Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Logan


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

Logan
Final (76/29/4); ended 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)  - The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– After over 36,000 edits and some years of experience on Wikipedia, I feel that it is about time to request the mop. At first I was reluctant to be considered at RfA due to my relative lack of contributions - however, I recently created an article about Google's new music streaming service, and it was accepted at DYK.

My strengths, however, are centralized in quasi-admin tasks, such as reporting vandals to AIV, notifying reviewers at UAA of inappropriate usernames, transferring tons of files to Commons in the hugely-backlogged Commons transfer category, and creating accounts for users through ACC. Furthermore, I am a prolific NACer at Articles for Deletion, and I've never experienced significant controversy regarding an AfD close (save one DRV which was more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than actually representing policy).

I feel that I have established enough trust by others on Wikipedia to be considered for the sysop mop, and I hope that the community thinks highly enough of me to support this RfA! Logan Talk Contributions 21:24, 13 May 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: For the most part, I plan to work in areas such as AIV and UAA for blocking vandals and those with inappropriate usernames, respectively; CAT:CSD for performing or declining speedy deletions, the latter of which I have already been doing as a non-admin, and AfD for closing deletion discussions. Furthermore, I would use the mop to help clean up and delete local files after my Commons transfers, as mentioned above, in order to clean out the backlog.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: To take this question in its most figurative sense, I feel that my best contributions to Wikipedia have been, rather than in my content creation, in anti-vandalism efforts, general article cleanup contributions, and declinations of speedy deletions at CAT:CSD, which is a very, in my experience, a very controversial area (see below). However, I feel that my recent article contribution, Music Beta by Google, demonstrates my knowledge of article conventions and related stresses on referencing most statements in articles in order to maintain Wikipedia's verifiability.


 * On the off-Wiki side, I have helped many users at the channel on IRC, which is a contribution to Wikipedia in itself through the encouragement of confused editors to continue editing.


 * 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: Yes, I have been in some conflicts in the past, mostly regarding my speedy deletion declines. I have found that most users stand by their speedy deletions and do not like having them contested; however, every time that I am questioned for a decline with CSDH, I always respond in a polite manner and both explain my rationale for contesting the speedy deletion and point the user to related deletion processes, AfD and PROD, especially when the user has used the A7 criterion to reflect his or her opinion that the article hasn't met the notability guidelines, where A7 only covers articles with a lack of claims of importance and/or significance.  In my opinion, it is always better to help and not to snap back because it will reduce future conflicts and make future editing more productive.


 * Optional question from User:Filelakeshoe
 * 4. Do you feel that this (which I agree is not patent nonsense) is appropriate content for Wikipedia? If not, how would you deal with it as an admin?
 * A: Ah, yes. I felt, for that article, that there definitely was salvageable content and not patent nonsense, as you agree.  However, Google is not really returning hits for the "Verdantha" term, as you said in your PROD rationale.  I would probably consult the people at WikiProject Hinduism to see if that is just a bad transliteration of a Hindi word that is causing Google to not return any results, or whether it is just pure original research.  In the first case, I would probably tag it for wikifying, and in the latter case (or if there isn't a response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism, I would probably bring it to AfD.  However, the current PROD is a good indicator to the creator of the article that it needs to be improved to become encyclopedic.


 * Question from / ƒETCH COMMS  / 
 * 5. Give an example situation where you would invoke IAR and why, and a different situation where you think it would inappropriate to invoke IAR and why.
 * A: WP:SNOW closes for discussions such as those at Articles for Deletion are effectively ignoring all rules; instead of waiting the whole seven days, closing early with the SNOW criterion is possible. I haven't done that many SNOW closes via NAC before, but I would definitely employ one if the discussion is clearly leading to a deletion or keep outcome based on a most likely unanimous consensus to perform one of those actions, judgment involved, of course.


 * However, IAR should not be used in multiple situations. One example could be while editing an article and adding controversial, unsourced information, and re-adding that information when it is reverted by another editor.  The editor could point to WP:IAR, saying that, even though he or she is ignoring the policies about verifiable contributions, the editor is improving Wikipedia from his or her standpoint.  This is not the right attitude to take, as Wikipedia is a community, and if edits both violate policies and are disputed by other editors, the editor should not continue to commit them to articles.


 * Additional questions from Σ
 * 6. If you were engaged in a long content dispute with another editor, and they started cursing suddenly, what would you do?
 * A: In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with cursing, as it suggests that a user is stressed and needs to make that evident (although I never curse in public channels). However, if the cursing becomes disruptive and leads to personal attacks involving said cursing, I would warn the user about his or her attitude and possibly employ mediation in order to resolve the content dispute.
 * 7. Can vandals be completely rehabilitated? Or is it "Once blocked, always watched"?
 * A: I am not sure what you mean by "always watched" after a vandal is blocked, but I definitely feel that vandals can be reformed and become constructive editors. This page comes to mind regarding this; there is (almost) always a person behind the vandalism, and people can sometimes change for the better with the proper encouragement and training.
 * 8. Can you write a credible reason for opposing yourself, and answer it with a credible counterargument?
 * A: Oppose: This editor does not have enough content contributions to demonstrate knowledge of article policies.
 * A possible counterargument for that oppose could be: "Although my content creation may be limited, I have demonstrated my knowledge of policies for articles in areas such as Articles for Creation, where I both accept and decline pending articles based on their verifiability/notability, and speedy deletion, through which I both nominate for deletion based on the associated criteria and contest nominations based on their non-adherence to the criteria."


 * Additional question from NuclearWarfare
 * 9. Please link to and describe a situation where you had to use significant judgment and analysis of policies and guidelines to make an action.
 * A. Hmmm... I guess the most recent example was a "Keep" close of Articles for deletion/Tense-aspect-mood, which led to a deletion review of that close by a party who did not participate in that discussion. Many editors supported my close, and I commented in that discussion, citing an essay that explained why the DRV was essentially invalid and also maintaining quasi-WP:UNINVOLVEDness, although I am not an administrator, by maintaining that my opinion, since I closed the AfD, had essentially no validity in said discussion.  I made sure to adhere to policies and guidelines.


 * Additional question from Goodvac
 * 10. How would you close the following AfDs?
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Haur (2nd nomination)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Tomason
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Season Calendar
 * Hypothetical AfD
 * A: The first one is an interesting one because the nominator does not take a clear position in the discussion. Looking at the !votes and their rationales, the only real reason to not delete is the questionable awards that Tan Haur has won.  I certainly do not know how notable each of these awards is, so, rather than closing, I would try to find someone from, say, WP:WikiProject China to weigh in on the discussion.  If that does not lead the discussion anywhere, it would most likely be a no consensus close, as one of the questionable awards is supported by a reliable source.  A delete outcome wouldn't be appropriate for that discussion, in my opinion.


 * For the Audrey Tomason discussion, I would likely close it as a merge/redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). Although it isn't a "textbook" case of WP:BLP1E, Tomason's only real claim to fame, as the discussion showed, is her presence in that photo.  Furthermore, Off2riorob and Ginsengbomb make valid cases of her position not being enough to establish notability.  Thus, the merge/redirect outcome would be appropriate here.


 * The World Season Calendar article, as was noted in the discussion, does not have any third-party sources; the only reference is to the proposer of the calendar, which does not establish notability. The outcome of the discussion would most likely be delete, if not redirect to Isaac Asimov.  The keep !voters do not make valid claims against notability guidelines.


 * The last hypothetical discussion is a bit difficult to do since I cannot see the original article (thus not being able to verify the voters' claims) and also the news articles that Voter1 claims establish notability. I cannot give you a definite answer for that discussion.


 * Hope that's satisfactory!


 * Follow-up to the hypothetical AfD: Given the original article, how would you close this AfD (modified slightly compared to the original hypothetical one)?
 * Taking into account the delete !votes that just seem to replicas of each other and also ineffective in their inapplicability to policy, I would close the discussion as "Keep." The third-party reliable sources from The Guardian and The Telegraph prove notability and verifiability in both the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE areas through strong outside coverage.  The keep !voters are the only participants in the discussion who make strong cases for their position.  However, in real life, I probably wouldn't close that discussion myself, to be honest, since I am not actively involved in the scientific field and related news, which would make me question my closure of the discussion.  Plus, there seems to be a whole lot of SPAs there ;)


 * Additional question from Doh5678
 * 11. Let's say a situation like this came up. What action would you take and why?
 * A: I would relist the discussion. The only users in the discussion who are making valid points are "Keeper" and "Not heard."  "Possibly unsourced" makes a likely false claim about the descendance from the 13th Emperor of China due to a lack of a reliable source to support that statement, and the each of the other voters is either a sock, in one case, or someone who does not present any new information for the discussion.  Thus, a relist would be effective in gaining more consensus.


 * Additional question from Kingpin13
 * 12. What would you say, if anything, the "main" "job" of an administrator is? If that's too broad, then your main job as an administrator, should you pass.
 * A: I believe that administrators have the same maintenance "job" as any other contributor to Wikipedia - it's just that they have extra tools to aid in said maintenance. It does not make sense to think of administrators as higher up than anyone else; they are simply volunteering, just like anyone else on the encyclopedia, with some more tools to maintain Wikipedia further.  They should be (and are) just as welcoming to new users as anyone else, as subject to policies as anyone else, and as helpful as any other contributor.  They don't have any extra "jobs;" it is just the extra tools that aid administrators in their regular maintenance of the encyclopedia.


 * Additional question from Intoronto1125
 * 13.Using the edit summary box is not necessary what is your opinion on this?
 * A: It, in my opinion, is definitely not right to force users to use edit summaries. Although most people find them helpful (including I), mandating that users have edit summaries for their contributions could make already discouraged people stop editing altogether, which is not the ultimate positive outcome that is usually desired.  I personally think that all experienced contributors should be using edit summaries on all of their edits in order to verify the content of edits and the reasons behind them - automated edit summaries don't cut it in that respect.  But I definitely, as I said, would not want to force all of the contributors on Wikipedia to use edit summaries (although it is strongly encouraged) due to the possibly catastrophic consequences.
 * Edited version for more clarity: I do not think that there should be a built in nag on Wikipedia that would prevent users from saving their edits without an edit summary, as it could detract new editors. However, I think that it is crucial for all editors to use edit summaries, and I would definitely encourage it with new editors as well, albeit not through the software.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Stats on talk page. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Yes! Before I retired I worked with this user, and I still work with him on other projects. He's very mature, knows the rules (and so do I) of how to deal with trolls/vandals/other morons. Quite honestly, he is one of the nicest, most honest, and politest (is that a word?) person that I've ever met. I rarely edit anymore, but supporting this RfA is just something I have to do. Pilif12p :  Yo  00:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Ooh Rah! BarkingMoon (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I've been out of the loop for quite a while, so I missed this user's rise to prominence, and only became familiar with his contributions recently. I suspect this section will end up on the north side of triple digit votes, so congrats in advance. Juliancolton (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "rise to prominence"? Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. My primary awareness of Logan's activities comes from seeing many, many files transferred perfectly to Commons with all original file information intact and his follow-through on Commons, double-checking the bot moves there.  If Logan is as conscientious as this in everything he does he will be an outstanding administrator.  – Athaenara  ✉  00:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Moving to Neutral.  – Athaenara  ✉  00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Excellent user who is thoroughly qualified for what he wants to do. sonia ♫  00:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support I have some concerns with your content creation and that 55% of your edits are automated, but overall, intelligent, willing and knowledgeable candidate. As I said to him in IRC and I will say it here: Its about freaking time.  maucho eagle   (c) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support You're a great editor, you'll make a great admin as well.  — Soap  —  01:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I fully support this candidates, particularly for the work with speedy deletion declines, and I think having more admins who take the speedy deletion criteria so seriously is exactly what we need. While I would have preferred to have seen some followup in the example from Q4, the challenge was clearly correct. Monty  845  01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Veteran Wikipedian who is already entrusted with a large number of tools; adminship seems to me to be the logical next step.--Hokeman (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Definitely. Very helpful editor, lots of clue. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Seen great work on ACC and seems a commmitted user, can't see any reason why not to support giving him the mop. Jamietw (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. An editor I'm familiar with, though nto someone with whom I've had a great deal of interaction. My impression has alwyas been one of a level-headed editor keen to help with some of the grubbier areas of the project. While UAA abd AIV aren't yet crying out for more admins, both boards can back up at times, so it's better to do something about it now than wait until we desperately need more admins (RfPP is in need of more admins eyes as well if you fancy helping out there). I trust Logan to be effective but fair as an admin and to help keep the backlogs down. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   10:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, good answer to my question and to be honest I knew I was going to support, because we need more admins who are willing to decline speedies more often. However I feel that once you remove a speedy tag from an article you should always make sure it meets Wikipedia standards (at least as a stub), or if not send it to PROD or AfD or a WikiProject as you said.. otherwise badly formatted/inappropriate articles sit there festering for a while. - file lake shoe 10:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) My first impression of Logan was very good, and I think he'll make a good admin.  ceran  thor 11:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Excellent vandal fighter. Will do fine. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 14:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support My main interactions with this user occur in the  channel. It seems like much of the oppose reasoning centers around the IRC channel, but I must say that I can't recall any time Logan has come off as "too eager" in a negative way. When I see him there, he is always more than happy to help new users, and is both very helpful and very patient: two good qualities for an admin. I completely agree with Juliancolton's comment. If Logan is being too eager to the point where it is a problem, there should be diffs available to prove that. Until those are provided, I'm not sure how much weight those comments hold for me. Although there should be certain standards for behavior on IRC, IRC is not Wikipedia. There is much more leeway given for behavior, and like I said, I've never seen Logan do something that I think pushes the boundaries in that respect. Anyway, I agree with the comments about his CSD work. I've yet to run into an incorrectly-declined speedy, and it's always good to see an admin candidate who clearly understands A7. I think he will do well! :] – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Chester Markel (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Support If there's a good reason not to give him the mop, I haven't spotted it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - nice lot of experiences in all the relevant areas. Orphan Wiki 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - I'm quite convinced that someone with Logan's experience level is more than capable of administrative tasks.  Swarm  X 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Excellent contributor. He's been really helpful in #wikipedia-en-help channel and helped out a lot of new editors. Theo10011 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support – Excellent editor. — mc10  ( t / c ) 20:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, I don't see why not. -- Σ ☭ ★  20:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Very experienced editor with plenty of contributions in the areas he says will be his main roaming grounds. I have also interacted with Logan on #wikipedia-en-help and he is always very supportive of new editors and communicates effectively. Net positive. Regards, <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Fully qualified candidate who will be a good administrator. My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support - but if you disappear off into the admins channel and abandon us peons, I will scowl and shake my fist angrily in your general direction.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) "Being eager" is a ridiculous reason to oppose, but an excellent reason to support. AD 01:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per User:N5iln. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Sure Striker  force Talk  Review me! 01:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I have handled quite a number of AIV reports from Logan and don't recall a single false positive, that is, I can trust the candidate at least in this area. I consider vandalism fighting important (at this WP stage) and believe that administrative tools will make this editor more efficient. Materialscientist (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alea iacta est. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:17pm • 02:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Switch to oppose, albeit regretfully.
 * 1) Support - Why not! Monterey Bay (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support While I trust the judgement of Fetchcomms and Prodego, I don't think IRC actions are enough to have serious bearing on whether Logan is basically trustworthy.  Steven Walling  04:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Wait...I thought you were one... Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Fastily. --John (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - No concerns. -Porchcrop (talk 08:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Good solid experience and plenty knowledgeable - should be just fine with a mop -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ( Have to withdraw support, sorry, but will only switch to Neutral -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC) )
 * 1) Support Experienced editor, no concerns <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 12:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support no concerns. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 14:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation and answers to the questions, Logan seems to be have a fair bit of clue. Can see where the opposers are coming from, but they aren't compelling enough to convince me not to support. Jenks24 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Aren't you already an sysop?  EBE123  talkContribs 16:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've seen Logan performing non-admin closures and relisting debates at AfD, and he seems to be competent as far as that goes. I'm moved to support in part because there are administrators who have supported above on the basis of Logan's accurate CSD tagging and AIV reports. But perhaps more importantly, Logan comes across as thoughtful and articulate, both of which are desirable traits in an administrator; I think he'll do just fine. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support No doubt about it. He'll be a great admin.  Wayne  Slam 22:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, great user, would use the tools well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Clueful and is already showing the ability to judge consensus at AFD. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419  BH  05:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I think you will do well with a mop. The decisions I have examined from you are almost always correct to my eyes, and while sometimes I don't fully agree with your tone or decision, I also don't think I will get far in expecting every Admin to agree with my views at all times. You do well with replying to questions and criticisms on your Talk Page with informative responses, but I think in general you could work on raising your level of civility in some discussions. I see a diligent effort at performing maintenance tasks around the project, and communicating swiftly with users about any procedural work you participate in. I think that your "No Consensus" decision on the NAC cited in Jorgenev's Oppose was in fact correct, however I agree that that particular AfD was not the clear consensus usually preferred for NAC's. But you got it right (to my eyes at least), and overall I think you should absolutely be promoted to Admin. Best of luck, Evilphoenix Talk 08:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support . Appears to have a good understanding of policies, and when to act and when not to act. I'm impressed with his answers to the questions and his responses to the oppose voters. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving to oppose based largely on Ironhold's comments. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Looks fine to me. Can't comment on the IRC related opposes as I don't use IRC. Other opposes not persuasive. Agree fully with the comments and analysis from User:A Stop at Willoughby. Pedro : Chat  12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Re-affirming support, FWIW. I do agree Ironholds' commentary is worthy of serious consideration and I hope Logan takes it on board. Not enough for me to switch to oppose however, but that's just my personal feelings. Logan - please take it steady if this passes. Pedro : Chat  22:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Opposes are unconvincing. Also, I'm pleased that Logan has asked a kind question to the 4th opposer. It shows an example of how mature he is at the moment. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">© (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 18:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems like a user that should the mop, as you appear to have a good understanding of policies. Work on IRC shouldn't affect wiki-work. D oh5678  Talk  19:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I don't see "eager" as being a big negative, as long as that eagerness hasn't led to disruption (either intentional or accidental). Logan's contributions seem to be significant, his communication skills are satisfactory, and I have no problems with any answers he gave to the questions above. --  At am a  頭 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)  - Switched to Oppose, see below. --  At am a  頭  18:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Logan is a mature, considerate user who will almost definitely provide a net positive contribution to the project with admin tools. Good luck! -- 1 2 3 Ħeðŋeħøŋ  4 5 6  : Create an account!! 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Seems fine. --Waldir talk 22:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support - Almost missed this...almost, but not quite! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support a great editor with lots of experience Sumsum2010 · T · C  03:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support He agrees with my position in two example AfDs in question 10 and even gave me a shout out! This guy will make a great admin, clearly, because I totally agree with anyone who agrees with my opinions ;). Further, based on his responses above and, more importantly, below (in the oppose section), he seems like a reasonable, even-keeled fellow. <font color=#AAAAFF>ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ <font color=#D50000>bomb 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He was one of the first contacts I had with anyone from wikipedia, and in the short time I have been around, he seems to have a good grasp on things, I think he will make a good admin. Enfcer (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, no reason to suspect that the user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
 * 8) Support, I don't  have anything  to  do  with  IRC so  I  must  discount  any  comments about  it. We have no  control how people express themselves off-Wiki. My  concern is that people express themselves on  talk  pages and debates in  a correct manner, and I  trust  him with  the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Baseball   Watcher  00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) –BuickCenturyDriver 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Good contributions and appropriate experience.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Answered the very long list of questions well - I think he can handle the mop  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 10:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Solid answers, and supports new Be-Welcoming attitude, plus knows how it feels to be "unjustly blocked". Very consistent editing pattern: ~49% article & ~31% talk-page edits, each month for over 3 years (even if massive edits in 2011). Very articulate, to learn quickly. Re Opposes, I don't view words of "reluctant" as "disingenuous" but rather "dissuaded" (deterred) when others kept repeating not-ready yet. -Wikid77 04:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, but I just want to clarify that Wtmitchell's block was a complete accident - he meant to block the vandal that I was reverting. Wasn't "unjust" - just a mistake.  It definitely gave me a horrible feeling at the time, though. ;) Logan Talk Contributions 04:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Fair and balanced answers that reflect what we want in sysops.  <font color="Orange">Marlith <font color="Orange"> (Talk)   04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. Awesome candidate and wikipedian. Scieberking (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Opposers fail to convince me, and the supporters - including several whose judgment I find compelling - point out a number of good qualities. This editor is mop-ready, in my view. I thank this candidate for service to date, and offer my best wishes.  Jus  da  fax   11:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. We need more IRC bouncers. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know that admins don't get given op privileges on IRC, right? Unless you mean "bouncers who are from IRC", in which case the way in which you got here is suspect. Ironholds (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A good answer to my question! I definitely support. Also very helpful when it comes to questions other editors might have. Congrats! Intoronto1125 <big style="color:Orange;">Talk  Contributions   15:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Does good work, trusted and knows what they are doing. Enough for me to support. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I feel Logan can be trusted with the extra tools.  ~  Matthewrbowker   <sup style="color:#0000aa;">Say hi!  01:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Experienced editor, no concerns.  Rcsprinter  Gimme a message  18:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support editor has far too many good edits and has been around too long for us to be concerned about the percentage automated, as for hesitation about RFA, in my view that reflects badly on RFA not this candidate.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Yes, Logan tends to jump in too fast. However, my personal experience is that he is prepared to review his actions when it's pointed out that he may be in the wrong, and to make corrections to his actions quickly and without undue fuss. Based on that and on a long history of positive contributions, I believe he would be a clear net positive as an administrator. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support- Reviewable en.wiki actions show minor mistakes but no major concerns; harness exuberance and balance 'nuanced' solutions, and you'll do fine. Dru of Id (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) SupportHarmless.©Geni 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Last minute support! He's a good looking motherfucker. --Zalgo (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this supposed to mean? Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's nothing, Zalgo just has a quirky sense of humour. :) Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  10:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) While I hate tagging my comment as a vote, on this occasion, very weak support, while I see a lot of merit in Ironholds' oppose, and I am quite concerned about your non-admin closures of AFDs as no consensus, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in this case. Whichever way this RFA goes, I feel that in future you will be more careful with your actions. My support is based on the fact that I feel you could be a net positive to the encyclopedia as a sysop, and that a lot of learning will happen on the job, so, as long as you take it easy to start off with, I'm ok with providing you my support. Best of luck. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  06:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Colonel Warden (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Ironhold presents a serious reason to pause. At Articles for deletion/Michael Rosenblatt (2nd nomination) this was a very poor close.  It was a poor reading of rough consensus, and a poor judgment of where NAC is suitable.  As per Sandstein, Logan needs to demonstrate a better understanding of AfD.  Support on condition that Logan takes this feedback on-board, and noting that adminship is not carte blanche, and that WP:DRV remains an effective tool for recalibrating individual approaches.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose concerns with competence. Logan is a bit too eager, and that tends to lead to poor decision making. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please give examples of this said incompetence and eagerness? <font face="times new roman"> maucho eagle   (c) 01:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is primarily based on my experience with Logan in administrative positions elsewhere. I'm not particularly interested in going through upteen million vandalism reverts to find similar things. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  01:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address this oppose (and that of Fetchcomms) before the issue escalates. Prodego is most likely referring to my operator actions on IRC, which involve removing disruptive users from Wikimedia channels.  I have already adopted a less "eager" and more thoughtful policy on freenode, and I also want to make it clear that my actions on IRC in no way represent my judgment and actions on Wikipedia.  I have always been thoughtful and careful in my edits on Wikipedia, and I do not want off-wiki experience to define my role on this wiki. Logan Talk Contributions 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Prodego. I've interacted with Logan on IRC and while I think he's a generally good user, I've always gotten the "eager" impression—and I'm not going to nitpick through the last 500 edits, because that would be nitpicking and this is a general feeling I get. I don't like basing comments off IRC, but it's true that people are more "free" and true (open, maybe, or less formal?) in how they interact there and I've found it easy to learn things about people from that. Regardless, I'd like to see more content creation and development work. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see above for a relevant comment. I hope that this response satisfies your concerns. Logan Talk Contributions 03:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat, but it's more of your past mindset and actions that I observed in a Wikimedia channel—where one would expect to see similar standards as onwiki actions. I may still move to support or neutral, so let's see what you make of this RfA. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with being eager? I would say he's enthusiastic instead which is a good quality. And this is his first RfA in 36,000 edits, I wouldn't exactly call that being eager for the bit. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, IRC is a social venue, which is in no way expected to be a continuation of Wikipedia's behavioral standards. It's like finding out how somebody acts on Saturday night at the bar with their friends, and then opposing their RfA the next Tuesday because you didn't like the fact they got a little rowdy. Believe me, 36,000 edits is a lot – if there existed such a serious issue in Logan's character as to compromise their abilities to wield the admin tools, you'd surely be able to find at least one edit illustrating it. I'd like to see said edit. Juliancolton (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that IRC is not always a social venue. There's a reason for #wikipedia-en-help, -spi, -accounts, -unblock, etc.—socializing is not their purpose. As I said earlier, this is not an oppose based on on edits, but one of how I interpret his attitude. In any case, further questioning my opinion is going to make me change it. I'll support if I feel comfortable doing so later in this RfA. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's always #wikipedia-social and #wikimedia-social, but that's where all the loners hang out. The cool people party at Club #wikipedia-en! :P -- &oelig; &trade; 18:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫  21:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the candidate himself stated that his actions at the IRC channel are among his best contributions to Wikipedia, so I think it's reasonable to consider his actions there when determining his suitability. To go back to the Saturday night bar analogy, let's say that a person is requesting a promotion at his work, and cites his behavior on Saturday night drinking expeditions as an example of his responsibility (he's the designated driver for his coworkers). You might then consider how last Saturday he danced naked on a table with his coworker's pants on his head as a hat when deciding whether to promote him. --  At am a  頭 17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as he stays sober, is not drug impaired and drives them home safely - good to see someone who can have some harmless fun without getting wasted ;-) -- Club Oranje T 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If irresponsible behaviour on a Saturday night after a few drinks is reason to oppose now, I suppose I better turn in my admin bit ;-). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I know I'll have 10 obnoxious replies to this but sorry, this convo just left a bad taste in my mouth. Regardless of whether Logan was following the wiki-standards, I want admins with more common sense as opposed to someone just following the policies verbatim. Goes along with the eagerness issue. Tom my! 01:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Apologies.  Tom my! 18:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? How does that link relate to this user? What does that even have to do with anything here? I'm so confused... please clarify. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing me with somebody else... Logan Talk Contributions 01:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have left a talkback on the user's talk page to follow up on this. Logan Talk Contributions 01:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs)
 * Would you mind explaining your oppose? I would like to know your rationale, if you don't mind. Logan Talk Contributions 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer to not explain anything I do on RfA's. But if you're going to ask, I agree with others that you lack proper judgement and you're immature.  You shouldn't be an admin.  When I write "oppose" without explanation, it's because I don't feel like beating someone down.  So that's what happens when you push.  Like anyone cares what I think about an RfA.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, sorry, I like the guy a lot, but just two days ago he had a NAC of his overruled: . And call me anal, but it rubs me the wrong way that he has closed a whole bunch of AFD's as no consensus (which I'm not sure Non-admin closure even endorses) yet has never helped build consensus (I'm still looking for a debate where he actually !voted). jorgenev 06:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see the deleted content, but you've come up with one and only one contested NAC, and looking at that AfD, and that AfD alone, I'd be inclined to say that Logan was well within his bounds to close the way he did. I find Sandstein's overruling to be rather unconvincing, to be completely honest.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose, I dunno. I thought it was the legalish theory of NAC's that closing AFD's is the domain of administrators, but that in super obvious cases a non admin stepping in couldn't possibly hurt; meaning, if you're even close to toeing the line where you might get overruled, you're doing it terribly wrong. But thats just my take. jorgenev 07:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal philosophy is that I'd be more inclined to support a person that tries 100 times and stumble a few of them than I would be to support someone that has can only say 'I've done good work elsewhere, trust me with this'. Mind you if you found six or seven overturned NACs, that would show a disturbing pattern, but if there are only one or two, I don't personally mind. Even admins make mistakes with AfD closures, that's why there's deletion reviews.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sven hit all the right points, I think. There aren't any restrictions, per sé, on controversial closes using NAC, but they are discouraged because sysops are often trusted a bit more in these types of decisions.  I'm certainly not one to drop names, but Evilphoenix, who is a sysop, agreed with my close, so it wasn't completely crazy to close the discussion as "No consensus."  Regarding participation in AfDs, I have participated in discussions before, but, if I do, it essentially prevents me from closing the discussions, which also impedes my ability to clear out the AfD backlog.  Hope that explains it. Logan Talk Contributions 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Over eager beaver, not broadly experienced enough to have authority. Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not everyone view adminship as position of authority. I personally experience it as a position of drudgery and getting my userpage periodically vandalized. ;-) Steven Walling
 * 1) Strong oppose . On multiple occasions, I have challenged Logan re: his interpretations of policy; his response is invariably to leave. DS (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind providing some diffs? I can't find a thing on his talk page. - <font face="Trebuchet MS"><font color="#60B">file <font color="#00B">lake <font color="#0B0">shoe 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * see the Fetchcomms discussion. DS (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've talked with him, and I'm changing this from "strong oppose" to... well, to weak oppose. Sorry, it just doesn't feel right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 23:35, 17 May 2011
 * 1) Oppose, reluctantly; I echo some of the concerns above, although with a slightly different light - these concerns being that Logan (a) has not shown himself to have good judgement in this field and (b) that he has shown himself to be overeager and perhaps inclined to jump in without preparation. As Jorgenev has said, most of Logan's AfD related contributions - that is, contributions to a field he wishes to work in, by his own admission - are Non-Admin Closures (NACs). This is an important job which keeps backlogs down, ensures the regular and steady flow of currency edits and is generally A Good Thing, and I applaud Logan for the very admin-like attitude of being willing to get his hands dirty. The bigger problem is that this means he's got no way of showing that he has good judgement in this field; NACs are, by definition, those AfDs where the decision made is "there is no decision made". Logan's counter-argument doesn't actually address that point, instead providing an excuse for why he can't show he's got good judgement. However, it's a bit cruel to hold a standard of "he must positively prove he's got good judgment", which is where my second point exacerbates the issues with his actions; to summarise, he has a habit of jumping into things without heeding the advice of others. As an example, this RfA. Logan has spent the past few months (somewhere between 3 and 6) pestering me to nominate him for RfA. I reviewed his contributions, and one of the concerns I cane up with is "you need to actually contribute to more AfDs so we can see evidence of your judgment". As we can see, he didn't heed that advice; instead, he decided to simply go it alone without the support of me or anyone else. His statement that he was "reluctant to be considered for the job" is a blatant falsehood give that he's spent between a quarter and a half of the year asking others to support him in this endeavour. Despite this, when the support failed to materialise, he went ahead. Together with the AfD actions, this strikes me as the actions of someone with a tendency to jump into a mess when he feels he's ready for it, regardless of what other people are saying, and that kind of gung-ho attitude is only useful in an administrator (someone who has the implicit support of the community for his judgement) and is not at all useful in a candidate, who has to prove that judgement in front of the editing community. Ironholds (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding my actual participation in AfDs, Snottywong's tool has revealed at least 4 AfDs that I had nominated recently, all of which were deleted: tool here I don't only close AfDs - I also participate them, although less often than my NACs. Logan Talk Contributions 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry? It shows four AfDs, yes, three of which were nominated around two months ago. The 250 contributions before that show eight, from January. What you're saying is "look, of the last 500 I nominated, I contributed to 12 of them, up to 5 months ago. Surely that counts?" Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Although Logan is an enthusiastic contributor, my gut instinct is that he is not ready for adminship. I find the issues that Ironholds has outlined above to be concerning, particularly his second point regarding the apparently disingenuous statement "At first I was reluctant to be considered at RfA". I believe that there is a certain level of maturity to be expected of admin candidates (which is unrelated to age), and I simply don't feel that Logan meets said level at this time. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Opposed to nom-admins closing as no-consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The answer to Q7 is a bit disconcerting, but the deal breaker for me was A13. Edit summaries are ALWAYS important, and should always be included.  This helps other editors figure out the good edits from the bad easier, without having to "dig" through diffs to weed out the vandalism edits.  This RFA will most likely pass, and if it does, I hope that you wield the mop wisely (as in, look before leaping, so to speak).    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 05:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I personally think that all experienced contributors should be using edit summaries on all of their edits in order to verify the content of edits and the reasons behind them - automated edit summaries don't cut it in that respect." I thought that was relatively clear - what I was saying was that I didn't want something that would force editors to use edit summaries, as it could detract new editors from editing Wikipedia.  I, myself, believe that edit summaries are crucial. Logan Talk Contributions 05:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have included an edited version of my response for Q13 so that my point is clearer. Logan Talk Contributions 05:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose – Sorry, but I'm going to agree with Ironholds here. Even in the four AfDs you started that you pointed us to, I'm not especially reassured—for example, at Articles for deletion/Live And Learn (Crush 40 song) your rationale is the very brief "Most likely a non-notable song." You don't make it clear that you've done any research to be sure that there aren't sources covering the subject in detail. You might have done so but you didn't bother saying so, and I expect admins and admin-hopefuls to set a better example at AfDs, for our less-experienced users, if nothing else. It does look as if this RfA will pass, so I offer my best wishes and hope that you'll take the criticisms on board and proceed carefully. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 12:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I too find myself agreeing with Ironholds and Ponyo. I think you're a little too eager to leap in, and not survey the situation soberly.  Like Spartaz, I think non-admins being eager to close discussions as "no consensus" is a rather poor idea. Courcelles 17:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - I don't think Logan has the maturity to be an admin yet. Seems to be too much black or white on issues, and little flexibility when it's needed. A lot of what admins do here requires flexiblity. Sorry, I just can't support. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose.  Initially supported, backstepped to neutral, arrived at full turnaround after much thought and consideration of opposes (particularly Ironholds).  Sorry, Logan.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Regretful Weak Oppose Logan, your a great contributor, don't get me wrong on that, but I have to echo Acps110 with being too black and white on issues and also Courcelles, a little to eager to jump in. Also, Q13 was not clear, even after an apparent cleanup. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Regretful oppose I do like the user's contributions but I feel the concerns raised by Ironholds. I would like to support the user but the concerns raised about this user's AfD work have me opposing at this time. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:42pm • 12:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I'm uneasy about Ironhold's statement about being pestered over the last 3 to 6 months to nominate the candidate for adminship, particularly coupled with the fact that the candidate's contributions were sporadic up to about seven months ago. I'd rather see a longer period of consistent editing without making adminship a goal. <FONT COLOR="#313F33">Catfish Jim</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#313F33">&#38; the soapdish</FONT> '' 14:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose largeley per Ironholds. I origially supported, and I feel that his answers to some of the questions demonstrate he has the ability to become an admin in the future. However, following my looking into Ironholds' comments I'm not actually convinced that he's listening to or acting on the advice he's been receiving and one of the most important things for any administrator to admit when they are wrong, listen to advice and criticism and use that to improve. We already have too many administrators who think they don't need to listen (even 1 would be too many) so I can't support someone who I'm not convinced will. Sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Too eager, non-admins shouldn't close AfD discussions as no consensus. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - I also changed to oppose per Ironholds. I think I now understand how "eager" could be considered to be a bad thing here. One of the biggest dangers in giving someone the bit is if they jump into things before they really know what they're doing and screw things up. New admins should take it slow, ask questions, defer to the judgement of more experienced admins, and try not to get in over their head too fast. I get the feeling that Logan would take things too fast. --  At am a  頭 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak oppose per Courcelles et al. Non-admins should not be performing NACs on controversial AFDs, whether they are right or not is irrelevant. Ironholds' point is also concerning. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I've vacillated on this, and I hope I'm not doing the wrong thing. Overall, I see a lot of good qualities here. But I have thought carefully about what Ironholds said, and I'm just not comfortable with that. My gut is telling me that there is too big a risk that there would be problems down the road. If you come back after a period of time, after showing responsiveness to the feedback here, and try a second RfA, there is a good chance that I would change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak oppose per Ironholds. (Switched from support following quick review, based on large number of good edits, and non-dramatic response to criticism.) The slight experience with editing articles or discussing articles is another concern. I would welcome the candidate's application in another 6 months, with continued maturation of judgment and hopefully more content experience. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per Ironholds and Courcelles. The candidate's lack of comments at AfDs as well as the "no consensus" closures are not reassuring. I fear that should Logan become a sysop, most of his closures would be "no consensus" despite consensus' having been reached, as in Articles for deletion/Michael Rosenblatt (2nd nomination). Goodvac (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you spent any time actually looking into that, you'd have found that the delete verdict there was actually challenged by another admin... but since adminship is somehow a big deal and requires every candidate to be nothing short of perfect, you'd better keep on opposing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had invested any time looking into my rationale, you'd have divined that I disagree with Logan's "no consensus" closure and endorse Sandstein's deletion. The dissenting admin, who said "the article, while in poor condition, should not have been deleted in it's final revision", provides little reason for his disagreement. Nonetheless, you clearly missed that that was not my sole rationale for opposing. And adminship is a big deal that requires qualified candidates. Goodvac (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's a big deal. Not like it's just a collection of easy-to-use buttons or anything. It amazes me how many people here have absolutely no idea what adminship should and should not be. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To expand, I think that you should re-examine that RfA (and all of the other opposers for that matter). First of all, looking at that page, I'd say that there isn't any consensus to delete. There is one person who wants it kept, one neutral and one wants it deleted. The deletion one provides good reasons, but the neutral provides reasons as well, and ultimately, only three people commented in that. I'd imagine that more people looked at it than commented, and all thought "meh". The closing admin should have definitely taken all of that into account, and closed as no consensus. But instead, a ( dare I say deletionist ) admin overruled this fine judgment and removed a page from the encyclopedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete was definitely the right call at that AfD. The argument to keep was weak and based not on any policy or even real reasoning, even the !vote of "keep" didn't seem to match the following argument. The neutral argument only suggested doing a little WP:BEFORE research but didn't actually push the idea that the subject was notable. The argument to delete was the most convincing, and keep in mind WP:BURDEN. The AfD was open for more than 3 weeks, and had been relisted twice, so it received as much input as it was going to get. Lack of participation doesn't necessarily mean lack of consensus;for example if two editors are working on an article and come to an agreement and nobody has a valid reason to oppose it, that's a consensus. What would you suggest if an AfD was open for 3 weeks and there was only one participant, and they agreed to delete, and based their argument on sound policy-based judgement, would you also call that "no consensus"? --  At am a  頭 22:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal decision is irrelevant here - the point that I make is that it is debatable what it should be closed as, and therefor people shouldn't be opposing per their own personal assessment of the one case, but rather be judging the user on whole. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, this AfD closure is not my only objection to the candidate's adminship. Goodvac (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose because of the AfD-related concerns discussed above, wouldn't mind supporting with a more solid track record of making good arguments in AfD rather than closing them.  Sandstein   20:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry. Per Ironholds' reasoning. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- Ironhold's comments raise serious doubts in my mind about this candidate's suitability for the role at this time. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Agree with Ironholds. I think Logan is slightly too "eager", there isn't a problem with this per se, but it's an eagerness for the "wrong" things, and I don't think it's a great trait for an admin, as it can lead to too many rash decisions. Also, I can't really find a lot of places where he has exercised a lot of judgement, most of his work is pretty routine - again, this is great, but simply not something I look for in an admin candidate. So overall, he does some great work, but hasn't really demonstrated he needs or would correctly use the admin tools. I would suggest he continues at what he's doing, or if he really wants the tools, that he gets involved in some areas where he can analysis consensus and really show that he is able to assess a situation well - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) (Moved from neutral) Sorry. I thought there was tons of upside, but the developments since the casting of my original neutral !vote are too much to ignore. Ironholds makes a very, very compelling argument. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
I'm a bit torn on this. There appears to be tons of upside to the user, yet I trust the two opposers' judgements. Also, the candidate's answer to question 8 does seem rather flimsy, as opposes based on content contributions are always controversial and not always "credible" per the question. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Moving elsewhere. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to try to respond to this, but I'm speechless... Juliancolton (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And I see no reason that you had to. I'm not up for being bothered by supporters/opposers/neutrals from the opposing camp. I'll change my !vote if I feel at a later stage persuaded that the user's suited for adminship. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral, reluctantly My interactions with Logan (mostly on IRC) have been positive, though I don't have a strong opinion nor I'm not really comfortable supporting or opposing this request for adminship. Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of users going overboard on NACs, whether they're appropriate or not. AfD's not all that backlogged anyway. Might go up to support anyway but I've seen overeagerness get admins in trouble before, and that could be likely to happen here. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not clarifying about the backlog. If you look at Articles for deletion/Old, there are currently 63 discussions that need to be closed or relisted. Logan Talk Contributions 14:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The toolserver seems to be playing up for me so its not refreshing the old list well. This has lead to a recent slowness in AFD closing as its quite laborious finding the open AFDs but I think you will find most of the open AFDs were contentions playboy noms that I just closed as keep on procedural grounds. The consensus was to delete but that's for a renom to deal with. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the backlog was due to those Playboy AFDs. As you can see now, backlog is gone, and even so those are for admins to close. Moved decision. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral, moved from support. Not opposing at this time, but my support was based on experience with only one limited aspect of the nominee's contributions.  – Athaenara  ✉  00:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Moved to oppose.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral, switched from oppose. I do believe that he could be a decent admin, not the best though. Idk. Memetic Plague (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, switched from Support. The "reluctant to be considered for the job" bit in the context of Ironholds' comments means I can't maintain my support at this time, but time is too short for me to investigate that further, so I have to land here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Shearonink (talk) 23:57, 20 May 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.