Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/N5iln


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

N5iln
'''Final (50/26/7); ended 07:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC) - At this time, there does not appear to be a consensus among responding wikipedians to allow N5iln access to the wikipedia sysop maintenance toolset due to the volume and content of the oppositions reasons relating to inexperience, especially those with regard to the understanding of various wikipedia processes and guidelines which are a key part of the administrator toolkit. Hopefully, N5iln will view this as constructive criticism, gain experience in the relevant areas, and eventually return to offer his services succssfully in the future. -- Avi (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, the time has come to speak of many things. Foremost on the list for today is my self-nomination to the WP:RFA process. Having participated in this process for several others, I know exactly what sort of pain I'm letting myself in for. But I also see a need for someone who is willing to step up and lend a hand from time to time, and on occasion the assistance that is needed requires someone who wields a mop. Am I perfect? Hellfires, no, and if I ever claim I am, feel free to stick my head in the mop bucket as often as needed to disabuse me of the notion. I am, however, willing and able. I therefore now begin running the gauntlet to see if the community feels I am ready.Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:20, 15 July 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: To begin, I'll remain in the areas where I'm most comfortable: AIV, UAA, and RPP, with some reviewing of AFDs as well. The learning curve for other common tasks such as working the 3RR and CSD noticeboards is sufficiently steep to require me to proceed into those arenas more cautiously, with the concept of "err on the side of caution" firmly in mind.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I'm primarily a gnomish editor, with precious little actual content creation to my name. I originated the MV Bright Field article, and prepared the 2011 NHRA Full Throttle Drag Racing Series season framework, adding content to each as it came to my attention, but the vast majority of my work on the Wikipedia project has been behind-the-scenes support, leaning heavily to the countervandalism arena and its ancillary fields.


 * 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: Anyone who says they've never had any sort of conflict with someone on Wikipedia is either a liar or hasn't been active on Wikipedia for more than a month. Two major episodes of conflict come immediately to mind. The earliest was a cross-up with and can be found at User talk:N5iln/Archive 5, and I think it was the result of pushing myself up the learning curve a bit too hard. The second and more recent issue was a more significant issue between myself,  and an IP editor, involving an edit war. I admit I lost my temper in that episode, which an admin can't afford to do when sorting out a problem such as that. Both issues gave me pause to examine my performance, and as a result, I'd like to say I've become more careful and thoughtful in my actions both in editing articles and working on noticeboards.


 * Additional question from NuclearWarfare
 * 4. The fact that you have 400 edits to ANI worries me. Please summarize what you generally do there, and give representative diffs/section links to reference your statement.
 * A: My activity there is threefold. First, I look for areas where I might be able to contribute information that may prove helpful, such as the thread archived | here. Second, my goal is to identify areas where administrator action is, in fact, not needed, such as at the archived thread here. Finally, I look for spots where clerking can take a bit of the workload off the administrators, such as adding flags to appropriate threads, such as here. The last two areas may, admittedly, be a bit WP:BOLD for some, but I see them as opportunities to lend assistance, and I've tried to be careful not to step on too many toes.

Two of the major admin tasks are dealing with  deletions and blocks. These tools come bundled with  the sysop  toolset and whatever a candidates states to  be their principle areas of activity, there is a strong  chance that they will  be used sooner or later. I very  rarely  ask  questions at  RfA so  I  hope you  don't  mind if I  ask  some here. As always, my questions are entirely  optional  and the community  will not perceive it  negatively  if you  prefer not  to answer them.
 * Additional question from Kudpung
 * 5. Describe in your  own  words the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3.
 * A: It's a difference between context (A1) and content (A3). The A1 criteria would apply if the article only contained material that would be meaningful if the reader were intimately familiar with the article topic. A3 only applies if the article is basically empty except for a series of category and "See also" links.
 * 6. What is the default CSD  criterion?
 * A: The only specific and unambiguous criterion for CSD is WP:COPYVIO. Anything else is subject to a request and subsequent review or discussion.
 * 7. What is a schoolblock?
 * A: An administrator blocking an IP address or range identified as registered to an educational institution may use the schoolblock template. Per that block template's documentation (which I admit I had not examined until now), it should only be applied once on a given address' Talk page due to its size, and should be reserved for use on a block of three months or longer.
 * 8. With this diff When you tag a page with  -  what checks do you run? (Q rephrased, I  forgot  that non admins cannot see del pages.)
 * A: First, I look at the article itself. Are there references? If so, I look at the reference links and bring them up. If I just see press releases, it raises a flag in my mind. Then I'll examine the text of the article, ignoring for a moment any WP:COPYVIO questions, and watch for WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL words or phrases. Those will typically garner the tag even before comparing the article text with the reference texts. COPYVIO issues don't ever see the advert tag; they get flagged immediately, unless the violation is clearly and easily correctible -- which, in my experience, doesn't happen very often.


 * Additional question from Cindamuse
 * 9. Your userpage indicates that you have the article account creator user right. However, your account is not listed among the approved editors for this right. Can you shed some light on the discrepancy? Also, curious why you created the N5ist account for one edit.
 * A: I don't recall ever having edited using the username, nor creating it. As to my account creator status, I just received the email yesterday that my account creator right had been lifted due to inactivity. I have not yet decided whether to request reinstatement. Removing (and replacing, if need be) the userbox is a matter of a few seconds' work, and I'd be happy to do so if needed. ADDITIONAL: It's been brought to my attention that I confused the accountcreator status with ACC Toolserver access, and it was the latter which was lifted due to inactivity; I have never held the accountcreator bit. I have removed the userbox in question from my User page.


 * Additional question from Wikid77
 * 10. I have a "trial-by-fire" competency test for you to gain my Support (and possibly from other editors): create within 4 days (or explain why not) new article: "Blue iceberg" as is often mentioned in connection with the R.M.S. Titanic. Note, there might be multiple meanings for the term "blue iceberg" and you can ask other editors to help with creating that article in 4 days, if you wish (to show you can work with other people to get a task done). I don't mean to make this a Zuckerberg/Facebook competitive competency test, so I have no intention for you to compete against any other editors, and I encourage you to seek helpers if you wish. Otherwise, a good answer for why you object to this task might also gain my support. Think about it. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: For purposes of responding to the question, I will for now ignore the Discussion commentary, regarding whether it is appropriate to ask a RfA candidate to create a brand-new article as part of said RfA. So let's examine the proposed topic, "blue iceberg", and its relation to RMS Titanic. Reviewing the existing article on Titanic, I see absolutely no mention of a "blue iceberg", and mention of such here immediately triggers my internal WP:FRINGE alarm. Turning my attention to the generic Iceberg article, there is also no mention of a "blue iceberg" in relation to Titanic. This leads me to conclude that any such implied relationship may be discarded as a possible cause for creating the article in question. I then considered the existence of "blue icebergs" more empirically. A brief search-engine perusal for "blue iceberg" first brings up an ad agency, which can be immediately forgotten in relation to the topic at hand. I then locate a Web page, written by a photographer, who describes the phenomenon of a "blue iceberg" in fairly good detail. Then I find another, also by a photographer, which appears to contradict material found in the first. This tells me, in short, that a great deal more research on the topic would be required, likely needing more than the four days has allotted me, especially given real-world time constraints on such research. Finally, although admittedly a subjective call on my part, I'm not convinced that the phenomenon of a "blue iceberg" would merit its own article under WP:GNG. Rather, it would more properly garner a subsection in the Iceberg article itself, with appropriate citations and references. Again, given the time constraints, and despite the existence of the pages already mentioned (which provide no such citations and references on their own, and as already pointed out, are mutually contradictory in several areas), I must therefore decline the request to create the "Blue iceberg" article.
 * The wikisearch feature allows searching for a phrase ("blue iceberg") in articles. Also, as you might know, Google Search rapidly indexes new pages created within English Wikipedia. So, I have 2 related questions:
 * What are the titles of 2 articles which contain the phrase "blue iceberg"?
 * Who is another enwiki user who has created a user-space draft about blue icebergs?
 * Those questions are in response to your answer, above. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:20, revised 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: Using the wikisearch feature results in several "hits", first being the aforementioned Iceberg primary article, which I ignore for now as not germane to your question. Next is the Frederick Fleet article, which is germane because Fleet was the lookout of Titanic who first spotted the iceberg and raised the alarm. Immediately following Fleet's article is Serge Golovach, who is listed as a contemporary artist. Golovach's article is germane to the search due to a published work entitled "Blue Iceberg", with which I am unfamiliar and an image of which does not appear on a brief Google Images search. As to the existence of an actual article, I observe that has a userspace-subpage article of that title, the contents of which echo certain alternative theories to Titanic's sinking, others of which include the premise that Titanic struck pack ice instead of an iceberg, the possibility of an insurance scam, and the decidedly WP:FRINGE concept that a mummy's curse was responsible. Rather than expound on the merits of any presented argument in the article, I will leave it as an exercise for the student to formulate opinions or conclusions as to any alternative theory's veracity, as compared to the accepted explanations already contained in Titanic's main article...especially since my opinions regarding such veracity are, to my mind, inapplicable to this RfA.


 * Additional question from B
 * 11. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Consider these three scenarios for use of non-free content under a claim of fair use.  If asked to close FFD discussions, how would you resolve them?
 * A photograph of Miles Stadium (which was torn down in 1965) published in the Washington Post?
 * A photograph of a popular French politician who died last week used both in an article about him and about a company that he founded?
 * A photo of the largest watermelon ever (which earned that title according to Guinness World Records in 1986) in the article watermelon? --B (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I have not participated in any WP:FFD discussions or examined WP:NFC in any detail to date, so my answer will be prefaced by stating this is my first examination of NFC. Right now, it would only be with great caution that I approached any FFD discussion, let alone examined one with an eye to closure, because of that lack of participation. That said, I now don my photographer's hat, since that's where my experience with copyright issues and fair use is based. The term "fair use" has a very specific statutory meaning in United States law. To meet the legal definition of "fair use", the purpose of inclusion of copyrighted material (to quote the law) must be for "parody, criticism, comment, news reporting, education (including the distribution of multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." (ref: American Society of Media Photographers (2010). ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography, 7th Ed. (p. 84). Allworth Press. Kindle Edition.) Applying NFC to your three examples, the photograph of Miles Stadium would be permitted as the stadium was demolished, so it's unlikely any free images exist. Because of newsworthiness, the French politician's photograph might be allowable in an article about that politician, but only after discussion, and despite its being permitted by "fair use", my own instinct would be to disallow it, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. It would not be allowable in an article regarding a company he founded, since there would be no demonstrable benefit for the reader in the context of the article; instead, a link to the person's article should be offered, per criterion 8. Finally, the photo of the world's largest watermelon would likely be disallowed in this instance; although permitted under the "criticism" clause of "fair use", criterion 1 would apply, since a free photo of any watermelon would suffice for the article. The exception would be if the article specifically discussed that record-holding watermelon, in which case criterion 8 would apply.
 * 12. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you?  Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR.  He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views.  (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A: WP:INVOLVED speaks to cases, not users. Past discussions or disagreements that are not related to the issue at hand may therefore be discounted as possible causes of action for "involvement". Further, a bright line issue such as 3RR is specifically discussed in WP:INVOLVED, both as to precedent and a lack of limitation on an admin's action in performing purely administrative acts. However, despite having an administrator bit being WP:NOBIGDEAL, much of the user base of Wikipedia holds admins to a higher standard of conduct, so erring on the side of caution hurts nothing. In your specific example, my most likely course of action would be to bring the matter to WP:ANI and ask for a review of the block, since in that example it has already been placed. If I had any question at all as to involvement prior to placing the block, prudence would dictate the block NOT be placed by myself, and that another admin review the 3RR issue and act appropriately. In that way, the entire question of "involvement" is circumvented.


 * Additional question from NuclearWarfare
 * 13. Please explain this edit. Do you feel you handled the situation appropriately?
 * A. With the available information, there was little else that could be done with it. The edit was made in a section of the page that would not be displayed, it was a single word which appeared to be a user name, there was no edit summary to accompany the edit, and I did not locate a subpage that would be available for transclusion. On the chance that it WAS an effort at transcluding a subpage that I didn't see for some reason, and assuming good faith, I elected to simply revert the edit rather than caution the editor, and I made a brief note of my action and its reason as an edit summary. I also note that the user in question has not messaged me on my talk page asking why I reverted the edit, which is an action I have learned to expect when I perform an erroneous reversion.

General comments

 * Links for N5iln:
 * Edit summary usage for N5iln 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

 * The quotation "the time has come to speak of many things" is from Lewis Carroll's "The Walrus and the Carpenter", not C. S. Lewis. Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Urk...you are correct. I knew I shouldn't have cut that Lit class... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit stats posted on talk. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - N5iln, you are confusing ACC toolserver access with the  usergroup. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I stand corrected. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to look at the content creation record that a candidate brings to RFA; it's unreasonable to direct a candidate to develop a specific piece of new content as part of the RFA process. I hope voters and the closing bureaucrat will choose to ignore Wikid77's question. (Disclosure: I'm not voting on this RFA.) Townlake (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. (Disclosure: I have opposed this candidate, based solely on CSD concerns and with no problems over his content contributions.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to see candidates actively declining to answer "questions" such as that from Wikid77. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Question 10 is utterly absurd. There's a few articles I want created: should I use RfA as a way to get people to write them for me? What if the user isn't interested in the subject area? The question is highly, highly inappropriate, just as it would be if we asked an RfA candidate to go and do three non-admin closures at AfD or go and tag ten articles in the new pages queue with cleanup templates. Wikipedia is not obligatory after all: "under no circumstances are editors obligated or expected to make any edits". I will be very disappointed if questions of this type start appearing at RfA in the future. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they seem to come up somewhat regularly. I don't know if I would call it an "utterly absurd" question--I might call it "totally ridiculous" and "unfair." Drmies (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Creating an article as a competency test: People who work with computers have been asked, for decades, to write computer-formatted content as part of qualification tests. It is a common test question. For example, someone might ask a candidate to write the markup to display a wikitable of 3 rows of microbiologists, their birthdates, and doctoral universities. In the case of article "Blue iceberg" where I warned of multiple meanings, I even gave the option to decline and state why. When the candidate noted his search found "contradictory" meanings requiring more research, plus WP:GNG notability concerns, then I thought his response was well-centered for people who do not write hundreds of articles. Also, anyone can create a user-space draft as a proposed article. -Wikid77 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon compulsion? The question is unfair. "NO" is not even a good answer--declining to answer it in the first place is more proper, in my opinion. There's a term for it, an answer that says "this isn't a question", but I forgot what it was. Sorry, Wikid, but I don't think this was a fair question for an RfA. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD has nebulous wording
22-July-2011: For Kudpung's question 5 (above), about the difference between CSD A1 (context) and CSD A3 (content), I think the policy WP:CSD needs to be reworded to be less nebulous or rambling, and focus on specific issues. It bothers me that a candidate has to be asked to "explain" a speedy-delete policy that should have been written with simple, obvious, direct wording, which would not require a candidate to "interpret" reasons to delete a page without prior discussion. Plus, for gray-area deletion loopholes, then there should be an "official" tutorial essay that explains some rare, borderline deletion cases, rather than wonder if a candidate has "absorbed from experience" the critical nuances of "deletion-calculus" techniques. Admin-action policies should not be so nebulous or confusing that candidates would need to explain what they mean in "your own words" which are not words used to define the policies. In cases where policies are potentially confusing, then we need to have "official" tutorial essays to clarify the issues. Specifically, policy editors should rewrite (and clarify) WP:CSD criterion A3 (issues of insufficient page contents). Meanwhile, the candidate should not be penalized because his philosophical interpretion of a poorly-worded action-oriented policy does not match some imagined ideas of what that policy should say in "your own words": it is akin to requesting to explain the differences between Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion as if there were a single specific "right answer" to that question. We are looking for admins, not Supreme Court Justices. RfA questions should be more specific, with obvious answers. -Wikid77 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This belongs on WT:CSD, not on N5iln's RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support I've seen Alan the Roving Ambassador around, and they always seem to be contributing in a positive manner. Will make a great admin. Also, that is an awesome name. Monty  845  22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I've been watching for this! ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I've seen him around a great deal, and he strikes me as a rather level headed individual. I thought he was one already. The more wikignome admins, the better IMO. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I haven't done all my RfA homework on this one yet, but as Swarm says below in the oppose section, "I have a good impression of this user overall." I agree the username issue is a bit confusing, but also quite easily fixable. (Look in here for one way.) Among the non-admin AN/I regulars, Alan is well above average in cluefulness and helpfulness. Not perfect (I wasn't thrilled about the tag-team-hatting of TomPointTwo this week) but certainly a net positive presence on that board. 28bytes (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strongest possible support per Chris Cunningham below. James500 (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC) (Original rationale struck). I also think that question 10, and all comments about the candidate's answer to it, should be ignored. I do not think that it was fair. James500 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I think he is clearly very experienced and I'm not bothered by the proportion of automated edits. I would prefer him to change his signature if appointed though Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 10:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - User appears to know what they are doing. The signature issue is the closest thing to a minor issue I see, and even that is not a big deal to me. I clicked on the signature and ended up in the right place. SQL Query me!  13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - My gut was, "This is a good editor". Research backs that up. The name issue is the only one I really have and that's easily correctable. Alan's work at ANI shows a lot of clue and a fair amount of tact. Overall, he'll definitely be an asset. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 15:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools.  --rogerd (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Why not? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Withdrawing support per concerns raised below - F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support With enthusiasm My76Strat  talk  18:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In reaffirming my support for this candidate, I'd like to say it will be a shame if we mess this up and don't show our consensus to support this nomination. If we are here to see the best for Wikipedia, we should all know this guy is pretty top notch. He has commented at many RfAs and I know I'm not the only one who observed his abundance of good qualities. If you sit oppose, and your grounds are not because you have seen the egregious thing, get over here, we need your support. And to the Calvary to come, your role has always been to save the day. So to the many who participate regularly, and have yet to !vote, I hope to see you without delay. There are plenty of strong, clue-full editors that have already shown good reason to support. And I think its good enough reason for us to reach consensus. My76Strat  talk  02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Conditional Support conditional on agreeing to fix signature/username problem. Se no other issues, classic case of "already thought was an admin" Hobit (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Super ultra Support Why not? I see no problems at all.  190.51.135.48 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indented, sorry, but IPs cannot !vote. Please log in to cast your !vote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Not that I don't appreciate the support! --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Net positive. Username linking a non issue for me (but I do understand the concern). Slightly to much ANI involvement, but hey there we go. Not likely to nuke the place or piss off other editors with tool use. Pedro : Chat  21:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, seems like an okay guy; opposition hardly has a leg to stand on. Blurpeace  21:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per answer to question 6. I usually will put an article through AFD, but if a copyvio is discovered then the article must be deleted until it can be rewritten in another way.  –BuickCenturyDriver 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongest possible support - The user looks like a net positive, and the issues presented below seem very minor, especially the lack of content creation. The user knows what he's doing, and I believe that it would be very beneficial to the encyclopedia if the candidate was given the mop and bucket. Absolutely. MJ94 (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I understand that there is not a lot of content creation from this editor, but their actions and comments at the Admin Noticeboards does not lead me to think that they do not appreciate or are ignorant of what content editors do and the problems they face. My impression is that this is a person who is more adept at the clerical and backroom side of building the project. However, my support is solely based on whether - in my experience of their editing - they can be trusted to use the tools; I do not see them trying to break the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support A vast amount of content creation is not mandatory, so long as the editor has a good understanding of policy and procedures, which I feel this editor has. The comments about his signature are wholly irrelevant to this issue, and should not IMHO have been offered as meaningful objections. His signature is totally irrelevant to his potential ability as an admin.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support no concerns. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 21:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Candidate is always very helpful at WP:AIV and WP:UAA. Why not?--5 albert square (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I have never been unimpressed by this user. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I've seen nothing in his past edits that would suggest he would use the additional tools wisely. Someone posted down below suggesting that focusing on non-content editing would lead to an overly aggressive editor, but I've never seen any problem in the tone of his posts.  It seems to me that most raised objections are contrary to the ideas behind WP:DEAL Kevin (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. The username concern is not a major issue. Seems to have ability to be a great admin. --EdwardZhao (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No cause for concern is evident. Opposes are unpersuasive as they seem unrelated to fitness to have the extra bits. --causa sui (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, for ability to learn complexity quickly. After reading the "Oppose" section, I was concerned about content-judgment, so I posed the "Blue iceberg" questions, knowing this article/topic was mysteriously missing, but also knowing it is quite famous re R.M.S. Titanic in 1912 (99 years ago). Although WP:notability is based on the proportionate coverage in WP:RS's (and not how a title is used within WP articles), I felt the candidate was quickly learning how topics can link together, while juggling the multiple meanings of the term "blue iceberg" as sometimes an iceberg which has flipped over to show the smooth melted side (aka "blackberg"?), or sometimes a blue-colored iceberg, and whether to have a separate article (or merge into "Iceberg"), not fully aware of how notable "blue iceberg" might be. I was pleased with the open-ended responses considering multiple, mainstream meanings for a major term, where many high-count article writers are likely to be confused in writing multiple meanings for the same term (consider "Blue moon" as 2nd full moon in a month, versus 3rd full moon of 4 in a season, or "Trivia" as either trivial items or Trivia and Quadrivia aka trivium of Liberal Arts). Other content concerns can be learned quickly. Hence, passed this complex trial by fire, well done (pun). -Wikid77 (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - This will end up being a moral support, I'm afraid, because there are a large number of opposes with solid reasons for opposing your candidacy. In particular a few of your answers above showed that you might be a bit lacking in areas important to adminship. I might have gone into the neutral column, but I've seen you active in a number of Wikipedia project areas and you seem to have a good head on your shoulders. When I see your name attached to a comment, I automatically expect it to be a good one, and it generally is. I hope that if this nomination doesn't succeed, that you don't give up, just work on your experience and try it again when you're better prepared and more knowledgeable. You could be a good administrator. --  At am a  頭 03:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of opposes is not large and their reasons are not solid.James500 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of opposes is high enough that with the percentage that this RfA is at, if the RfA closed this moment it would likely fail. I'm hoping for a swell of support to push this over to a success but in my experience that rarely happens at RfA. As to the substance of the opposes, the most valid concern is with CSDs, but I trust Alan's word that he won't jump right into CSDs. I myself took my time with CSDs and was an admin for a year before I began working with them in earnest, so I can empathize. --  At am a  頭 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Collegial, responsive and apparently good at what he does. The opposes are variously things I'm not overly concerned about (CSD minutae for a candidate whose statement specifically cites CSD as a tricky area he's not overly involved in; admins can learn on the job, and without evidence to suggest wilful cluelessness on the candidate's behalf this seems unlikely to matter), already resolved (the sig issue: hell, I was even used as the example) or garbage (particularly "lack of experience" for a user with 20k+ edits and five years on the project). If this were a "best editor ever" contest then the relative lack of in-depth contribution to particular articles and lack of namespace breadth would be a concern, but it isn't and so it isn't. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The opposes do not sway it for me.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - I've had limited dealings with him in the past, but he's always been professional. I agree with thumperward, I'm not overly concerned about the things that the opposes are are taking issue with.  If he's willing to take on the chore of adminship, he's got my !vote. Mojoworker (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Support I think this Rfa passing will be tough, but after reading over the opposing comments, I am not completely swayed to oppose. Good luck! America69 (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) So the candidate says that he'll "proceed cautiously" in CSD, an implicit statement that it won't be a primary area of activity, and yet he's hauled over the coals for answers to CSD questions, at least two of which (5, 6) are completely theoretical and devoid of any relevance to the practical tasks an admin performs? Please. The signature concerns are, in my view, similarly unconvincing. I see good things. My only concern is the high levels of activity on ANI. Good luck. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - user is holding himself well under pressure here. Collegial, responsive good at what he does and willing to take his time and learn what he doesn't. Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - let's see, we're opposing because his signature is obnoxious, his edits don't have the right balance, and he declined to research and create an article about something on the fly that he's not familiar with and probably didn't feel he could do justice to. Obviously, I'm supporting ... you should deobnoxiousify&trade; your signature, though. --B (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Courteous, excellent anti-vandalism work and experienced user. (as well as 535 edits to Administrator intervention against vandalism) Grim2</b><b style="color:#FF0000">3</b> ★ 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Clean block log, has been around since 2006, no indications of assholery. Those should be the criteria for the janitor job. And say, why don't we change the name of the job from "Administrator" to "Janitor"? That would weed out a lot of the egomaniac problems right there... Whether the candidate is a content creator is 100% irrelevant — in fact, it's better if content creators keep the hell away from the janitorial nonsense if you ask me... Carrite (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer "sanitation engineer", myself. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support; I've seen the candidate in various places and they have been consistently hardworking, helpful, and pleasant. I respect the concerns expressed by other !voters but think the mop would be in safe hands. bobrayner (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Weak support. This is one of those cases where I actually do agree with a lot of the opposition and read through the comments closely. As a result I really had to think about this one, but in the end I think he'd be a net positive. I'd rather have an admin who knows where their weak spots are and will proceed with caution there than one who pretends they are an expert on everything. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to full support in protest of Kudpung's "gotcha" questions. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 02:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – I'm on the same page as Wizardman, especially when it comes to signature vs. actual username. However, having seen good work from him around the areas where he wants to be involved, and fine editing in general, I don't think adminship will pose a problem. Airplaneman   ✈  18:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - gnomish article work, copious work at WP:AIV, reviewer, and rollbacker. Registered as a user for 5 years, and has plenty of barnstars. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support While I understand the concerns expressed in the oppose section, they do not sway me from supporting a candidate that is able to work with others in a thoughtful, calm manner and who has a wide variety of experience under his belt. I would suggest a thorough reading of WP:CSD prior to performing any admin related CSD work, but overall I believe he will be a positive addition to the mop-wielding clean-up crew. <b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support to offset lame oppose !votes. Personally, I don't know the answer to question #6 and the answer to question #5 is good enough. My signature is slightly misleading too; should I request removal of my tools?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A6 is actually pretty easy: There is no such thing as a "default CSD". Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well I still think it's ridiculous to oppose over that.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad someone finally asked. I couldn't figure out what the "default CSD" was either.  I thought I was loosing my mind and missing something important at WP:CSD but I was too embarrassed to ask.--v/r - TP 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support- seems intelligent and responsible. I am also very unimpressed with opposes over Alan's response to the "create this article" question and feel they need cancelling out. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Blurpeace. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I can see why the Oppose voters acted so, and their reasoning is not invalid; however, and this is just my opinion, I'd like to remind everybody that adminship is a learning experience. Very few candidates are fully-versed in every aspect of an administrator's duty; asking them to be is a bit unrealistic. I doubt Alan is going to dive headfirst into areas he's not familiar with. What's important is that he demonstrates a strongly-professional demeanor, excellent work ethic, and keeps calm under pressure - if that's all handled, I'm sure we can help him build up a few of his weaker areas. Best of luck, Alan. m.o.p  00:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong support Signature issues are a terrible reason to oppose. I specifically like your response to question 12.  A perfect answer in my book. Ryan Vesey  contribs  01:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - A clueful, long term editor that has experience in many different areas of the project. Cordial, inviting and has helped Wikipedia in many different ways. Alan can be trusted with the tools and has shown a willingness to learn and improve. I'm certain he will work on the areas mentioned in the oppose section and the username issue has already been taken care of and therefore moot at this point. I do not feel the concerns raised so far are sufficient to deny granting the bit to a valued editor such as this. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Though some of the opposes make some valid points, on balance I think this user would serve the project well as an administrator. I trust that whether or not this RfA is successful, the candidate will take some of the opposers' concerns into account going forward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I'm surprised I'm doing this, as I do have some concerns with some of the subtle statements by the candidate. However I think the opposes over signature are unreasonable and am trusting in the other supporters that say he has helped out at ANI and other venues without inciting too much controversy. Dave (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, mainly per WP:NETPOSITIVE, but also because some of the opposes are, quite frankly, ridiculous. Opposing over his signature (when it's clearly not the sig of a 12-year-old using a paragraph of mark-up) and the answers to trick/ridiculous questions are no doubt part of the reason that RfA has become such an ordeal. The only opposes that merited serious consideration were those considering content creation and his desire to work at RfPP, but on balance, I think Alan has a level enough head on his shoulders that he won't do anything that can't be promptly undone (not to mention that most of our RfPP admins aren't content creators anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Last-minute support. I've been on the fence throughout, and the opposers do raise some very valid concerns, which is why I've been hesitant, but I've seen Alan around a lot and always doing useful things. I think he would be more useful to the community with the tools and, as long as he's careful (especially with CSD), a net positive. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support; I think Alan is the kind who can learn from his mistakes, and although his CSD answers aren't perfect I think he's willing to learn. Meant to do this two days ago, see indented neutral comment for why I didn't. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Per the signatures policy that the candidate even links to in his own userbox, signatures that contain no reference to the username are strongly discouraged. Keepscases (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If my signature is the biggest objection to this RfA, I'd be happy to alter it. As I recall, there's a precedent for doing so, in the body of . --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC) ADDITIONAL - please note that I have made the change. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Extended discussion moved to talk page.  Swarm   X 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepscases; I hold you in a position of high regard, If you asked me to consider a thing, I would consider it thoroughly because you had asked. If I may withdraw any regard that you might have for me, consider that I ask that you reconsider your opposition, and in doing so join the consensus for support. I believe it is a thing worth doing, and you are of the caliber to actually do it. Because it is the right thing. IMO My76Strat (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Really can you get anymore annoying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.21.147 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indications from others in the past are affirmative to that regard. I only hope this is not from Keepscases, who simply forgot to log in. But he would have known how to append an edit without corrupting the markup. I did fix your error. My76Strat (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Keepscases (minor issue, but perfectly fair point all the same), Snottywong, the relatively low number of non-automated edits and the relatively high number of ANI edits. Individually, these points are quite minor, but together, they're enough for me to oppose. FTR, I have a good impression of this user overall.  Swarm   X 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, oppose per the answers to Kudpung's questions, which are pretty bad.  Swarm   X 06:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree with Keepscases' statement. I didn't know who "N5iln" was until I saw "Alan the Roving Ambassador". It's confusing for me, what about for new users? In addition, very many mainspace edits but very few article talk page edits, and barely any project talkspace edits. I'd certainly expect to see more policy discussion from an admin, as well as talk page edits for someone with so many article edits. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Lack of content. If candidate lacks the work ethic or brains to write articles, I am concerned about his performance as an admin.  Also my experience is that non content contributing admins tend to turn mean more and just lead us more to a project that is oriented around conduct rather than product (e.g. his ANI fascination or the Project as a whole with its gargantuan arbitration cases).  Even if the user prefers non-writing tasks, would like to see that he has the capacity to do written work before putting him in a supervisory role.  IOW, he does not need to concentrate on writing, but he should "check the box" to show the ability.  It is just too big a part of what is our final product to have no signficant experience.  Also, like anything we try on the Wiki, it would deepen his understanding and make him better able to handle new situations on the job.  (I know this is an unpopular view.)TCO (reviews needed)  16:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TCO - is "lacks the work ethic or brains" completely neccessary? Seems a bit WP:NPA to me.  Also, admins are not supervisors.  Admins are editors with extra tools.  God help the encyclopedia if I am a supervisor.--v/r - TP 17:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, TP. It's long been held that having the mop is WP:NOBIGDEAL, and that's a stance I agree with. I would also point out to that a lack of content creation does not by definition indicate the lack of "brains" (to re-use the idiom) to do so. Each user has their own area of expertise to bring to the project, and it's not always going to be the desire to write new articles, although without articles, Wikipedia wouldn't exist. The other side of that coin is that without users who are more procedurally-oriented (as opposed to content-oriented), the routine and often-thankless administrative tasks such as vandalism reversion would likely languish. It doesn't necessarily follow that good content creators will be good admins, just as it doesn't always follow that good programmers make good technicians or good authors make good bookbinders. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't mean "by definitiion"--I had an "or" in the first sentence. ;-) I think the vast majority of non article writing editors are capable of doing so.  I realize that ANI may be more appealing to some, but even them, they would be better admins if they at least "checked the box" and experienced writing a few articles.  Vandal hunting, never content creating admins often (logic note, often does not mean "always"!) lead to a more aggressive attitude that is reflected into other parts of our project.  And they also tend to just have a knowledge gap about some of the choices that need to be made and become overly procedural rather than sophisticated when there are difficult content controversies.  P.s.  I'm glad that you didn't seem wounded by my remark (was just bluntly stating an idea of why I think what I think is needed).  I appreciate your reacting to that, even though you (and many others think I'm wrong).  Peace.  TCO (reviews needed)  18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, and I do see your point. One of many reasons I choose not to write articles is that, simply, articles already exist on most topics on which I'd prefer to write. It surprised me at the time that there wasn't an article on MV Bright Field, my interest in which came about because I spent a short time working with a professional mariner, who brought it up as a subject of conversation one day. Small nudges can sometimes lead to big articles...or, in this case, small but informative ones. My own preference is still to serve in a support capacity, rather than spending most of my time on content creation. "Those who can, do." Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Do to the concerns expressed above. Intoronto1125 <b style="color:red; font-size:larger;">Talk</b> Contributions   20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could that be more specific, please? -- Σ  talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;"> contribs   21:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'm not  altogether satisfied the the answers to  Q. 5, 6, 8, - they  do  not  demonstrate to  me that  your knowledge of CSD is sufficient.  Although  you  have now modified your signature due to  the advice on this RfA, please see this section at SIGNATURES, I'm  surprised that  you  would not  already  have realised the inconvenience of such  signatures.  You  have a healthy  number of edits, good work at  AIV, and your enthusiasm  is in  the right  place, but  I  do think  your knowledge of deletion  policy  still  has some way  to  go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The answers to Kudpung's CSD questions in particular do not instil in me much confidence in the candidate's ability to judge speedy deletion candidates. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose over general inexperience. The candidate shows lack of experience with signatures, understanding of account creation, user rights, CSD, and UAA.  I disagree with SW in that I think there is a lot of non-admin work to be done and there are frequently non-admins clerking UAA doing pretty much what the candidate is doing at AIV.  All seperately these are minor issues, but together they show broad lack of knowledge.--v/r - TP 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I wasn't sure whether to support this or not, and was going to go neutral; But due to the concerns above, I can't trust this candidate for adminship at the moment. He doesn't have enough content creation (In my opinion content creation would be handy because at WP:RFPP there will be some requests involving disputes and this requires judgement over content) and I'd rather he did an area more helpful as an admin rather than doing what I call "villainous" actions such as blocking, deleting and protecting, let alone the rollbacking which he does at the moment with Huggle. The signature has changed already, even though I don't mind about signatures. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 04:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. This candidate lacks/confused over different user access levels. Accountcreator flag can be granted by admins but this candidate showed that he mixed up different types of flags. I'm worried that if this candidate becomes an admin, various flags are granted to questionable users without knowing exactly what those flags are for and could harm the community. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 18:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern and thank you for your input. However, although this is going to sound argumentative, I should like to point out that having been corrected on the difference between the accountcreator flag and access to the ACC tool, I would be unlikely to commit that error again. Similarly, were I unfamiliar with the access or function of a given requested flag, it would be foolish at best and incompetent at worst to grant such a requested flag without reviewing both the flag's functionality and both the needs and history of its requester. Please note that this is NOT a request for you to change your !vote. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose (moved from Neutral) - per my comments in the Neutral section. The answers to questions 5-8 were not great, and for a candidate with low experience, I'd want to see excellent answers to questions like those before I can support.  (I thought question 10 was handled very well.)  Otherwise, the candidate appears to be an excellent editor, and if he takes a few months to actively participate more in the stated areas of admin interest, I would probably support next time.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chat 20:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose while not bothered by the signature issue, I cannot support due to your replies to 's questions. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 00:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge and experience in areas candinate wishes to work.  Sorry,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I'm concerned with the editor's lack of knowledge shown through the answers to Kudpung's questions. Regarding Wikid77's request, I would not hold back support if Alan had simply stated that he would prefer not to create an article due to competing priorities. However, he opened the door and essentially stated that an article about blue icebergs was inappropriate, primarily based on his lack of knowledge about the subject and lack of ability to find content on Wikipedia or elsewhere that would possibly support an article. That was followed by referring to the subject as a fringe theory. Just because it isn't mentioned at great length on Wikipedia is not an indicator that an article wouldn't be appropriate and/or welcome. If that were the case, we'd all be outta business. This leaves me concerned that Alan may be too eager to discredit the work of others, because he is either unable to ascertain the viability of an article or he is simply unfamiliar with the subject. There's seriously a vast amount of information available about blue icebergs. Even the "fringe theory" of the mummy is mentioned in a standalone section in the Titanic alternative theories article. Not to mention in a separate article at Unlucky Mummy. Sorry,  Cind. amuse  11:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Regretfully, my comments fall here. I was initially going to support (partly because I read the discussion you and I had about a year ago and felt like a bit of a jerk, though while my points stand I should've approached it in a different way), but I find your answers to Kudpung's questions quite lacking. Sorry. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  02:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The answers to Kudpung's questions, and also per Cind.amuse's oppose. Also content creation concerns, but that is always dismissed by closing Bureaucrats. The concerns I have with the candidate extend far past that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodello (talk • contribs)
 * 7) Oppose, unfortunately. I see a number of issues, which although individually valid to some extent, wouldn't cause me to oppose on their own. The signature, the limited content contributions, the weak question answers and minor confusions -- all are legitimate concerns, but any one of these I might put aside if everything else about the candidate made a compelling case. But combined they are too much to allow me to support him for adminship at this time. --RL0919 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Disappointed at the failure to communicate here beyond a simple edit summary; a talk page comment was certainly warranted. I share the same overall concerns as RL0919, sans the signature issue, which I don't see as a problem at all. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. One of the many things that Wikipedia is short of isn't administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is probably not a valid argument. Many hands make light work. See Redundancy is good. James500 (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Devil finds work for idle hands. Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that is a valid argument either since, being volunteers, there is no way to compel admins to be busy.James500 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?--v/r - TP 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is an underestimation of how solitary and hard work it is to really produce researched articles (look at me, screwing around chitchatting instead of fixing African rock python. SErious content creators don't spring out of the ground or drop out of trees to the extent needed to really build vast important, high hit count, vital-article parts of the 'pedia.  Interestingly, this is a vast world and the Internet would allow 'pedia to access more individuals who could/would contribute.  But I bet a lot are turned off of doing so.  And don't get me started on the God damned edit window which feels like I'm being asked to build the Pyramids with a blindfold and one hand beside my back (instead of a crane and a forklift).  Getting more content creators like Wehwalt or Malleus (and keeping him from moving from writing to chatting) is a much higher priority than kiddy admins.TCO (reviews needed)  18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Going through this (somewhat arduous) process again, in respect of this candidate, in several months time, in order to do something that could be done today, isn't likely to help content creation. James500 (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the answers to Kudpung's questions.  They do not inspire confidence in me, honestly. Logan Talk Contributions 05:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per the answers to Kudpung's questions (specifically 5, 6, and 8,) as well as the lack of experience detailed above. LiteralKa (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Due to the large amount of concerns expressed above. &mdash;Terrence and Phillip 08:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I really wanted to support this, but your knowledge of deletion policy just isn't there yet. Issues about your signature are, however, rather silly as a basis for opposition.  Should this fail, I'd encourage three to six months of close experience with deletion processes, and then a fresh RFA. Courcelles 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose You handled Q10 well and Q11 as well as could be expected from one that does not spend a good deal of time in the file namespace. Your answers to the optional questions above that, however, do not inspire confidence in me.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per lack of in-depth policy knowledge; I'm unconvinced from answers to questions, and edits, that you've currently got the depth of knowledge required. The previous responses above have elaborated on the specifics.  Chzz  ► 02:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per RL0919. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Waterfox ~talk~ 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral leaning oppose Moved to oppose - Candidate does not appear to have very much experience in his stated areas of interest (with the exception of AIV).  Granted, there is not much for non-admins to do at RPP and UAA (for which he has only 61 and 25 edits respectively), but the most glaring is the lack of experience at AfD.  I would hope that most admins who begin closing AfD's will have participated in more than 57 of them over the course of 5+ years.  Granted, only around half of those 5+ years were spent editing actively, but still, I don't believe that 57 AfD's is enough to really have a handle on how they should be closed.  I'll reserve final judgment until after the candidate has answered a few questions.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#a00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> express 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 *  Neutral leaning support ; (moved to support} the CSD answers are a little off, and although it may seem trivial, the way NPP is right now it's necessary to know the difference because a startling number of NPPers need guidance. However, this is counterbalanced by his work elsewhere (I'm around UAA a lot, so I see him there frequently, and his work there is great), so I'm not going to oppose. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 02:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now would be a great time for you to correct your posture. You have languished in this leaning position far to long. Surely you have seen, by the candidates conduct, and good answers, enough reason to stand upright. And it would be an act of leadership that couldn't do anything but help the others neutral, to see that their neutrality is effecting the ability to reach consensus. It's not a mistake that this RfA remains open, and the final consensus could easily depend on persons, like yourself, making the bold decision to support, or not. IMO My76Strat (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to change this to support a couple of days ago; unfortunately the Orange Bar of Doom popped up when I got to this page, and a rather heated exchange ensued on my talkpage. Let me rectify that now. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. CSD answers could have been better. More AfD contributions would be good. (Thanks for changing your signature.)  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was once asked if I would consider a thing. My reply was "Sure". Because at times, such a direct question results in quality discourse, I would like to ask you a question of similar complexity. Would you consider moving to support this candidate? Support, or oppose, this RfA depends on minds like yours, being bold and pronouncing their stance more directly. So I hope that you will. Best, My76Strat (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Good work in noticeboards. But still concerns with understanding with the deletion policy and content creation. So wait till you have a bit more experience in the areas you don't know yet. :) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - per Porchcorpter & above, I believe that this candidate will soon have the potential to handle the mop. But as for right now, I think he should first get a better understanding of the deletion policies. -  Dwayne   was here!   &#9835;  14:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, I am a bit worried by poor usage of the term "unconstructive edit" as per Q13, plus the other opposition reasons. However none are reasons to fully oppose in my mind, but I feel uncomfortable supporting. I disagree with you that there was little else that could be done. Throwing the term "unconstructive" around so lightly is damaging to editor attraction and retention. Personally I would recommend a few more months experience, then try again. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Though I have worked with this editor and have always been impressed with his temperment and his attitude, I cannot in good faith support this application due to reasonable comments by the opposers. I congratulate you for updating your signature to allay some concerns and would encourage you to come back in a few months and try again.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral (Previously support) I've reviewed 20 ANI discussions and Alan's discussions on the Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden, in which he has always been professional, clear, and accurate. Some answers here could have been improved, as noted by others. Experience writing articles should be a high priority, and I would urge the candidate to write more and then return and enjoy the acclaim of the community.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC) 17:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, I have see you contributing to articles on mathematics, and I have observed that you are adept at such concept. Use those skills now and realize that this equation doesn't add up to the correct sum. The candidate deserves your support, and you (and we) deserve quality admins of the caliber of this candidate. To me that equals support, and I'd like to see yours reinstated. My76Strat (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I have seen lots of good work from Alan, but this RfA points at a few weak spots--article creation, obviously, and some basics about CSDs and all. Perfection should not be the standard, of course, but I think next time around (I hope there will be a next time) Alan will have raised their game and their answers. Good luck. (BTW, I note now that I am really very much in agreement with Kiefer, above.) Drmies (talk) 00:39, 24 July 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.