Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VivioFateFan 2


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

VivioFateFan
Final (talk page) (7/12/4); Ended 10:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate. Pedro : Chat  10:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would best if I withdraw from Rfa for now. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 10:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

- aka Hello, while it has not been >=6 months yet since my first rfa, I am again making an another attempt at adminship. Well like I said in my previous rfa my experience on Wikipedia includes Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, New pages patrol, and Recent changes patrol, and recently requests for new accounts. One thing that I did not mention this in my previous rfa, was that I had been an anonymous editor for a long time (>1 year maybe even close to 2yrs.) before becoming a named account, after a discussion with Addhoc see (here) Because of my being an anon for that time, this is why I seemed to be very familiar with the tagging system right out from the start. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a close look at her contributions, and here is what I found:

General


 * 8700 edits and 700 or more deleted edits.

Encyclopedia Building
 * Hundreds of gnomish typo fixes and article tweakings.

Maintenance
 * Has lots of speedy experience - about 750 CSD taggings - could be a great help in this area
 * Hundreds of vandalism reversions, including posting warnings on talk pages, and reporting repeat offenders on WP:AIV - uses Twinkle
 * Has helped maintain the Articles for creation department, processing hundreds of requests there (declines, including reasons), applying knowledge of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines - I lost track at about 700.
 * Has made many WP:AFD nominations, with a high percentage matching consensus - this and the reasons posted in the noms show content guideline knowledge.

House Keeping
 * Clean block log
 * A civil and thoughtful user
 * Uses edit summaries on the vast majority of edits
 * E-mail enabled


 * The Transhumanist 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * As an administrator, my focus would tend to focus on speedy deletions, dealing with admin backlog, occasional page protection, AIV. On the subject of admin actions, like I said below concerning edit warring, wheel warring is counterproductive and pointless, thus will not be done.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * My best contributions in my opinion would have to be my anti-vandalism work, as seem from my contribs. I don't tend to focus on any particular article or group of articles, and the edits I do tend to be minor ones (spelling/grammar/wikify). But, if I have to assign some of what I feel are my "best nonvandal cleanup contributions", however it would probably be in my edits to anime related ones (in particular Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha related ones). Also, as I am not good at coming up with ideas for articles, and don't have the time to do extensive research, I do not create any new articles.


 * 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?
 * Yes, I have had some conflicts with other users, and sometimes my edits are reverted (for various nonvandalism reasons), but I do not reinstate any reverted edits, as "wrestling" for the "right version" seems to be rather pointless and counterproductive. But most of the time I have had conflicts it is usually in trying to handle the vandals.

Question from The Transhumanist :


 * 4. Would it be an imposition to ask what the IP was that you edited under for a year? If security is an issue, it's generally not too difficult to get one's IP changed.  But if there's a strong track record of performance there, it would be relevant to your RfA.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have edited from multiple usually dynamic IP's, including before sometime in June 2007, various AOL addresses my ISP is currently Comcast. I have also edited my college's IP address (Prairie State College before 2007) and Governors State University IP's (currently), sometimes my home IP (when I forget to sign on). Unfortunately, since my memory is not that great I don't remember exact IP addresses. However, like my named account, however my activities before I had a named account were mostly wikignoming and tagging (as during the time before I registered I was more paranoid about "breaking" Wikipedia, and still am but to a much lesser extent that I was before I registered.)  VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, I was able to track down two of the IP's that I have used in the past:
 * 143.43.29.149
 * 143.43.29.142 I am pretty sure there are more ones VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your user page displays 11,200 edits, leaving about 2,500 edits unaccounted for. You might be able to track down your IPs by checking articles that you remember editing.  It could help establish how long you've been using and working on Wikipedia.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from :
 * 5. What is the use of IAR in Wikipedia? How have you employed it in your editing tenure? How would you apply it if you were made an admin?
 * From what I can see, I think that the use of Ignoring all rules when combined with being BOLD in editing is so that any user may make changes that they feel would help improve encyclopedia, while not having to worry about whether their edit was "right" or in the "right format", thus they could jump straight into editing without having to read tons of "Instruction manuals". As for my use of the Ignoring all rules policy, most of the time when I do my edits I do what I can to make the article/template/etc "better" (spelling/grammar/include in category) than it was before and do not worry as much as I used to about "breaking" an article/template/etc. If I was made an admin I would continue to follow the same as I did as a non-admin concerning improvement of articles (since admins are essentially normal users with a few extra "tools"), and apply this concept to any admin actions that I would take, but at the same time avoiding taking of arbitrary actions (blocking for no reason, deleting pages at random, etc.)
 * 6. How would you deal with an extreme POV-pusher who hasn't vandalized?
 * The way that I would probably approach the situation of a POV-pusher who hasn't vandalized would be first to try to engage the user in conversation (either on their user talk page, or the article's talk page, on their reasons for addition, and suggest that inclusion of a reliable third-party source might help or taking a "timeout" and edit another article(s), if the POV pushing is only limited to a specific article or group of related articles. If after discussing that they continue to add said material, I would probably ask for a Third opinion or if others have expressed concern for the actions of the POV-pusher maybe even a request for comments on their behavior. If after all of these steps have been taken and the user still does not change stop POV-pushing. I would either block the user or report them on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if I felt that I may have a Conflict of interest in the matter. VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7. How important do you think mainspace editing (by this I mean article improvement) is to a RFA candidate? Is it a useful way to gauge somebody's ability as an hopeful administrator?
 * My belief concerning the importance of mainspace editing of the encyclopedia as a criteria for an RFA candidate is that mainspace editing is important, someone who has no mainspace edits is probably not ready yet for adminship, but in no way should be the only factor considered. First of all, as mentioned here, there are many ways a potential admin can demonstrate their competence, such as anti-vandalism, engaging in articles for deletion, new pages patrol and other activities. Another thing about looking mainly at mainspace edits is that while a user may have tons of "their" articles be promoted to featured article status or good articles status, but if they have not done any new pages patrol, recent changes patrol they may not be knowledgeable on dealing with vandals, thus perhaps not as ready to deal with some admin related duties.  VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

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


 * Links for VivioFateFan:
 * Links for NanohaA'sYuri:

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

Discussion

 * A little close since the last RFA, although if you continue with a similar trend you should excel. 90.194.244.223 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this should probably be snow closed, but as I closed the last one under WP:SNOW it'd be inappropriate for me to do it again. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The candidate is here for feedback and there are live discussions in progress.  Therefore we should let this RfA run its course. The Transhumanist  00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I made that comment when it was at 1 support, 1 moral support [not really a support] and 5 oppose. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by candidate. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Suppport With due respect to the opposers, the question is whether or not the user can be trusted with the tools. The automatic opposes based on the length of time since the last one are not really looking at the nom. And i a not concerned with self noms. They show enthusiasm. My concern last time was with Q3. I no longer have that reservation and am impressed that the nom will use the tools constructively and to the benefit of the project.  Dloh  cierekim  17:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- I reviewed 1000 edits summaries looking for blue links to articles nom had tagged for speedy deletion. There were a couple that had been deleted but are back now. Seems to have a grasp on CSD. Was overly hasty in tagging an inherently notable article, but then corrected the matter 10 minutes later. I would recommend more AfD experience before closing debates there, but that is not an area for which the tools are desired. Just remember that speedy deletion need not be hasty deletion. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Moral Support Try again soon...I recommend Admin Coaching. D u s t i talk 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Changed to (still somewhat weak) Suport per Dlohcierekim. User:Dorftrottel 17:28, January 30, 2008
 * 3) 'Medium-Weak Supportper Dlohcierekim as well. X ENON 54 | talk | who? 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - A month is plenty of time for skills and procedures to be improved, and re-evaluation is called for. Opposing on the time elapsed rather than evaluating how the editor made use of that time is ignoring the candidate, ignores the spirit of Wikipedia, and is kind of rude.  She's stepping up to the plate.  The least we could do is have a look.  In my opinion, nom has a healthy attitude toward Wikipedia and toward improving it.  VivioFateFan has shown she is trustworthy, takes criticism constructively, and learns from her mistakes rapidly.  And she's prolific.  We should put her energy to use.  Could use more experience building articles, but I believe her knowledge of content guidelines offsets this.  The Transhumanist  23:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Support - Per Dlohcierekim and WP:AFG. Tiptoety  talk 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support. I was initially hesitant about where to stand, so I asked a few questions. I can't deny that the one-month span doesn't concern me, but 2000 edits can make it seem like a long time. I believe that Vivio is knowledgable and will most likely not abuse the tools, but I believe that she will have a much more enriching experience if she expands her horizons to article building.  bibliomaniac 1  5  23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) "while it has not been >=6 months yet since my first rfa" - indeed, it hasn't even been one month. Sorry, I still have experience concerns. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about her actual performance over the past month? Not a word about that? The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to badger everyone who opposes this? Nick mallory (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion that's inconvenient is "badgering". I'll keep that in mind. Based on the reasons being given for opposes in RfA's these days, and in this one in particular, it's about time somebody said something about this, so here it goes...
 * What I see happening here (and in the RfA process in general) is the application of very arbitrary standards, based on RfA behavior rather than upon the editor's behavior in the encyclopedia itself. That tells me that corners are being cut.  The most important step is being skipped!  It doesn't appear that anybody opposing this candidate has actually taken a good look at his contributions, and that's just sad.  Do you understand what that makes this process and its participants look like in his eyes?  In the eyes of other newcomers?  And in the eyes of any outsider who may come across this page?  This department is at the core of Wikipedia's management, and it reflects upon Wikipedia as a whole.  Remember the whole world is watching.  This page reminds me of the movie Brazil. The Transhumanist  03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So the answer to my question is 'yes' then? The whole world is not watching by the way, get over yourself, barely one person in a billion has supported or opposed this guy.  Really, defunct Armenian blogs on blind snail racing get more hits than this page.  That you're reminded of 'Brazil' rather than 'The Trial' perhaps puts the depth of your analysis in context here and I just wonder if your jaded view of RfA is actually more a product of your own record of success in it.  Nick mallory (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't answer your question. I was just taking note of it. The tactic you used is called the loaded question, like "Are you still beating your wife?"  Answering "yes" or "no" are both incriminating.  Nice try.  Civil discussion isn't badgering, and referring to it as such is pure rhetoric.  By the way, the whole world is watching Wikipedia (speaking figuratively about the public here), and eventually they'll get around to evaluating how it's run. That'll bring them to RfA. The Transhumanist (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose Whilst it has been indeed 30 days since close of your last RfA you are now some 2,000 edits stronger. But we try not to count edits alone in this context. So the questions is, have you demonstrated a greater level of experience? Well, maybe, but rushing to another RfA is not a good thing. You certainly can't rush at admin tasks. I'm sorry, you really should have heeded advice at your last RfA and looked to a 8-12 week gap to allay concerns. In addition, issues such as article writing do not really appear to have been addressed. Sorry. Pedro : Chat  10:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But your analysis [in print above] went no further than his edit count and time elapsed. Don't you think those are superficial? :) What about him?  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr... It did actually, hence my weak oppose. I did not comment on RfA 1. However I do feel that a quick re-application for the tools indicates the following;
 * Haste - a bad thing in an admin.
 * A desire for the tools for the sake of the tools (lacking WP:AGF I admit)
 * A failure to listen to reasoned argument at the candidates first RfA
 * None of these are unforgiveable sins, of course, but I am unconvinced that we will see a net positive here. Hasty admins make more work not less. My (weak) oppose stands but my moral support is also here. Pedro : Chat  00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing your analysis here with your analysis of Nancy's performance above, I'm left scratching my head. I was thoroughly impressed with your reporting of her edit activity. But how do you know VivioFateFan didn't learn from the feedback from the first RfA if you didn't even go over her contributions the way you did with Nancy's?  Just curious.  The Transhumanist (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A fair question. My initial response, as echoed in my reply above, is how do you assume I did not go over his contributions? Moving on: 1) Two RfA's are not, by certainty, akin. 2) My oppose is weak, as I have repeated. 3) Per my above, a rush to gain tools may (just may) indicate a rush with the buttons. 4) Article writing. The candidate has admitted this is a weak point. I accept that, and does not from me equate an automatic oppose by any means. Nevertheless some changes in editing style since RfA1 would have been more desirable, IMHO. At the end of the day, I am but one opposer, and a weak oppose at that, so my opinion will be counted as much or as little as others. Pedro : Chat  00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was merely comparing your treatment here with your treatment of Nancy, which included reporting. Why not share your analysis of VivioFateFan's edits, as you did with Nancy above? If her edits swayed you one way or another, as they did with Nancy, could you point those edits out, as you did with Nancy?  It really helped me to see where you were coming from in her RfA - it convinced me instantly, and I was wondering if you'd care to apply the same approach here, as it would sure help me, and would be great feedback for the candidate.  The Transhumanist (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose You had a rfa earlier this month, I believe? I think more time is needed. Spencer  T♦C 11:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But you didn't even look at how she used that time. Isn't that kind of arbitrary?  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I voted in that RFA (I had my username changed from Sseballos) and I suggested that he wait a couple of months. I want to see evidence that he can take up admin duties for a much longer time than just a month. I also, as User:Martijn Hoekstra suggested that User:VivioFateFan does admin coaching. Spencer  T♦C 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. What areas do you think she should work on the most?  The Transhumanist (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He has seemed to diversify his editing since his last RFA. As I said, I want to see evidence that he can take up admin duties for a much longer time than just a month. He is a good candidate, I just want a little more time to see evidence of a permanent change, not just and rfa-pleaser type change. Also, the User:NanohaA'sYuri doesn't seem to use edit summaries as much. ~66% use. I would probably encourage a higher summary use, but combined, I think its otherwise OK. Spencer  T♦C 12:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per all the above concerns. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But were the concerns real if they weren't based on performance? The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Going Kurt Weber here. User:Krator (t c) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Kurt. Let's make this a separate section in RfAs, shall we? As to this candidacy: Be patient, take your time. User:Dorftrottel 15:23, January 30, 2008
 * What does that mean? The Transhumanist (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kurt equates self nom with power hunger. Dloh  cierekim  23:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Volunteering to help is power hunger? That doesn't make any sense.  Applying that reasoning, all Wikipedians (who are all volunteers) edit the encyclopedia out of hunger for power.  Applying this to VivioFateFan is essentially an accusation, and it is both unwarranted and uncalled for.  And it makes a mockery of RfA.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per concers that you may be too quick to delete articles. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is good relevant feedback. Any suggestions on how the candidate may improve? VivioFateFan, you may find participation at in WP:AfD and WP:DRV discussions interesting. Those departments are always in need of participants.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, joining Article Rescue Squadron and/or Intensive Care Unit and actively making good faith efforts to improve articles is more helpful than deletion. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Still lingering issues from a month ago. Jmlk  1  7  20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? The candidate obviously wants to improve, but vague feedback isn't much help. She's here because she wants to help.  The least we could do is return the spirit of helpfulness.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose only for the reason that you have no patience at all. Only one month since your last RfA is not nearly enough time. You need a few months more experience so you can prove that you know Wikipedia well enough to be an effective admin. Tim  meh  !  23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that show she has no patience? She's made another 2000 edits since her last RfA - that's not impatience, that's enthusiasm and dedication!  And that's plenty of activity to display a track record of performance, and it takes most editors months to accumulate that much output. Why aren't you evaluating her actual work?  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should have restated that. I believe that just because an editor makes an abundant amount of edits in only a month, it doesn't mean he or she has gained as much experience as they would've acquired in four or five months worth of editing. Edit count doesn't show experience alone. It's a substantial amount of good edits over a long period of time that proves that an editor has experience and trust in the community. I also have all the same concerns as Pedro has already explained above. Also, please do not make assumptions that I did not evaluate his work. I always go through every candidate's edits thoroughly before I oppose or support that candidate. Tim  meh  !  00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't assume you didn't evaluate her work, I was making the observation that you were not evaluating her work here in this discussion (in print). The only thing you mentioned in your initial post was time, not what she had or had not done.  That's the evaluation which I was referring to.  Since you looked over her contributions, would you mind sharing what you saw that you based your decision on?  Just curious.  Did any of her edits (besides her requesting RfA here) display impatience?  Did she do anything in her last 2000 edits that raises concern?  Were her edits good?  Or were they bad?  The Transhumanist (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he needs more experience. It's not that his edits were bad in any way. He's just a little too eager for adminship, and I think it's obvious why as I and others have said several times, but you just won't accept it. As Nick said above, are you going to badger everyone who opposes this candidate? Why are you so eager for this request to succeed? Tim  meh  !  02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw what appeared to be questionable reasons which weren't based on anything substantial, and figured somebody ought to speak out. Her edits weren't bad in any way, but he swas too eager because he requested adminship again too soon after the last time?  And this type of eagerness is bad how?  I'm just trying to understand the reasoning process being applied here. The Transhumanist (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Under Support, we are advised only to ask ourselves whether we can trust nom with the tools.  Coming back in less than a month with another RfA shows such a lack of judgment that I don’t trust nom with the tools.   --  Iterator12n   Talk 01:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What if she thought you would be impressed with his edits? That is, with how she's used the current tools she has access to?  And what if she simply didn't know about the unwritten rule about frequency of RfAs?  How does that show lack of judgement?  And what if she simply believes that you would evaluate her on what she's done rather than upon some arbitrary and unwritten time rule?  That's common sense, until you become familiar with (and jaded by) the RfA process itself.  But the RfA process has very little to do with performance on administrative tasks - so why should we expect her to research RfAs before coming back?  Wasn't what she was doing (editing and maintaining the encyclopedia) more important?  I just don't follow your reasoning.  The Transhumanist (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of discussion let’s put aside for a moment the lack of judgment shown in the speedy re-application for adminship and let me agree that judgment can also be shown in the editing process. Please point me to some of the nom’s edits that show outstanding judgment – outstanding enough to outweigh the speedy etc.  --  Iterator12n   Talk 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We were discussing poor judgment. There is nothing inherently hasty about going for RfA after a month.  The burden for showing poor judgment rests upon those who have accused the candidate of it.  If the candidate isn't suitable for adminship, her edits would show that.  Why aren't those being presented instead of the arbitrary unwritten one-month rule that she has stepped on? The Transhumanist (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of analyzing VivioFateFan's contributions, per your request. She's got over 8,000 edits, so this will take awhile.  The Transhumanist (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Transhumanist, don’t bother answering. I have now read the other opposes, above, starting with the observation of badgering and your “I’ll keep that in mind.”  I prefer not to get involved with an attitude like that.  Good luck.  --  Iterator12n   Talk 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Civil discussion in good faith isn't badgering, and it was an appropriate response to a loaded question. I've gone over the candidate's contributions, and have placed my observations above in the same format used by Pedro in Nancy's RfA. I hope that helps.  The Transhumanist (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - not enough experience, but clearly on the right track. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) very weak oppose I would suggest giving a bit more time between RfAs to implement what you learn in them.  Marlith  (Talk)  05:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) It took me a while to think about this, but I'm going to have to oppose. I appreciate your enthusiasm and your efforts since your last RfA, but I'd like you to have more experience editing the mainspace and adding content before you become an admin. I know that a lot of people claim mainspace contributions aren't relevant to admin tasks, but I think they're key for instilling the kind of attitude I want an admin to have. I think that it's important for admins to have been involved in creating or improving articles so that they can understand how people feel when their articles get deleted, and hopefully they will have more respect for content. I just don't think it's possible to understand and act fairly towards people who mostly edit content if you have no experience of improving content yourself. Wikignomish tasks are important, I agree, but an admin should have been involved in at least the creation of one article or assisting with getting an article to GA. I'm also a little concerned that you take things that happen onwiki a little too personally. When I closed your last RFA I advised you to wait a few months before renominating - not something you have to do, certainly, but I'd like you to have been around for a while longer before I trust you with the sysop tools. This is nothing against you, I just think that as we have plenty of admins at the moment we can afford to be picky about who we promote and I think I'd rather wait another two or three months before I feel I can support you. Please try getting involved in some content processes - getting articles to GA is fairly easy! Album articles are especially easy to improve. If you pick an article you'd like to work on I'd be happy to assist you :) CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, though the candidate's contributions are good. One universal thread throughout the supports, opposes, and neutrals from the candidate's first RfA was that they did not have enough experience to show that they would be a good admin. Three of four supports recommended 3 more months of work before re-applying, and oppose and neutral editors agreed. I would submit to the candidate that they knew what they were talking about, and that it would be wise to heed their counsel. There is no deadline, the mop will be here in 3 months, when - with 3 months worth of good, solid work to show for it - I expect to support your third Rfa. Good luck, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, but do try admin coaching. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. His work is good, but he didn't heed the suggestions in his last RFA to wait two or three months. He was informed of the "unwritten rule" of not applying at RFA every month when he was given that recommendation by several editors who commented in his first RFA. I like his contribs, but I can't support yet because his hastiness to submit another RFA shows that he didn't listen to suggestions in his first RFA. Useight (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Haste vs Enthusiasm? Tough call; however, 2000 edits in a month shows a commitment, even if they are all wikignoming edits. My overall impression is that continuing at the same pace, with some expansion of policy awareness will make this candidate's next RfA virtually unassailable, and I think that would be preferable all round to one that barely scrapes consensus. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (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.