Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stwalkerster


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

Stwalkerster
(32/26/5); Ended 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

- A registered member of Wikipedia since February 2006, Stwalkerster has been contributing regularly and consistently for the past 5 months (since March 2007). Stwalkerster is involved in diverse areas of Wikipedia, from helping users at the Help Desk and the IRC help channel (#wikipedia-en-help) to wikignoming and has more recently started tagging images for deletion. He is also approved to run Stwalkerbot. I believe this user has what it takes to be an admin, being of civil demeanor, willingness and ability to learn from mistakes, sufficient experience to work in his areas of interest (WP:CSD and WP:AIV) and above all, a helpful nature. I hope the community finds Stwalkerster trustworthy. - Two Oars 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank TwoOars for my nomination, and I humbly Accept.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I would be happy to lend a hand in several areas to begin with, such as CAT:CSD, which is rarely below 50 when I look at it. Also, at WP:ACC, where I help already, but being an administrator would be helpful, as it can be a while before an Admin comes along there to make the accounts that normal users cannot make. Also, being an admin, I would then be able to deal with some requests quickly and easily, which is better, as it takes the request off the page, and allows the requesting user to get their account more quickly. I would also be happy to help out at WP:RFPP, and a pastime of fighting vandals, which the admin tools would be very useful for. On that note, I would also help out at WP:AIV if there was any need of it. However, from running practically every version of MediaWiki on my home computer with an off-line WAMP server, I have had experience with pages from Special:Blockip to Special:Lockdb (the tool Developers use to lock the database) for many versions of MediaWiki, even if not on Wikipedia. However, as I am new to adminship on Wikipedia, I will start off slowly, and work in only a few areas where I am happy with, and not get stuck in right away, so I have time to get even more familiar with the admin side of the policies that govern Wikipedia.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: I try to be as pleased with one contribution as another, but some days it takes me a lot to please me, others it doesn't take a lot. I feel that all contributions to Wikipedia are as valuable as each other, whether it be a simple typo correction, or writing 600 featured articles single-handedly. All contributions help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It is for this reason that I do not really have a favourite contribution, but for the purposes of answering the question, I will attempt to pick one area.

I feel that vandalism is the curse of a wiki, and hence have dedicated a fair chunk of time to vandalism fighting. I feel that catching vandalism early is key to the integrity of the wiki, and reprimanding those who vandalise is of vital importance.

However, other edits are important too. I have recently found fixing typos a good thing to do, as I can leave AWB open in the background, checking for typos, and when it finds one, to alert me. Wikipedia needs to be kept looking professional, and typos all over the spot are not the way to do that. Therefore, I feel some of my more recent edits fixing typos in the mainspace are possibly more important, but as I said, I feel that all contributions to Wikipedia are as valuable as each other.


 * 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: On wiki, I have not been in any real conflicts (apart from those with vandals). If I were to be in one though, I would assume good faith and try to sort it out with the other editor. If I ever became really stressed about it, which I would try never to do, I would take a step back, and try to explain my reasoning to the other editor, and try again to peacefully sort it out. However, I have been in a fair few conflicts off-wiki, so I think I would have the necessary skills to try to sort out conflicts. However, I have no evidence to put forward here, because this was off-wiki. I can only hope that those conflict-resolution skills are sufficient for use on-wiki.

Question from myself, as I feel certain that this will come up somewhere:
 * 4. You have made some mistakes recently. What is your opinion on this and explain the circumstances around them.
 * A: I am admitting that I made some mistakes recently, primarily being fixing spellings on talk pages, using AWB. I will admit that having just started to get involved with fixing typos, I was a little careless, and fixed spellings on talk pages, when I promptly got told that it's not a very good idea. However, I have learnt at least 2 lessons from that: the obvious don't fix typos on talk pages, and also to take things steadily. Also, because I am human, I can be expected to make mistakes from time to time, as will all the other Wikipedians, so I will say that if I do make a mistake, feel free to tell me on my talk page, and I will do my best to sort it out, and try not to make the same mistake again.

Optional Question from Hdt83
 * 5.  This should be a relatively simple question but under what circumstances should an editor be banned from Wikipedia?
 * A: A user could be banned from using Wikipedia for several reasons, including where an editor tests the patience of the community beyond it's limit, and an admin blocks them, with no administrators willing to unblock them. Also, bans can be used in solutions to ArbCom cases, or at the request of Jimbo. Alternatively, if an account has been compromised, it may be blocked indefinitely, or accounts used for the disruption of the project are also banned. Disruptive sockpuppets are also banned from editing Wikipedia. Users can also be banned from Wikipedia by a discussion at WP:CN, if the community decides that a ban is justified.

Optional question from Melsaran
 * 6. You said that you would like to work on WP:RFPP, but your wannabe kate shows that you have less than two edits there. How come?  Mel sa  ran  12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A: While I have not edited there, that does not mean that I do not take a look there. I feel that it could be an area that I could contribute in as an admin, but in my time as a normal editor, I have not found any need to protect or unprotect a page. I would like to help the wiki as much as I possibly can, and this is one area that admins have a hand in. Of course, as I previously stated, I would start off slowly, as to make sure I know what I am doing everywhere before getting it wrong. Page protection is not a good thing to do, but sometimes it is nessessary to do it, and being an admin will allow me to help the wiki more than I feel that I can do now.


 * Optional question from Anthøny
 * 7. When wandering around Wikipedia, you come across a userpage, where the user freely admits that they are a pedophile. What do you do? ~ Anthøny  18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from SLSB
 * 6 At what point should a user ignore a rule? SLSB talk  • contrib   23:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Stwalkerster's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Stwalkerster:

''Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Stwalkerster before commenting.''

Discussion

 * I don't know when this "not well rounded" reasoning started, but in an encyclopedia of this size, everyone can not (or does not want) to contribute to every aspect of WP, from XfD to images to templates and FAs. When someone is contributing to a voluntary project, any contribution is good enough. Do you want the candidate to participate in XfDs or whatever just because he wants to become an admin and the opposers here told him to be "well rounded"? To me, that is a sure sign of power hunger and desperation. If someone feels they can do something better with admin tools, let them. Only, check if the candidate has enough sense and sound judgement (from whatever little we can descern from a person's edits). RfA is not a test; people should not be made to jump through hoops. And frankly I do not see why people are complaining about lack of experience here: Stwalkerster has >200 CSD deletions and >20 AIV reports which should be plenty, considering that he never said he wants to close XfDs. Everyone asks him to return after a couple of months; by then he'll probably have, say, 400 CSD deletions and 40 AIV reports. Is that really going to make a difference? Well, about RFPP, yes; that does need a bit more experience. So, tell him to go slow. We know that he admits his mistakes, that he learns from them and is not crackbrained. Why make him wait? The wiki life of an editor is very short; if we send away users saying "they've only been editing with any real degree of consistency since March", we'll probably never see them again. - Two Oars 07:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor, but I can appreciate the view that a candidate needs to have edits in lots of places. I personally am of the view that an administrator needs to be capable of performing any admininstrative task, should they be asked to do so. Of course, I'm not demanding that they do it all the time, or know it off by heart; indeed, knowing where to look up how to do something is as much of a skill as knowing it off by heart. The view that a candidate need be "well rounded" is presumably someone sharing the same view as me- that an administrator should be skilled enough to know how/when to do anything, including protect pages, close XfD nominations, block users/clear autoblocks/use blocking features etc. There are several administrative tasks that I don't do regularly- for example, I don't close XfDs much for instance (infact I'm not sure I've ever closed a TfD or CfD). But I know that should I need to, I am capable. I hope this helps explain some other people's views. --Deskana (banana) 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I do understand where you and those opposers are coming from. But understanding doesn't necessarily lead to acceptance. My opinion is that everyone does not need to explicitly demonstrate their ability in all areas. All we need to have in an admin candidate is sound judgement (which by the way is why I like User:Nick's oppose reason: he has questioned Stwalkerster's judgement citing a specific instance) and ability to accept and learn from mistakes (and everyone would agree that everyone makes mistakes). That would cover (almost ?) all eventualities. There is such a thing as learning on the job. And after all, using admin tools can not be as hard as people make it out to be. It's not rocket science. Or is it? :) IMO, parroting the "not enough project space experience" reason is unnecessarily limiting ourselves. But I agree that opinions differ; I am just trying to convince some more people to switch over to the dark side. :)
 * Question for Anthony: What does pedophilia have to do with adminship? I'm just curious as to what you're trying to ask.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As am I. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not Anthony, but I do know that administrators do need to deal with these sorts of situations and knowing how to deal with them is helpful. Captain panda  02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? What does that have to do with wikipedia?  J- stan  Talk Contribs 17:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See the below discussion of crockspots rfa and some of his off wiki internet discussions for why an admin needs to be able to answer an odd ball question like that in a way that is going to be helpful to WP, legal, and personally morally correct. --Rocksanddirt 17:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Weak Support is a good editor, but I'm concerned about how long this user has been actively editing. - Lemonflash (chat)  22:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support has fought vandals and has good track with POV bias and above all is a good editor.Harlowraman 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I'm tipping this way because your track record appears to be positive and you have answered the negatives above. I'm not too happy about what appears to be an over-reliance on auto tools to edit the mainspace but I think that over time your contributions will balance out to a mix of manual and automated. (aeropagitica) 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support –  A non idiot.  :-) — «  <font color="Green">A NIMUM  <font color="Green">»  23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support <font color="#0A9DC2">~  <font color="#0DC4F2">Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He is quite devoted to the editing of Wikipedia including deltetion and other things. He is also quite willing to work and recieve the mop<font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Very active in cleaning-up Wikipedia. Seems very responsible and deserving of administrative tools. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Although I suspect this RFA will not pass, and would suggest withdrawal at this time. My one direct contact with this candidate was a joint positive effort to help a newbie with an article that had been speedied several times, to see if it could be written off the mainspace to a level the fullfilled requirements (alas it was not to be). The civility, genuine wish to help myself and the new editor and communication skills were excellent, all prime admin traits (with respect to Lara below I have no collaboration concerns based on this personal experience). I am mildly concerned that a lot of recent edits are machine (AWB) based, and also concerns per Husond below, however I see an enormous ammount of positives here as well, and would sugest you continue what you are doing, take note of the comments raised in opposition and I look forward to giving a further (and less qualified) support at a future RFA in 2/3 months. Very Best. Pedro | Chat  07:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per what I said in the nomination statement. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 07:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Policy and process knowledge over experience, in my opinion. GDonato (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Low edit count is about my only unaddressed concern, but, editcountitis notwithstanding, adminship is not a big deal and I liked the candidate's upfrontness on Q4 as well as his reply to Q6, which takes care of the concern I shared with Husönd re: WP:RFPP. Roadmr (t|c) 14:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Believe it or not, I only had one edit to RFPP when I ran for adminship the second time, and I had said in Question 1 that RFPP was a place where I wanted to do admin work. I now spend a lot of time at RFPP. I don't see anything wrong with this user. Acalamari 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As did I (I think I had two...)  Majorly  (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – this user seems to have a very similar history to what I had pre-RfA: I made some mistakes with AWB, to give one instance; and, without wanting to sound boastful or anything, I'd say I've turned out all right. The user clearly has a desire to help out, and piling-on Opposes because of some mistakes in the past isn't something I'm a fan of; we need more Administrators, and I can't see this user abusing his tools, even with the AWB misuse. Best of luck, mate :) Cheers, Anthøny  18:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral Support Knows a lot about policy and would not misuse the tools. Although more experience is always good. --Hdt83 <font color="blue" face="Arial">Chat 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no reason, to beleive that this user would harm the project, by being given the tools. Support --SXT4$\color{Red} \oplus$ 05:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I like your response to Q4, it shows humility and real devotion to the community. concerns about expierence notwithstanding, I feel that I could trust this user with the tools. --Ybbor<sup style="color:green;">Talk 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per TwoOars' excellent reasoning in the discussion section above. Waltonalternate account 19:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per TwoOars and all the above. Xfds and WikiProjects be damned, he's a fine, upstanding, average, modest, healthy, normal user. And there aren't that many people in the world you can say that about. Most of the oppose votes don't actually find flaw in his editing. Instead, they deride him for having done nothing spectacular or sufficiently obscure. It's no big deal, and there's no reason to object. -- The_socialist talk? 20:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - per above --Hillock65 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Moral support, suggest withdrawal -- Y not? 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I like the socialist's reasoning above. This user has my trust: they are not going to abuse the tools and (especially with a little more reading of instructions to avoid AWB-like mistakes) they will make a fine admin. A little more experience would be beneficial, but there is definitely no solid reason to oppose beyond 'not enough edits to...'. Good luck next time as it is. ck lostsword•T•C 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Contributions to the project space may be a little on the thin side but this user seems to have plenty of other positive support to back him up.  I can't see any reason to mistrust this user. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Change from Neutral to Support Really, you will do fine with the tools, and the experience will come faster if you have the admin's tools to bolster your editing!  •Malinaccier• <font color="#660099">T /<font color="#660099"> C  20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, no big deal, I was voted an admin with only four months experience a year and a half ago, a real sign of RFA-inflation and I see no problems with this user. Croat Canuck  <i style="font-size:x-small;"> Say hello   or just talk </i> 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. No big issues here, a fine user, who will make a fine admin! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support as I think this candidate has a good overall record and would be a fine administrator. Please continue editing, and address some of the points raised in the oppose comments to come back with an even stronger record next time. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support this RfA. The opposers don't persuade me otherwise. This candidate could do with some admin buttons.  Majorly  (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --Aminz 01:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) —AldeBaer 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per all above users. --84.45.219.185 14:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please log in to comment in this section. —AldeBaer 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support nothing to suggest will abuse the tools, but a bit more experience would be good. Davewild 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support It's just a mop. A.Z. 05:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose, sorry, per experience concerns on the project space. Particularly WP:RFPP, an area where you intend to work at but have no record of any request or edit to. Vandalfight is not bad, but I would prefer to see you get more experience there also before you have access to the block tool.-- Hús  ö  nd  23:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak Oppose Definitely a lack of edits to any specific page and extremely low talk page edit count shows me they probably do not have much, if any, experience discussing and conflicting with other editors, and low Wikispace edits are concerning. Based on that, I was going to go with neutral, but the fact that they've only been editing with any real degree of consistency since march makes me think this editor isn't quite ready for the mop. My advice, get a bit more involved with dealing with conflicts and talking about content on talk pages, and start helping out with some of WP'S TLA ANI ETC stuff and come back in a couple months --L ucid 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Husond and Lucid. It is always best to work in areas that you wish to work in once you become an admin. Would like to see more variety in the edits. Would be nice if a good majority of your edits weren't with Twinkle or AWB. <font face="Verdana" >T Rex  | <font face="Tahoma">talk  01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak Oppose A polite, knowledgeable user who needs more experience in some forums that they expressed an interest in, but also in general. VanTucky  (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I came here expecting to support, but low project space participation, including what Husond and most of the guys above me have said, leads me to oppose - you need more experience in admin related tasks. Giggy  Talk 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I think you can achieve admin in the future, but I agree that some additional experience is needed. Consider joining a WikiProject for an area of interest to you. Gain experience working collaboratively (talk page edit count leads me to believe you may not have a lot of experience with this). Continue to explore the encyclopedia to find areas of interest to you where admin tools would be helpful. And do not be discouraged by this RfA. Look at is as an opportunity to improve so that you coast through the next one. <font color="6A5ACD">Lara <font color="FF1493">♥Love 03:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Respectful oppose You mean well I can tell but I must oppose per the reasons above as well. You need more experience and you haven't quiet yet dealt with situations where things can get ugly. Try again in a few months. -WarthogDemon 04:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Per lack of overall experience. I would prefer a more active and more experienced user to get the tools.  Jmlk  1  7  05:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Per Giggy. Politics rule 05:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) And suggest withdrawal, sorry.  Daniel →♦  07:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? WP:JUSTAVOTE?  Mel sa  ran  12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably because of the opinions of everyone above him? JUSTAVOTE is about *fDs anyway, WP:AAAD doesn't really have anything against "Just Vote"ing, and I forget where I read it but I remember very clearly that there's no problem with even just !voting, because some editors might not feel comfortable giving their reasons publicly --L ucid 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sorry. Lack of experience in project space. You seem to be a fine editor (100% edit summaries, nothing controversial), but only 2.5k edits, and half of them seem to be done with TW and AWB. If you retry in a few months' time, I'm sure you'll make a great admin :-)  Mel sa  ran  12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - lack of writing experience.  <font color="#084C9E">Mi <font color="#4682b4">r <font color="#6495ED">a <font color="#4682b4">n <font color="#084C9E">da  14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Too many edits made with automated tools, edits that are not essential and don't enhance the encyclopedia., , . Not sure about this username report either, I get the feeling it would have been blocked if this user was able to do so themselves. It was clearly not a bad faith username so should never have been reported to WP:UAA. On the other hand, AIV reports all look good though. Heading in the right direction and I look forward to reviewing this editors contributions in 8-12 weeks at their next RfA. Nick 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The first 3 edits you referenced refer to a mistake I made with AWB, in fixing typos. I agree that they do nothing to help the encyclopedia, and I am now very careful to only fix typos in the mainspace. When I was looking out for usernames, which I do not touch now, I was jumping in straight away, which as I said, I do not do now. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Nick's concerns and those of others make me think that waiting a few months would be a good idea. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Husond. I think the user looks promising, but I would like to see a touch more work on project space. Trusilver 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose because of lack of evidence of rounded experience and lack of evidence of full engagement in communication - the talk pages I looked at were mainly tags or terse comments. I'd like to see more evidence of the human behind the bot. I have no other concerns, and in another couple of months I could be saying support. SilkTork 20:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per Melsaran.-- Kkr ouni  /Ккроунл  /ΚκρΩυνι  00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Husond's comments. I think you need a bit more familiarity with housecleaning tasks that non-admins can help out with (projects, etc) and some meaty "sagas" (discussions, colloboration, etc). However as previously mentioned once these minor concerns are addressed I think you will be ready for the mop. --Bennyboyz3000 02:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose The lack of experience is a concern here. Try again after a few months and you will have my support. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me 04:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, the lack of experience is worrying for me; particularly when "experienced-enough-for-adminship" users forget to sign important things like the candidate's acceptance and the answers to the optional questions. – sebi 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, how are signing the acceptance and answers so "important"? Usually it is a given that the candidate is accepting and answering the questions. :) - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 05:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Signing everything a user posts is important. Sure, of course it is obvious that the candidate is accepting and answering the questions, but I see no reason as to why Stwalkerster should not sign what he has written. I'm not talking about signing the questions and the accepting part directly, I'm talking about signing things on something as important as an RFA. – sebi 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Signing is not a mindless ritual. It serves a purpose: that of identifying easily who has written what. Which is quite redundant here. Of course, if someone does not sign a talk page or an AfD comment or something, the objection makes some sense. But as of now, I find it incredibly petty. But you are entitled to your opinion of course. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 06:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not a "mindless ritual" as you call it, but it is important. I'd prefer to see a candidate who would sign all posts that they make. – sebi 09:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose- you're an excellent user, but your lack of experience in the areas where you would like to participate if given administrator rights make me doubt your ability to do so. I would also like to see a little more participation in the mainspace. I agree with Deskana's comments above; an administrator needs to be able to correctly use every single one of his tools, should he be asked to. If he doesn't have much participation in many areas where an administrator is usually needed, then I doubt his ability to use the tools correctly. Give it a little more time. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * should he be asked to: I hope you do realize that adminship is a voluntary offer to help; no one is required to do anything if he/she doesn't like to do it or is not sure how to. The admin (or any user) always reserves the right to say he doesn't know how / doesn't want to do it and ask someone else to help out. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 17:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it's voluntary, but I wouldn't trust a user with administrator rights if he wasn't willing to help out, because that's requesting power just to have it. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But he has shown enough knowledge at AIV and CSD. Which is where he said he's willing to help out. Should he be denied adminship because he refuses to participate in every task there is? I confess I do not know anything about templates. Should I cease to be user then? - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to :-) I still oppose, though. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know if I want to or not. :D I have this love/hate thing going on with wikipedia. (which speaks volumes about me.) - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars 18:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out Acalamari's support above, which mentions that they only had 1 edit to RFPP, as did Majorly, when they were both running for Adminship. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Lack of experience in the areas where you would like to participate if given the administrator tools makes it difficult to determine whether you would be trustworthy with those tools. Not that this has anything to do with my position, but when I first saw your user name, I thought swastiker. Even if this RfA fails, please try again in three months. -- <font face="Kristen ITC"><font color="Blue">Jreferee  (Talk) 08:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose with sentiments of Support - I see an editor who has a specific need in which the tools can be applied, but without enough experience just yet. I think this is one of the better discussions I have seen here. Personally, I am less influenced by pure edit count, or places you have been editing, and more by the sample time available by which to judge your overall personality (to the flawed extent this can be done in a digital environment). Thus, following TwoOars logic, if you come back in a few months and simply have twice as many edits of the type you have been doing all along, that would be fine for me to support, because it would give me a longer period of time over which I can identify any patterns in your behavior which might lead me to support, or if I find anything that raises a red flag, oppose. One point of disagreement I have with TwoOars' reasoning: I am not a fan of the idea of rushing someone through an RfA simply because they might not be around Wikipedia in a few months. If that is the case, what's the point of giving you extra responsibility? Time served also demonstrates to me a commitment to the project. Come back in a few months, and if I see a continuation of what you have been doing thus far, an see that you have maintained the ability to learn and grow from mistakes, you'll have my support. Hiberniantears 15:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All good points. Just a few explanations: 1)they might not be around Wikipedia in a few months.... what's the point of giving you extra responsibility?: The point is, wikipedia will benefit from a few months more of admin work from one more user. Which is better than no extra admin work done at all. (just a clarification: that bit was based on my own beliefs and for argument's sake anyway; Stwalkerster has never indicated nor implied that he'd leave anytime soon :) 2)it would give me a longer period of time over which I can identify any patterns - Ok I totally agree with that. I think we basically disagree on what period of time is reasonable - I'd (rather arbitrarily) think 3 months is enough; some think a year is needed. You, I guess, are somewhere in the middle. - <font color="Indigo">Two <font color="DarkViolet">Oars  17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For your information: I'm not planning on leaving Wikipedia anytime soon. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - less than 3,000 edits, not experienced enough. Wikipedia-space count isn't outstanding. Not real article contributions - enough experience to help struggling newbies? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! Would you mind divulging how many edits you think I ought to have to be experienced enough? Also, would you mind telling me what sort of contributions you would expect a successful RfA candidate to have? Thank you in advance, :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Sorry, contrib count is just too low. Admins need to have lots of experience here and I just don't really think 2,600 edits is quite enough. Best of luck though. Eric Wester 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! Would you mind divulging how many edits you think I ought to have in order to pass an RfA? Thank you in advance, :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is not really a set number of edits that one should have. However, a majority of admins have at least, that I have noticed, over 5,000 contributions. I am not saying that you cannot handle admin responsibilities though. I am just saying that it may be pushing it just a little right now. I wish you the best of luck though! Eric Wester 00:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should point out that one user who became an administrator recently, SirFozzie, had less than 2000 edits at the time of his RfA. Acalamari 16:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Insufficient experience at this time, especially per low number of substantive mainspace edits. Espresso Addict 04:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Res ipsa loquitur. Anything but a self-nomination is an actus reus displayed by the boisterous sociability essential to obtain one. Neil Larson
 * Note User blocked by Majorly for trolling of RFA. Oppose comment indented. Pedro | Chat  09:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - How should I phrase it...lack of experience in the Project space. But this user isn't a c*** at all, so I won't oppose. --H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H <font color="blue" face="Times new roman" size="3">irohisat <font color="orange" face="Times new roman">Talk 05:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Helluva reason to stay neutral :). Jmlk  1  7  06:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - Lack of experience but a well-focused editor who aims to help Wikipedia <font style="color:red">Lmc <font style="color:green">169 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral So hard to chose. -- Chris G talk  10:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Just not enough experience. In a few months, I will support fully.  Change to Support   •Malinaccier•  <font color="#660099">T /<font color="#660099"> C  18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral: Just a bit more editing time! Dfrg.msc 07:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Good candidate, but I believe they also need more experience. Dureo 09:10, 15 August 2007 (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.