpost discussions for the past 3 years. But if you get that wrong.... I wonder what kind of admin system we're building here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "infested" is a good word. Now do not get me wrong. I respect those who believe that being an Admin. is on a par with "rocket science" (although I disagree). It is the "GotCha" and "spin" that cause me concern. I do participate in quite a few RfA discussions and it appears that for some reason we have "unfairly raised the bar" for this candidate. His live edit record shows him to be more than qualified to be a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - trustworthy. It's that simple. Egg Centric 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, per WereSpielChequers. The small sample of vandalism reports I have reviewed show no problems, and I've been through almost every AfD contribution since March last year and find them reasonably impressive.  The candidate's arguments are considered, and it is clear he makes the effort to search for sources and seek alternatives to deletion.  I must join the chorus of editors who find unconvincing the opposes based on automated edit percentage and an unfortunate use of the word "cooldown".  Those due to the "cooldown" remark I find particularly concerning, as it is absolutely crystal clear from the context of the remark that the candidate was not referring to blocks made solely to "cool down" an editor.  So long as Geoff is cautious, asks for help when neccessary, and is willing to learn from his mistakes, he will do fine.  -- Lear's Fool 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - In protest against anyone citing automated edit percentages. And the candidate looks good, too.--E♴ (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - I'm a bit depressed to see the amount of people citing automated edit percentages in their opposes, especially when the candidate has so many non-automated edits as well. Glancing through his contributions, I have full confidence that Glane will be an excellent admin, and I commend him for stepping up to the plate here. Nomader  ( Talk ) 05:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support "Automated edit" opposes are the epitome of Editcountitis, plus they make me physically ill. I know, that's probably a manifestation of a larger problem, but I digress. They've obviously done a lot of good work and have my complete trust.  Swarm   X 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support cooling off? well lets face it, blocks are often issued when an editor refuses to do exactly that after warnings to desist, step away from the horse etc - Collaboration and cooperation are key. I have read some of the comments on the Taco and other talk pages and think that article creations such as and the way in which the discussions on Talk:Steak_sandwich show there should be no mopping up after him (lol). Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) So he got the cool down block question wrong. Now he knows what the right answer is. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support No reason why not. --Sokac121 (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Adminship is really not the big deal that others make it. It's not like Glane will delete the main page. The cooldown wording was unfortunate but not so bad that I believe that Glane hasn't learned from this experience. I don't care about the percentage of automated edits. The number of non-automated edits is the only thing that might really matter and even that number is suspicious in many circumstances.  Royal broil  13:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Want to know why we have a declining number of admins on this site? Read the opposes. This guy's number of manual edits is not far behind the total number of edits I have made, and I am an admin who has been active here since 2005. As for the 80% of automated edits, if someone is willing to dedicate the time and effort to carry out such a maintenance task, then that sounds to me like someone who is a very admin-like editor already. Onwards and upwards! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I think it's safe to assume that this editor, if given the mop, will not now be implementing any cooldown blocks. That being the case, I see no reason not to support. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  17:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support; I find the opposes over what was obviously a wording mistake (cooldown blocks) unconvincing, and maintenance work is just as important as anything else. The only difference between manual and automated edits in vandal fighting is that automated edits allow you to do your job better; why oppose over that? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Though I've barely participated in RfA since last summer, I maintain my view that if the candidate seems experienced and knowledgeable, the only reason to reject their nomination is if they've been proved untrustworthy. The opposes don't seem to establish a lack of trustworthiness at all, so I support along the same lines as Royalbroil. Juliancolton (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support- I think giving this user the tools would benefit Wikipedia. Reyk  YO!  06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Active user who fights hard against vandalism, and is anyway an active, resourceful fellow. No reason to oppose. Personally, I think opposes like "too much automated editing" are nonsense, an active editor who helps keeping Wikipedia clean of vandalism and does a lot of such good work for Wikipedia, deserves the mop, even if he/she hadn't done much content work and written featured articles. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, no evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
 * 19) Seems like a trustworthy editor with a legitimate use for some more buttons. A sampling of recent vandalism warnings suggests this editor understands wp:NOTVAND, and while a lot of the automated warnings are canned, they are the right cans, chosen with some care. So I think a lot of the concern expressed in the oppose section might not be applicable to this editor. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support – Review of contributions and talk page show substantial knowledge in areas of WP:COPY, WP:V and WP:RS; much more so than the candidate takes credit for in the questions. I agree with HJ Mitchell that more participation in policy discussions is desirable. However, I see nothing wrong with an admin who follows policy even if they haven't contributed to its development. The candidate stays cool and quickly apologizes when a mistake has been made. The number of complaints on his talk page is insignificant considering the large number of vandalism reverts. The number of his non-automated edits is sufficient for me and the candidate can be trusted to not abuse the tools. Requiring admins to be tremendous content creators is short-sighted because of the "gain an admin, loose an editor" trap. And right now we need good editors even more than we need admins. This user is willing to mop for us, but he's not wrenching the mop out of our hands, which is one more good sign of his intentions. It's time to hand it over already. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, you have been doing a good job so far and I trust you'll make a good admin. Hugahoody (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Give him his own mop!  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose I hate to do this, but you have 79.72% automated edits, which is pushing the limit when it comes to a balance between human edits and Huggle edits. Plus, it seems that the only administrator-related page that you regularly update is WP:AIV, which is automatically done through Huggle.  More participation at places such as WP:UAA would show that you are well-versed in the policies.  Again, I really did not want to do this, but having almost 80% automated edits is not great. Logan Talk Contributions 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated tools get the essential jobs done, just a little faster and more efficient. Why oppose someone for something that's good? Orphan Wiki  22:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against using automated tools. I myself have many edits using Huggle, AWB, etc.  However, when pretty much 80% of his edits are using Huggle, it shows me that he is not willing to go outside the anti-vandalism realm and deal with other issues that constantly plague Wikipedia.  I would prefer to see more interaction at venues such as WP:UAA, as I said before. Logan Talk Contributions 22:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the 6 thousand, two hundred and eighty-one edits he does that are not automated are meaningless, as are all of the ones he has made using automated tools. NW ( Talk ) 23:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't see a problem with having a high amount of automated edits, especially in areas where the user could be significantly more productive with the mop. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  17:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the proportion of edits that use Huggle is high, he's done 26,000 edits, which is still over 5,000 real edits. I don't think that the proportion of Huggle edits should be a problem unless that leaves only a small absolute number of human edits. Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 02:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "... giving vandals a cooling off period by blocking access for appropriate lengths of time and the like"—uh, no. Convince me otherwise? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose For various reason. (1) As Logan already mentioned 79,72% of his edits are automated, which is clearly too many. (2) "... giving vandals a cooling off period ..." is very ambiguous and makes me think, that the user doesn't read the blocking policy. (3) He says: "I would like to be able to close AFDs once consensus has been reached.", but there are cases, when AfD ends with "no consesus". Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I'm sorry, but I do not trust this candidate with the tools, especially when the opening statement is to give vandals a "cooling off period". Secondly, one doesn't need the tools to CLOSE AFD's.  Lastly, I don't feel comfortable with your level of experience at RPP or AIV.  I feel that 450 edits is not enough to judge your experience in this area.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, one does need the tools to close AfDs where the result is "delete". And I'm generally in favour of anyone who intends to close an AfD being an admin anyway, as closing when you're only able to implement one kind of result creates a tendency to skew to that result.  If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please put my comments in the proper context. Candidate never said anything about deleting, he only mentioned closing.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "I feel that 450 edits is not enough to judge your experience in [RPP or AIV]"...could you explain why or point to a significant number of errors in those areas? NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 441 of those edits are to AIV, the other 9 to RPP. Typically, with a candidate who has over 10k edits, I like to see about 1k of those to areas the candidate says they want to work in.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Candidate never said anything about deleting, he only mentioned closing." Administrator privileges are still needed to close deletion discussions, and the tools are needed to perform half of them- deletes. Non-admins can only close discussions under a relatively strict set of guidelines; otherwise closing AfDs is exclusively an admin's realm. As a non-admin AfD closer myself, I can tell you that we're pretty much useless.  Swarm   X 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you looked through all those 441 and 9 edits? Is there anything that an additional 550 edits would tell you? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose cool off blocks? wat.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Mono (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? Robofish (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, concerns about experience, temperament, and judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Immediate oppose per comment in Q1 about the use of "cooling off" blocks. Big no-no, in my humble opinion. --Strikerforce (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)  Reconsidering, leaning toward neutral
 * 1) Oppose According to the talk page it looks like you needs more experience working your ways around Wikipedia, especially when I saw that page blanking note by JohnCD . I am unconvinced by the answers to the first three questions: Q1 has a mention of cool-down blocks. Usually those blocks are not requested unless they've done something seriously wrong. Q2 shows that you don't have much in the way of content creation, for example you only created a few articles and haven't really done any (if not much) in the way of expanding any other articles. Q3 shows that you've never been in a dispute, and yet you also have an intention to work at edit warring related noticeboards? Well, my advice is, look up an article that interests you, and try and make an addition so that you can get a feel of what content building is all about. Minima  c  ( talk ) 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose. I think "cooldown" was just a foot-in-mouth moment rather than an inherent misunderstanding of the policy and I think opposing over automated edits is a bit like avoiding a bakery because it uses a bread-slicing machine rather than slicing its bread by hand. If someone spent 80% of their time patrolling recent changes without the aid of Huggle and Twinkle, or with java script that X!'s counter doesn't show, their percentage of "automated" edits would be much lower. Opposing over automated edits is madness and any 'crat worth their bit will completely discount it. However, having taken a more detailed look at your contributions than the editors who jump to oppose over the most trivial of trivialities, I see only a minimal participation in discussions—most of your edits to the various non-user talk namespaces seem to be reverting vandalism. Don't let anyone for one minute tell you that reverting vandalism isn't a valuable and essential task, but admins need to have a proven, broad knowledge of policy and the only way to get a real, hands on knowledge of policy and its application is content- and policy-based discussions. Most of your edits to the Talk namespace are vandal reversions and discussions on more minor points, rather than discussion over article development and controversial content and the applicable policies. You only have 7 edits to the WT namespace and none of them are to policy talk pages.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I have no problem with the use of tools to perform monotonous work, and I believe that the candidate's "cooling off" statement was not intended in the way it is being interpreted by many other opposers. I do have a problem with the lack of significant contributions to content and the statement that "the bulk of the substantial articles have been created" already. There is also the noted lack of participation in discussions and collaboration in content building. These two things are essential for an admin. I could support in the future with greater participation in those areas.  Jim Miller  See me
 * Sorry, I'll oppose per above. -- Perseus  8235 
 * 1) Weak oppose - I'm sorry, but per this. 's comments and the gaffe in Q #1 would have put me in neutral, but that edit was ~1 month ago and explicitly violated WP:DRC. Maybe in a few months, after you've brushed up on policies, I'll be happy to support! (By the way, to the people opposing over "automated percentages", would you support a candidate with 5000 non-automated edits or a candidate with 10,000 non-automated edits and 30,000 automated edits?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose per HJ Mitchell and Reaper Eternal above. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Question It seems that this candidate is going to be rejected in part due to his "automated percentages". Could someone explain to me why "automated percentages" are a concern. This is not a retorical question. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's long overdue to be added to Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. It's a completely meaningless statistic. If you disdain vandal-fighting and other automated work (and some people do), then judge the candidate solely on their manual edits. If their manual edits are poor or of insufficient volume to demonstrate proficiency, then that's the problem, not some arbitrary percentage. 28bytes (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem. I'm not saying that the automated edits is the only thing holding me back from supporting.  He also doesn't have a ton of experience in admin-related areas. Logan Talk Contributions 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I am really confused. Can you act as an admin in an "admin related area" without being an Admin? It seems we are being a bit unfair to a solid candidate with substantial experience. At first glance he is made to look quite bad, yet when you take the time to look closer, he has the necessary skills and integrity to make an excellent Admin. My point is that we should examine his record which is impressive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think lack of "experience in admin-related areas" is a perfectly fine reason to oppose. But that would be true whether he had 70% automated edits, or 0%, wouldn't it? 28bytes (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Reluctant oppose I have no problem with the high number of automated edits, but I'd like to see some more contributions in areas where editors are required to demonstrate policy knowledge such as AfD. At the moment I don't feel there is enough to judge in such areas. If anyone can point me towards some good edits in these areas I may shift to support. Pol430  talk to me 23:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It may also be an idea to point to his bad edits as I have not found any to justify his 58% support. The more I look at this candidate the more I think he will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * re to Ret Prof: The problem I see with a large percentage (>50%) of automated edits is that they tell you nothing about the candidate's ability to interact with others. Retaining and encouraging new editors is an urgent need, and Huggle, Twinkle, Gloo or some other automated tool cannot take the place of actual interpersonal communication. They do nothing to demonstrate the ability to collaborate with other editors. While the automated tools generate a large number of edits, they are impersonal to the point that some people will not count them as interactive. Many regulars here will even discount templates on user talk pages as being communicative. I tend to agree with this, but that is why I hold content creation and collaboration as the highest requirement to give any editor access to the delete button. Using tools to do a valuable job is not the problem, lack of demonstration of actual interpersonal communication skills is.  Jim Miller  See me 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - also  most  reluctantly. I  would have been tempted to  support  just  to outbalance the needless pile-on due to the honest  approach  to  blocking using  an unfortunate expression that  looks as if it has been taken out of context  and used to  undermine your RfA. However, I  don't believe tactical !voting to  be an expression  of confidence in  a candidate. I  most  regretfully  have to oppose however based on a the lack of active  participation of semi-administrative tasks as per HJ Mitchell and Jim Miller. There's a lot we can do  there without   needing  the tools, and by  doing  so, we gain the experience and the insight  to  policy that  we need to  be able to  use the tools with  confidence when and if we get  them. People always learn a lot more from  hands on  experience, rather than from  just observing what  goes on. If you  can offer more,  regular !votes/comments/advice on, for example,  RfC, Afd, ANI, Deletion revision, and on some other noticeboards and help  desks, and more content  building, I'm sure I  would happily support your next  RfA. Kudpung (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I am confused. What does Reluctant oppose mean? Is it like "Weak Oppose" with a bit of guilt mixed in (My interpretation)? Again this is a not a rhetorical question. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it as an oppose with added guilt too...  Worm    TT   15:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, but when I write "reluctant oppose", it means I would like to support the candidate because I like his/her work, but for some reason(s), I don't feel they would be a good admin. Again, I'm not speaking for anyone else. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I too like his work. However, for me the central issue is trustworthiness which I believe his live edits demonstrate. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Nominating one's self merely to loosen the admin drought doesn't make you a good admin. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, any particular reason for opposing? Self-noms aren't exactly an indication of one being a bad admin.  Swarm   X 06:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: although fairly safe to presume Glane would not abuse his privileges, I'm not sure his level of understanding and familiarity with policies would allow him to utilize them properly. I would like to see this user engage in less wiki Gnomish activities as I think he could be useful in article building, but I'm not confident with him as an admin now.AerobicFox (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: No content creation. NYB makes a correct point, that percentage automation is not the issue.  Lack of content is the problem.TCO (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, none of the answers to the questions inspire confidence, the answer to Q4 doesn't seem well thought out, and that this RFA has been taken over by a the trivial issue of automated edits, with editors supporting based on opposes on automated edits, is wacky. Per TCO-- lack of content and demonstrated knowledge, not automated edits, is the issue.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - you said, working with new editors, policy discussions and such activities as SPI requests, those are examples of the areas I'd like to explore further as an admin - you need to demonstrate capability in those areas before becoming an admin. I have no particular problem with your reluctance to write articles, however you'd need to show understanding of article building, through communication and interaction across the various processes of Wikipedia. If you can do that, in the future, then in some months you should re-apply.  Chzz  ► 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This oppose is an example of the spin I find so very unfair (not to mention #15 above). I quote, "you said, working with new editors, policy discussions and such activities as SPI requests, those are examples of the areas I'd like to explore further as an admin - you need to demonstrate capability in those areas before becoming an admin." Saying he will explore "further" does not mean he has not explored "before"! He obviously has not had much experience actually using tools as that would be a breach of Wikipedia policy, as he is not yet an Admin! Finally, I would like to thank this candidate, as well as  all other candidates who have put themselves forward and endured this sort of criticism. Most of us do not have thick enough skins. Now it is time for an old guy to take his blood pressure medicine. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per HJ Mitchell. Letting vandals cool down is not a big deal; anything that converts them to productive editors is good in my book.  Likewise, large number of automated edits aren't a big deal--I have quite a few myself.  The lack of a demonstrated track record of collaboration is more concerning. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose There are just too many things wrong here. Your word choice in the questions was tragic, I'm not sure that it comes from a lack of coherency in writing rather than a lack of understanding of policy. Ultimately what sealed the deal is that you never explained or defended yourself effectively, you had to be corrected by someone else on the issue. If someone points out that you're lacking knowledge in an area, you need to read up on it before you plunge back in.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry. Lack of breadth in editing experience, including content creation and participation in consensus-building discussions. I think a higher degree of experience of both is required for an admin. Couldn't give a crap about the supposed "cooling off" gaffe. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I feel similar to Mkativerata. I don't think you're ready yet and the policy error and lack of content work support my opinion.  ceran  thor 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Content contributions per above. -Atmoz (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. The proportion of automated edits is irrelevant, since 7000 non-automated edits is quite sufficient to assess the candidate's contributions. However, the very limited content creation and the gaps in knowledge of policy are a real problem. While I wouldn't encourage non-admins to be trying to comment on every single discussion at AN/I like some seem to, I think a good candidate needs to go one step further than just reading it without ever commenting. I feel that Glane23 would make a good admin given a few months extra spent reading up on policy and getting more involved in admin related work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Lack of article writing Secret account 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Uhhhh T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhhhh  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Leaning toward oppose. I still believe in at least this version of the capability criteria and I've yet to see that demonstrated. #'s 4 through 6 give me particular concern, and #'s 1-3 aren't looking good either. I'd like to see some examples that satisfy these criteria. Franamax (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning oppose, pending answer to Q4. I don't see sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia's fundamental policies evidenced in this editor's history, and some of the answers to questions 1 thru 3 demonstrate some policy gaps.  Also concerned about use of marginal sources; WP:V is core policy of Wikipedia.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Switch to Oppose. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral This is clearly a candidate whose heart is in the right place and who has made a number of very valuable contributions to the project; however, the downside is lack of sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia's core policies, and an abnormally large percentage of automated edits. I would suggest mentoring, solidifying your credentials and trying again in 3 months.--Hokeman (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Per cool off comment and knowledge of core policies, but is a reliable huggler so I wish all the best. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Do you currently have any experience in page moving, edit war dispute resolution, or closing AfDs? All of which don't require you to be an admin. C T J F 8 3  12:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving on top of a redirect requires admin action. Too many users do a text copy in these cases and mess up the page history. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. And pretty much agree with Hokeman above. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I love his experience fighting vandals, and many edits, but we don't do cooldown blocks. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, leaning oppose. I'm not concerned by the "cooldown" choice of words, which I think may well have not been used in the defined term sense the rest of us understand.  Nor am I concerned by the automated edits -- NY Brad put it nicely.  However, I don't see the discussion contributions I would need to assess properly the candidate's understanding of policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral The "cooldown" choice of words concerns me a bit. The percentage of automated edits, in relation to the candidate's overall total, doesn't raise as much of an issue as it typically might. Not convinced that the candidate might not make a good admin, but can not offer my support at this time. Good luck! --Strikerforce (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral - Hokeman has effectively hit the nail on the head. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  17:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutral per those above me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral me too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral - per Hokeman. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 February 2011 (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.