Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plastikspork


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

Plastikspork
FINAL: (52/7/6); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination
– Plastikspork has been editing here since August 2007, although most of his work has been since October 2008. Since then, he has racked up an impressive 16,000+ edit count helping the wiki in various areas: vandalism fighting, deletion, scripting (including his "Sprk" script for page wikification and cleanup and now as a co-developer of AutoEd with myself), and template coding (such as Color strip. He seems to be level-headed and open to discussion. I have no doubt that he would make good use of the tools in various areas of Wikipedia. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept this nomination. Plastikspork (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:  Initially, I would like to help maintain and debug templates/scripts, protect high visibility templates/scripts, issue temporary semi-protection for vandalized articles/templates when needed, and generally help fight vandalism. As time goes on, I would be happy to broaden the scope of my involvement, especially if there is an area in which there is a backlog of work.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: In my opinion, my best contribution has been my work on scripting in an effort to make life easier for other editors. As Drilnoth mentioned, I maintain my own script, and I help co-develop AutoEd.  I am also proud of my work on search link (a collaboration with David Göthberg), which is currently deployed on the Lists of common misspellings. I really enjoy programming, automation, and problem solving.  In addition, I watch about 1600 articles for vandalism.  I haven't really created many new articles, but I do my best to improve articles when I can (adding citations, formatting, spelling, removing POV statements).


 * 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 had a small number of editing conflicts in the past and I would like to think that I am improving how I deal with such situations. In the past I was a bit quicker to revert, but have since realized that too much of this only leads to edit warring, and it's always better to seek a third opinion (I would be happy to elaborate with specific details if anyone is interested). As far as stress is concerned, when things get to me, I go take a walk outside.  Most people describe me as a calm person, and I am always striving to be as civil as possible.  I'm certainly not perfect, but I firmly believe in (1) assuming "good faith" whenever its plausible, (2) using the edit summary, (3) seeking an impartial third opinion when necessary, (4) use the talk page, and (5) always be willing to compromise.  I think that restraint is even more important once one is granted administrative privileges.


 * Question from
 * 4. Do you have a good understanding of the licencing that Wikipedia runs under (noting that it is changing)? At Articles for deletion/Angela Pitts you seemed to indicate that a delete and merge was a possible desired outcome (whilst also noting redirect and merge would also be acceptable). Do you understand why delete and merge is not viable within the licence the article was created under? How do you justify that as a recommendation, given it would actually be illegal in many countries to do so?
 * A. A couple months ago, I subscribed to the Signpost, as I realized that I was woefully uninformed about WP specific issues. From the Terms of Use, any material submitted to WP must be able to be released under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. The issue with a literal 'merge' of material would be covered in the 'importing text' section, which could be problematic depending on the content.  In this particular case (see []), the only material beyond what appeared on I Love Money (season 2), was the personal life section, which was not much more than a few statements of fact. The sourcing for this section was primarily AngelaPitts.com and a myspace page. So, in retrospect, there was really nothing to merge as it could have been easily recreated by a simple google search for her name.  If there was useful content to merge, then care would have to be taken to make sure any merging was not a copy-and-paste in a manner incompatible with the licensing. In such a case, I would proceed with caution, check for precedent by more experienced editors/admins, and consult with users more familiar with the nuances involved with merging articles (and edit histories). Plastikspork (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional question from
 * 5. If you come across an article that is not in English, is it valid to speedy delete it? Under what circumstances, and what should you do?
 * A. By my understanding of CSD, I would say that in general one should tag it with notenglish and not speedy delete it. However, if it is a copy of a page on another WP project, then it can be deleted by A2. Plastikspork (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from
 * 6. How long does it take for a User Warning to become stale?
 * A. As far as I know there is no strict rule, and I have clearly not been perfect in observing the proper escalation of warnings, as has been pointed out below. In a perfect world, I would start by issuing a welcome message (and possibly with a level 1).  The user would then be given a chance to read this warning, and if the behavior continued, I would issue a level 2, and so forth.  With anon-IP accounts, it becomes a bit more tricky, as the user may change between edits.  In this case, one should check the edit history to see if it's plausible that it's the same editor.  If it appears the editor has changed, the warning level should return back to level 1, especially if some time has elapsed.  In addition, one should be more cautious with users which appear to be more than "vandalism only accounts."  If there are constructive edits between the perceived "problem edits," then that would be grounds for returning back to level 1.  I think one key is that a sequence of warnings may lead to a block, and a block is not issued as punishment. A block is issued as a means of "preventing" the disruptive activity from continuing.  Hence, there is no reason to escalate warnings if they are not helping to prevent the activity.  This is something which I will admit I have not always been perfect with observing, but I plan to work on. It would also seem to be important to have more than one admin/editor involved (especially as a new admin). Let me know if you want a more specific reply to a specific situation. Plastikspork (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:
 * 7. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?
 * A: This is addressed in Responding to threats of harm. I would do my best to follow the guidelines set forth on that page.
 * 8. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?
 * A: I would consult with another editor for a second opinion. Since I am not trained in determining if a threat is credible, I would hopefully be able to consult with someone who is. As such, I would start by reporting it to AN/I.  I do think that serious credible threats should be reported to law enforcement, but I do not feel I am qualified to make such a decision on my own.  Let me know if you would like a more specific answer to a specific situation. Plastikspork (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8b: What typically happens on ANI is that folks will disagree as to what to do. What I'm looking for is "what would you do and when would you contact authorities? Why or why not?" Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A: I would contact authorities if I felt the threat was credible enough to be believed. I have contacted authorities before when I encountered a 'threat of harm' in my offline life. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to not report a credible threat. This is my personal opinion. Plastikspork (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question from
 * 9. Seeing as there is little use of the above-mentioned template, Color strip, may I ask what its purpose is?
 * A: The original purpose was something a bit more general than colorbox for pages like Academic scarf. However, it wasn't clear if would be necessary since pages like that use cell and cell3 and appear to render just fine.  In the end it was a useful exercise, but not as useful as search link. Plastikspork (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from
 * 10. What is the Wikipedia policy on fair use, and how may administrators need to be involved?
 * A. When I write an article for publication in a peer reviewed journal, I am very careful to make sure that I properly quote and cite my sources and generate my own figures. For text, I think it's fairly clear, although there may be some debate about how long an excerpt can be and still qualify as fair use. (I have posed this question before and I have not found a definitive answer). As far as WP is concerned, there is the official policy. Deleting a file which does not follow the policy should only require one administrator. If the deletion is contested, then more than one administrator may need to get involved. Plastikspork (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional question from
 * 11. Can you please explain why you thought that this or this article are to be considered as "pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"?
 * A. The general reasoning was that if it most was mostly just a link was to a casting call, then it would seem like promotion. However, that would only apply to the second example.  As for the first example, I'm not exactly sure why I tagged it as such and should have just nominated under AFD instead.  I have since spent some time reviewing the CSD categories. Plastikspork (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: Does that mean that you think the tagging was correct? Regards  So Why  21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A. No, after further review it was not correct to tag it as G11 (i.e., it is not exclusively promotional). I actually learned quite a bit from this particular case, as I asked Bigtimepeace to explain the reasoning for declining the deletion, and received thoughtful feedback. It is clear that, as an action, speedy deletion should only be taken when it is a clear case. Otherwise, it should be taken to AFD. I hope this better answers your question. Plastikspork (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Optional supplementary question from Tony1:'''
 * 12. In relation to Q10 above, I had two queries: (a) can you specify what you believe are the two or three critical Non-Free Content Criteria for admin judgement on the admissability of files? (b) Your response to Q10 appeared to deal mostly with textual issues: is there a difference between plagiarism and copyright? Is it possible to summarise in one or two phrases what admins should look out for in this respect? [(b) is beyond the call of duty here, but if you have ideas, I'd be pleased to hear them briefly.] Thanks. Tony   (talk)  15:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)]
 * A. (a) I would say that all 10 appear to be important. However, if I had to pick two to three critical items (based on the violations I have observed on the pages that I edit), I would go with significance, no free equivalent, and item description page is properly filled out. Most of the copyright problems that I have seen involve uploading images of people (obtained from some unnamed source on the Internet) and claiming that the uploader is the author. Often these images are not necessary, since there are either free alternatives, or there is already an existing image of the person in the article. (b) Plagiarism is not properly citing your sources and passing off existing material as original. Many people don't realize that it does not have to be a direct copy for it to still count as plagiarism.  Copyright, on the other hand, occurs when material is reused, but permission to reuse the material has been restricted in a way incompatible with the reuse.  It is possible to simultaneously plagiarize and violate copyright.  It is also possible to violate them independently. In the academic community there is a big problem with "self plagiarism," which happens when authors write two related articles and re-use portions. As far as what to look out for, I wish I had a simple answer. I have stumbled upon a few cases where it was clear that the text had been cut-and-paste from another source.  A google search was able to locate the text quite quickly and I removed the offending text.  I know that there is work on going in industry and computer science departments to automate this process (e.g., turn-it-in, lanl preprint archive, ...). As far as mixing both plagiarism and copyright violation, I recently had some correspondence with Moonriddengirl, and had a chance to read this whilst visiting her talk page.  An interesting read. Plastikspork (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rejoinder: NFCC#1 ("No free equivalent") and #8 ("Significance") are the ones I see User:Black Kite and others use, and appear to be the most commonly neglected by users. We could do with more admins who can patrol and advise on NFCC. Your response to (b) is interesting. Tony   (talk)  08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional optional questions from Groomtech
 * 13. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
 * A: Yes, I believe that Wikipedians have rights, although it appears that this did not gain consensus.  However, there is Etiquette, which is one of the five pillars. I can do my best to uphold these rights by doing whatever is in my power.  For example, quickly addressing personal attacks, preventing disruption, etc. There is also the right to privacy and we should do what we can to prevent outing. Plastikspork (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
 * 14a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
 * A. I have expressed an opinion in polls/proposals (e.g., here). However, I have not yet drafted or helped draft any policies or policy changes.


 * 14b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
 * A. I would be in favor of adding more specific language in WP:BLP with regard to excessive personal information of non-notable minors (e.g., the subject's children). I do not think it's a good idea to have exact birthdates, weights, length, etc. of children unless there is very good reason for including such information; even if the child's parents are celebrities.


 * 14c. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
 * A. I believe they are useful for new users to understand how XFD debates generally proceed, but they should not be used as a rule for determining how future debates will proceed. For example, this is why pages like WP:OUTCOMES frequently uses phrases like "generally not notable" and "not automatically notable."


 * 14d. Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?
 * A. I believe that a WikiProject is a useful place for policies/guidelines to be discussed and proposed, but that such policies/guidelines should be still be reviewed by the larger Wikipedia community. Plastikspork (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions from Kayau
 * 15a. What will you do if someone tries to advertise in a Wikipedia page, but with appropiate sources to support him? Kayau (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A. From WP:SPAM, pure advertisement should be deleted. If an article is "pure advertisement," which can not be salvaged, then it can be deleted through CSD as db-spam. If there is anything which can be salvaged, then the advertisement portion should be removed, and the article could (hopefully) be rewritten without the spam.


 * 15b. What will you do if someone vandalises on his own user page? Kayau (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A. It depends on the content of this 'self vandalism'. There are certain things that are not allowed on user pages. Any editor can remove blatant violations (e.g., attacks). For less clear cut cases, I generally just nominate the page for deletion.  I have actually done this in the past when someone was using WP to host progress in an unrelated online games (on Facebook).


 * 15c. Have you resolved any conflicts other people had had? Kayau (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A. I believe I have helped resolve some conflicts. For some examples, see here or here. Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Plastikspork before commenting.''

Discussion

 * Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Being the nom and all... support. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, a very helpful user who will do well with the bit. I have been hoping for this for months. NW ( Talk ) 21:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Seems to have impressive technical know-how. Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Support; trusted user, seen him around. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Looks good to me. —  Jake   Wartenberg  22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Solid contribution history. - down load  ׀ sign!  22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Support WTHN? Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. I've looked through Plastikspork's contributions, and it's clear that he understands policy, he's polite (even when people are rude to him), and he's dedicated to making Wikipedia better. – Quadell (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) AutoEd is quite impressive and shows a desire to help others be better editors, which is pretty much exactly what I like to see in an admin. Koji, I have to apologize that I don't know enough to evaluate your links; I suck at vandal-warnings.  I know that in some cases a jump to level 3 or 4 is warranted, but I'm fuzzy on the details. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Enough experienced user. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Go for it Triplestop (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Good judgement - the most important quality in an admin. Thanks for taking the time to answer the 2-part questions. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 15)  Support Usage of the warning templates isn't inherently clear, but most of the cases I see of not going linearly are skipping from vandal2 to vandal4 - that's appropriate in certain extreme cases since the implication is that vandal4 indicates what could potentially be a final warning. The beauty of AIV is that it requires at least two people (usually a lot more given vandal tendencies) to agree.  If Ps is indeed "trigger happy" then it won't often come up unless another user also feels it is warranted (especially since initially it would only ever be a short, temporary block for such things).  Moreover, I feel the  template would be useful for some of the edits you've reverted, Plastik (I know I should use it more myself). ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. In Wikipedia, too much effort is placed in warning vandals, and not enough in actually dealing with them.  Rami R  11:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, no serious problems that I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC).
 * 18) Support, I took a look through his contributions and couldn't find anything too serious, so I'll support. Good luck! Tavix |  Talk 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, more admins needed, this user seems suitable for this purpose. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Can't find any reason to oppose. The diffs brought up in the oppose section are too isolated to sway my opinion.  Them  From  Space  18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Support No major concern. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support as none of the reasons given to oppose raise concerns for me (Plastikspork appears to have learned from any mistakes, we all make mistake, and he freely admits it), and lack of audited contributions is too weak a concern for me (not saying GA/FA content is a bad thing, but saying it really has nothing to do with being a good and effective admin). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Thank you for the time taken to answer my question and address my minor concerns in that regard. Pedro : Chat  19:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Sure thing.  I feel the oppose from Fuchs, while his opinion is wrong but this is not purely to balance that out - you are a great editor and should make a great admin.  (as a side, there is a limit to AGF, and while you should assume good faith remember that that is not true in evidence of bad faith which vandalism is.) <font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedoursecretsinthe <font style="color:#000099;">garden  20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Thank you for volunteering! – ( iMatthew  • talk ) at 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Support has demonstrated responding to questions, and reading the policy, and improving knowledge. I checked the deleted content and File contributions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) The diffs provided by the opposition look completely fine to me. Support. Wizardman  00:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Support I don't think he'll abuse the tools, and I think he's taken to heart the constructive criticism about his warnings and won't continue that behavior. <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Nothing wrong with a niche admin... guilty as charged.  wadester 16  07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Support Good candidate, unconvincing opposes. <font color="#000033">Aditya  <font color="#000033">α <font color="#000033">ß 07:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Very excellent editor, usually in Survivor and other reality TV show articles. Good for the user to become an admin. ApprenticeFan  <font color="mediumpurple">talk  contribs 12:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 32) Support A very helpful user. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 33) Despite having proven fallibility. In the words of one wiser than I, "When in doubt, don't." Don't be afraid to develop greater patience and to hold off a bit before taking decisive action. Don't hesitate to hesitate. Take a second look, give an extra warning, engage in discussion to clarify, give the new weed looking article a chance to develop-- might turn into a flower after all. Cheers, Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC).
 * 34) Support I see no reason not to. Good Luck. America69 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Candidate has a clean block log, civil talk and user page, and is already getting others asking for advice. Looking at the recent deleted contributions I see a nice mix of use of CSD, Prod and AFD. Candidate also seems aware that whilst 4 levels of warning are the norm, uw-vand4im and the other level 4 immediate templates exist because sadly they sometimes need to be used.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per User:A_Nobody as candidate has no blocks, but does have three barnstars proudly displayed on the candidate's usepage. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 37) Support I see no indication the editor will misuse the tools. The issues in the oppose section don't concern me. Tim  meh  00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Looks fine to me. Opposes are unconvincing. <font style="font-variant:small-caps;"> Little Mountain  Public   01:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 39) Support—But I was slightly concerned by the Oppose on "shoot first, ask questions later". You may be interested in reading this excellent page. Tony   (talk)  08:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 40) Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 41) Support WTHN ? -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 10:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - prodigious edit count, sufficient time on board, good article and Wikipedia work, Barnstars, no concerns. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 43) Support The issues in the "oppose" list do not cause concern that this user will misuse the mop. Vandals need not be given all four graduated warnings in every case of blatant vandalism. No reason not to grant the admin bit. Edison (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 44) Support seems to know what s/he is doing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. I'm not swayed by the "oppose" issues raised that there is a quick-temper, etc. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 46) Nakon  08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 47) Support -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Exploding Boy (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 49) Support I do not see anything that suggests Plastikspork would not make a good administrator. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 50) Support - I have had some interaction with Plastikspork and from what I have noticed is that the nominee has one of the most important traits that all administrators should have and that is patience. Plastikspork is a level headed people person. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 51) Support; - Would make a great, level-headed administrator. <font face="Segoe Print"> UntilItSleeps <sup style="color:green;">Public PC   17:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 52) Support - As for the vandal warnings, uw-test4im is to be used with discretion; I believe he is justified in warning the user for such flagrant vandalism and hate-mongering. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose To me, the use of un-called for final and only warnings gives the impression of a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of admin.-- Koji †  23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) * FYI, in many of the cases you link, the user had previously been warned for vandalism. Many of these are "final" warnings after previous ones, not "only" warnings. Also, it appears that in every case you link to (except for IPs), the user's behavior continued and he/she was soonafter blocked by an uninvolved admin, leading me to think that Plastikspork's warnings were correct. – Quadell (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that jumping from no warnings to only, or from Level 1/2 to 4 (with days, occasionally weeks between) is un-justified, and by extension doesn't show good faith. Perhaps that is opinionated, but the spirit of good faith is to assume foolishness, rather than malice. Such abrupt warnings defy that, and if I were patrolling AIV, I'd take those down as insufficiently warned.-- Koji †  23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears I have made a few mistakes with regard to escalation of warnings. I will certainly be more cautious in the future.  Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. Plastikspork (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would point out that issuing warnings, even level 4 ones, has nothing at all to do with assumption of good faith. I have issued lots of level four warnings, and blocked a lot of IP addresses, without once dropping the assumption of good faith. That's a red herring. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose These two diffs are the two worst mistakes in my opinion, in the first he went from a level 1 warning to a level 4 warning with 2 days separation, which in many cases would render the warning stale, and in the second he went from a level 2 warning to a level 4 warning with 5 days in between (Which in many cases for a dynamic IP can be enough time for an IP to be switched to a new user which would render any previous warning stale and irrelevant for the new user) which really makes me think that this user as an admin could sometimes "Jump the gun" and issue blocks when they weren't necessary the best option or the most appropriate course of action. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved discussion to the talk page. <font color="#000033">Aditya  <font color="#000033">α <font color="#000033">ß 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per a lack of audited content contributions, noticeboard activity. (more info) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by audited content contributions? -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the more info link inserted by David? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That link was a rather confusing way of explaining it. What I think that means is work with GA/FA assessment and or working with articles to GA and/or FA.  I'd never heard the term "audited content", but if you'd just said GA/FA I would've immediately understood.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I followed this RfA for a while. I was concerned about the apparent lack of content contributions. That's a big part of Wikipedia and a major role of admins is dealing with disputes related to that area. The mistaken CSD tagging, repeated again in your initial response, is also concerning. I'd like to see you do some article and AfD work and come back in a few months. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Unnecessary bite. Incorrect CSD tagging. Limited content contribution.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - no shooting please. Peter Damian (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Not due to bite, but to the CSD (mis)understandings - KillerChihuahua?!? 23:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral I think you have what it takes to hold the mop. But I'm a bit concerned about the use of final warnings on users that have only received one previous warning.  I know I make mistakes and jump the gun on warnings, but I think Final Warnings really should be used only in extreme circumstances; for example when a user has received a warning, then immediately retaliates by mass vandalism.  They should be given the courtesy of 1-4 as the language of each warning gets sterner and sterner.  I think it does a better job of trying to change the behavior.  Anyway, that's my opinion.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Unlikely to abuse the tools, but with really only about 8 months of regular editing it is too difficult to really come to understand the nuances of and interplay of all the guidelines and polices, especially the reasonings behind these to begin with. Many guidelines are misunderstood, I would count myself among these in my early days, and thus misused. 16,000 edits is nice, but I'd rather see say 10,000 if those were spread out over a year of active editing. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) No compelling reason to either support or oppose at this time.--Caspian blue 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WTHN? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A lot of compelling arguments on both sides, but I am not opposed to seeing you with the mop and bucket. Best of luck either way, Malinaccier (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per above. One two three... 09:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. A high amount of caution and clue is needed when working with CSD- and disruption-related issues, both to protect the content and on the other hand not to needlessly drive away potential positive contributors. I share some of Mifter's concerns (in the oppose section). Can't really support, but don't want to oppose either because there's enough hope that you'll be a net positive as an admin (as opposed to a gross negative). Good luck, Jafeluv (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2009 (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.