Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan


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

TransporterMan
Final (15/22/2); Scheduled to end 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)  Withdrawn by candidate. – xeno talk 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination
is an outstanding editor and I nominate him for adminship.

TransporterMan:
 * has diverse article space interests and writes high-quality (his first article, Pont-y-Cafnau, was promoted to GA)
 * communicates well; is very civil and polite, including great edit summaries
 * is active at WP:Third Opinion
 * already helps with admin tasks like WP:CSD
 * is experienced on Wikipedia: registered >3 years ago; 4500 edits mostly over the past year
 * has good grasp of policy, follows existing conventions as well as policy formation
 * takes time to help new users (rather than just slapping a template warning)

In real life, TransporterMan is an attorney. I find his interactions and contributions to be thoughtful, intelligent, helpful. He considers situations carefully before jumping in and I can't imagine him abusing admin tools. I believe TransporterMan would make a great admin. Quarl (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't been active lately so many of you here won't recognize me; here are my past RFA nominations:. I understand the average edit count of successful RFA nominees nowadays is higher, but we have more than enough evidence that TransporterMan is good admin material, and IMO he is ready now. Quarl (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-nomination
I completely agree with Quarl that TransporterMan is an outstanding editor who will be an asset to the project as an administrator. I've primarily interacted with him and seen his work in the WP:3O project where he has been consistently civil, always available for follow-up questions, and not unwilling to wade into controversial areas (cf. this,). His edits and talk page responses are tinged with a polite detachment that we would all do well to emulate and learn from (cf. this talk page extract for a model approach to managing a dispute). I note his recent contributions to speedy deletion, and the tenor of his responses strengthen my opinion of him as a reasonable person who takes the care to do some research and whose responses assume good faith. He will make a great admin and I am happy to be a co-nominator on this request. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank both Quarl and RegentsPark for their nomination and, moreso, for their confidence in me. Respectfully, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC) I thank everyone who !voted in this matter, whether in support or opposition, but I withdraw my nomination. Best regards, T RANSPORTER M AN   (TALK ) 13:11, 1 October 2010 (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: Initially, I'd like to expand to the admin side of some things I already do. I already patrol hangons and A7 and G11 speedy deletion nominations. I'd like to be able to work the deletion side and also be able to see page histories to better judge what's going on with recreated articles. I've also recently been giving warnings on quite a few username violations and would like to be able to address them directly. Once I'm totally sure of my footing on those tasks, then I'd like to expand to other admin activities. I'm drawn to SPI, but there's a lot about it I don't know yet, but ANI and PROD reviews (especially BLP-PRODs) would seem to be a natural expansion of what I'm doing already. Finally, in considering Third Opinion requests, it's not uncommon to stumble over some fairly nasty edit wars. I've had a good bit of success in stopping them by just warning both editors and reminding them that the three revert rule  doesn't have to be violated for an edit war to exist. Occasionally, though, they're in the thick of combat so much that a short page block would allow some time for reflection and I'd like to be able to implement it if needed, but that's not a big deal.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Objectively, it's my work at the Third Opinion project, where I'm the third most active contributor to the project. Due to my speedy and username patrolling, I've slowed down at 3O a bit, but I still try to contribute at least once or twice a week. Subjectively, and this may seem odd, I think that it's my contribution, by example, to the civility of Wikipedia and to trying to show that an emphasis on policy with a constant consideration of what's best for Wikipedia can give Wikilawyering a good name. I've been called "relentlessly nice" and I'd kind of like to think of that as my contribution style: firm and logical, but unfailingly civil. Finally, I'm kind of proud that the first, and so far only, article that I've written from the ground up, Pont-y-Cafnau, achieved GA status. (Oh, and I almost forgot, not that it has anything to do with admin powers, but I particularly enjoy resolving requests.)


 * 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: No, the closest I've come to a conflict is a couple of occasions on which directness and objectivity on my part was mistaken for being rude or curt. When it was pointed out to me, I immediately took steps to address it and I've become more sensitive to how I say things. I've dealt with such stress, and will continue to deal with it in the future, in three ways. First, simply by being firmly committed to addressing the edits, not the editor. That comes naturally to me, I've never believed in calling names or making wild accusations as a means of debate; I'll win through logic and authority, or I won't win at all. Second, by being willing to be wrong and to change my mind when my opponent is right, to admit it when I am wrong, and to learn from my errors. Third, when the context and forum permit it (e.g. making speedy deletion nominations doesn't; giving Third Opinions does), to carefully explain my reasoning for doing something or taking a position.


 * Additional optional question from Jclemens
 * 4. What is the difference between WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E? Give an example of each.
 * A: WP:BLP1E most often refers to the situation in which a person who is an otherwise non-notable, low profile person is a relatively insignificant player in an event supported by reliable sources. An article about the person would necessarily put undue weight on the event and not on the person himself. BLP1E only applies, moreover, only to living persons. An example would be an ordinary, otherwise-uninvolved citizen who is mentioned in reliable press reports as a witness to a sensational murder, such as Edna Townsley in the article on Charles Whitman, if she is still living. WP:BIO1E most often refers to the situation in which an otherwise non-notable person becomes notable by the degree of his participation in an event supported by reliable sources and the question then becomes whether to have an article about the person, the event, or both. Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy, the law enforcement agents who shot and killed Whitman, are examples of BIO1E (one resolved with a redirect and the other with a separate article).


 * Additional optional question from Alpha Quadrant
 * 5. What are your thoughts on Administrator recall? Would you be open to it?
 * A: I can't say that I've studied the issue extensively, but for myself I would be open to it so long as I can get a fair and open hearing before the community. If I'm given the mop, I'll join Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall and publish criteria and process statements as soon as I have time to work them out, and sooner rather than later.


 * Questions from User:Strange Passerby
 * 6 Please describe your view of WP:IAR. Do you think it is one of Wikipedia's better, or less effective, policies?
 * A: I have some grave doubt about whether IAR still has any real weight at WP other than as an ideal or moral principle (as opposed to a policy or rule). At the same time, however, I think that the ideal and principle of IAR is vitally important. On a purely pragmatic basis Wikipedia works very well, though not perfectly, in the form into which it has evolved today: a primarily rule–based endeavor with a limited authoritarian structure which still pays respect and homage to open–source principles. That evolution was, in my opinion, a natural and necessary result based upon the nature of human society and, had it not occurred, there would have been a very good chance that WP would not have prospered or survived. On the other hand, by keeping IAR and the other the open–source principles as its ideals, Wikipedia has so far avoided becoming the kind of rigidly–controlled encyclopedia where few want to participate, or if they care to participate are unable to participate, e.g. Citizendium. In summary, I think IAR has been largely ineffective as a policy, but has been extremely effective as a vital principle and ideal.


 * 7. Given the chance, which policy or guideline on Wikipedia would you modify, how would you do so, and why?
 * A: This may be trivial, but I'd like to see the PROD policy changed to prohibit the page creator from dismissing a prod. Right now, non-BLP prods effectively address only a tiny issue: articles which shouldn't be here and which no one cares about any longer. Prodding an article which is being currently edited or flogged by its creator is useful only if the creator is such a newcomer and non–reader that he or she doesn't realize that they can eliminate that annoying prod with a flick of their mouse and that, if they do so, no other editor can say boo about it. By eliminating their ability to do so, PROD would become a place for articles which don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion but which are still too bad to waste time on at AfD; that would also give page creators the chance to bring the article up to at least minimal quality. An alternative to that change, and a far better one in my opinion, would be to allow involuntary incubation with a prohibition on bringing the article back to mainspace without some kind of approval (perhaps a return with the consent of any sysop or experienced user other than the page creator, as now applies to declining speedys) with, if that does not happen, a mandatory sysop review after x days in which the article must either be returned to mainspace or deleted.

General comments

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

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

Support

 * 1) Support see my co-nom above. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I see no reason why not. Esteffect (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I don't see why not to support, seems to have experience all across the board. -- Inka 888 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as nominator. Quarl (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support; honestly thought this user was already an administrator. Saebvn (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support wiooiw (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Despite Pont-y-Cafnau being one of the shortest GA I've seen, the user seems to have a good grounding in policy (edit:despite not being perfect) Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Mature and honest. Respects the policies and guidelines, especially WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Would be a valuable asset to new users that need administrative help. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support nothing wrong here that would stop me from supporting. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - Always had positive interactions, and his work on WP:3O convinces me that he has both the good judgment and temperament to make a fine admin. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support looks to be a good all rounder. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Per good answer to my question. I don't see anything wrong with the candidate in their contribs. --<font color = "#000070">Alpha Quadrant  <font color = "#A00000">talk    18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Support I don't find the tagging deviance sufficiently worrisome to overcome the fact that TM is a long-term asset to 3O, entirely levelheaded, and isn't going to abuse anything. Other policy knowledge seems sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I appreciated the candidate's well-thought-out answer to my Q7 instead of ducking it. No reason not to trust user. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per Jclemens. I cannot speak highly enough of people who help resolve disputes and can deal with people in a level-headed, responsible way. <font color="orange" face="Verdana">Shiva <font color="blue" face="cursive">(Visnu)  01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Works with CSD yet doesn't properly understand criteria A1. Edit is deleted, however any admin should be able to verify in the previous version of Buckhorn middle school.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits undeleted for review. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree that that's not how I would have tagged that, and it's quite recent... but is this a mistake or part of a pattern? Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was, perhaps, a mistake but it wasn't done arbitrarily. It was, admittedly, an unconventional interpretation of A1 added boldly, but my thought was this: The article's subject, as indicated by its title, was about a school but the body of the article, the context, was about a single school activity. (The distinction being similar to that between a company and the product of a company under A7.) If the article had said more about the school itself, per se, then the subject and the context would have matched, and A1 would not have been appropriate. The same would have been true if the subject of the article had been "Relocation of Buckhorn middle school", but as it was, the subject and the context did not match and it seemed to me that A1 was appropriate. It also seemed closer to the mark of what was wrong with the article than did G11 which, in retrospect, I probably should have declined, rather than db-multiple'ed. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely no need for you to try to turn A1 into something it isn't when as I said before you changed the tag, and as I fixed this morning there was a clear redirect target.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there other examples of this lack of understanding, or are you merely seeking to use one case as proof that he doesn't understand the CSD criteria? Every administrator who deals in deletion has got something wrong, so it's reasonable to assume that candidates will have too. Of course, if there are other cases, then it's perhaps a valid concern. Esteffect (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You either understand or you don't. You don't understand some days but not others.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In this example I definitely agree with the redirect to the school district instead of A1, but I will say that a large fraction of speedy deletions don't fall squarely in one of the standard categories. For example, the article Tornado tounge was someone's rambling about Cunnilingus - there was enough context to identify the subject, yet this was clearly something to be speedily deleted (mis-spelled, not even worth a redirect).  Also, every day there are articles about subjects that were clearly made up in school one day and speediable, but we don't (yet) have a formal CSD criterion for it (sometimes I use G2, other times just give up on using a CSD and justify the deletion via "WP:NFT").  I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact criteria used to argue for speedy deletion. Quarl (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would point out that it's murky here whether the issue is my failure to recommend a redirect or my A1; I'll take full blame for the A1, but I'll point out that the reviewing admin who deleted the article did so on the basis of the pre-existing G11 nom, not my A1, and didn't choose to redirect it. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 00:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have issues with that too however he has the fortune of already passing RFA. If he'd shown up at RFA 24 hours after making that deletion I certainly would have commented.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose He may be civil, but he only made 2 articles, which is quite low for what I really expect to see in terms of demonstrating the policies deletion criteria. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 21:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no two ways about it: I've not spent a lot of time doing editing from scratch, but let me suggest that, first, the fact that the one article that I wrote from scratch received GA status with only a single round of relatively minor changes demonstrates a certain degree of knowledge about the basic editing processes, at least, and, second and more important, that my work at the Third Opinion project — which is about helping resolve content disputes, not behavior disputes — shows that I know how to apply editing policy. If you'll take a look at my opinions you'll find that most of them are content–policy–based, not just I–think–this–is–better–than–that (except in the case when there's not a clear or at least fairly clear application of policy). Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 00:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done for getting one of your two articles to GA status, which shows you know the expansion criteria, but when I found Courcelles' links, I still agree with his decision based on the fact that this article should not have been speedily deleted. I think my recommendation is that you need to practice those deletion taggings first before reapplying. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">c <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is simply awful use of A1. How can  something with an address, name, town, phone number, and zip code EVER be insufficient context to identify the subject?  It can't, end of story.  As you also left the G11 tag, I'm going to hold you accountable for that poor decision as well, as that article wasn't a G11 candidate either. Courcelles 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose You do a lot of good work, but our primary goal here is to write an encyclopedia. You have minimal content contributions. The most you've ever edited an article is 18 times. Go back, do some more article building, and I'll be happy to support you. AniMate 22:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just want to clarify: that most edited article would have 38 edits if we include his edits made in the sandbox while creating it. Strict edit counts can be deceptive -- depending upon the quality and extent of the actual edits. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Per above. Concerns with policy knowledge.  Additionally, on a side note, I'm not very confident in TM's dispute resolution work; the one dispute I saw you attempt to resolve between BQzip01-Hammersoft could have been better handled. You do good work, but I don't think you're ready for adminship just yet. - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 00:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I undertook that voluntary private mediation under an obligation of confidentiality to both parties. I am not, therefore, at liberty to discuss why it failed or failed so quickly, except to note (as I have in the record) that it was not due to the fault of either party individually. Unless both parties choose to release me from maintaining confidentiality, only I can know why I decided that it would be fruitless to proceed further. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 00:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think evaluating TM's performance in the mediation role of that dispute is inappropriate, given much of the mediation happened off site, out of the eye of the editors here. I applaud TM for the effort he chose to undertake in attempting to mediate the dispute. He didn't have to do that. He deserves credit for it, not criticism. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Fastily, I always trusted Quarl's judgement, but there is concerns about CSD tagging, I also think he's a bit  inexperienced. Oppose Secret account 01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The CSD concerns don't seem to be very major. And the temperament seems well-suited for an administrator. But I always look for some amount of content work from admin candidates with only a few exceptions (certain "line" of work, very experienced, etc.) Pont-y-Cafnau is a stubby GA. I can't see much else you've worked heavily on. And not to be an editcountitis-freak, but you have less than 1000 edits in every namespace. I'm not sure how much I can evaluate you on, as there's not much, and none of it is extremely stand-outish right now. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per concerns with policy knowledge. I'm sure you'll make an excellent administrator in the future. ~  Nerdy <font color="#0F0">Science <font color="#8d7">Dude  03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - per above concerns above with policy knowledge. — <font color="Red">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  6:13pm  • 08:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose with moral support. A lot of good work and an excellent temperament, but I'd like to see the CSD concerns sorted quickly. A little more content work would be useful too Come back in six months time with a stronger record on both fronts and you've got a good chance. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Clearly poor CSD tagging very recently. This is too poor to pass off as a silly mistake, more work is needed. Polargeo (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per CSD work, specifically, for example: AGN International (here), Lowy Institute for International Policy (here), and Virtual Observatory India (here). (All three tags in August and September 2010.) We don't expect require perfection, but there is a clear delineation between notability and the assertion of notability. Clearly the latter is a far lower standard, and one presumes that an editor who would tag those three articles (among others) as A7 would delete them if granted the admin bit; that would be a no-no in my opinion. On the positive side, I expect this is an area that can be improved upon and that a future appearance here at AfD RfA will have a much better chance of success; there are definitely contributions and demonstration of ability to work with here. However, the candidate specifically expresses desire to work in deletion in the answer to Q1. In addition, I note that a very high percentage of CSD-tagged articles wind up deleted (without any analysis of whether the tag was a correct one), and there are definitely ones that were tagged and the articles still exist, but that's OK because the tags were correct at the time and the articles have been re-created and/or improved. So, again - I see positives pointing toward another candidacy in the future. Frank  |  talk  17:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be cutting my own throat by saying this, but I stand by all three of those A7 nominations and disagree with the reasons for which they were declined. AGN was declined because it is "a very large organization", the standards by which Lowy was declined (to the extent that they can be discerned) could be used to decline the nomination of virtually any nonprofit or charitable organization article which states a beneficial purpose, and Virtual Observatory India was declined because it is "a valid project of IUCAA" which either means that projects of notable organizations (or at least organizations which have an article) are automatically notable, that the decliner believed IUCAA to come under the school exception to A7 (it doesn't), or that the decliner was taking the same position as the decliner of Lowy that all nonprofits which have a beneficial purpose should be exempt from A7 deletion. Though I can see the AGN decliner's point, and might well agree with him in a different context, I respectfully disagree with him in this one, but I feel that the other two are just plain wrong. If nonprofits or charitable organizations are going to be generally immune from speedy deletion due to a mere statement of their beneficial purpose, that needs to be an express exception to A7 like the one for schools (which is itself controversial), and articles can be put up in any major city for hundreds of nonprofits which can state a beneficial purpose but which make no claim that they have ever actually fulfilled that purpose in any substantial way, much less have become notable for it. Regards, <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN  (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 17:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * General comment re CSD focus: Since I've made the first slice to my throat, I might as well cut deeper. I don't mean to !AGF towards any of the opposers by this comment, but only reflect on what may be a philosophy–of–Wikipedia issue. I find it interesting that there is so much emphasis and concern being expressed about my CSD tagging while not a word has been said about my CSD declinations. I began patrolling for the purpose of finding unjustified CSD nominations and declining them and I still do that (expanded to all CSD nominees, not just to the hangon'ed ones) as my primary focus. I do retag articles which have been, in my opinion, tagged under the wrong criteria and I  articles for which I think multiple reasons apply, especially if (but, admittedly, not only if) I think that the support for the existing tag is weak but not nonexistent. I'd respectfully (but rhetorically) ask those who oppose me on CSD–tagging grounds whether their view of CSD is such that, on the one hand, very few — if any — articles ought to be speedily deleted (or, indeed, deleted at all) or, on the other, whether they see CSD as a useful mechanism to quickly put an end to articles which should not be here. My personal view lies between those two extremes and that's the reason I both tag and decline. It's unfortunate that only one of them is getting attention here, for good or for ill.— <font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2" color="blue">T RANSPORTER M AN   (<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK ) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, and I hope they are found useful by others reading this discussion. My bottom line, as an administrator who has deleted nearly 5,000 articles (mostly at CSD), is that the criteria are pretty clear. I will concede that the assertions of notability may not be obvious, but I still would decline each of them. AGN is simple: ...one of largest worldwide associations of... is a credible assertion. Lowy is a little less simple, but its one external reference claims that Lowy is one of Australia's most effective think tanks. True, that assertion isn't contained in the article itself, but the article is clearly good-faith and well-formed. To use A7 to delete that article is wielding CSD policy as a blunt instrument; my view of CSD is that it is far more often to be used as a scalpel. Virtual Observatory India discusses Notable tools and links to an existing article (Virtual Observatory) on a related topic. It is also well-formed and good-faith. So I guess what I'm saying is that these are not the types of articles that CSD is meant for. Single-purpose-accounts, advertising, truly non-notable "I like it" types of articles, sure. But these did not fall into those categories, so even if the assertion of notability wasn't "bright-line" obvious, it was still there.
 * I regard CSD as having a high potential for driving away valuable contributors to the project. We can discuss the minutiae of these three taggings and try to develop consensus, but for me the bottom line is that if it's worthy of discussion, it's not worthy of CSD and should instead be either WP:PRODded or sent to WP:AFD. To me, these articles are clearly not A7 candidates. It may be that one has to look for more than just a statement of this thing is notable because..., but because we have to look just a little harder doesn't mean an article is an automatic CSD candidate.
 * To be fair, I still sometimes tag an article rather than delete it myself, because I'm not 100% sure of my judgment on the matter. So I offer an opinion by tagging it and leave it to someone else to adjudicate. And, I sometimes decline and then get involved in an AfD discussion where my judgment is questioned. So I'm not claiming perfection. But I do still think these articles (which of course I picked out myself) aren't CSD candidates. Note that I did come back and expand on the positives because I explicitly didn't want to be a single-issue, look-I-found-one-mistake !voter. I hope you realize that wasn't my intent. Frank  |  talk  20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose CSD and content building concerns per above. Vodello (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Sorry, Frank's examples tipped it for me. They are well outside the boundaries of A7 (even accepting that editors can have reasonable different interpretations of A7). It won't take long to fix the CSD issues, so this oppose is far from a "not ever". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Was thinking about abstaining from voting, but the CSD issues were just too much. Derild  49  21  ☼  21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - I'm sorry to oppose, but you do not meet my standards yet. I am specifically opposing due to #^: CSD tagging. Unfortunately, the CSD issues concern me. Keep up your hard work, and I'm sure you'll pass with flying colors someday. :) MJ94 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The candidate has been highly active for less than a year. Two article creations and eight redirects --->"That don't impress me much". There are also CSD mistagging and policy knowledge issues. Keep editing and learning because someday you'll be a fine sysop.--Hokeman (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Sorry, but the A7s are not tagged properly, and with that being the most tagged CSD (IMO), I don't feel that it's a good idea for the tools to be given to you at this time. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  01:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, per Courcelles-Regancy42 (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Frank and candidate's response to Frank. Notability is a matter for AFD, the test for speedy deletion via A7 is the much lower hurdle of whether it lacks "a credible assertion of importance or significance". I fear the candidate has not yet grasped that many articles which one would support deletion of at AFD do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Happy to reconsider in a few months when the candidate has learned to be a little more diplomatic when dealing with Good faith contributors.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - I think you're on the right track but there have been too many CSD concerns raised for me to vote support. Keep plugging away (I'm not too worried about the content contributions but some more of those wouldn't go amiss) and I'll happily support you later. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Concerns raised by Frank and others about CSD taggings are concerning and, as WSC correctly points out, the candidate's reaction to Frank's !vote is as well. Either he has not grasped that A7 simply does not apply if there is any credible indication of importance or significance or he is unable to accept that he was wrong about those taggings. Either way, the candidate does not seem ready to be trusted with the ability to delete articles if those taggings reflect his understanding of WP:CSD. Regards  So Why  12:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * While I find anyone who is able to create an article and turn it into a GA impressive, I cannot support someone who's userspace edits are higher than their article edits. There's no doubt you're a valuable editor, but I can't support, yet. I am of course willing to change my mind. Tom my! 20:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of the userspace edits are to his sandboxes. He only has 75 edits to his actual userpage. . Derild  49  21  ☼  20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah! This was embarrassing. Tom my! 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral. Whether TransporterMan would be a good admin I cannot say. My one interaction with him was at the Michael Levin article, which came after I posted a request for a third opinion; take a look at that article's talk page if you want to see what happened. TransporterMan's intervention was basically helpful, since it did resolve a dispute over article content between myself and another editor. It seemed to me, however, that TransporterMan was much too quick to comment on the situation, and frankly didn't properly understand what the dispute was about; he could and should have made an effort to clearly understand the particulars of the dispute before commenting. I suppose that if you give third opinions regularly you wind up commenting on a very large number of disputes, which may make things difficult to follow; the more disputes you take an interest in, the less time you have to focus on each one of them. We obviously need editors to give third opinions, but if you do so much of it that your understanding of individual cases is somewhat off, then that could potentially defeat the purpose of the exercise. UserVOBO (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support. I'm sorry, because you're a very good contributor; however, given the various valid concerns raised in the oppose section, I feel uncomfortable supporting you at the moment. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 11:41, 30 September 2010 (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.