Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/shoeofdeath 2


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

shoeofdeath
Final (43/9/9); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

- Well, I suppose it is time to give this a go. I've been around now for two years now, but have been editing most seriously and consistently for about the past 6 months. I am and always have been an exopedian, which basically means I limit myself to improving/protecting articles and generally avoid other areas, RfA being one of them. I believe, however, that with sysop tools I could contribute more effectively to the encyclopedia than is possible without them, so I am here. I tried this last September but withdrew the nom a day later. Most concerns were over a low wiki-space edit count, so in response I started to participate in AfDs, maintaining some level of activity in that area for a few months. I've shifted back away from this recently and still much prefer editing articles, though I'd no longer considered myself "inexperienced". Anyway, I've been pretty distracted by real world stuff lately and realized that now would probably be a good time to try this (since I'm too busy to be checking here every 5 minutes ; - )). So, apologies in advanced for any delayed responses and thanks in advanced for all comments. shoeofdeath 23:37, 28 February 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?
 * A: I'd like to help out wherever help is needed and would probably get around to doing so in a variety of areas. It would of course start and end with WP:AIV, though. During peak vandalism hours reports pile up in seconds and more admins are always needed to deal with them as quickly as possible. I have found, however, that it is during the hours when vandalism is not as active that is really a problem. Reports regularly sit at AIV for 10-15 minutes before being noticed; this can be very frustrating for those reverting and destroys page histories for no reason. I tend to be online at all sorts of strange hours and constantly check my watchlist, which would of course have AIV on it permanently if I were an admin. The CSD backlog is not nearly as much of a problem as it used to be, but this is another area I could help out in at first. Things generally seem to be under control now at CSD but every few days or so a backlog will accumulate. As Wikipedia overall continues to grow admin backlogs will as well, and I would be happy to do my part to assist other admins in keeping them down, something I feel myself capable of doing well at this point.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Besides vandalism reversion, I make a lot of style and formatting corrections to articles as well as to oft-overlooked disambiguation pages. I said last time that my best work was fixing small things that tend to go unnoticed, which will probably always be the case for me. I am somewhat of an atypical editor in that I don't keep lists of articles I have made major contributions to and only keep a page watchlisted to edit over long periods of time in rare cases. I do make content additions when I have the time but in general am most proud of the minor stuff, which is what got me hooked on wiki in the first place.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: I've been around long enough now to realize that most conflicts that cause people stress on Wikipedia are quite pointless and could have easily been avoided. In the past I've experienced conflicts like everyone else, but know enough about how things work now to generally avoid them (excluding vandal attacks, which never seem to end, but I'm pretty much immune to them at this point). Civility continues to dominate in the wiki-community and as long as this remains the case conflicts and stress will be minimized. I've also found that abiding by many of the suggestions made on this page can work wonders ; ).

Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
 * 4. Will you add yourself to WP:AOR? Why or why not?
 * A. I think it is reasonable that admins should be held accountable for their actions and should have the support of the community whom they serve. I'm not likely to actually add myself to any user category but would most certainly be responsive to concerns over any actions I perform. I doubt that a situation would arise in which a "recall" would be necessary but would of course seek to assuage the concerns of others if any should arise.


 * 5. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
 * A. Well, my first action would be to contact the admin in question to discuss the issue. After this, if there was still disagreement, I would bring it up at the BLP Noticeboard to allow for wider discussion. Before reversing the action of any admin I would always seek to discuss the issue first, and I have found almost without exception that more discussion leads to outcomes that benefit the project overall.


 * 6. If you could change one policy without any fear of opposition or reversion, what would it be? What changes would you make?
 * A. Tough one! Wikipedia policies are deeply rooted in the consensus of many users and not in unilateral changes. I think it is important that with both policies and articles changes should not be made "without fear of reversion" but always with the expectation that someone will disagree with the change. If I did have to choose one policy to change I suppose it would be to switch the 3RR rule to a 2RR rule. Far too often I see edit wars in which editors make three reverts without fear and then are very careful to wait until 24 hours has past to make a fourth. There is simply no reason to make the same revert three times in one day. In general I would say things would be much better off if everyone just stuck to 1RR. Edit warring is unavoidable on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit but should be limited as much as possible to prevent disruption.

Optional questions from Tiptoety  talk
 * 7. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
 * A: Blocking is the technical ability that admins have to prevent users from editing, whereas a ban is when the community formally revokes an individual’s right to edit. Blocks are performed by individual admins and are one way to enforce bans, which are decided upon by the community at large.


 * 8. When should "cool down" blocks be used?
 * A: Blocks should be performed to protect the encyclopedia only and never under any circumstances in an attempt calm down someone who is frustrated or angry.


 * 9. How will you decide how to close a AfD when there is not a clear consensus to either delete or keep?
 * A: I am not sure I understand this question completely, but with no clear consensus to delete the default would be "keep".


 * 10. One issue raised in your last RfA was lack of project space contributions, what have you done to improve that?
 * A. Like I said in my opening statement, after my last RfA I attempted to participate in Articles for Deletion as much as possible, which I had not done before (a few articles I nominated are here, here, and here, I can look back for more if you’d like). My edit count is indeed highly skewed towards mainspace editing and this is unlikely ever to change, as personally I get much more satisfaction editing articles directly. As you can see I have sort of stopped participating in AfDs lately, I really do feel I am more effective working in the mainspace, which in my opinion is really the most important part of Wikipedia.
 * 10A.Then please explain why you feel a need for administrative tools? Tiptoety  talk 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I belive that I could utilize administrative tools responsibly in areas I am very experienced in (such as blocking vandals and deleting CSDs). I consider myself experienced enough to know when and when not to use the tools and am confident that I would only have a positive effect on Wikipedia if I were given the tools. Thank you for all your questions and apologies if my answers are a little short, I didn't expect so many so fast. I'll try to expand them tomorrow when I have time.

Optional question from Kakofonous (talk)
 * 11. You stated that you mostly work to "improve and protect" articles. What do you mean by "protect"? As in protecting from vandalism, or in some other sense?
 * A: Yes, I meant protecting them from vandalism, sorry if this was unclear.

More optional questions from Tiptoety  talk
 * 12. Why have you chosen not to keep talkpage archives?
 * A: This may seem strange to some, but I have simply never found any reason to keep separate talk archive pages. Perhaps due to my editing style I don't receive all that many messages (besides vandal attacks : )). Whenever I notice myself scrolling down for awhile on my talk page I'll simply delete the oldest messages if they are no longer active. The few times I have needed to check back on an old conversation or message I have had no problem finding it in the history. Unlike something like edit summaries (see question 15 below) I have yet to discover any strong evidence that keeping talk page archives is really needed, since user talk pages are almost never deleted. I would also argue that not keeping archives is a very different thing from blanking or deleting comments right away (or shortly after they are posted) as I have indeed found this to be slightly inconvienent. The majority of Wikipedians still prefer to keep archives, but I have been noticing lately that more and more people have stopped doing so. I of course take no credit for this ; ).


 * 13. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR? And when are you willing to use it?
 * A: I think the best interpretation of Wikipedia's oldest and defining "rule" is as the fifth and final of the five pillars that summarize Wikipedia policies. In other words, while important, it should be taken in context with the other four pillars. Users should not have to read rules before editing and should always be bold when making an edit, even if this edit might actually conflict with a previously established guideline. I don't think anyone is familiar with every single Wikipedia guideline, so we all are "ignoring rules" most of the time, myself included. This does not mean that we can ignore things like NPOV or NOR, but what it does mean is that we should trust our users to do what they think is best for the encyclopedia without worrying about whether or not they are breaking a rule.

Optional questions from Gtstricky   talk 
 * 14. Where do you fall in Communityism vs Encyclopedyism as explained on this page?
 * A Well I suppose as an exopedian the assumption would be that I fall quite clearly on the encyclopedism side. Reading over the points listed on the page, however, I'd say I fall somewhere in between. I do believe we are here to build an encyclopedia and personally have always tried my hardest to avoid the many elements of Wikipedia that often distract users from this goal. I also feel that Wikipedia needs more users to survive and that it is absolutely essential that we remain open and welcoming to newcomers. Of the seven points listed in the relevant section the only one I vehemently disagree with would be the third one under encyclopedism. Personal attacks should absolutely not be tolerated and I would be highly skeptical of someone who could brush them off as "no big deal". Building an encyclopedia is our goal, but without civility this is impossible to achieve.


 * 15 Why are edit summaries important?
 * A As can be seen from my editing history it took me awhile to realize the importance of edit summaries. Originally my thinking was that edit summaries were only really needed when making a large or possibly controversial change. As I became a more active editor I began to discover the falsity of this notion. When I started RC patrolling I realized that when other users typed edit summaries this saved me the time of having to manually check every diff. I also noticed this when articles came up on my watchlist. Often I would check a diff and think "if this person had just taken the five seconds to type 'fix spelling' in the edit summary it would have saved me the five seconds making sure the edit wasn't vandalism"; over time this would have saved many others a ton of time. I am now absolutely of the belief that every edit, no matter how minor, should have a summary.

Yet another question from Tiptoety  talk
 * 16.Why do you (if you do) think it is important to for administrators to have good communication skills?
 * A: Wow, your eighth question, must be a record! First of all, I do indeed think it is important that admins are willing and able to communicate with others efficiently. In fact, since Wikipedia is above all a collaborative venture, this should be true of all users. I have found this is most certainly the case with the vast majority of Wikipedians. Admins in particular need good communication skills to deal with the variety of issues that often come up in response to the blocking of users and the deletion/protection of pages. As mentioned previously, because of my general style of editing, historically I probably have not had as much regular communication with others as the average admin candidate, but I believe I do possess good skills in this area and have always been willing to communicate with others when necessary. I am confident that I could serve the community as an administrator well and would certainly not refrain from communicating with others if it would in any way impede me from doing so.

Question regarding shoeofdeath's self-awareness
 * 17.During the period from September of 2007 to January of 2008, were you having some problems in your relationships with other Wikipedians? A visual look at your edit history seems to indicate that you may have been feeling some hostility.  Any comments? 68.154.254.17 (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Question from hmwith:
 * 18. I know that this has been stressed several times. However, I couldn't find a definitive answer: will you begin keeping talk page archives if you become an admin?
 * A: Apologies for the delay here, I must have scrolled past these two questions at least twice without noticing them. Since I am totally baffled by the preceding question I will answer this one first. The definitive answer to this is, well...I don’t think I have one yet : P. I have most certainly listened to concerns over this issue and am not just going to be stubborn and ignore them. If I do start receiving tons of messages, receiving important messages that other users would want to refer back to long after the issue is settled, or otherwise see reason to do so I will start up an archive page, although I might not save every single message. So I suppose the answer to this question is a definite "possibly" leaning towards "likely".
 * I of course realize that talk page archives are an extremely minor thing and probably should just start keeping them right away since so many people are bothered by this. I guess one thing preventing me from answering this question with a "sure, absolutely" is that in over 2 years of editing I have never once felt the need to look at someone else’s talk page archives. What I wish I had done from the beginning is something like what Jiang does, delete large numbers of comments at once and just keep links to previous versions of the page, thus keeping archives without actually creating separate pages for them. Maybe this is what I’ll start doing. Ok, this response has officially turned to rambling ; ). Probably not exactly the answer you were looking for, but it’s the honest one.

General comments

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


 * Links for shoeofdeath:

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

Support

 * 1) Seems to fit the mold of what an old school admin was supposed to be like. Support Yanksox (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support 12K+ edits, vandalism fighting, solid track record, I say let's hand him the mop. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks good. Would have liked to see more talk page archives. What I saw was not distressing. Also, would like have liked to see more deletion notification.  Dloh  cierekim  01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)  Dloh  cierekim  00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Continued support, "limited editing pattern," not withstanding, per User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA. Specialist admins are fine with me. Dloh  cierekim'''  18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support He would do fine with the mop. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No problems here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Seems like a sensible candidate who would likely make a sensible administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. shoeofdeath is a well-rounded editor. I see no red flags. Kingturtle (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support. Prominent vandal-fighter. Has improved since the last RfA, with more participation in the project space. I'd like to see more article space contributions, but otherwise, a great editor that definitely deserves the mop.-- TBC !?!  14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seems like a good user, and the opposes are unconvincing, to say the least. · AndonicO  Hail!  00:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, seems sensible enough, and no evidence that they'd abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
 * 8) Support - seems perfectly capable of easing backlog at WP:AIV, and there's no reason whatsoever to expect abuse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak Support shoeofdeath can be trusted with the tools but some of the opposes have good points Alexfusco5 15:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Looks good to me.  RC-0722 communicator/kills 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Opposes are some of the worst I've ever seen... automatic support, therefore.  Majorly  (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support per Majorly - and to help nullify Kurt. EJF (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The opposers are concentrating mainly on statistics... --Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) withdrawing after reviewing have become a dreaded "neutral"!
 * 1) Support per Majorly/EJF Black Kite 19:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Looks good; enough experience, no evidence of anything really problematic, been around long enough with good work in the areas they contribute to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I looked over some of his (now deleted) speedy deletion nominations, and they all were appropriate in my opinion. And I am pretty strict about WP:CSD. I have no problem with a candidate not being active in a particular area of adminly duties: In a year and a half as an admin, I can count on one hand the number of AfD's I have closed, and those were mostly because the articles were speedy deleted. Needs, understands, and won't abuse the mop. --Ginkgo100talk 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. In this case, I am compelled to agree with Maximillion Pegasus ("He'll do fine with the mop")—Shoe has some basic experience in counter-vandalism duties, and his contributions show some AIV participation, which is always handy. Whilst I would not go so far as to say that he is the "perfect" RfA candidate, I am confident that he'll be able to help out at least a little with the buttons, and for that reason, I am pleased to support. AGK (contact) 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, I've seen shoeofdeath around and he seems very sensible, also per Majorly. - Zeibura (  talk  ) 23:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Well, outside of glaring reasons not to promote, my only real, cast iron criteria for an admin is to know the policys well, and I think Tiptoety has proven this criteran to be well met. Can someone get this editor a mop please :P? &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Majorly and AGK. Rudget . 10:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support The mop is handed over on the basis of trust, not need. Shoeofdeath appears unlikely to abuse the buttons so this is a default support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Seems like a great users, with good experience, and great with anti-vandalism. Hello32020 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Survived my check. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. I view editing as prima facie evidence of insanity, but that's not going to stop me supporting, is it Kurt. Nick (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - trustworthy editor and excellent vandal fighter with 150+ reports to AIV. Addhoc (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support - I would like your edit summaries to be more then 1, 2, or 3 letters but other then that I see no reason to fall on the other side of the fence.  Gtstricky Talk or C 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Seems fine to me. Acalamari 02:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Solid user, no convincing reason to Oppose. Good shoe luck!  Dfrg_ msc  07:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Kusma (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Though I must stress that you should keep talk page archives, especially as an admin. Please reconsider your stance on this. GlassCobra 21:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak support - No major concerns, and meets all my standards, this user appears to be a fine Wikignome. My only concern is that I don't know much about the user -- no activity at WP:XfA, no user boxen, no archives.  But having read the opposes, I am not convinced to oppose, nor remian neutral. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- I can see no reason to oppose and plenty of reasons to support, especially this being a self-nom. Reeks of Boldness. A good editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdenizen (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Although there are some good arguments in the oppose section, I see no reason why this user will misuse the tools.  Reywas92 Talk  22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support - good candidate, proves self worthy of nomination. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Weak support - OK, good, good, but more interaction on talkpages (especially your own talkpage and article talk) would have made this RfA even better.  Lra drama 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support "Due to fact his edits are so tightly constrained in the first place to protection and improvement only." (What else is there besides the broad categories of protecting and improving this place?) Of course you have my support.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Jmlk  1  7  09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Answers are similar to my own views, and indicate familiarity with policy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) SupportSounds Good Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 06:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support I'm okay with admins specializing in one field as long as they can be trusted with the tools-- Lenticel ( talk ) 22:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Why the hell not?  Ral315 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose - Low individual article count with respect to total edits/mainspace edits, which means it's just a bunch of reversions. 15K with only 500 wikipedia namespace contributions, mostly robotic WP:AIV reports? No other major contributions besides this? Regretfully must oppose. Fails my criteria for 1.)Balance and 2.)Versatility in admin related areas.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think you are focusing a little too much on statistics here. It appears I do in fact only average 1.32 edits per page but I would really argue against the claim that my contributions are merely "reversions". As I said above, I usually don't edit individual articles over the long term but does this does not mean I have not spent a great deal of time improving individual articles. In fact, sometimes I will spend days or weeks rewriting an article offline; this translates into only one single edit to an article even though many hours of work were behind it. Dealing with vandalism, on the other hand, can translate into thousands of edits quite fast even though little to no thinking is involved. Thus I am not too surprised that I only average slightly highler than one edit per page. I realize that statistics are the basis of what goes on at RfA and that this has been the case for a long time. I guess all I'd like to say is that while numbers and statistics can be useful, they don't always tell the whole story. shoeofdeath 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Due to fact his edits are so tightly constrained in the first place to protection and improvement only.Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Past experience with this editor on the uw-vandalism4im‎ and uw-vandalism4 templates has left me with the impression that he prefers to revert back to what he feels "looks better," rather than discuss changes or even look to see if those changes were made via group consensus. As such, I cannot in good conscience support the RfA of this editor. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I tried to explain here I was completely unaware that a discussion had taken place about this issue and immediately apologized for reverting your change to those templates when I saw this was the case. I did in fact look on the talk pages of the templates in question before reverting and saw no discussion; like I said in my comment I should have looked to the project page first. I of course realize the importance of consensus. I did not realize at all that my two reverts left you with such an impression of me and really did not consider this a major issue. Again, please accept my apologies (although I still prefer the hard coding!). shoeofdeath 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The behavior shown here looks like he was merely being bold. After all, he did immediately bow to consensus when he was told he was acting against it. You can oppose for any reason you like, but in my opinion this is unfair. --Ginkgo100talk 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 04:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite my opposition, that's a little unfair methinks.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't mind Kurt. He does this for just about every self-nom at RfA. It's best to just let it be, the 'crats know what to do. -MBK004 05:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This ground of opposition is worthless, and should be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Q10 was the dealbreaker for me. Admins should be versed in ALL areas of WP, not just one or two.  Effective vandal fighting can be done without the use of admin tools.  Also - where was the nom acceptance?  Sorry, but noms who can't follow the nom instructions also break the deal.  ArcAngel (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What nom acceptance? This is a self-nomination.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack - after re-reading the nomination instructions, I withdraw that concern, but my concern over Q10 remains. ArcAngel (talk) 14:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree that my answer to that question was quite poor, I wrote it rather quickly. What I meant was not that I am not familiar with any areas of Wikipedia, but rather that at first I would focus on the areas in which I have the most experience in. I've been here quite awhile and feel that I am familiar with all relative admin areas. I think that every Wikipedian, admins included, tend to specialize in certain areas, but this doesn't mean they are not well versed in others. shoeofdeath 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody really has competence in all the aspects of editing or being an admin, and I think its sensible of somebody to admit as much. You want to know a little about them all, of course, but in practice most eds. and most admins. specialize. I know enough to to monkey around in places when there are more qualified people available. DGG (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Dloh  cierekim'''  21:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - very small percentage of edits to actually improve the content of articles. All the user seems to do is to use the rollback function. Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this is certainly interesting. For the record, prior to this oppose this account was only active for one day last December, during which the user created a large template (Template:Culture of China) and added it to a ton of articles. The template was immediately brought to Templates for Deletion where I voted in favor of its deletion, and perhaps was a little overly critical of its author. I am still highly perplexed by this mysterious user. shoeofdeath 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, "very small percentage of edits to actually improve the content of articles. All the user seems to do is to use the rollback function." Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I don't have a problem that per on specialist admins.  Dloh  cierekim'''  01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask the user, what articles are you very proud of that you have contributed substantially or heavily towards? Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat hesitant to answer this considering the user who is asking it, but others might be interested, so fine. Since you are interested in China, last time I gave this edit as an example when asked a similar question. Related is this one. I have future drafts of these and other articles saved in Word documents which I am still working on. Of my last hundred edits this one probably involved the most work. I could easily start searching back through my contributions for more, but again am quite hesitant here. shoeofdeath 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you are also interested in China yourself, we can conclude that you have never raised a single article to B class, never mind GA/FA status. I find that simply astonishing. There are hundreds of vandal fighters and bots like yourself who do a very fine job without admin tools, but what is there that sets you apart from them? What difference is there between you and someone who has racked up a few thousand edits almost all comprised of rollback. Not much it seems. Building a free encyclopedia isn't just about reverting, reverting, reverting 99.9% of the time, especially if you are to be a sysop. It's all nice and well for an admin to be a "specialist admin" after having wide experience, but for a specialist to become an admin is rather strange (in this case, the specialty is rollback function, which ain’t really a specialty because anyone can master it within a few hours, i.e. warning, tagging, nom delet. etc etc).Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Based on limited editing pattern. Perhaps a renomination should be considered when wider experience has been garnered. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I have no problem with specialist admins, but I do believe that one should get a broad depth of experience demonstrating a firm understanding of wikipedia.Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per insufficient interest in content writing. It has been explained elsewhere many times why it matters. --Irpen 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - For now, until questions are answered. Overall I feel the same way wisdom does above. Great contributions to AIV, but little to no project space contributions outside of that. Would also like to see more communication with other user, just things as simple as leaving speedy deletion notifications, or keeping talk page archives. It appears this was also an issue raised in shoeofdeath's previous RfA, does not show improvement. Tiptoety  talk 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral ...until questions to be answered. Gut feeling. Tiptoety voices, rather types, my feelings on the matter. Spencer  T♦C 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral - I can't really support someone who thinks that cool-down blocks should be used "never under any circumstances in an attempt calm down someone who is frustrated or angry". Your answer gave the impression that you simply read the policy and tried to think up a convincing answer, rather than explaining your understanding of it based on a long familiarity with Wiki-culture.-- <small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">TreasuryTag <small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">talk <small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">contribs  19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand... you are neutral because you don't like the fact that the user follows policy? *scratches head* --Ginkgo100talk 20:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think that the user didn't know the policy until the question came up, just read it, and tried to invent an answer that sounded as if he'd always been familiar with it. —<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">TreasuryTag <small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">talk <small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;color:#2F74FF;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">contribs  08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per tiptoe, answers are very short, thought the user does seem well informed. Sorry! I know everyone hates neutrals but I can't decide! Quote: "Switzerland, not very useful in a war but oooh the fondue!" --Camaeron (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral per the support votes and the oppose votes. NHRHS  2010 NHRHS2010 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. The communication issues brought up bother me as well, admins are not an island, if you will. Besides that, the user does seem to understand policy well and be a solid contributor. Hence, the neutral. SorryGuy Talk  03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Of the 1850+ user talk edits, it appears that more than 1600 or so of them are straight templates, and this does not give me enough to work on, especially recently, on how this editor would handle contentiousness vis-a-vis any administrative actions he may take. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience extend my trust to this user at this time. However, I did not see anything egregious enough for me to specifically oppose this user, so I will abstain from this discussion. Good luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral I normally take adminship as no big deal & I have pretty low standards (see user:hmwith/rfa), but I cannot support at this time. It doesn't bother me much that he doesn't have archives right now. However, even with the concern raised here by many, the user will not guarantee he will keep talk page archives if he becomes an admin. Trust me, if you use your admin tools, you will get several messages a day, unlike now. If he says that he will begin to do so if granted the mop, I will change to support.  нмŵוτн τ  18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Neutral. Nearly there, but not quite. A lot of edits, but mostly robotic. Recommend keeping talk page archives and getting involved in policy discussions. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 6 March 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.