Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NickPenguin


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

NickPenguin
'''Final (51/30/5); ended 07:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)  - ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 07:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)'''

Nomination
I remember when I first started using Wikipedia, there were only 176,000 articles. I didn't start editing until almost a year later, as an anon IP, and I registered my first account in late 2005. Since then I have been fairly active, with a few wiki breaks in between. I have never been blocked, because I generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument. I like doing maintenance edits, especially merging articles and redirecting. I like to perform a lot of maintenance over at WP:PM, and keep track of that page.

I've also had stints in cleaning up trivia (especially a few years ago when it was really bad) and getting involved in the popular culture debates. I generally have no particular affiliation with the traditional inclusionist/deletionist divide, I evaluate content on the basis of it's own merits, and I do not believe individual articles are always the best place to hold specific content. I generally avoid conflict.

I have primarily been active on Wikipedia, but several years ago I made some substantial improvements to the Guitar Wikibook. Wikipedia is my main area of interest.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would like to be able to perform moves over redirects when it is convenient. If I am granted the ability, I would also like to assist in copyright issues, as I understand there is not very many admins focusing on that area. I generally enjoy tedious repetitive work. Page protection would also be useful for some of the articles I have edited. I could also fulfill closing roles in SpeedyD, RfD, MfD, AfD and other Ds. I am not as interested in the RCP and edit warring, although I can think of situations where it would have been useful to have those tools. Again, my focus on here is maintenance of articles more so than anything.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I began my editing with discussions about the deletion of Template:Trivia, and it followed with a mass integration and removal of trivia sections. Usually integration, I find content can often be integrated instead of outright removal. After that I participated in some AfDs, and rescued the Meaning of Life article (start and finish).


 * Then I got involved with the popular culture debate, which resulted in the creation of the WikiProject Popular Culture, which led to general acceptance that popular culture articles as a class are not to be outright deleted. Since then my view has somewhat softened on the value of content, but the goal was clear: outright deletion for an entire class or article was not feasible.


 * Then i got interested in merges and redirected, and I had a few failed ideas, Mergers for discussion for one. I did a lot of merging and redirecting and such. I got involved in a few things, like an attempt to redesign the main page which failed for good reason, and a few other jobs that didn't completely come to fruition. Overall it's been a positive run.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I have on occasion gotten some flack from performing a merge which was redirected. Usually discussion was brief, and the concerned users in question resolved the situation more to their liking. In general I've found that a little prodding generally cleans up a merging issue, as users as just generally stuck. I have never been afraid of performing a bold edit, but I am equally unafraid of that edit being reversed, that's just how it goes. In the few events where discussion was necessary, and resolution was always found. I generally avoid conflict.


 * 4. I'm of the opinion that adding referenced material to the pedia is one of those basic skills that I want all admins to have demonstrated. I couldn't see it in the trawl of your edits that I did, but I didn't check all 4,000 of your edits. Can you give us some examples of you adding referenced material?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A: I haven't contributed much original content, but I like to integrate relevant and sourced content to existing articles. My contributions to the Meaning of life articles is a good example, but a more recent one is my expansion and changes to Architecture of Mesopotamia and Art of Mesopotamia. I usually like playing with existing content, there's so much of it out there that's poorly organized and written, I would rather improve overall quality. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from MacMed
 * 5. Asking for User:physics is all gnomes in the Neutral section, and for myself. What experience do you have in the areas of copyright and speedy deletions, considering the low speedy nominations in your contribs and few CV contribs that I can find?
 * A: Very little. Mostly because I don't have any admin powers right now. How easy is it to get involved in something that you don't have the tools to follow through with? Sure, I can nominate stuff, anyone can do that, but there are more important jobs to be done than just deleting articles. If I came across something that needed to be nominated, I would. Perhaps I do not understand the question, because it seems too simple; copyright violations should be checked out and deleted, anything that meets CSD should be deleted. Do you really think it's more complicated than that?


 * Additional question from Coffee
 * 6. What is your understanding of WP:BLP, and what further protective measures (if any) would you like to see the project implement?
 * A: As far as I understand it, that page generally says "don't add garbage to pages about living people". 'Garbage' in this case, means unsourced content or speculation that would be otherwise damaging to a real person through the large impact of publishing content on Wikipedia. It also says "clean up any garbage you find on a page about a living person". I would thoughtfully add, "when in doubt, leave it out", and perhaps a good reading of the golden rule.
 * As far as the project itself goes, it is outside of my area of interest. I would much rather leave those kind of decisions and opinions to the kinds of people who are extremely interested in those kinds of problem, but if you must get some sort of opinion from me, then I will give you some general thoughts.
 * I don't know if the idea is still being kicked around, but I always thought that the idea of having reviewed or approved versions of articles, or whatever it was being called, I think that's just a make work project. It doesn't solve BLP issues any faster than the current method, which is having users interested in a certain article helping to keep garbage out of it. Indeed, such a feature would basically involve the same users, except with the larger burden of checking every edit, or every anon edit, or whatever. As far as I understand it, the current system is sufficient, and I have no set opinion in either direction. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Closing statement from nominee
 * Well, it's down to the last few minutes, and I would like to say this has been a great experience. Not all positive, but it has shown me where I need to build on my experience, what I am doing well and what other experienced users think I could improve on. I see that I have much to learn still, and every day is a learning experience, so why not? Do I still think I would make a good admin? Of course, that's the whole point of this, to expand the areas I work in and continue to do good work. It could go either way, and I'm optimistic.
 * More generally tho, I can see how this would be a difficult process for many users to undertake. It really is opening yourself to terrible scrutiny, and users with soft skin would probably find this a very difficult thing to do. Anyways, regardless of how it turns out, it's been fun, and now that there are some more familiar faces I will recognize, I'll see all of you in the trenches.
 * Cheers, and thanks. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

 * Edit stats posted to talk. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 03:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the RFA table, there are duplicate vote(s) on the this RFA. I can't seem to find them, though. Can someone else them? — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone didn't properly indent their !vote when changing from neutral to oppose. Fixed now. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 03:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Everything checks out although I can see a potential concern for the lack of a lot of activity until the last few months. Besides that, you seem like you know what you're doing and unless anyone says anything otherwise, I support you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Agree with Kevin.  Swarm  X 06:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) While NP has just around 4000+ edits, s/he has the experience. I don't see why we shouldn't give support.  –BuickCenturyDriver 08:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Adminship is no big deal and you'd use the tools just fine. Basket of Puppies  20:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I'm not a numbers snob. Most other editors with 20,000+ edits make me think, "get a life." No red flags for me. Wants to chime in as an admin, go for it. This is an old school support. Until we get rid of 90 percent of the early admins (something I'm not in favour of doing) this editor is, comparatively, not problematic. The mop isn't JUST for dealing with conflict and doesn't require massive contributions.  I like "non standard admins" and this nomination suits me fine. Would be stunned if they ran amok. I actually think a casual user like this brings something refreshing to the Brahman class of admins of which I'm seeing more and more. --Quartermaster (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Nick has been here forever. I've seen him around a lot and I can't recall any negative interactions. I have no reason to believe he'd be a bad admin. Mr.Z-man 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) seems clueful. --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk   00:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) This isn't going to might not pass, but I've seen nothing in Nick's contribution history to suggest it ought to be failing this badly . I don't find it hard at all to AGF that "I generally avoid conflict" is intended to convey that he's not the type of editor who tends to start and escalate conflicts, of which there are plenty. Kudos to Nick for volunteering for the mop, and hopefully after a few months of addressing the concerns brought up in the neutral and oppose columns, a successful second RfA will follow. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be so quick to write this RfA off ;) The main rationale for opposing is "lack of recent activity" and I believe some may reflect on whether that is really a reason to oppose over. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, the tide does seem to be turning. 'Crats can count mine as an "official" support, not just a "moral support." I've got some quibbles with the contributions I've seen (e.g. unresolved maintenance tags on many of his article creations), but nothing at all that suggests he would misuse or abuse the tools. 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I believe this user would be an excellent administrator. There is absolutely nothing I've found that would make me think otherwise. I certainly feel we need more users like NickPenguin. wiooiw (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Well, I know some folk want to see more recent edits, but never mind all that numbers namby-pamby. You seem to know what you're doing here, you've done some great work and you seem to have a life away from this beast, at least! I trust you not to delete the main page, my man. Orphan Wiki  11:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Long standing Wikipedian  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 12:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. per various above. Adminship isn't actually a job you have to turn up to or get fired from - it's just whether you trust the editor to use the tools responsibly. Rd232 talk 15:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) No evidence that Nick would be an unsuitable administrator and plenty of evidence that he would be just fine. We don't need every admin to contribute content, and 4000+ edits over 5+ years is more than sufficient experience. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) After thinking more about the issue, someone who has given 5 years to the project and intends to work in a specific location where they are experienced is no problem. He has clue and has been around more than enough time to know what he's doing. Support. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk  21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support upon further reflection. MSGJ sums my thoughts up nicely in his support. Airplaneman   ✈  23:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support (Moved from neutral) NickPenguin is a clueful, civil longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and a record of doing useful uncontentious edits. I'm not particularly concerned at the pace of those edits, policy and cultural change is actually quite slow on the wiki nowadays and I rather suspect that NickPenguin will be editing here for years after the hyperactive editors like myself have burned out and gone. I've got some concerns as I detailed when I posted in neutral. But sometimes you read a candidate's responses and just realise they've got what it takes.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support (Moved from neutral) NickPenguin has earned my confidence. He will be a fine admin. There are no issues related to trust. He has tenure, admiration for Wikipedia, respect, self respect, pride, vigilance, and the other positive traits RfA would hope to find in a candidate. I ask my colleagues who oppose to reconsider this candidate, under a wide criteria. I found more than enough positive strengths to overcome the concerns of a single criteria, which is not strong. (content creation) And I refute any notion of one size fits all. I agree that content creation is an important consideration. But often we see a candidate earn support because their other strengths overcome the single concern. NickPenguin is such a candidate. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per a review of contributions and your answer to WSC's question. I'm very confident this editor is here to "make things better", and seems to be both careful and experienced enough to avoid burning the place down. --joe deckertalk to me 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support As I said before in neutral, I saw no problems, but you hadn't shown me enough to support. With some of the comments you have made - especially such a clear explaination of copyright, I have no problems moving to support you. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope it's becoming clear through my responses that even though I'm not always making edits here, I'm always reading here. Only a handful of people I've seen here know me from a hole in the wall, so I'm sure it's easy for some to say 'Who the heck is this guy?'. Ever hear that one about staying silent and looking the fool? Sometimes it's best just to be an observer and see what's going on. I think I've absorbed a great deal of common sense that way. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 13:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm exactly the same, although I only started editing in earnest in the past 6-8 months, I observed for a long period before. Looking at the voting on this RfA, editors can only judge what they see, and a low-ish recent edit count can hamper things - but at least from my point of view, the more I see, the happier I am. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I trust NickPenguin and have only seen good things from him. I understand the concerns about recent inactivity, but for me that's not enough to oppose on its own. Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support I'm not an admin and I havn't been on Wikipedia long but from what I can see, NickPenguin is one of the best standard users Wikipedia has. He dosn't make major edits to articles to claim the glory but makes little edits which make Wikipedia an easier place for everyone to use. I would be very happy to see NickPenguin becoming an administrator. Oddbodz (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support I was formerly in the Oppose section but after careful consideration I have com to the conclusion that this user is more clueful about Wikipedia policies and guidelines than I originally thought. Jessy   T/C 20:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Not worried by the fairly low edit count, this user seems competent enough and would use the tools sensibly. Big  Dom  21:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support experienced, still here after many years, hardly likely to do anything stupid with the tools. BencherliteTalk 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Long established and reliable editor. Lack of recent activity is much ado about nothing.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - I do not have any concerns that this editor would misuse the admin tools. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support on balance. Through several years of moderate activity, NP has amply demonstrated trustworthiness and clue. I disagree quite strongly with those who feel admins should only be people who spend hours a day for a year making zillions of edits. I'd love to see more admins who have a healthy level of long term involvement of a couple of hours a week during which they make a handful of thoughtful edits. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate those who spend hours a day and rack up many thousands of edits a year; just that is not the only way to be an effective admin and I think it is beneficial to have others who do not, and thus are less susceptible to potential groupthink. That aside, back to NP specifically - I would have loved to see greater contribution to content, and more nuanced responses to some of the questions on policy. But that is mitigated by NP's overall experience, by his apparent contributions to pragmatic policy change, and by his interaction style. He will a net asset to the admin corps and is unlikely to burn down the wiki. Martinp (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - As I've done before, to contradict some ridiculous oppose rationales. I also happen to think this is a great RfA, and Penguin would make an excellent admin; rfa is broken though, so I have no illusions about anything here. Definite support though. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific reasons to support? Perhaps you could cite some of the opposing comments you disagree with and explain why? Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag► international waters ─╢ 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific example which as brought judgment into question? Or is this simply an uneasy feeling you have perceived? [sic intentional] Shadowjams (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific reasons to support? Perhaps you could cite some of the opposing comments you disagree with and explain why? ╟─TreasuryTag► estoppel ─╢ 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an issue TreasuryTag? Shadowjams states in his support that he thinks "Penguin would make an excellent admin", and he has pointed to one of the opposes which another editor has requested more information on. I'm not sure what information you're requesting here. (perhaps this would be better on the talk page?) WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an issue here? Not a major one, but, "X would make a good admin," is not a concrete reason to support, no more than, "Y is a notable topic," is a good, solid reason to keep an article. I am not clear which, if any, particular oppose comments Shadowjams is referring to, hence my request for clarification. ╟─TreasuryTag► cabinet ─╢ 11:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "would make an excellent admin" is much the same as per nom or just "support", longstanding convention is that it a support without a specific rationale simply means one agrees with the nomination. Various suggestions over the years to require supporters to spell out their particular reasons for support have failed to get consensus, not least because it would bury RFAs under unnecessary verbiage. But if you are going to describe some oppose rationales as ridiculous it would be helpful if you would say which you thought ridiculous and why.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SpielChequers makes a fair point, so I'll address it. There are glib, almost meaningless !votes at RfA all the time; I've been guilty of it too. But there's a pile on nature that seems to reflect trivial concerns. In this case, there are a few utterly incomprehensible opposes about judgment, although I see no explanation or suggestion of that anywhere in the RfA which leads me to believe those are boilerplate reactions. There's also quite a few "not enough recent activity" or similar comments. Those aren't especially compelling to me either. My criticism is not directed towards the opposes with well thought out responses, TT being one of them. RfA might be better if both supports and opposes were better thought out, and not just pile-ons. Julian addresses the same feeling I have, much more eloquently, below as well. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I went through his contribution and he's trustable imo. <font color="maroon" face="Tahoma">PassaMethod <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  11:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I started off in the Oppose section because there weren't enough recent contributions for me to inspect, then I moved to Neutral in response to the candidate's replies during this RfA. And now, after following all the candidate's responses and looking back over some older contributions, I've become sufficiently convinced to support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I think I trust this user just well and I'd trust him the mop. I can't see any big concerns, and he'll no doubt use admin tools responsibly and well. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support At first I wasn't sure, but now, considering all the positive interactions and comments made by other supporters, particularly WSC, It looks like my opposition statement is not convincing enough so I decided to change my vote. He does have good intentions and isn't going to make decisions bad enough to get him desysopped. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Don't worry. You'll make it. Will write mo' later...  Wifione    <sub style="font-size: 60%">....... <sup style="margin-left:-3ex"> Leave a message  18:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Wikipedia is not a cartel built by a limited group of the x most active editors. Neither is the list of admins. Near as I can tell, that's the only thing most of the objectors seem to be seeking – a community excluding the "little man" whose value is defined not by quantity but by quality and usefulness. Nick seems knowledgeable, adequately in the loop, and extremely unlikely to abuse or badly misuse the tools. I also see a high degree of integrity maintained by the candidate throughout the course of this rather divisive RfA, which solidifies my support. Best of luck. Juliancolton (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support for the reasons laid out in support 1. Further I cannot find anything in this editor's contributions or in the arguments offered by those opposing that convince me NickPenguin should not be trusted with the tools. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per Julian Colton. The candidate looks clueful and has shown himself to have a level head throughout this RfA even in the face of a few opposes which are, frankly, stupid and insulting. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Not the perfect candidate but seems clueful enough to use the tools properly. I know some below don't like the answer to Q5 but I think it's spot on. Adminship is not rocket science: read the policy, apply the policy, when in doubt ask around. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Well rounded candidate, who has demonstrated resilience under the pressure of the abuse of this RFA. I am dismayed by much commentary in oppose, particulary Treasury Tag's - who appears to advocate going into difficult editing areas for the sheer hell of it (or rather to pass RFA which ammounts to the same). Slow, safe, cautious use of the tools suits me fine. Pedro : Chat  22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. The level of experience is fine (in comparison, my account was only four months old when I passed my RFA), and there is no concerning edit patterns which indicate that adminship should be withheld. Being a bit on and off with activity is natural, and does no damage to an editor's competence. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. After reading some of the "oppose" arguments, it's clear—to me, at least—that we place way too much emphasis on a candidate's Edit Count. To some, it is like the High Score list on an arcade game and they will do all sorts of things (like this ) to get their name onto the scoreboard. In the example I cited, the user made 81 edits over four days, edits that were so bad another person reverted darned near all of them. But what the hell, his Edit Count is nearly 100 ticks higher! Woo hoo! In the copy-editing, vandal-fighting, spell-checking dungeon where I spend a good deal of my time, this is not at all uncommon; if you incent a behavior, you'll see more of it. Even. worse. are. the. editors. that. save. every. stinkin'. word. as. a. separate. edit. Sure, it rapidly increments their Edit Count, but it makes cleaning up after them horribly tedious and far more difficult than it need be. Having spent an entire morning—three or four hours—working on ONE big edit, I know I will never log 25,000 quality edits. Personally, I don't think we—an organization trying to encourage volunteers to donate their time—have any business belittling their efforts. And, as Ironholds (talk) stated in another RfA, far more eloquently than can I: "Are you a content writer? I am, and I can tell you that if you think just producing the raw content is the most important thing in the world, you're mistaken. There are writers, there are copyeditors, and there are janitors. All have a role to play, and when we're discussing someone's aptitude for janitorial tools, an absence of writing should not be an issue. Wikipedia's tagline is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', and since 'anyone' includes 'dicks', someone who thinks that countering those dicks is not a prime goal is simply wrong, as is somebody who mistakes 'our main goal' for 'our only goal, to the exclusion of all other contributions'. Have you got any evidence, whatsoever, that JaGa is incompetent in the janitorial field? He's applying for janitorial tools, he's asking for the trust of the community in using them. If you cannot find evidence to indicate that he'd be a bad person to hold them, all other concerns are irrelevant." Bravo! We need more of this thinking! Me, personally? I wouldn't stand a snowball's chance here because, as soon as someone implied my 500 or so rarely-reverted edits over three or so years (and the hundreds of no-charge hours they represent) don't measure up to some arbitrary and capricious number, I'd likely tell them—loudly—to take a long walk on a really short pier on a really cold day. As for NickPenguin, though, I say "give him the mop!" The arguments opposed to his application seem specious, at best. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 11:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I endorse your view that nobody has the right to belittle someone's committment to the project, Ironholds' comment simply does not apply here (I didn't participate in JaGa's RfA, so will reserve judgement on whether it made sense there). Nick isn't just applying to be a janitor. He has stated that he intends to step into one of the most contentious areas of adminship (XfD), despite having next-to-no experience of it. Indeed, he has said that he has actively avoided getting involved in such discussions. —WFC— 12:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * XfD is one of the most contentious areas of adminship? I've closed something like 7,000 over the past three years, and that's news to me. Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WFCforLife, while I appreciate your concerns, I see nothing in NickPenguin's history to suggest he would approach any new or contentious administrative task with anything other than caution. There must be a first time for everyone and I believe he has satisfactorily demonstrated he will approach such learning opportunities in a careful and thoughtful manner. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More generally, it sounds like a lot of editors think that I will try to take on too much, and fail in a spectacular manner. I'm a firm believer that if the problem is too difficult or complex for me to solve, I simply leave it for someone else to look at. Individual users can't solve everything, and if it is outside my abilities, then someone more capable than me can take care of it. I am the sort of person who can admit their shortcomings, and work within the areas I feel most comfortable.
 * In response to the original comment tho, I am for sure one of those users who uses the preview button a hundred times before I use the save button. Take for example my edits to Philip K. Dick (before after), and Confucius (before after). Granted the second example took 6 edits, but over the course of two hours. Lots of my edits are in this manner. Maybe one or two edits show up on a given day, but the time stamp doesn't tell you how long it took me to perform those edits, only when I clicked save. Maybe if it did, more users would have faith in my work and my effort. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support due to response at Oppose #26, 06:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC).  I read Q5 as honesty, and Nick is right, CSD criteria are pretty clear.  If the new admin is unsure, he can ask someone, or generally at WT:CSD if the problem may reflect criterion language needing improvement, or can use XfD.  I get no sense that Nick will be reckless.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per my general rule of supporting any candidate when the primary reason for opposition is editcountitis.  He's been reasonably active since 2007, that's clearly sufficient experience. --B (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Has potential.  Some people know about the RfC that I recently madde of him, but the username should not count for potential for being an sysop.   EBE123  talkContribs 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: seems to be referring to this . The username was quickly judged by admins as fine.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my. That RfC was... an interesting read. 28bytes (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: I don't participate in RfA discussions unless I am already familiar with the nominee but I decided to make an exception here. If someone has been around this long without causing issues I find it hard to believe that he would do anything inappropriate with the tools. I see nothing but cluefulness and civility in his work and can ask for nothing more. Best of luck, J04n(talk page) 13:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: A number of the opposes do bring up reasonable points, but this user has enough clue that none of them convince me that he'd misuse the tools. Kansan (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: The contributions I see look solid and I'm more concerned with the tone many of the NOTENOUGHCONTRIBS opposes take than I am about the relatively relaxed workrate. Seth Kellerman (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - picking up CSD/AfD and the like is pretty easy as long as you have common sense. I don't see a lack of that in this candidate. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support the user seems clueful and that they can be trusted with the tools. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Nothing major to oppose over here, and the candidate otherwise seems ok. AD 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Gnomeish admins are in shortage. I support per User:Shadowjams.  Mlpearc   powwow  05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose for the lack of recent activity and for the contradiction in the candidates following statements "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument" and "fulfill closing roles in SpeedyD, RfD, MfD, AfD and other Ds.". Candidate also says "I have been fairly active", while I would consider 4,457 edits in 5 years as fairly inactive. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVII  <sub style="color:#008000;">Undertaker 19–0  03:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2010 was a slow year for me on the wiki; I moved to another area of my country, changed jobs and bought a house. If you look more closely at my edit history, the last several months, all of 2009 and prior were periods of large activity. As well, a balanced closing in any of the Deletion forums shouldn't involve getting into an argument. And if it does, then you talk it out. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with you on the point of the statement regarding an avoidance of performing controversial edits, I must seriously object to your usage of edit count as a measuring bar for his worth of activity. I'd personally look more towards qualitative edits over quantitative edits. I could spend this week reverting edits all day and easily rack up 1000 more edits. There's just no quality to that though. So, again, I seriously object to your usage of edit count as a measuring bar . ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like further explanation is on order. To clarify, I don't think that it's a problem, that he has only 4,457 edits, but to claim with this many edits over 5 years to be fairly active its a sign of false self-perception. If he's fairly active, then I am very hyperactive with my 65,530 edits in 15 months. Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">WrestleMania XXVII  <sub style="color:#008000;">Undertaker 19–0  19:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's a problem, that he has only 4,457 edits, but to claim with this many edits over 5 years to be fairly active its a sign of false self-perception - That is pretty sensible. I understand what it is that you are relaying now. My apologies for my misinterpretation of your statement. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Candidate does not list any significant content creation.TCO (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why creating content is an important criteria. I see my role as a caretaker, performing mostly cleanups. Manipulating existing content is just as important, if not more important as adding new content. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from Nick, since my own RFA last year was unsuccessful partially due to the same reason. However, I also understand TCO's opinion. As an administrator, you can do a lot. Though you can say you will stick to maintenance, and of course we believe you since we assume good faith, but at the same time there is no guarantee of what you'll do with the mop. AGF can only extend so far, especially when it comes to giving someone sysop powers. Personally I don't think you need a GA or FA to be able to be an administrator, but you should have a stub or two. On the other hand, you could get involved with DYK or good/featured article nominations. Read a couple, then get involved and get your content exposure that way. It's just difficult to put the mop into the hands of someone with minimal content exposure for some, and that is something you can work on :) There's always room for improvement. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 04:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great power comes with great responsibility. But if you look at my edit history, I am a long time contributor with no interpersonal or editing problems. I make valuable contributions to my area of interest, which is content cleanup and maintenance. I have created some articles, you can look through my edit history and find them, there is perhaps a dozen or two. Don't just look for pages with an N, new 'articles' can be created by integrating content from several articles. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you having the mop would be a problem, I just think you could stand to wait a little, and get some additional content experience. That's why I am neutral instead of oppose :). Do some work in GA noms, do some reviewing, come back and I will be happy to support you. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 04:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Concerns with lack of recent activity and judgement. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific example which as brought judgment into question? Or is this simply an uneasy feeling you have perceived? My76Strat (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose A couple of small issues concern me here: I'm not sure about why the incoherent tag was added to the Clockwork Orange article without a reason on the talk page. The answer to Q2 appears to be that you misunderstood the question. Also, I don't see enough recent article editing activity (Last article edit was on 9 March) unless you really are a busy person so that the community can appreciate it. You do have good intentions though, so I might support next time when you gain trust and address the concerns made above. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 06:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a further look at Q2 and found out that you've rescued the Meaning of Life article, so I assume that is your best contribution. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 06:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)  Scratched oppose, decided to support instead. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c  (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 15:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Not enough contribs to areas of the wiki within the past year (ie about 300 contribs total) to form a judgement of appropriateness to the role. In RfA, we tend to disregard ancient history (>1 year) when it comes to previous bad edits, and we therefore have to do the same (to some extent) for good ones. To demonstrate current, appropriate knowledge of policies regarding issues such as deletion, we need to see evidence of input to those areas within the past year. (Airplaneman has detailed the stats below, so no need to repeat them)  Chzz  ► 07:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason to disregard mistakes in the past is that we might assume that candidates have learned from them. What would be the rationale for disregarding good edits in the past? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per my standards, specifically in regard to recent activity. Strikerforce (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Not enough contribs, does not meet my criteria <font color="#00008B">Pol430 talk to me 11:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat reluctant Oppose ( move to neutral ), mainly because I only see around 400 edits in the last 18 months, and so there's really nothing recent to go on when trying to decide suitability for all those XfD closures (which can require some seriously experienced judgment). I'd love to be able to support someone who wants to work in one of our most hard-pressed areas, copyright, and I hope I can Support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a comment to say I'm a bit disappointed by the answer to Q5. There are many errors made at CSD - bad reports, bad deletions, misunderstanding of criteria, premature biting, etc, and the community usually wants to see some evidence of correct CSD tagging, or at least a deeper understanding than "anything that meets CSD should be deleted". As for copyright, that can be horribly complex, and I'd want to see a much better understanding than just "it seems too simple; copyright violations should be checked out and deleted". How do you check them out? What constitutes copyright infringement? When does a work become PD? What derivative works can be published? Does the age of a work matter? How do things vary between countries? Suppose, for example, someone added a photo of an artwork to an article - in what circumstances would that be acceptable, and in what circumstances not? (I'm not asking for answers to those questions, but I'd just like to see some recognition that such questions exist) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am simply not understand the complexity of the issue, it does seem simple to me. As far as I understand it, text based copyright issues are essentially when content has either been copied verbatim from another source, or is has not been presented in an appropriate summary style to meet our criteria. In the case of Wikipedia, since most content would be copied and pasted from a web source, as opposed to being typed out from a book, then I would use the same tools as the infringer to find the content and verify that it is indeed an infringement. In most cases, I would suspect this is Google.
 * Some of these cases of copyright infringement could be resolved simply by rewriting the content and citing the origionally violated source, thus saving the article content and giving credit to the original publisher. This may take a significant rewrite, but it should be sufficient to meet our standards. If necessary, then content should be deleted, in one of two manners, either the article itself is deleted from the wiki, or the content is deleted from the article.
 * In the case of public domain works, Public domain lets us know that in the US, works published prior to Jan 1st, 1929 are in the publish domain. Since I do not live in that country, my personal rule of thumb would be to use the public domain cutoff that govern the specific country in which a work was originally published.
 * In the case of derivative works, such as photographs that include copyrighted material, it should be examined case by case, considering what the image contains, and how it is being used. There is sufficient guidance at Derivative works to show us the light in most cases.
 * In cases of using a copyrighted image to illustrate an article subject, a fair use rationale can be written when a free image can not be found. These images should be used sparringly, and best judgement should be applied on their use in articles, and if these is significant doubt then we should err on the side of a 'no' to protect copyright owners. Again, Wikipedia is an international media, and I feel the copyright laws that are enforced in the country of origin of the derivative work would be the most applicable, and thus those are the rules that should be followed.
 * I hope this clarifies some of my position, and if I am misunderstanding something, please let me know so I can better understand the issue. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks - all I was looking for is to see that you understand that there are numerous subtleties regarding copyright and that you know where to look for details (and I'm sure that's what the question wanted). One point though, material copied verbatim from another source isn't necessarily a copyright infringement, as it might be PD or CC-BY-SA 3.0, etc - it's important to distinguish between plagiarism and copyright. Anyway, thanks for the expansion of your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose solely due to lack of activity. Although I normally stand against those who rely on WP:EDITCOUNTITIS as part of the RfA process, a total of around 4500 edits in a reported activity period of six years is limited experience, even to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per lack of recent activity.  Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  17:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Not going to repeat Airplaneman's analysis—would like to see more activity and depth of experience in administrative areas. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose (moved to support) hence lack of experience and recent activity. Fails my test.  Jessy   T/C 21:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose for two reasons. One relates to your statements that "you generally avoid conflict" and "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument". You are asking for a mop to clean up conflicts. Secondly, I took a look at some of your content contributions, in particular some early work, and was left scratching my head and saying "what the ...--Hokeman (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are numerous admin tasks that are entirely uncontroversial. Even most AFDs are not contentious. Mr.Z-man 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Lack of recent activity. T ofutwitch11  <font color="Orange">(T ALK ) 23:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Needs more recent activity.  Wayne  Slam 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Due to a couple of reasons. Firstly you say that you "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument", but if you're an admin a lot of the time can be spent clearing up conflicts.  In my opinion an ideal candidate would have experience of dealing with conflict and policies like 3RR first hand.  That way it gives us who are voting for you the chance to see how you handle yourself in conflicts.  My second objection is simply the number of edits.--5 albert square (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we need admins who can deal with contentious matters. But we also need admins who will do some of the 99% of admin stuff that is uncontentious. I've done over 6000 admin actions but I'd be hard pressed to think of 6 of my admin actions that were contentious.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose – Per Armbrust and TCO, as well as the candidate's response to TCO's !vote. I believe that all admins should be time served contributors. It doesn't feel right to give someone extra control over a project to which they have contributed so little. I see 11 new articles and 4,340 non-automated edits in the last four years. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel that it is quite a punch in the gut to call Nick's contributions "so little". Surely the hundreds of hours over many years that he's spent on here count for more than that. Airplaneman   ✈  02:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That oppose is the utter epitome of WP:NOTENOUGH. 'They've contributed so little to Wikipedia', what a low blow- why don't you stab them in the back while you're at it? And the fact that you view adminship as getting "extra control" is even more so disappointing. So much for adminship being nothing but an extra set of buttons to serve Wikipedia with. Maybe now's a good time for the candidate to withdraw, before this descends into barbarism.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 03:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a general theme running through these objections. Some people think that I wouldn't put the admin tools for good use because I haven't made X number of edits, created Y number of articles or something like that. I am of the opinion that the wiki could be most improved by working with existing content, and my particular way of doing it is by improving formatting, merging content and so forth. Maybe I don't operate on the same level as other users, I enjoy being behind the scenes and making incremental improvements. Perhaps that will be my RFA downfall, I don't measure success by the number of good articles but by the number of good contributions. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If such a theme emerges as a consensus it is only intended to relate to a perceived impact on Admin requirements. It is not an indictment against your Wikipedia conduct as a contributor. You are a quality contributor requiring no modification. Your exemplary conduct is well understood. It simply may not rise to the expectations of an administrator. Mostly I am seeing where a little more time is necessary to alleviate some of the concerns. I remain neutral for now, and have not fully adopted these concerns as my own. I did want however to emphasize the dichotomy. My76Strat (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted: I could have, and should have, worded it better. But does my oppose really warrant such spiteful, personal comments? I'm surprised no-one has quoted Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. You really miss the irony of your comments. Take a look at our Pot calling the kettle black article. —  Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Years of dedication to performing unglamorous and tedious work is not what I would call 'too little'. At the very least, it makes me feel unimportant and swept aside. Since the general theme seem to be that I haven't performed enough 'important' edits, I supposed I should flaunt a bunch of good articles and dozens of colourful barnstars, since it would make this process much easier. Too bad that's not my personality and that's not the work I like to do, or would like to do as an admin. At any rate, it was hurtful, and now that we've all recognized it, we can admit we are all black kettles and that everyone says things that have consequences they didn't intend. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Years of dedication"? You registered your account in 2005, and started to edit properly in 2007. Since September 2007 you have made 4,634 non-automated edits. That averages out at three edits per day. I would hardly call that dedication. You want to work in all manner of XfD, but I'm sorry; you haven't contributed enough X's. One word of advice: arguing with, or badgering, opposes is a sure fire way to fail an RfA. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think we've both made our points on this. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I and some others hold: One diligently processed, proper administrative action per week is 52 good actions a year, and that is a net positive. NickPenguin may not be a top performing admin, if performance is gauged against quantity. But I wager my wiki insight, the ones he did accomplish, would prove most proper, under any scrutiny. I sense this candidate would rather do the one, right, than claim 9 good actions to each questionable one. He is predisposed to meticulous endeavor. Sometimes this quality is needed, to ensure comprehensive consideration is given. NickPenguin will be a go-to asset for this tasking. And his motivation would be: "To get it right, with impeccable accuracy"; I trust that he would! Lets not slam the door on the turtle preferring the hare, but instead, acknowledge remembering, we once learned the turtle was a factor too. My76Strat (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You obviously seem to have ignored Jimbo's advice about being less verbose. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that is not the impression I give. I did not ignore any counsel given. The counsel regards emerging an RfA successful. Not disruptive conduct which needs modification. You should only conclude disregard if ever you observe me as a candidate, while holding my writing style. From within the community, it has never been suggested as a concern. So please don't consider this ignoring so much as accepting. My76Strat (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FlyByNight, your characterization of us less-that-a-zillion-edits contributors as dilettantes is insulting, to say the least. When someone takes time to contribute even one hour a day for five years to Wikipedia, you should be thanking them, not telling them they haven't done enough. Take time to praise the volunteers; the pay is lousy! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr Bubba, I didn't mention zillions of edits, please don't exaggerate. Yes, the candidate has done some good work, but it's spread too thinly over too long a time. To repeat myself: he wants to work in all sorts of XfD's while having not contributed enough X's, i.e. the wants to work on closing deletion discussions and actually deleting things, when he has very little experience creating the content that he wants to judge the deletion of. It's not a matter of edit count alone. If he's only made 2,000 edits, but had created lots of articles and uploaded lots of images then it'd be fine; but he hasn't. And when he starts talking about his "years of dedication", well that just annoys me. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. ByNight: Earlier, you said of Nick, "you have made 4,634 non-automated edits". If each took, on average, three minutes, that would be a little over 231 HOURS (or almost 30 eight-hour days) given to the project. That's valuable time, no matter how you look at it and statements like "only made 2,000 edits" annoy me. People contribute in different ways; one doesn't have to build an airplane to fly one, repair one, or wash one, yet each is a valuable contribution. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed you side stepped my main problem: that he hasn't made enough X's to deserve to judge and enforce the findings of XfDs. Matters not. First of all, most edits don't take that long. On the Feb 6, 2011, he rattled off 40 edits in an hour; which is twice the speed your calculations are based on. So, to be realistic you need to half your estimate. When you do that, you'll see that over four years that works out as about 4 or 5 minutes editing a day. I spend longer brushing my teeth, but you don't hear me going on about my years of dedication to oral hygiene. As for the poor aeroplane anaology, well. You must be able to see the holes. He's applying to be an admin, which is like a flight examiner: he will say what stay and what goes, who passes and who fails. You need to have many flight hours to be an examiner. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too little activity, especially in semi admin areas, to demonstrate sufficient knowledge and experience of what can and will  be done with  the tools. User:Chzz also makes some valid points. I  would be happy  to  support a future run  as soon as my RfA criteria are largely met. Kudpung (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – I see a lack of activity these recent months. Contributors that wish to be admins should to be willing to dedicate at least six months or so before their RFA, and continue with more dedication afterwards. — mc10 ( t / c ) 06:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per lack of recent activity. Logan Talk Contributions 14:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose in addition to activity concerns, I also question the judgement of anyone who refers to WikiProject Popular Culture among their 'best' contributions. Trivia and "In popular culture" material are some of our absolute worst content and a regular source of disrepute for Wikipedia, and while of course NickPenguin is hardly solely to blame for it, I'd say anyone still proud of their involvement with it should be kept well away from AFDs and the mop. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is certainly one opinion, and it is perhaps based on perception rather than information. Without digging too deeply into several years of discussion, there is an inherent value judgement when information is discussed as 'trivial'. If you look into the record, and my specific edits, I have a theme of integrating odds and ends in a useful manner, and removing what I feel are non-notable entries. Lengthy discussion at Template:Trivia, Trivia sections and Handling trivia has changed the readings there to reflect integration first deletion second. Several years later, trivia sections have reduced from over 12000, to almost 3000.
 * In the case of popular culture type content, it would be difficult to claim that every piece of popular culture type information is encyclopedic. Are there extremely bad 'in popular culture' type articles? Of course. Just as any other class of article. However, if you look at the underlying idea that information is expressing, that a subject has had a significant and notable impact on popular culture, and then look at such high quality articles like Black Swan emblems and popular culture, Jayne Mansfield in popular culture, Cultural depictions of dinosaurs and Cultural depictions of spiders, your view might change. Don't let the naming conventions of the last two affect your thinking, they are basically the same type of article as the first two.
 * What I would describe as my successes in those areas are helping to change the groupthink: now popular cultures aren't summarily deleted, the information is considered with its own merit. And of course, it gets trimmed and often integrated back into the parent article, which is usually the best course of action. Am I proud of this? I'm not exactly sure what makes you think I shouldn't be. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to this kind of POV being wrapped in a non policy based critique. I personally have the least regard for porno, but can imagine if I berated a contributor for their success in such writing, I would be quickly admonished. (rightfully so) Or even LBGT I feel certain this oppose carries no weight whatsoever and move for a consensus to indent the suggestion. My76Strat (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Per above. Baseball   Watcher  22:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you could afford to be a little more specific than that. You agree with all the opinions, some of the opinions, or the comment immediately prior to yours? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon my interjection. I sense a deep aggravation. I share indignation, and join in being offended. I wish I had seen it before you were drawn to respond. I am confident it was not the preceding comment which Baseball Watcher was referring. They have shown strength of character many times. I believe they would agree: It is inappropriate. NickPenguin, don't be drawn away, from who you are. Stay true; Be the admin candidate, described in nomination, confirmed with review. Some strong opinions already have expressed their support. Your good conduct (multiple strengths) has power, and can overcome (not with ease) your single weakness. (content creation) My76Strat (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose—sorry to join the brigade with this one, but the fact that you have deliberately avoided edits and activity which might bring you into contact with conflict may be very admirable, but it means that we have a very limited pool of material look over and assess your suitability. Also, your answer to Q2 concerns me: "I had a few failed ideas, Mergers for discussion for one," "I got involved in a few things, like an attempt to redesign the main page which failed for good reason," "a few other jobs that didn't completely come to fruition." You then round off this blaze of disappointments with the analysis that "it's been a positive run." Which seems utterly bizarre, though I respect your honesty. <font color="#C4112F">╟─TreasuryTag► presiding officer ─╢ 10:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose NickPenguin, you are a very good editor, with plenty of positive contributions. (I disagree with the "oppose because of insufficient contributions" thread on this page.) However, there is a serious lack of involvement in areas which are relevant to administrative tasks. There are plenty of good, hard-working editors who unfortunately simply misunderstand policies on deletion, vandalism, and so on. Unless you have experience in these areas, showing understanding of such matters, we have no way of knowing whether you are likely to make mistakes. Furthermore, your response to question 5 seems to indicate that you have a far too simplistic view of this issue, without even being aware that it is an issue. For example, understanding the speedy deletion criteria is a major issue, and assessing them in particular cases often requires a good deal of thought and care. Anyone who is not aware of that fact is not ready to be an administrator, especially if they have indicated that this is an area they expect to work in. You are doing a good job where you are, and you don't need to be an admin to continue to do those things you are good at. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) "Too little activity" is generally frowned upon as a reason for opposing. However, you state an intention to close "D's", yet have only participated in one XfD since 2009 as far as I can tell. I respect and trust you, and on that basis if it were just a case of giving you the tools for maintenance purposes, I wouldn't hesitate. But given your participation at XfD, combined with your stated intention to work in that area, I am evaluating you in that judicial capacity. Regretfully, that leads me to oppose at this time. —WFC— 21:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Not enough edit for my liking, and very little activity in 2010. Also I do not see much evidence of vandal fighting, which is often a major part of admin work.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think "not enough vandal fighting" is an insult to the candidate. Any old John Doe could figure out how to click "[rollback]" on seeing this. And it's not like promoting NP to sysop is going to give him any additional power to make bad vandalism reversions, if there is such a thing. I guess you could argue that BLP violations etc. are more contentious and not as obvious, but then, again, that doesn't become any more of an issue as an admin. Juliancolton (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was not my main oppose, just as a suggestion for future work.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair chaps "too much vandal fighting" is also an in vogue oppose reason as well. Pedro : Chat  22:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. I have been there. I'm not advocating hime striving to go to 80% automated - just get a reasonable amount of experience in most areas, rather than just certain areas. It's been discussed often before, we don't give out half a mop - every admin gets a full set of tools.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're overestimating the power of the sysop bit. "Regular" editors are given 95% of all the tools they'll ever need to be an excellent contributor from the time of their first several edits, yet most people are only able to use a portion of them skillfully. We have no problem giving them the full spread, though. Why is it any different for the admin right? Promoting a user to sysop does not make them obligated to use all of the tools, or even a majority of them; it's what they've got to offer that we're after. It's like the cashier at Home Depot interrogating a man buying a toolbox to make sure he knows how to use each and every one of them properly... doesn't sound very useful. Juliancolton (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: The major bulk of activity is confined to 2 years ago or earlier. Not active enough on a daily basis.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I was previously neutral in the matter of this RfA (as visible below), but I have taken further time to evaluate this candidate and cannot support them nor continue to remain neutral in their bid for adminship. My reasoning has to do primarily with two factors which I find disconcerting. As previously stated, I find this candidates activity level - especially over the past year and a half - to be really low. Though the user has admitted themselves to being really busy throughout 2009 and 2010, I would rather avoid the potential of even more inactive admins - a point which is further outlined upon below. Secondly, I find the candidates response to the 5th query to be rather disconcerting as I believe it shows that the user does not have a grasp or full understanding of how the speedy deletion process works. As for the candidates statement, "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument"; I would suggest a good read of What you won't learn in new admin school. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  01:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization, but as I said in other comments, I spend a great deal of time observing. Although I haven't felt it necessary to participate in the XfD culture much, I feel I could slide back into it very easily. It would be impossible to demonstrate how many discussions I've read, but you can absorb as much of the culture through observation as participating. Aside from that, I like to think I am a pretty well reasoned and balanced individual, and that those traits would serve me well if I began participating in XfD again. And from what I gather of that essay, it says "one should generally avoid conflict." Hmm, good advice. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay... now I'm confused. Did you mean to confuse WP:XFD with WP:CSD, or are you referring to Q1 instead of Evilgohan2's comment? It may just be that I just got off a 15 hour shift... but I'm certain you can't really "observe" CSDs for that long. And I'm also certain no one can really get experience with CSDs... unless you've been tagging them. I also don't understand why you need admin rights, when you've been simply observing so much until this point. Would be nice if you could clear these issues up. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#009900">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">essay  // 04:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my mind I was combining replies to several objections into one. I should have been more clear, I have observed the culture at XfD, and although the criteria are a little different, I feel the experience has shown what makes a good and a not good article, and those are transferable skills. I feel I could be just as effective with CSDs, just by reading through the category and seeing what shows up, and seeing what winds up at AfD later, and so forth. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mostly because I don't have any admin powers right now. How easy is it to get involved in something that you don't have the tools to follow through with?" - Based on this response to Q5 - as posed by User:MacMed, I don't think you quite understand how the CSD process works. Compounding upon that, I don't believe you have a true need as of yet for the tools of adminship. I would like to see you learn and demonstrate an aptitude for administrator responsibilities by participating in Admin related processes including things such as CSD's, XfD's, MFD's (and all other related deletion discusions), RFPP's, Potential Copyvio's, BLP Related Issues, and other admin-related task. I would also like to see you establish a longer editing track over the next few months which should help you gain experience in these areas. Perhaps you can watch some admins to see how they go about daily task and how they interact with people because a typical admin will be bombarded daily. I'm not sure your ready for that responsibility or quite capable of handling it just yet.  ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  15:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I was going to await the candidate's answer to my question before I made up my mind, but Nick's latest comments show that he indeed does not have enough experience to become an admin. A5 was worrying by itself, but then he stated almost outrightly that he has basically zero knowledge currently on how to look at an article and determine if it should be speedy deleted vs. nominated for AFD, (after clearly stating in A1 that it would be an area that he will focus in as an admin). I also don't see the sudden need for Nick to have the tools only after becoming slightly active again over the past two months, and he's apparently only "observed" critical admin areas (places stated in A1) before then. Having admin rights shouldn't be something you learn "on the job", but should instead be granted to those who not only show a clear need for them, but also a clear understanding on what they should do with them when they have them. Therefore I do not think the candidate should receive the tools at this time. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#009900">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">essay  // 05:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I make no effort to hide the fact that I have been largely uninvolved with CSD. That said, the criteria are outlined Criteria for speedy deletion are fairly straightforward, and I see no reason why I couldn't follow them with the same ratio of success and failures as any other user. More generally tho, it seems there is a large shortage of admins to perform routine tasks, particularly admins that maintain a position of neutrality. Most individuals could continue their work on the wiki without admin rights, because in general, every day editing doesn't involve a 'clear need' for these tools. However, many users including myself would find their day to day activities largely enhanced with additional tools, and the community as a whole would benefit. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you consider dropping by Special:NewPages sometime today and tagging, say, 5 or 10 pages with the appropriate CSD tag, just to demonstrate to the opposes that you do indeed understand the CSD criteria? 28bytes (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If CSD were that easy, why on earth does everyone complain about NPPers BITEing everyone and whatnot? The ration of success and failures depends on the user—and you don't want to compare yourself with the, uh, less competent of the bunch. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Nick: This isn't rollback that you're requesting, it's the administrative right. It isn't something that you should get just so your day to day operations will be easier, hell even rollback requires experience and a need for the tool. Giving someone admin rights who thinks they can jump right into the CSD area, while thinking they can avoid conflict while having absolutely no experience in said area, is just asking for a disaster. I also don't know where you got the information that there was a shortage of "neutral admins"... because I'm certain if there was we'd be having ArbCom cases everyday and AN/I would be a ridiculous mass of information, (granted you also made the neutral claim when we can't really look at your edits in admin related areas to see if you're really neutral, since you don't have any experience in those areas). <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee // <font color="#009900">have a cup  // <font color="#4682b4">essay  // 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Limited activity in AfD, etc., for a candidate who intends to work in deletion. Little content creation.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose because of the stated desire to work in CSD and XfD. There is "tedious repetitive" work there - clearing the expired prods out for one thing. However, deleting CSD tagged articles and closing XfDs isn't just routine button clicking. Anyone can slap a CSD tag on. Very often articles that need to go are tagged wrongly - either wrong criterion or CSD when they should be prod. Some should stay, possibly needing help. If you don't have a reasonable amount of experience tagging and watching the resulting admin action and on occasions querying it - how are you going to decide which are right and which are wrong? When I started CSD tagging, I got knocked back on quite a few. I took note and increased my accuracy. Copyright is another tricky area. What is public domain, what is licensed and what ain't? Some people think that because the US Govt stuff is public domain, other Govt stuff will be. UK isn't - but it may be licensable. It may not. And closing a contentious AfD is another matter altogether. It may just be that you over-emphasised this sort of work in your answer to Q1, or under-emphasised your potential contribution in other areas. It's not easy to face not just one quizmaster but possibly dozens. I'm not worried about lack of content addition. Every publisher needs authors. Every publisher also needs editors and proof-readers, and someone to sort the recycling stuff. If this goes in your favour, I'll welcome you and offer what help a new mopholder himself can give. If if doesn't, spend more time in CSD and XfD (and add some content to keep that lot happy....). Peridon (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are well thought out. Another user has suggested that I simply tag a collection of articles before this RFA closes, and thereby remove all doubt that I have the good sense not to make a series of bad mistakes. Hopefully I will have that time in the next 30 hours or so. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - lack of experience in content creation and in working with deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose There's a lot of boring admin work you could handle competently. Your experience level at XFD, however, doesn't tell me enough about a (potentially heavy) XFD closer to support. After 4 to 6 months of moderate, consistent involvement with the project and the deletion processes... please come back for another run if this fails. Courcelles 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral since I have no problem with his maintenance ability but don't feel comfortable for the reasons given in my comment on TCO's oppose. Also, I think administrators should have a little bit of experience with conflict, whether through MedCab, WP:RFC or WP:3O, since conflict comes with the mop. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 04:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to support. <b style="color:green;">MacMed</b><sup style="color:red;">talk <sub style="color:black;">stalk 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A firm neutral unless otherwise convinced :). I admire your willingness ("selfless nomination") to subject yourself to an often brutal and clearly broken process (RfA) but am concerned about your experience in areas that you would like to work in except page moves. A quick search through your contributions shows over a year of inactivity before your return last month. Your last 500 edits reach back to September 2009 and include a recent spree of welcoming 74 users in late February of this year (which is all good, of course). Because of your activity levels, you made hardly any contributions to the Wikipedia namespace between September 2009 and February 2011. A lot has changed in that time frame, and I do not feel that just one month back in the swing of things is going to have you ready for the tools. Your last two AfD contribs are most recently in February of this year and in September 2009, the both of which show sound sound reasoning and judgement.

A grand total of 6 edits to RFPP leaves evaluators little to go by for page protection - 5 of the 6 edits are (solid, well-reasoned) requests to protect the Meaning of life page, most of which were followed up by temporary protections. Three comments I wanted to highlight: in your nomination statement, you state Wikipedia is my main area of interest.—what is this supposed to mean? And nit-picking: as I understand there is not very many admins. Third, I do agree with what Armbrust has to say about the following statements being contradictory: "generally avoid performing edits that would get me into an argument" and "fulfill closing roles in SpeedyD, RfD, MfD, AfD and other Ds."—these are inherently controversial tasks. You simply cannot avoid stepping on others' toes when working in these venues, and it is how you handle conflict that really makes a difference; however, since you generally avoid conflict, there's little evidence on how you would address comments thrown at you by annoyed users whose pages you have just deleted. This goes back to my concern about you not having sufficient experience in venues you wish to work in, specifically CSD. I see <10 speedy nominations in your contributions. The last tagging I see that wasn't for a page move was of Makkonen nearly two years ago. To follow up on that, I see little evidence of copyright work outside of G12 taggings. Even I am still confounded by many of the intricacies of copyright, so I often consult another user more familiar with copyright when making those decisions.

That leads me to my next point - communication. I think you're doing just fine when communicating with other editors, although there are very few recent interactions to assess, on your talk page and elsewhere. I am not a believer in the requirement that one ought to "beef up your creds" with GAs and FAs because I know that's not everyone's style, and I see ample article contributions that demonstrate competence (a high level of "clue") and good judgement overall. However, it certainly could not hurt working on audited content, whether it be creating it or reviewing it. I find it quite rewarding once you get the hang of it. As for page mergers and page moves, I don't see any problems with your work in that arena and think you'd do a fine job in helping to curb the backlogs at WP:RM. To sum up my excessive rambling, I don't think you'd break the Wiki with the mop, but would like to see you active for a bit longer of a stretch, especially in areas you are interested in working in as an admin, before being confident with you having the tools at your disposal. Airplaneman  ✈  04:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to support. My comments still stand. Airplaneman   ✈  23:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * <S>Neutral (Moved to support) I am entering neutral to better assess where my regards are bets reflected. When Sufficient information is available, I will append these regards under the appropriate header. My76Strat (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am inclining towards support. So far I am impressed with the candidates manner. The only concerns I see mentioned require me to assume some implication which I currently do not see. Very soon I will have compared my remaining criteria to the candidates conduct and reasonable anticipate to append regards under support. My76Strat (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) <S>Hmm, I can't decide - Looking at your contribs I see calm reasoned arguments, a great sense of humour, and nothing objectionable. You've been coming back for a long time, so I don't doubt your dedication to wikipedia. And I think low editing rate (as opposed to low total experience) shouldn't matter too much, because otherwise we discriminate against candidates who are successful busy people. But admins do need very sound understanding of policy, and judgement in applying it, in the areas they plan to work in. What experience do you have in the areas of copyright and of speedy deletions?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Staying here per answer to question. I don't think you'd run amok, but I'd prefer to see more deletion nominations before you start closing them. I think most people make mistakes as they're learning, and mistakes are more problematic from an admin. A bit of time doing new page patrol would quickly build up experience and is useful to wikipedia. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I echo Airplaneman's !vote, get some more administrative experience and come back in 5-6 months. —  Ancient Apparition •  Champagne?  • 12:01pm • 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Lack of recent edits and then one month of activity means that you are probably just getting back into the swing of things. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning Support - I see no problems, but due to low edit count in the past 6 months (which is where I base my vote), I'm unable to support this request fully. If you were to spend a couple of months working on the encyclopedia in the same manner you are at the moment, I would not hesitate to support you. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (moved to support)
 *  Neutral. but would like to Support . Moved to support. W We have here a clueful, civil longterm contributor with a clean blocklog and a record of doing useful uncontentious edits. I'm not particularly concerned at the pace of those edits, policy and cultural change is actually quite slow on the wiki nowadays and I rather suspect that NickPenguin will be editing here for years after the hyperactive editors like myself have burned out and gone. However I'm concerned at the answers to questions four and five. Admins get to close AFDs and BLPprods, and in my view it rather important that the people doing so understand the difference between a reliable and an unreliable source. Copy editing and rearranging articles is great - but I'd like admins to have demonstrated that they have added referenced material to the pedia. As for question 5, speedy deletion is indeed largely about whether articles meet the criteria, and the best ways to judge whether a candidate has the right judgement on that is to look at articles they have tagged for deletion, rescued from deletion, or created. But Speedy deletion is also about knowing when to delete on sight and when to leave an article for a few hours so the creator has an opportunity to respond to the tag. I suspect that this candidate would be fine as an admin, but I'd prefer to see a bit of article referencing and ideally some deletion work or better question answers first. I would be very happy to re-evaluate in July.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral, Moved from Oppose because I'm impressed by responses at this RfA. But I still can't quite support, because of the lack of recent work to check. I'd recommend getting a few months more edits done, including reporting CSD candidates and copyright violations, and commenting in XfDs for example, so we can get some feel for on-the-job understanding of admin areas. With that, I think there would be a very good chance of my support next time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC) (and now I'm moving to Support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Neutral - I do not judge you by your present edit count, but I have serious concerns to your level of activity. As pointed out by Airplaneman above, your activity over the past year has been rather sparse. Now I personally understand real-life obligations, and commend you for your willingness to subject yourself to public berating in this absolutely broken process, but a problem I observe all-to-often here is inactive admins. I recall coming across a person with administrative (sysop) rights here only a month ago who hasn't performed a single edit since early 2009. Damned if I could recall their username. I am impressed by your calm demeanor and well thought-out responses to the queries posed to you here, however. I would just hope that you don't become another inactive admin. I would like to support you but I just can't lose the feeling of uneasiness about your activity levels. That said, best of luck to you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to Oppose. Reasoning outlined there. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  01:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I'm not sure of the candidate's attitude regarding Q5: so without the tools to do deletion, you don't see the point in tagging Speedy Deletions or Copyright Violations? Using that logic, no one but admins would ever tag anything for deletion or copyvio - so hardly anything would be tagged! For me, the importance of seeing an RfA candidate tagging SDs and CVs is to see that they know what is a suitable article/image for such tagging. If I see a candidate with 200 speedy deletion tags, and most of them are declined, that shows me that they do not understand the criteria. If, on the other hand, I see 200 tags (especially across different SD criteria) and they are mostly deleted as a result, that shows they understand the criteria. I am sitting here on the neutral sofa, rather than the oppose one, as the numbers show that as it stands, you are unlikely to be successful in this RfA. My advice - before going for another RfA, do speedy deletion and copyvio tagging, and get more involved in xfDs - you mention wanting to close them, but over the last 2 years, you have only been involved in 7 or 8 of them, and several of those are comments rather than !votes. I see insufficient evidence of your understanding of policy here, and hence I am not confident enough of your ability to close such discussions <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 02:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't see the point, it just seems like there's been a lot of people focusing on the deletion aspect of the wiki for a long time, and that we needed someone to focus on the improve aspect a bit more. Do I think I could do a perfectly adequate job at tagging articles for copyright issues? Sure, just as much as I could nominate articles for deletion, revert vandalism, and inflate my edit count. I have the capacity to do anything, I just want to have the power to do more, as any trusted, long time user would. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I don't think the candidate's answer for Q6 is encouraging: WP:BLP applies to all contentious material, not just the "damaging" material. However, the candidate also said that this is not an area that they would be active in, so instead of opposing, I'll leave this neutral. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:03, 27 March 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.