Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pol430


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

Pol430
'''Final (46/32/2); ended 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC) - as unsuccessful due to candidate's lack of content contributions and judgment in CSD tagging and vandalism patrol activities and not because of candidate's edit rate.  MBisanz  talk 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)'''

Nomination
– I would like to make a self-nomination for adminship. This is a somewhat tentative nomination, as I have been around long enough to know how the RfA process can go sometimes. It is only recently that I have given thought to running for adminship and that raised all sorts of questions within me, about whether I am ready. I concluded, that the time has come to let other people answer that question. I have been on Wikipedia since December 2008, but only really started to actively edit in October 2010. I have amassed about 12,000 edits. I generally work at WP:WPAFC and also at WP:NPP and WP:RCP. Between May 2011 and November 2011, I became disillusioned with Wikipedia as a result of WP:ACTRIAL; I semi-retired for several months, but continued to make small a number of edits. In December 2011, I decided that I missed being a member of this community and returned to active editing. Pol430 talk to me 15:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The reason I am requesting the mop is that recently I have found myself in situations thinking: "hmmm can't do that, not an admin." Specifically, at AfC it is sometimes (more often than you might think) necessary to perform a technical page move, where duplicate versions of the same submission exist. Or, to need to create a submission at a protected page, or override titleblacklist (both for legitimate reasons). This is not the sole reason for this request; I also continue to be involved in vandal fighting, and new page patrol, and it would be my intention to work in areas like: WP:AIV, WP:CSD, WP:AFD and potentially, other admin areas in the fulness of time.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: First and foremost, I don't profess to be a content creator, most of my Wikiwork is Gnomish in nature. I have created a grand total of six articles, all of them quite short. Having said that, the articles I am most proud of are: Aldershot Garrison (which I significantly expanded and re-wrote) and Ministry of Defence Police (which I have done a lot of clean up and expansion work on). I have also done a fair bit of work in project spaces. I did quite a bit of clean up and design improvement at WP:UTM and WP:UW. More recently, I worked on some revamped reviewing instructions at AfC. Which went live yesterday, and can be found at WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. I also try to help struggling new editors who show that they are willing to make positive contributions to this encyclopedia. Most of my work in this regard comes about through my involvement at AfC, there should be some examples on my talk page and talk page archives.


 * 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: Quite a while ago, I did have a run in with in this thread but after some further discussion, on my talkpage, we resolved our differences and I continued to work with him, often asking for advice, until his recent Wikibreak. I was also accused of edit warring here whilst patrolling recent changes. I always try to remain polite when discussing things, I do not believe I have ever resorted to personal attacks and unless I'm reverting obvious vandalism I don't violate 3rr. My philosophy is: if it gets to the point that emotions are clouding the issue, then it's best to walk away.


 * Optional questions from jc37
 * In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
 * 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
 * 4a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
 * A: Generally speaking an editor should be blocked to protect the encyclopedia, because their edits are doing the project harm and they have not listened to attempts to get them to stop. There are occasions where it may be necessary to block an editor without warning, such as: making legal threats or outrageous personal attacks on other editors. Any threats of legal action against the WMF should be made through the proper legal channels, discussion of such matters on Wiki, has the potential to harm the encyclopedia. As well as being a breach of WP:NPA, Outrageous or profane personal attacks can become corrosive in a community environment and therefore such users should be blocked in the interests of protecting the encyclopedia. New accounts, that are clearly, on the basis of their contributions, only here to commit as much vandalism as possible, or accounts that can be clearly shown to be evading a block, can also be blocked without warning. Conversely, an editor could be unblocked if they were blocked for disruption and made a sincere declaration that they would stop being disruptive and contribute constructively, or if the block appeared to be unsupported by the blocking policy or clearly inappropriate; in which case, the blocking admin should be contacted to advise them of the unblock, or to solicit an explanation.


 * 4b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
 * A: Pages can be semi-protected, fully protected, move protected or creation protected. Full protection should only be used sparingly in cases where semi-protection would be useless. For example, in the case of a persistent edit war by multiple autoconfirmed users (usually the case on a high profile article). Semi-protection would be appropriate in the case of page disruption by annon editors or non-autoconfirmed editors. Protection can be applied indefinitely or for a specified amount of time. Generally, if a page has been the subject of recent, prolonged disruption or vandalism, by annon or unconfirmed editors, then it is likely to be appropriate to add semi-protection. The amount of time that protection needs to be applied for should be considered against the edit history of the article. For example, if a page has only been disrupted in the last 10 days, then protection should be applied for a similar time period. Indefinite semi-protection should only be considered if multiple escalating periods of semi protection have failed to stop the disruption. The protection log should be checked to see the pages protection history. Outside the article namespace, some highly visible templates or pages that are particularly susceptible to vandalism can be indefinitely semi-protected. Move protection can be applied to pages that have been the subject of page move vandalism. For example, the article on a celebrity is moved to an amusing or abusive new name. Move protection can often be applied indefinitely, in cases where there is no logical alternative page name. Creation protection can be applied to a page that was inappropriate, and has been repeatedly recreated; it is often applied indefinitely.


 * 4c. ...a page to be speedily deleted (or speedily restored)?
 * A: The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately construed narrowly. Commonly, pages tagged for deletion under A7 (for example) should only be deleted if the text of the article contains no assertion of significance or importance, or if the assertion lacks credibility. In cases of ambiguity, it is often better to decline the speedy and nominate the article at WP:AFD where further discussion can take place and a broader input obtained. As another example: CSD G4 candidates should only be deleted (in the article namespace) if the recreated article is almost unchanged from the version that was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. In the case of disputed speedy deletion noms, the article could be userfied (if suitable) or restored if the CSD criteria for which it was deleted, clearly did not apply. For other cases there is WP:DRV.


 * 4d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
 * A: (Hypothetical situation) A highly active reviewer at WP:WPAFC asks me (as an admin) for the auto-patrolled flag because they routinely accept many submissions at AfC and they do not wish to for pages they create, to add to the burden of new page patrollers. I look over their move log and establish that the editor has consistently created decent quality articles and has not moved anything to the mainspace that should not be there. Normally, the auto-patrolled flag is only given if the requester has created at least 50 articles of sound quality. I WP:IAR and grant them the flag.


 * . How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
 * A: Consensus should usually be based on the most reasoned arguments that comply with WP:PAG, it should not be about !vote counting. In the case of AFD noms it is not uncommon to see mysterious new editors that have made almost no edits outside of the deletion discussion. Such accounts are usually WP:MEATPUPPETs or WP:SOCKs and often make poorly grounded arguments about keeping or deleting an article. Their !votes should not be taken into account; Wikipedia is a cluocracy. At WP:DRV it is in the interest of upholding the values of Wikipedia to give more sway to popular opinion. In so much as: If the result of a deletion debate was Delete by a narrow margin and the deletion is now being questioned at DRV, it might be in the best interests of all concerned to simply re-list the article at AFD, to allow further discussion to take place. Clearly this has to be considered in the context of WP:COMMONSENSE and discussions should not be endlessly re-listed becuase someone didn't like the outcome. Consensus should be the solution that angers the least amount of people, it is rarely possible to keep everyone 100% happy.


 * . User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
 * A: I would examine the article history and determine where the dispute started. If the editors engaging in the dispute had violated the three-revert-rule, I would warn both of them against any further revisions and ask them to take the matter to the article talk page. If they could not stop making revisions before reaching a consensus on the talk page, I would temporarily fully protect the article. If it was apparent that this action could disrupt other editors, who wanted to make uncontroversial, legitimate changes, then I would consider a 24hr block for both edit waring accounts and asking them to discuss the matter on one-or-other user talk page. If 3RR had not been violated, I would just warn both accounts for edits warring and ask them to discuss on the talk page before editing the article further. I would also want to take to a look at User:JohnQ's edits to see if he was a genuinely concerned third party, or if he had also been party to the edit war.


 * . Why do you wish to be an administrator?
 * A: As I briefly touched on in question 1, I have recently found myself in a few situations where the mop would have been useful and would have allowed me to progress with my editing, without having to wait for admin action. Additionally, I often notice backlogs at WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:AFD and WP:CSD these backlogs are usually dealt with within 24hrs, but I would like to be able to contribute more to these areas. Finally, because adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and I feel I'm more or less ready to use the tools, I saw no reason not to pose that question to the wider community.


 * Additional question from ItsZippy
 * 8. How do you go about determining whether or not an edit is vandalism? And, as an administrator, how would you go about dealing with edits that are a) obvious vandalism and b) not vandalism but nonetheless disruptive?
 * A: Vandalism is defined at WP:VANDTYPES, I would determine weather an edit was vandalistic based on weather it met the definitions at that page. In deling with edits that were obvious vandalism, it would depend if that editor had been sufficiently warned. If an editor continued to make vandalistic edits, after a final warning, and those warnings had been issued with cause, then I would block them. In the case of vandalism only accounts, I would block them indefinitely. In the case of annon accounts that block would be temporary. For the edits themselves, I would check the page history and restore the last good version. In the case of disruptive editing, this is defined at WP:DISRUPT. Cases of disruptive editing, where warnings have failed, should be referred to WP:AN/I for discussion.


 * Additional question from Mrmatiko
 * 9. When is it appropriate to give an editor a single warning? Possibly with reference to how it applies here and here.
 * A: In the case of User talk:Kwguard, I seem to recall they created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gridiron Football League Midwest (GFLMW) which was wholly vandalistic and contained elements of being an attack page. In the case of User talk:99.90.197.87 the IP had a long history of vandalism, had recently come off a block and was continuing to edit in similar subject areas. Generally, single/only warnings should be used in situations where the user is clearly editing in bad faith and has no intention of making positive contributions.


 * Additional question from Puffin
 * 10. How would you deal with a conflict at Templates for discussion????  Puffin  Let's talk! 21:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A: I suppose it would depend on the nature of the conflict. If you are referring to a conflict of opinion, in a discussion, then unless the editors concerned were violating WP:NPA, or the discussion clearly got out of hand, I would let them get on with it. If the discussion descended into personal attacks, then I would likely leave some advice at their talk pages, in the case of outrageous personal attacks it may be appropriate to block that editor for a short period. If you are referring to closing a discussion that contained equally conflicting !votes, supported by valid rationales, I would re-list if appropriate, or close as no consensus.


 * Additional question from Goodvac
 * 11. You note an interest in working at AfD, an area where your experience is limited, so this question is intended to gauge your knowledge of the process and policies surrounding it. How would you close the following AfDs? (Relisting is also an option.) Please note what opinions informed your decision.
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maverick_(Meg_album)&oldid=480427101 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maverick (Meg album)]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeff_Mach&oldid=479520444 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mach]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=480530245 Hypothetical AfD]. All the voters are established editors.
 * A: Re: Maverick (Meg album). The result would be delete. The album has been nominated on the grounds of notability and the guidelines referred to by the nom, and the two delete !voters, are relevant to the subject matter. The refs included in the article are not sufficient to establish notability. Whilst a lack of refs present is not a delete rationale, DAJF asserts they have searched for sources but only encountered mostly unreliable sources, that do not lend enough coverage of the subject, to evidence notability. Milowent makes a valiant defence, arguing that nobody has searched for sources, this is refuted by DAJF. Otherwise Milowent's keep arguments are not particularly strong and focus mostly on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Re: Jeff Mach. The result would be keep. The nomination was made on the grounds of failing WP:BIO. The references present seem to be sufficiently reliable to pass WP:RS, and as a combined entity, they lend sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:BASIC. There is mention of WP:SPIP by one !voter, but this is not part of the original nomination and it is clear that the content of the article is not so promotional as to be considered as a rationale for deletion. Re: Hypothetical AfD. The result would be: keep. The nomination is made on the grounds of WP:BIO, as a stub article there is not much of a BIO there. The deletion !votes are all very short and don't really explain, in detail, why the subject is not notable, there are two seemingly reliable sources present that suggest Doe is a notable academic per point 2 of WP:CREATIVE. In short: the keep !votes make better policy based arguments.


 * Additional question from Coviepresb1647
 * 12. On determining the violation of a Wiki principle (vandalism, POV, etc.), (1) when do you stick with your assumption and warn the person before or without asking questions AND (2) when do you assume good faith and ask questions before warning them or giving them constructive criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coviepresb1647 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A: That's a difficult question to answer. For me, it comes down to the faith assumption, whether I feel the editor in question was trying to make an improvement to Wikipedia (even if their efforts were grossly misguided), or whether I feel that there is no room to assume that their edits were made with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. In the case of the former, I would assume good faith, and if I could not determine what they were trying to achieve, I would ask them directly. To give a specific example: I did not assume good faith in respect of 99.90.197.87 because it seemed clear that the pattern of their edit history showed they were the same person that had recently come off a block, and the edits they made to Writing appeared to be a deliberate attempt to re-factor the content and refs to their own POV. I was wrong to label this as vandalism, as others have pointed out. I should have dealt with it as a case of disruptive or tendentious editing. It seemed clear from their edit summaries that they were not interested in discussion, or giving sensible answers to questions, so I felt a warning was more appropriate.


 * Additional questions from Bens dream
 * 13. Why do you require the use of admin tools?
 * Comment: What kind of question is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)
 * Response:A valid question that I'd like answered, unless you want my Oppose response to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * 14. If you are made an admin, what will you do about your spelling and grammar?
 * Comment: Exactly what does this question have to do with being an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)
 * Response:If you can't spell or use grammar properly, then you shouldn't be allowed admin privileges - Too much responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * 15. Do you feel that you're worthy of becoming an admin, while you've only been active for the past three months, and only usually achieve around 30 edit per day?
 * Comment: Do you think it's wise for you to ask this question when, just yesterday, you launched your own RfA that immediately failed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)
 * Response:Yes, I do. I have no intention of applying for admin again, and it's a question for you and not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)


 * Please note: The comments above were made by another editor, not by me. Pol430  talk to me 15:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments

 * Links for Pol430:
 * Edit summary usage for Pol430 can be found here.

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

Suspected vandalism of article Writing
In the Oppose section, below, there is mention of reverting edits by an IP editor as "vandalism" in the edit-summary. The initial incidents (edits to article "Writing") occurred within only 28 minutes on 6 January 2012, but it might take 2 hours to fully investigate the likely motivations (and block log) of the IP, 99.90.197.87. However, a brief look at the core problem shows that User:Pol430 concluded that the POV-pushing (and blanking/axing of footnotes) done by the IP was "vandalism" after only 4 minutes of the 2nd edit which the IP made. That IP user (99.90.197.87) began editing the article "Writing" by deleting sourced text (+2 footnotes in this edit: dif-7057) from the article, with the stated intent to re-slant the article by "del uncited (2y) marxist thesis. Writing is more to soul:religion than to mather:aconting". Now, remember, this article is about "Writing" which is generally believed by many scholars to have arisen to provide written records in trade and commerce accounting (because pictures not text are common in ancient religions), but perhaps the IP thinks written accounting is an "uncited (2y) marxist thesis". Within only 14 minutes, Pol430 reverted that POV-slant edit, but only summarized the edit as politely, "Reverted 1 edit...: Undesirable change in tone". Next, the IP editor tried a different tactic, this time moving some text but also directly characterizing the accounting-basis for writing as being the "old paradigm" but quickly adding the repeat-typo "writing writing" to claim unsourced (edit: dif-9758), so the text then read as:
 * "The old paradigm was that the writing writing process first evolved from economic necessity in the ancient near east."

Next, within only 4 minutes (without waiting for another edit to tie Writing to "soul:religion"), Pol430 reverted that change (dif-0180), tagged with edit-summary "Reverted 1 edit by 99.90.197.87 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Pol430. (TW)" as a canned reply. Of course, after 3 minutes, the IP re-reverted, with tag: "(Undid revision 469890180 by Pol430 (User Pol430 has ethnic slur as only argument)". In this case, I guess the word "vandalism" is an ethnic attack on the Vandals (an East Germanic tribe that entered the late Roman Empire during the 5th century). Anyway, look in WP:VAND (WP:Vandalism), look no further than the first paragraph, near word 40, where the examples of typical vandalism include "inserting obvious nonsense into a page" as an example which has been used a long time, even stated in prior years as "inserting patent nonsense". In this case, the IP had shown a pattern of removing sourced text (+2 footnotes) and inserting nonsense about 19 centuries of "continuous use" of Maya writing. However, in the one specific edit (reverted as "vandalism": dif-9758), the IP had inserted the phrases "writing writing" (nonsense) and "old paradigm" which is nonsense akin to saying, "the old paradigm that the earth is round" when that is nonsense because it is the current paradigm as describing the earth as "round" when being an oblate spheroid. So I hope that clarifies that point. The question debated, below (especially under "Oppose"), is whether the term "vandalism" was appropriate at this point. However, note how the IP editor, in the prior edit, had already tried to delete sourced text (2 footnotes), while adding the extreme unsourced claim of "continuous use" for 19 centuries, as: "The earliest inscriptions which are identifiably Maya date to the 3rd century BC, and writing was in continuous use until shortly after the arrival of the Spanish conquistadores in the 16th century AD " (added in dif-7057). What source could prove "continuous use" of Maya writing for 19 centuries? IMHO, I think trying to force the view of accounting-based writing as the "old paradigm of a marxist thesis" (and claiming 19 centuries) seems a lot like vandalizing the text. However, the whole situation hangs on the unfortunate canned reply to contain the V-word ("vandalism"), which should be avoided in canned messages, because since 2006, Wikipedia has discouraged the widespread use of the term. I would not fault any admin candidate for failing to realize the current fashion avoids the V-word as a somewhat "politically incorrect" term. Instead, we need an essay WP:WEIRDNESS to warn more people that WP culture has some strange concoctions which most normal people might not expect from real-world experience. In this case, it seems highly unwise to have a canned reply stating the V-word, when it is not essential to the action of reverting a change. That reply is analogous to having a canned reply which reads, "Revert: as wife-beating" or some other unneeded wording. We should avoid words that are ethnic slurs on Vandals or other people. Meanwhile, let's forget this matter as a basis to oppose the nomination, relative to the sophistication which the candidate demonstrates. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:45/09:57, 7 March 2012, revised 12:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * tl;dr, but to be honest, Pol430 was entirely justified in his revert given the context. Sure, the big red Twinkle 'vandalism' link wasn't the best option to chose from, but those who oppose based on this single "incident" are holding Pol430 to an unreasonably high standard and should get some perspective. It's a real pity that this RfA is going to fail (as of the current count, 36-17) because of a bad choice of words when dealing with a disruptive editor, and because of frivolous concern over content creation, even though this user has reviewed hundreds of articles, some 93 of which are now in the mainspace. As for referring to a user as vandal being an ethnic slur, if someone reads that much into our slang, well it says more about them than it says about us... CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 09:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Long investigation, but refutes all concerns: I agree that Pol430 was justified in reverting the IP, but I wanted to "prove" it in the long investigation. I realize my message, above, might seem too long, but I wanted to carefully investigate the incident, and check usage of the word "vandalism" as a canned reply from Twinkle, and note the IP user claimed it as an ethnic slur (against the ancient Vandals tribe?). The core incident only spanned 28 minutes, but people should know how User:Pol430 stopped the IP editor from axing sourced text in article "Writing", cutting those 2 accurate footnotes, and claiming that Maya writing was in "continuous use" for 19 centuries (which is unprovable). -Wikid77 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're sort of missing the point, I think. Nobody cares about any "ethnic slur" here. The problem is that the label vandalism implies bad faith, and indeed the link on the candidate's edit summary would take the ip editor to a list of behavior problems unrelated to anything the editor did. For a good-faith new editor, this is very discouraging and aggravating. There is a special concern when admins have this confusion, since they might do things like semi-protect the page "because of vandalism" or even block the editor. I think the main point of RfA is essentially to avoid promoting admins who might misuse the tools like that, hence the concern. Especially when the candidate intends to work on AIV/etc. "it seems highly unwise to have a canned reply stating the V-word, when it is not essential to the action of reverting a change"—But sometimes it is fine; like when the reverted edit is vandalism. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was covering many points. The word "vandalism" is vague for many people. Here, "One man's vandalism blanking-of-text is another man's 'ethnic slur' against Vandals". After years of avoiding the V-word, I often state "hacked text" such as when someone re-inserts double-word "writing writing". Hence, the candidate has stepped into a mine field of political correctness, where the term "vandalism" comes from the Twinkle tool, and perhaps "gibberish" should be the word in the canned reply to revert a hacked-text edit. There are many related points to consider. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "vandalism" is not and can not be vague for sysops, especially those working at AIV as this candidate intends to do. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the candidate has agreed this case is not obvious to everyone as being vandalism, and I just wanted to explain how it was a case of "subtle vandalism" or perhaps not-so-subtle for scholars aware of the bookkeeping/accounting origins of written text in Mesopotamian clay tokens or ancient Egypt. I think it is remarkable that the candidate caught this case within only 28 minutes. Perhaps Pol430 would make an excellent admin for dealing with college-educated users, or staff members of the British Museum in London. -Wikid77 12:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support - Pol's always seemed like a good editor to me; 12k edits, CSD, AfD and anti-vandalism experience, good policy knowledge, seems non-dramatic (stays away from ANI), content-focused, no concerns with the created articles, 100% edit summaries, no indications of assholery (to steal a line from Carrite), trustworthy, clean block log, etc. I'd have no problem seeing this user with a mop.  Swarm   X 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support longterm member of the community with a clean blocklog, deleted contribs also look OK. 6 article creations is not in my view a problem, nor would zero be. There are plenty of articles already created that need improvement and I wouldn't insist that anyone create new ones. A self nomination means that it is worth checking that the editor knows how to communicate and has some diversity in their editing. In my view Pol430 passes those tests and so I don't share the concerns of the first 4 oppose !voters.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  21:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, I trust Pol430 with the mop. Good work at AfC and all around.  CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support  I have seen this user around at Articles for Creation. He is quite clueful and his work there has been commendable. Looking through his talk page, he is polite in his comments to other editors and new users. I don't see any issues with his work at Articles for deletion. His comments there demonstrates a solid understanding of the notability policies. I am not concerned by the low amount of content creation. While he has only created 4 stubs and two start class articles, he has done ~1,000 AfC reviews. The current opposes, in particular opposes 2 and 3, aren't convincing. The fact that he hasn't participated in a lot of AN/I work indicates that he avoids drama. The last thing we need is another user who spends all their time on the drama board. A low edit rate has absolutely nothing to do with the user's value to the project. Opposes 1 and 4 raise valid concerns, but the concerns aren't damning enough for me to be swayed.  Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I really don't see why not. Has the experiance. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) The opposes are ridiculous at this time so I feel the need to be ridiculous and cancel them out. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I only had a very brief look at your contributions, but I like what I am seeing. You are friendly and appear very knowledgeable with regards to policy and editing standards. You do a lot of constructive work at AfC. If you make a mistake you own up to it. Normally I'm taking way more time to look at a candidate, but at this time I want to voice my early support. Keep doing what you're doing now and you'll be a good admin.  Amalthea  23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I really must agree with Fetchcomms on this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC) withdrawing support,Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I don't share the criteria that those who oppose this candidate (so far) have used in their decisions; if that's the worst that can be said of this candidate, then I'm adding my support. (Once upon a time, becoming an admin was reportedly "no big deal", as in, let's lean in the direction of approving if no obvious reason to oppose. But that was then, and this is now; still, I'm a bit nostalgic for the past.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Fetchcomms, also seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Secret account 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) You're a long-term constructive editor who seems to get along well with others, and you have a good idea of what you'll be working on as admin.  I think you'll do very well.  ☮  Soap  ☮  04:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Exactly per Fetchcomms. Looks like a fine candidate. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support I've seen Pol430 around AfC and have been impressed by their careful approach. It is very easy to be rude to those who have just written an unsourced article about their own company and are now demanding that it be accepted, yet Pol430 seems to go out of their way to help others improve submitted articles and shows a clear understanding of many core policies. The ability to explain these policies to new editors in a clear and polite manner seems to be a very important skill for an admin. While I'm a little concerned about the answer to the question that I asked, there have been only four "one warning" messages in the last two years and I wouldn't feel comfortable using one small issue as an oppose justification. I feel that Pol430 can be trusted with the tools. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support Outstanding work at WP:AFC and many administrative areas. I disagree with the opposes, especially number two (Self-nominations are fine!!!) Pol would make a great administrator. -- B  music  ian  07:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, no problems that I can see here. I note that some of the Oppose !votes are particularly weak this time around - there is absolutely nothing wrong with self-noms (indeed, it shows a certain sense of dedication to voluntarily jump into the RFA snakepit without being pushed!)  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC).
 * 8) Support - the opposes are weak and the neutrals are pointless. This candidate looks like they will be a great addition. GiantSnowman 12:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I think that Pol430 is competent, hardworking, undramatic, and can be trusted with the tools. bobrayner (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support . I see a good editor with plenty of gnomish experience, good understanding of the project's policies, a good appreciation of the things admins should be doing, and pretty strong answers to questions. As for opposes over self-nom and not creating enough new articles - I've created fewer and I ran as a self-nom, and I scraped through ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose, regretfully -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - As per Alpha Quadrant.-- Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support While there is some opposition due to lack of article creation, the articles this user has created seem pretty good. I looked at Aldershot Garrison and Ministry of Defence Police and they've obviously put a fair amount of work into them and I don't see anything particularly concerning about, say, sourcing or whatnot. There's some AfD participation, about the most egregious thing I can come up with is Articles for deletion/Anne Elizabeth Moore, which isn't quite enough for me to not support. Might it be nice if they could write a few more articles? Sure. Are they going to screw things up if given adminship? Quite plainly and obviously no. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Per my RfA process. Achowat (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I'm not judging grammar (though do be careful, yes?), but rather judging the amount of clue that a candidate demonstrates - and, in this case, I see a lot of reasonable discussion from this editor. Handling the objections raised below in a calm manner, taking the criticism on board, shows that reasonableness. I have no doubt that the candidate will serve ably as an admin, and that adminship here would be a positive for the project. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Whilst there are some fair points made by opposers they are not sufficent to disuade me. WP:NETPOS. I'd also note that self nominations are and always have been perfectly acceptable. Pedro : Chat  15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Experienced, competent, level-headed editor. This is just the kind of person needed as an admin.  Deli nk (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Support...no evidence shown that this nominee will abuse tools or positionMONGO 17:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Good work in WP:AFC and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Fetchcomms. I wager after attaining the mop Pol430's edit/minute rate will no doubt increase, as if it matters.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 23:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, moving to oppose.  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Seems dependable. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Can't see a reson why not - mop please!  Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}  (Whisper...) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- He's seem good candidate... Wagino 20100516 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. He seems to be a dedicated user interested in improving Wikipedia, and as an admin he'd have even greater opportunities to do so.   dci  &#124;  TALK   12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 17:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Seems ready to go. So often we hear about how admins need to be veterans of WP:GA and WP:FAC; Pol430 seems to me to be a good example of a well-qualified wikignome.  Nyttend backup (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "So often we hear ..." How often and when do you hear such voices? Does anybody else hear them? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I've seen the candidate around, and they are very skilled. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. He seems level-headed, and I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. I also don't understand the importance people put on article creation at RFAs; this was not the case in the past. Pol will make a fine admin. 加油! --Fang Aili talk 02:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Candidate seems reasonable, and ready. I'm not one of those editors of the opinion that an admin needs to be some Wikipedia god who must be perfect, never have made a mistake in editing, and have hundreds of thousands of edits with a perfect grasp of all points of policy. I like that the nominee wants to help in the more administrative tasks, like technical moves and fighting vandals. Doing that, I've also thought that I wish I could be an admin and help with those tasks, and I applaud the nominee for being brave enough to nominate himself and open himself for this scrutiny. --Pstanton (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Most answers seem thorough. 12k edits, recently 24-125 per day, with 40% in talk namespaces, but still 47% article edits. I have no objection to some admins taking wikibreak during all summer months. Regarding Opposes: I think there are no real worries, and I have defused concerns about saying "vandalism" as investigated in my General-Comments section, above: . -Wikid77 (talk) 06:11, revised 09:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You've defused nothing, you've simply missed the point. Malleus Fatuorum 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Vandalism is confusing to many people: Perhaps many people do not realize the word "vandalism" has been confusing for more than 6 years in WP. Even the essay WP:ATWV was started in April 2007 (essay: WP:Avoid the word "vandal"). In the real world, vandalism is about damaging property, marring, scaring or spraying words/pictures in inappropriate locations. If someone went into the library and spraypainted books about Albert Einstein with the words, "Einstein Made Mistakes", and then someone remarked that was not vandalism, no that was "POV-pushing", imagine the reaction from the librarians and security guards. Of course when someone shoves fringe text (inappropriate) into articles (or removes sourced mainstream text without consensus), then that is real-world vandalism, regardless of their good-faith efforts to save the world from reading brutal truth. We need to fix "WP:Vandalism" to better reflect common sense. Over the years, many wikispastic ideas have confused normal people, and we need to better align the policies and guidelines with real-world concepts. Vandalism is the act of damaging property or spraying words in inappropriate locations (even inserting the word "not" when contrary to sources). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point: The candidate linked to WP:VAND in the edit summary of the revert. That was the candidate's choice. That is what the new editor was directed to to find out why the edit was reverted. Read it and see what the new editor would read. Does it have anything to do with the reverted edit? ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * &middot; Wait, WP:VAND does pertain to the reverted edit, but the other editor might not understand the wording, and the key point is confusion about the term "vandalism". Look in WP:VAND (WP:Vandalism), look no further than the first paragraph, near word 40, where the examples of typical vandalism include "inserting obvious nonsense into a page" as an example which has been used a long time, even stated in prior years as "inserting patent nonsense". In this case, the IP had shown a pattern of removing sourced text (+2 footnotes) and inserting nonsense about 19 centuries of "continuous use" of Maya writing. However, in the one specific edit (reverted as "vandalism": dif-9758), the IP had inserted the phrases "writing writing" (nonsense) and "old paradigm" which is nonsense akin to saying, "the old paradigm that the earth is round" when that is nonsense because it is the current paradigm as describing the earth as "round" when being an oblate spheroid. So I hope that clarifies that point. However, my additional points are about many people being confused by WP:Vandalism, because the wording should be changed to better align to real-world notions of "vandalism" as "spraying words into inappropriate places" even if the words are not total nonsense. I think it is vandalism to insert, "Vandals spelled backwards is 'Sladnav'" (at an inappropriate location in an article), even if true. If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It does clarify that you have very limited understanding of WP:VAND if you think this is vandalism, yes. RfA's main function, in my opinion, is to ensure that sysops have a good understanding of this and similar concepts, hence the fuss here about calling it vandalism. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I have been analyzing the issues for 6 years, and if you conclude that is a "very limited understanding" then that just shows why WP:VAND fosters confusion. However, I was stunned by how fast User:Pol430 detected the WP:Subtle vandalism by the IP, in only 28 minutes, when others have gone days without seeing it. I did not think of Pol430 as a linguistics scholar, but some people have keen insight. In this case, part of the problem is likely to require focus on the archaeological record of writing systems in Mesopotamia (clay tokens) and Egypt (heiroglyphs for the temple granaries), as to why stating the "old paradigm" was subtle vandalism. Hence, revealed under "Bookkeeping" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. To understand vandalism due to "nonsense" it is necessary to compare to the scholarly "sense". However, due to confusion, I would avoid the term "vandalism" and use other more-specific terms, such as "fringe" or "ungrammatical" in view of wp:Competence as a reason to block users. -Wikid77 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Except for the single incident cited by much of the opposition below, Pol430 appears to have developed a solid track record over the past few months. I'm not particularly alarmed by it because it was a one-time mistake which the candidate has acknowledged and from which he has learned. Malleus's worry – "what else doesn't he know?" – is reasonable. However, I think that Pol430's answers to the questions in this RfA show that he does know enough to begin work as an administrator; as with all other newly promoted admins, he would learn a lot on the job. And speaking of the questions, I think that DQ is holding the candidate's answer to Q5 to an unreasonably high standard. Pol430 wasn't being asked to write a treatise on consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support One mistake does not incompetence demonstrate. I think all of us have made that mistake at least a couple of times; really, get over yourselves.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect many people do not realize the confusing ideas in WP:Vandalism, as I noted above. In the real-world, "vandalism" is the act of damaging property or spraying words in inappropriate locations (even inserting the word "not" when contrary to sources). -Wikid77 (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I see no reason not to, the arguments for opposing simply do not convince me. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Per Blade. -- Kangaroo  powah  01:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Although the candidate has made his share of mistakes and poor choices of words, on balance I think the good outweighs the bad, especially given the types of admin tasks he says he would likely specialize in. That being said, some of the opposes raise legitimate concerns (though others frankly do not), and there are enough of them that the likely outcome here is a candidate with a better understanding of the issues he needs to address before coming back to this page in a few months. We recently had a candidate pass his second RfA by a near-unanimous margin after showing that he'd taken stock of the input her received in his first, unsuccessful one, and I am confident Pol430 can do the same. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Even considering the vandalism incident on writing, I trust this user to not abuse the tools, and the question responses display a familiarity with the stated areas of interest. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good interaction with other editors on his talkpage, no fear that he would misuse the tools. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Admin nominations ultimately boil down to whether the user seems they can be trusted with admin tools which this user does. There's a learning curve to adminship as there is for everything else, but gnomes are good at just tinkering around with stuff and making sure they know what their doing before they act, so I don't think he'll cause any problems as he's getting used to his admin powers.AerobicFox (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Support – Here is an editor who has proven his competence and can be clearly trusted with the tools. Honestly, some of the opposes are utterly ridiculous. Airplaneman   ✈  04:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As are some of the supports. Malleus Fatuorum 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Overall he does much good, and while I appreciate concerns regarding this fellow and that he has indeed made mistakes, he has also shown a willingness to learn from such mistakes and to accept outside criticism when it is needed - a trait a few others could do to learn from themselves. His use for the tools would also be warranted, and in that area I see no reason to doubt his competence. Yes, he's less skilled in some of the other adminny realms, with responses somewhat less cheering, but whatever. If and when he gets dragged into the stuff, he'll learn.  — Isarra (talk)  06:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) The candidate needs to take RfA seriously enough to have a friend copy-edit the self nomination.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way Kiefer. I would like to assure you that I have taken this nomination seriously. You are right that I should have found someone to copy-edit the nomination statement. I apologize for any poor grammar or spelling errors that I may have missed and have attempted to address them. Pol430  talk to me 19:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't succeed this time, just try again in 4-6 months. There is plenty of work to do in between now and then. Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Later opposes by Hipocrite mention more serious issues: edit warring, the answer to Question 3, and misapplication of "vandalism", etc. The candidate's responses fall short of a direct heartfelt acknowledgment of mistakes. Thus, I think some more time in AAA would be useful before he joins the major leagues. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose He has not earned the nomination of another editor. I cannot take this seriously. --Feathers Trial (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While you're welcome to your opinion, self-noms are perfectly fine. - jc37 19:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also don't think he has fulfilled enough work in ANI or AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathers Trial (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think those acronyms mean what you think they mean.  Swarm   X 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. Should this !vote be indented? Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  17:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sock vote indented. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - potential admins should have a faster edit rate. I need to examine this candidate more closely to make a longer rationale, and perhaps change this !vote.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to answer questions as fully as possible and pay attention to my standard of writing after Kiefer's oppose. I have also been having some trouble with my internet connection this evening. Never-the-less I respect your opinion Pol430  talk to me 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you mistype something, am I misreading your oppose, or are you seriously opposing because his edit/minute rate is below some threshold? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone said something about 12 edits/day, but I'm indenting my !vote until I can review further.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Only six new article creations (four of which are one-line stubs), along with grammatical and syntactical errors in self-nom statement doesn't speak well for this nomination. Mentoring would be an ideal path to adminship in 6-9 months for this candidate.--Hokeman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose for lack of experience and the answer to question 9 about one-warning to vandals. About the vandalism thing - I do not think vandalism is a bad thing. A significant percentage of Wikipedia users and editors start their time here as vandals, and I think that a harsh response pushes people away from editing whereas a simple notice not to vandalize lets them know that people do in fact watch their activity and if they make good edits people would see those immediately also. About 40% of your edits are automated, which is fine, but being an admin means dealing personally with other Wikipedia users. Automated edits are not personal interactions. You have had almost no interaction with other users on talk pages; the count says fewer than 200 posts with 5 posts on one article being the largest conversation you have had. Also you have not been active on this account for 12 months. I recommend taking a tour of the site and experiencing more of the things which users do. An admin should have tried to do many things on the site, and in your history I just see you finding a few places you liked and staying there. I worry that if users asked you to explain something to them you would not be able to do it because you had not tried many things yourself.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion on vandalism; however, you say that I have "had almost no interaction with other users on talk pages". I respectfully disagree with that assertion; if you look over my talkpage and talkpage archives you will find numerous examples of interacting with new editors and examples of me explaining things. Pol430  talk to me 05:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. After reading the opposers' comments and glancing at Pol430's contributions, I see that he has made at least one edit to his nomination statement. I have not scrutinized his edits to see if more were made. It is borderline disingenuous to delete nomination text after opposition !votes were made. Such adjustments, if essential, should use strikethrough . Perhaps more importantly, this CSD tag was incorrectly applied. Pol430 has nominated several other articles for speedy deletion that have since been deleted; however I am unable to check the validity of those CSD tags. (I am inclined to assume good faith: they were probably appropriate tags.) Also, content creation is rather limited.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pol430, like all of us, wishes to improve his craft in editing, and I interpret the improvements as a show of respect to the community. Anybody reading our opposes knows that he has changed his nomination statement, so this is not disingenuous. (Of course, striking through errors would have been better.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I ask which edit to the nom statement concerns you? Looking at the page history, he made a couple minor copyedits between the first !vote and your oppose. It doesn't look like he removed any actual content from the nom statement. BTW, he keeps a CSD log, just FYI.  Swarm   X 06:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The first four sentences should have been euthanized. He confused "whether" and "weather", etc. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose In Talk:Writing, disclosed by the candidate in response to q3, they were not merely edit warring (12, 3 reverts in less than 20 minutes), but also failing to understand WP:NOTVAND, which is expressly clear that any good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, no matter how ham handed, is not vandalism. Beyond this, when two experienced users attempted to explain this to him, he walked off in a huff, writing "I am just a bit peeved that I have been accused of edit warring when I don't believe that to be the case, and it is situations like this that cause me to question why I bother trying to protect articles from vandalism." Thanks, but no thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Hipocrite, I appreciate your concerns about my reaction there. Looking back, I can see that I did show some piqué in my response, and I regret that. I normally try to avoid that. As far as the actual revisions go, on reflection, I should have dealt with the situation differently and approached it from a disruptive editing or content dispute perspective. Pol430  talk to me 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether it's a little harsh to put so much emphasis on that one episode. The anon was making unhelpful edits (removing text and references, without tidying the remaining text to maintain flow and meaning) and appears to have a habit of doing the same thing; see his block log. It was not pure vandalism, but it was disruptive. Pol's mistake lay in using the word "vandalism," but he wasn't wrong in trying to keep the article free of it. This is the kind of thing Pol would learn more about on the job. It often seems that we judge admin candidates as though they had been admins for years and were running for reconfirmation. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't vandalism at all, and neither was it "disruptive", which seems to have become a synonym for "anything I don't like". Calling the removal of material that had been requested to be cited for more than a year vandalism is something that the candidate should learn before being given the job. It prompts the question "What else doesn't he know?" Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pol reverted the entirety of the edit, which included the removal of references. The point is that it often feels at RFA as though we are opposing candidates for not already being experienced admins – a bit like turning someone down for an undergraduate place because they don't know the things they will learn in first year.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 03:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have your opinion, I have mine. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The lack of content contributions is a concern, but a greater one is the diffs presented by Hipocrite above, in which the candidate edit warred to keep a section of text that had been flagged as in need of a citation for well over a year, labelling its removal vandalism. And to make matters worse, this happened only two months ago. Malleus Fatuorum 17:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism; see analysis: "". -Wikid77 13:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't you supposed to not be posting here? :confused face: Fusional (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever gave you that idea? Malleus Fatuorum 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * is indefinitely topic banned from any page whose prefix begins with Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. This remedy explicitly does not prevent him from !voting on RFA's... → Σ  τ  c . 02:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Σ is correct; there is no restriction on Malleus Fatuorum's !voting and commenting on RfAs, although I hope he will do so in a moderate and decorous fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you put too much into content contribution. We need admins for a variety of tasks most of which are not creating content. Your recent proposal "I propose that administrators ought not to be allowed to block established editors until they have themselves made at least 25 per cent of the edits that their victim has." seems to reflect your oppose here.AerobicFox (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - The edit warring revealed in Q3 and noted by Hipocrite is very worrying. Two of those edits were incorrectly marked as vandalism, a concept which all admins should understand fully. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Much as I'm tempted to support just to cancel out Jasper's unbelievably dumb opposition, the handling of the situation described by Hypocrite was too clearly wrong to let pass. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Jasper, it may be that he has expressed himself poorly, and is simply referring to the candidate's number of edits divided by years registered, not some "potential admins must make at least 10 edits every hour" kind of rate. Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) I see I was wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I have concerns with the breadth of experience (the majority of edits are squeezed into a very short tenure) and the lack of wider exposure. Concerns about attention to detail raised in some of the opposes is worrisome but not fatal, however the mix of that plus the "why not" gist I'm getting from many supports (which suggests a lack of familiarity) lead me to oppose. Shadowjams (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a detail to characterise the removal of uncited information as vandalism. But if only Pol430 were younger, then he could count on the support of Newyorkbrad. Malleus Fatuorum 05:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to your oppose at all Malleus. Nor do I know what you're talking about in reference to Newyorkbrad. I'm talking about some lack of checking in this RfA, among other things. Nothing to do with vandalism being mischaracterized. I have no idea where you're coming from with your comment. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was simply referring to the fact that Newyorkbrad supports every candidate under the age of twelve. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So much for moderate and decorous fashion. Dragging my name in in this sort of gratuitous, random way is inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In your opinion perhaps, but not in mine. I believe that serial supporters such as yourself are significant contributors to the present problems with the admin corps. Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, the "serial supporter" complaint would have been more persuasive here if you hadn't first raised the issue of minors (with the apparently hyperbolic "every candidate under the age of twelve").
 * NYB softens the hurt of failure while reassuring candidates that their participation is valued. This responsible conduct (especially suggesting that the candidate read the opposes and improve) is better than denigrating opposes or trying to change RfA rules to allow weaker candidates to succeed.
 * Hold off the cavalry charge until the decisive moment of battle, when your horses are fresh! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I really don't like having to switch here, and I stand behind my positive comments in the Support section. But that edit-warring, labeling an opponent's edits as vandalism when they were not, and then arguing against wiser counsel on the Talk page, really leave me with no option. Having seen a good bit of Pol430's usual style of interaction, I'm sure it was out of character, and we certainly don't expect perfection. But it's the kind of mistake that an admin really should not make, and it was only in January and was just too recent - I think waiting until that episode was at least 6 months old before running would have shown better judgment. I look forward to being able to support a future run if this one is not successful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Clean block log but despite the Dec. 2008 account launch, there are really about 8 months of solid activity showing. I fully understand how WMF's overturning of En-WP's very sensible restrictions on page creation would be demoralizing and frustrating to a NPP volunteer, but after shutting it down I feel there needs to be more time back in the harness in this specific case. I have nothing against the nominee at all, just a general sense of misgivings here. Sort of a "Not Yet" situation, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per this and the lack of understanding it shows, just two months ago. I am sure the candidate will be fine in a few months, but knowing what is and isn't vandalism is paramount to be granted the blocking tool. --John (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose largely per Boing! above. Lord Roem (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose (Moved from neutral) Answers to Q11 are unsatisfying, revealing inexperience issues with stated areas of interest. &mdash;SW&mdash; express 01:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Per Boing!. As suggested waiting a few months and run again would be in good judgement. Good luck  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Per Boing! and the lack of content work. At least get a DYK before you run again. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  03:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Lack of content work seems concerning, agree with other users suggesting waiting a few months and running again. Canuck My page89 (talk), 03:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 9)  Regretful oppose I was looking through this RfA at first and was going to support it. Looking things over more closely, the answer to Q5 does not impress me, as I personally don't see anything about how talkpage consensus should be closed. I'm not seeing anything that really defines the evaluation of consensus, plus it's all in the limited scope of AFD and DRV vs. XFD (FFD would be a good example where it's hard to get a true consensus) and RfCs. Q6 also has the wrong order of administrative action. The route least amount of collateral damage should be taken. An edit war between two people is not reason for page protection, warnings and blocks are more appropriate. All this combined with the clear issue of vandalism identification, even if 2 months ago, is problematic. I would be willing to overlook the vandalism issue as two months ago, but the two other issues bring basic understandings of adminship into question with this editor. We do have a good contributor, and hope to look forward to supporting and RfA down the road. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  10:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Per Boing Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   21:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per DQ and Boing. Sorry. Begoon &thinsp; talk  00:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - also per Boing. I had hoped to be able to support this one, but I can't get past Boing's reasoning. Perhaps late this year if you try again. Thanks for the offer of service.  Jus  da  fax   03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - He tends to shoot first and ask questions later, and I can affirm other people's concerns on here. However, related to my question he answered and how he does from here on out on the other concerns, I don't forsee opposing him if he submits another admin nomination at least several months down the road.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Mild oppose I think the candidate editing has been too spotty, time wise that is, to reasonably judge his/her ability to deal with problem situations. The vandalism thing is also an issue. Sorry - perhaps later. --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose - Answers to q's 3, 9, and 12 reveal recent issues with WP:BITE--particularly problematic when the editor's primary admin interests are in AIV and CSD. —Eustress talk 19:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. I'm going to go with John's argument, above. Maturity and experience are issues here, yes--but also, as MF and Hokeman, beside others, pointed out, a lack of content writing. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Concerns with judgement and experience. Sorry,  F ASTILY  (TALK)  21:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose - Considering the issues raised here, the users edit history is below my expectations for a level of experience and contribution level to need or grant additional authority and responsibility. - diff - You  really  can  21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Having reviewed what's here, and per the previous 4 users above me, I too have to go with an oppose to this nomination. There are clear issues with Biting, lack of content, and experience, and the level of maturity of this user leads me to believe they would not make a great admin at this time. I'd go with not right now.  BarkingFish  22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - You do not edit that fast, and miss out some days. You need a higher edit rate, and maybe even lots more edits. I managed over 500 edits today, you managed about 32. not right now ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit rate has absolutely nothing to do with experience. 32 edits a day is not at all bad. A user with 2 years of experience and 25,000 edits is probably more experienced than someone with 6 months of experience and 182,500 edits. The former probably indicates that the editor is taking their time, avoiding simple mistakes, while the latter indicates that the user is probably heavily using some form of automated tool. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  21:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am a bit confused as to why my edit/day rate makes me unsuitable to be an admin. The rate at which I edit varies. The reason I miss some days altogether, is that I have a full time job outside of Wikipedia. Pol430  talk to me 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. This oppose is absurd. Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is an absurd reason to oppose. Some of us do have lives outside wikipedia and can't necessarily edit on a daily basis, much less make literally hundreds of edits. If anything, I would hope having a life, a job and hobbies outside Wikipedia would make one more qualified to be an editor than someone who is over invested. --Pstanton (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Many of the question answers seem like reciting a textbook rather than actual understanding of the reasons for the policies. (This is perhaps partially the fault of the questioners, so in itself is not fatal.)  The candidates' CSD recent taggings are not bad, but the number is rather small for someone who wants to work in CSD.  These two things combined with the incorrect answer to Q6 and poor judgment in the writing "vandalism" case lead me to oppose.  However, keep up the good work and I suspect you'll pass rather easily some time down the road. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose You have expressed a desire to work in CSD. I am not assured that 235 CSD tags (22 of which were declined) show that you have sufficient experience in the area, though. → Σ  τ  c . 00:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 235 tags for speedy deletion seems like plenty. The fact that only 9% of them were denied is a good sign considering it may have just been switched to an AfD and been deleted anyways.AerobicFox (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A 9% rejection rate is way too high. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how Σ came up with that number, and I assume he counted the still existing articles showing up on the page he linked. Well, anyone wanting to take a look can see how some of them were perfectly reasonable tags when they were made. For example : Girly makeover, now a redirect; Low Carb High Fat, now a redirect; Sunderland Mk 2, now a redirect; Milk Race (video game), which was an empty article at the time of tagging; The Vicious Brothers, which was a good faith and self-corrected mistake; etc. No one is perfect, and some of his tagging was clearly wrong, but so is that 9% figure. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 03:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, by my count there were 143 tagged for CSD articles by Twinkle. Not sure the exact number declined, but there are 20 where the edit has not been deleted. Many of these were tagging errors self-corrected by Pol430.  Others were quick A3s where content was then added and others were just bad taggings.  However, most of them were not recent. I looked at the taggings from the last few months and they seemed OK, but there weren't very many of them (2 dozen or so).  So I don't really have enough info to judge Pol430's current understanding of CSD criteria.
 * As an aside (since 9% is most like not Pol430's error rate), I must say that a 9% error rate on a process that generally has zero review is way too high. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, only 3 of Pol430's speedy deletion nominations since March last year have been declined . He corrected the rest himself. -- Lear's Fool 13:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Lack of new material, history of conflict between users, not a very active member, can't spell properly or use proper grammar. Has no need for admin tools, should remain a normal user. As TomTom stated, 32 edits a day is not significant and not worthy of adminship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, history of conflict? Can you point me towards those edits? Whilst you are entitled to express your opinion, edits like this, lead me to treat it with a pinch of salt... Pol430  talk to me 13:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As that account was created in 2008, and hasn't yet reached 30 edits (including this RfA and their own RfA), I wouldn't worry too much. Peridon (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The ethnic conflict for one. And that edit I made was made four years ago when I wasn't exactly the most mature person in the world. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * I suggest this vote be salted. This user is being ridiculous towards RfAs and opposing on the basis of "not needing the tools" or "can't properly spell" and then he launches his own RfA in which I closed almost immediately because it was an obvious failure.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,744,121 ) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm asking about his need for admin tools as someone asked me in my RfA. If you don't need them then you shouldn't get them. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * I have already answered that question. See question 1 and question 7. Pol430  talk to me 15:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ben: Could you explain why you need them?— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,747,112 ) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cyber I apologize if I seemed standoffish before. I don't actually need the tools, and can thus accept why my app was rejected. I may well remove this vote and the three questions that I posted earlier. ~Bens_Dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC).
 * Your questions are ridiculous. It's not a matter of needing it or not.  It's a matter of can the community trust him with the extra tools.  I'm the one that commented on your questions.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,748,514 ) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In which case, it makes no sense that my app was rejected without a vote.- I don't *need* the tools, though the community *can* trust me with them. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think you get it. Please see WP:NOTNOW for why your request was denied very quickly.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,757,981 ) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral - Looks like a good editor, but I have a few concerns. Waiting for my question to be answered before I make a final decision (which will contain a more extensive rationale). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I love it when users post here to let the candidate know that they plan to actually make a decision later, and they better see an answer they like to the boilerplate question they left. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, sorry if you don't like it. I won't next time. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral for now. This user has been significantly active on Wikipedia for less than a year (11 months of >22 edits per month), and only 4 months since having a flounce. Maybe if I find the extent and nature of their contributions during their active period makes up for this, I may be moved to support.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Not sure what to say. This user has great contributions to Wikipedia and obviously in that manner demonstrates him being a good candidate for adminship however, there other issues I have discovered that brings me to some concern. As I result I can't decide for oppose or support so I am sticking with neutral.— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 520,893,511 ) 23:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Clean block log but despite the Dec. 2008 account launch, there are really about 8 months of solid activity showing. I fully understand how WMF's overturning of En-WP's very sensible restrictions on page creation would be demoralizing and frustrating to a NPP volunteer, but after shutting it down I feel there needs to be more time back in the harness in this specific case. I have nothing against the nominee at all, just a general sense of misgivings here. Sort of a "Not Yet" situation, in my view. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Carrite (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Seems like a good editor, but still a bit short on experience for an admin. Candidate indicates interest in working at AfD, but has only contributed to less than 100 AfD's.  Would be an easy support if the candidate had a bit more experience in the admin areas in which he/she would like to work.  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 19:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose.  &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 01:58, 7 March 2012 (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.