Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mysdaao

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

Mysdaao

Final (13/11/17); 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Mysdaao (talk · contribs) – Mysdaao is the epitome of all those who assume good faith. When I first arrived here, which was three days ago, I began adding {{featured article}} to random pages. My thought at the time was that we were supposed to make articles featured. Mysdaao kindly explained to me that "articles have to be nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and then reviewed before they are given featured article status." I began to get hostile and dismissed him "I don't know why you keep harassing me! Please discontinue your unwelcome trolling." Nonetheless, Mysdaao persisted in turning me into a helpful editor. At the end of every message he sent me, he wrote politely, despite my hostility, "Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks!" Mysdaao has shown an enormous amount of good faith here. After realizing that Mysdaao was here to help me and not harm me, I sought help from him on his talk page. After he replied, I created two new pages, McAllen Memorial High School and McHenry East High School. He has truly inspired me to make this encyclopedia. Plus, he shows passion in his work on Wikipedia and "would like to be [an administrator] someday" as he writes on his user page. In essence, Mysdaao is the paragon of an administrator that will truly improve the editing atmosphere and quality of Wikipedia. Thus, I proudly nominate Mysdaao for adminship. Good luck, my friend! LordPiratez (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to take this nomination back, as it has caused disaster. I propose that someone delete my presence from this page, and we can all forget that I nominated him. He can self-nominate. I am proposing this for the best of Wikipedia. Thanks for your support everyone, but I see that newcomers cannot integrate very easily into this community. Farewell, all. To Mysdaao: I wish you best of luck. LordPiratez (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words, LordPiratez. I accept. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I withdraw. Thank you all for your participation. --Mysdaao ^talk 15:46, 14 March 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If my nomination is successful, I will first go through new admin school before using the administrative tools to help the project. After that, I will work in several areas. I will delete pages that meet the criteria for speedy deletion that have been tagged and placed in the category Candidates for speedy deletion or that I come across myself. I will help out with Administrator intervention against vandalism by reading the reports there (or when cleaning up vandalism I come across on my own), examining the contributions made by the editor reported and the warnings given to the editor, and blocking the editor if he or she is an obvious and persistent vandal and/or spammer as appropriate to the blocking policy. Those will be my primary areas of administrative work at first, but I also intend to help out with usernames reported to Usernames for administrator attention by blocking users with usernames that are clear violations of the username policy and talking to those users that are not clear violators and don't require blocks, and I will also work on requests made at Requested moves that require administrator assistance and help editors who use the {{adminhelp}} tag and are in in the category Wikipedians looking for help from administrators as best I can.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I believe my best contributions come from my work as a recent changes patroller for two reasons. First, I look for and clean up vandalism, request the speedy deletion of pages that meet the criteria, and warn and/or report the editors as appropriate in order to help the project. Second, I look for new editors in order to welcome them (if they have not been welcomed already) and assist them in other ways that I can. This is also why I am a help page patroller. I read the Help desk, the New contributors' help page, and the talk pages of editors who are in the category Wikipedians looking for help so I may help those that I can and learn from others' help when I cannot. I strongly believe this is as important as contributing to articles directly because the community is an integral part of the Wikipedia, and helping the community means helping the project. I also make WikiGnome contributions such as categorizing uncategorized articles and adding geographical coordinates to articles needing coordinates.

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 have been in what I consider a minor conflict over editing. A user was trying to make a controversial change to the lead sentence of Marriage that I did not agree with. I was bold and undid the edit while directing the user to discuss the change on the talk page in my edit summary. I and others attempted to civilly discuss the issue with the editor on the talk page, but unfortunately the user continued to edit war over the change instead of try to reach consensus, which led to a block. However, I don't let disputes cause me stress. I enjoy working on Wikipedia, and as important the task of creating an encyclopedia is, it's not worth feeling stressful. If it ever starts to happen, I will walk away from the conflict and let someone else handle it.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

4. You have indicated an interest in speedy deletion. One of the more commonly misunderstood criteria is "patent nonsense." Could you explain this criteria in your own words, including what would be needed to avoid deletion for this reason?

A: Patent nonsense is text that does not have and never had an intended meaning to it. It is usually random characters put together in words or random words put together in sentences, or both. If a page is completely patent nonsense throughout its history, then it can be deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion G1. If the page had meaning in a past revision, it should be reverted to that revision instead of deleted. If there is any possibility of a meaning to the words, including hoaxes, bad grammar, or the text is in a language other than English, than it does does not meet G1, although it may meet other criteria.

Additional optional questions from Mkativerata

5. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion tags: [1] and [2]?

A: Both of those example articles make a credible claim of significance or importance, so I would not delete them under A7. The fact that they are unsourced does not change this. I would remove the speedy deletion tags, inform the user(s) who requested the speedy deletion about it and why and suggest the user(s) consider Proposed deletion or Articles for deletion if they feel the articles should be deleted. If I was able to, I'd then find sources for the articles as well as new information and add them in order to improve the articles. If not, I'd tag them with {{Unreferenced}} for others to find references.

6. As an administrator, would you close discussions at articles for deletion?

A: Because my current experience with Articles for deletion is more limited than other areas, at first I would only close discussions when the consensus is unanimous or near unanimous. Before I begin to close other types discussions, I will participate in more discussions in as wide a variety of possible. Then, after I have more experience identifying rough consensus, I will close discussions myself.

Additional optional questions from Fetchcomms

7. A new editor creates an article about living person X. A new page patroller promptly tags it for speedy deletion under A7, but when you see it, it makes a credible assertion of notability, though it is completely unsourced. Taking into account that this is an unsourced BLP, but is notable, would you delete it and under what reasoning?

A: As with most things, it depends. WP:BLPDEL says, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." and "Page deletion is normally a last resort." If there is unsourced contentious material with no chance of being sourced and improved, then the page should be deleted, and criteria would be G10. If there is a possibility of improving the article, or there is no contentious material, or there is contentious material that is or can be removed while still leaving enough content to be a stub and assert notability, then it may be kept for the time being.

8. When, if ever, is it appropriate to use administrative tools in any dispute which you have been involved, regardless of your level of participation?

A: If by "involved" you mean in an editorial way, then it is never appropriate to use administrative tools in a dispute in which the administrator has been involved this way, at any level of participation. The administrator policy makes this clear. If "involved" means in an administrative role only, then the administrator is allowed to use the tools in a dispute they've been involved in before, but should exercise great caution when doing so. The perception of bias or a conflict of interest can be just as damaging. If there is any doubt in a matter, I would not use the administrative tools in a dispute I've been involved with. There are plenty of other qualified administrators who can handle the matter.

Additional questions from Coffee

9. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. As I answered in Q6, I wouldn't actually close an AFD discussion with no clear consensus until I participated in a wide variety of discussions and had more experience identifying rough consensus. But if I had to, I would do my best to determine rough consensus by looking at the strength of the arguments. Arguments based on policy are of course stronger and given more weight than others, including those based on guidelines. This is especially important for a BLP to be verifiable and neutral, and that trumps almost anything else. And arguments made by clear sock puppets and clear single-purpose accounts can be disregarded. After considering all that, if I still don't see a rough consensus, that the usual default of a no consensus is to keep, but the subject's request may also affect the outcome. If the subject of a BLP article requests its deletion and there is no rough consensus, then the default can be delete instead, and I would likely close with a delete instead in this situation.

10. What in your opinion is the worst BLP issue at the moment, and what would you do to resolve it using your admin tools?

A. In my opinion, the worst BLP issue at the moment is conflict of interest problems because it leads to other BLP issues most of the time, mainly verifiability and neutral point of view. As Wikipedia gets more and more popular and more and more coverage in the media, this has increased and people see Wikipedia as a public relations outlet. From my help page patrolling, very common questions I see are people asking if they can create an article on themselves and asking why their autobiographical article was deleted. I would help to resolve it by first deleting the clearly inappropriate BLP articles with a COI that fall under CSD, as many of them do. As an editor I would inform the user(s) of their inappropriate behavior and try to help them correct it, and if they still continued repeatedly, it would require salting the article title and probably blocking the account if it was clear it was only created to promote the person.

11. What measures do you think Wikipedia should take to protect personally identifiable information about editors that are under the age of majority, and how will you deal with such cases as an admin?

A. All users are discouraged from revealing personally identifiable information, and this of course should never change. Posting of personal information about anyone against their consent, regardless of age, is grounds for blocking. This is even more serious when it comes to minors, and malicious posting of personal information about a minor would lead to a block by me, sometimes even if the minor consented. If an editor under the age of a majority posted his or her own personal information, then out of safety concerns the information should be removed from the page history and oversighted, and the issue explained to the editor.

12. What work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. Very little. I'm aware of my lack of experience in this area and would leave BLP issues requiring administrative intervention to other administrators until I gained a lot more experience with BLPs.

Additional optional questions from Maurreen

13. If you had nominated yourself, what would you have written?

A. I would have explained how I can improve Wikipedia and contribute to the project more if given access to administrative tools. I would have written that I can help in the backlog of AIV from my work as a recent changes patroller cleaning up vandalism and making reports, almost all of which led to blocks by administrators. I would have written that I can help in the backlog of pages to be deleted from my work tagging pages for speedy deletion, almost all of which led to administrators deleting the page. I would have gone over my experience in a variety of areas of Wikipedia and my willingness to assist editors in any way possible to help the community improve the encyclopedia. I would have ended by saying that I believe I am ready to be an administrator and thanking everyone in advance who participates, whether to support or oppose.

General comments

• Links for Mysdaao: Mysdaao (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Mysdaao can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• On the candidate's user page there are three uploaded screenshots that contain the WP logo. Attribution as copyrighted looks okay - I just though this failed WP:NFCC as they are on a user page - or is that just me? Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• This issue actually came up recently when a user tagged those images and others with the Wikipedia logo with {{di-orphaned fair use}}. The changes were all reverted, and I asked about it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. The answer was that the Wikimedia foundation allows this usage. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/January#Wikipedia logo. --Mysdaao ^talk 21:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's a handy link. Seems this was a grey area now better clarified- here. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• In your response to question #4, I think you missed an important word. You said "If there is any possibility of a meaning to the words, including hoaxes, bad grammar, or the text is in a language other than English, than it does meet G1, although it may meet other criteria" but based off context, I think you meant to say it does not meet G1. Is that correct? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct. I meant to say it does not meet G1. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I have corrected my answer. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please assume Assume good Faith with Mysdaao ,he has been in the project since 2004 with no blocks and no conflicts as far as I can see and this is his first RFA clearly showing he/she was not after tools when somebody offered to nominate him/her agreed and I assume he/she was the first to offer to nominate him/her do not see any earlier nomination offer..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support per my nomination above. LordPiratez (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Strong support – Mysdaao is a very nice and helpful editor who always does right and deserves to be an admin. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 13:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Support I like to see administrators who have a high percentage of edits in the article namespace and Mysdaao certainly has that, but also has reasonable experience in other areas. I think the answers to the questions suggest a good admin in the making. -- BigDom 20:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Plenty of experience, would make a fine admin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
5. Support Has been around since Nov 2004 and this is his/her first nom with over 20000 Edits and really see no concerns as per track .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
6. weak support logs, uploads, and new articles all look OK. Though there seems to be very little writing of articles in there! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   Support You seem to have what it takes to do the job. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Moved to neutral after looking over some of the information here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

7. Support He seems pretty nice, he welcomes users, and he acts calm most of the time by the look of it. However, the articles he created (exculding one of them) look a bit small and three of them have stub tags (I think it's three, might be two). So apart from those small articles, support from me. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards due to no memorable negative interactions (WP:AGF), candidate has rollback, has created some articles that still exist, is a fellow member of the welcoming committee (thus is friendly), has received over a half dozen barnstars, and has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Mutatis mutandis the nomination comes via rather unconventional means but i would have been willing to support if this were a self-nomination as the candidate appears to have a good comprehension of where to help and where additional experience is needed before taking any administrator actions. Don't we all wish disputes would resolve as friendly as this. delirious agus cailleadh ☯ 17:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Support while the nom may be a bit weird I am WP:AGF this one why would a user with 20K+ edits set this up? Also Candiadate has stated that he lacks experience with BLP so I will not hold his answers against him in that regard. Good editor who will make a good admin. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Weak Support per RP459. —what a crazy random happenstance 00:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
12. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Supporters have won me over. Dlohcierekim 05:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Uncomfortable about lack of experience in deletions (particularly AfDs). Answer to Question 5, example 1 ([3], is concerning. Unsourced negative BLP material of this magnitude should not be let to sit in an article with a mere tag. Also, there are no real substantial content creations available to allay concerns about referencing, BLPs, etc. Not a strong oppose, but this is where I'm parking for now. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Weak Oppose - Per Pedro, until more information is revealed... as it's highly doubtful a spanking new user just "suddenly" sparks the knowledge of every part of this site. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Per Mkativerata, and I'd have deleted example 1 per G10 if it was a real article. -- Atama頭 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Note: my opinion is given with no position on the issues Pedro raised. My worry is about the Q5 answers. The second is not within the athlete criteria and doesn't have any additional indications, and the first is problematic in a number of ways, one of which being that it doesn't claim notability other than through criminal notability, which isn't established either. That isn't the type of nomination with which to chastise a newpage patroller. I don't want new admins that will remove speedies without following up adequately, if necessary. A procedural AfD or PROD would be appropriate if the admin is uncomfortable with CSDing. The response is probably a result of limited page patrolling (less than 300 out of almost 20k edits), which is part of the problem when listing CSD as the first admin area of interest. Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Just a note, you don't have to prove, or even truly claim notability for an A7 deletion to be improper. The article just needs to make a credible claim of importance. I'd certainly remove the CSD from the second example, and per our current criteria I don't see any speedy deletion category that would apply. I'm sure that I'd PROD the article, however. Even the first example doesn't meet A7, as it states that the organization is a "well-known gang". -- Atama頭 07:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   I agree it's borderline; this is meant to be a test, but the point is it fails the ATHLETE criteria. We can debate whether or not that merits speedy another day, but it certainly doesn't merit chastising a new page patroller and leaving the page alone, without any further action. Even if it's debatable, it's not a clear case of a mistake, which is my point. Shadowjams (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose, agree with Mkativerata (talk · contribs) regarding concerns about leaving up material about negative unsourced BLPs. -- Cirt (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   per Mkativerata and pedro Teo Effi does not in fact assert significance, though it hints at it. I'd have Googled, which I did and came up empty. It may or may not be construed as an attack, but it is a negative unsourced BLP-- "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Also, this is the worst BLP issue in my opinion-- negative, unsourced material about a living person. Some articles are clearly assertive of significance and yet clearly not notable. If this is the case, I sometimes send to AFD straitway, to save the tagger the bother. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Dloh, you do realise Teo Effi is an example from User:Mkativerata/CSD examples/Teo Effi? Googling won't help :) —Dark 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Do you realize that Mkativerata could have created, as I have done, plausible CSD test subjects that would have yielded G-hits? Which is not germane-- candidate did not relate that as a step. But I think a lot of CSD'ers don't. Be not dismayed. I think that tests don't always measure ability. Candidate has plenty of successful CSD taggings. That has been under emphasized. The support arguments have convinced me that I'm being a .... oops, it's late. I think the candidate will do fine, but I hope they do Google for significance and be a little quicker (never thought I'd write this) to delete negative, unsourced BLP's. Thsnks Dlohcierekim 05:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose, fails my criteria. Not nearly active enough nor with enough experience to be a useful administrator, almost no edits in the talk space nor the Wikipedia space, and I share Pedro and Maureen's concerns below. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
7. 'Oppose per Collectonian and Pedro. Try again in a few months. Say June or July.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose, The single most important asset an admin needs is good judgement, and going with that nomination statement shows extraordinarily poor judgement. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose Sorry, but the answer to question 5 (for the first article) shows lack of understanding of our BLP policy. ThemFromSpace 05:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose I would not oppose based on accepting a good faith nom from a new user. But accepting a nom from a new user who appears to be stalking you by for example copying all of your barnstars to their userpage. Your answer to both parts of question 5 also missed the mark. Polargeo (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Per above and per nom. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Call it bad faith, but your nominators rapid ability to learn WP makes me very faintly nervous. I guess I could just shut up but I really think that accepting a nom from an editor with less than 50 edits and under a weeks tenure is rather odd for a Wikipedian with years of experience and some 20k edits. I'll review further. Pedro :  Chat  20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I believe that you are the first to bring this concern to the table. However, you seem to neglect that some people can learn fast. I, in particular, am a quick learner. One of the reasons I have developed such a thorough understanding of wiki markup is that I am a computer programmer. I work hours with code. So, as a result, I tend to understand all the intricacies of code and easily learn different kinds of code. I hope this clears up any suspicion. LordPiratez (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   There is more to familiarity with WP than mark-up, there are obscure, confusing and sometimes contradictory rules and precedents that most experienced users are familiar with and most new ones are not. Not to mention the unique style we use for writing articles, which often takes new editors a good while to come to grips with (whilst usually growing to hate the 'wikify' tag). I believe it is to a perceived abnormal familiarity with these that Pedro is referring, not simply knowledge of the coding (which is quite basic, I agree). There is usually copious evidence of the Wiki learning process in an editor's edit history, and for you to have so quickly leapt from first edit to nominating someone for the mop - one of our more complex institutions - is odd by anyone's measure. —what a crazy random happenstance 03:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   All this said, however, I cannot believe that Mysdaao somehow "set this up". At the worst, he/she accepted a nomination from someone they probably shouldn't have. Most of the current opposes are valid; I encourage all the neutrals to judge the candidate on their contributions. Call it naivety on their part, which occasionally is refreshing - a real AGF, not the bullshit ones we all throw around like darts. Tan | 39 05:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral – I, unfortunately, currently agree with Pedro; The nomination seems a bit suspicious. ^Pepper∙_piggle 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
3. Indeed, per Pedro. I'll try to take a further look at your contribs though. NW (Talk) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral -- I rarely participate here, so I wasn't sure whether to put these thoughts here or in the question section. But I would like a response from Mysdaao. I am assuming good faith concerning your nomination by LordPiratez, who says he(?) has been here only three days. But to me, your acceptance of the nomination raises concern about your judgment and foresight. I am surprised that an admin candidate would not expect at least concern from !voters, based on the nominator's inexperience. And I am surprised that an admin candidate would believe that a person with only three days of experience would be in a good position to judge whether a candidate is suitable for adminship. Can you allay my concern? Maurreen (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

   I notice that you all are focusing on my nomination. Isn’t this discussion more about the candidate than me? LordPiratez (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   I am focusing on the candidate's acceptance of your nomination. Maurreen (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   And I would like to hear the candidate's opinion too. Accepting a nomination is usually an invitation to get ready for a spanking, and I wonder why an apparently seasoned editor would so easily accept a nomination by a brand new user. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   I too was surprised by the nomination by such a new user, and I admit it gave me pause, and I seriously considered declining. But I've been thinking about going for RfA for awhile through a self-nomination. It would certainly have been weird and suspicious had I declined this nomination and then nominated myself within a few months. It came down whether I thought I was ready, regardless of the unusual source of the RfA. I would not have accepted the nomination if I did not think I was ready, and I sincerely believe I am ready and responsible enough to be entrusted with the administrative tools. The fact that LordPiratez believed I should be an administrator was nice, but in my opinion it isn't and shouldn't be relevant. I respect all opposition to my adminship, but I respectfully request that it be based on my contributions, activities, and statements. Thank you. --Mysdaao ^talk 04:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   I was (am?) trying to keep an open mind. I appreciate the quality and quantity of your work with recent changes patrol and welcoming new users. You seem like you have potential but would benefit from more admin-specific preparation. I don't think you would break the encyclopedia, but you might stumble more than I'm comfortable with.

   Admins should be capable of more perception than you've shown here. Your answer to Question 10, that the current worst issues with BLPs is conflict of interest, suggests lack of awareness of the recent prominence of other issues.

   This is not to say that your answer was wrong. But I would rather have seen that you had considered those issues and gave solid reasoning of why you rejected them.

   In this thread, I specifically mentioned foresight and judgment and asked whether you could allay my concerns. Your answer was about your nomination in general. Your response did not specifically address your level of foresight and judgment.

   Your response ended with a very polite dismissal of the concerns related to your nomination by such an inexperienced editor. At least at that time, the people basing their !votes largely on either the nomination or acceptance were in the majority. Even if we were just a significant minority, the amount of people concerned should have given you reason to give this issue more thought. When a number of people agree, you should consider that they might have a good point.

   This is not to say that you must agree with us. But you should have done more to resolve or at least address the concerns.

   Nominations aren't just a procedural check-off. They should at least indicate that someone who has good knowledge of both WP and the candidate are vouching for the candidate. The total quality level of the nomination can implicitly suggest to !voters the level and type of checking they should do.

   In my view, it would have been in your favor to decline this nomination, even if it were followed by a self-nom the same day.

   An additional small matter -- I expect that most people on this page are familiar with the ins and outs of WP. In the answers to your questions, it would have been more efficient and effective to forego the general linking to Wikipedia namespace pages. Instead, your links could have shown how you've demonstrated suitability. I say that not as a point against you, but as advice in case this doesn't work out and you try again. Maurreen (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral --Sorry, but this is exceedingly weird. On the merits, the answer to #5 shows a lack of clue, but I don't want to oppose over one such example, as I know I've missed the point on many occasions. On the nomination, seems hard to believe that a clueful editor would accept a nomination from a brand-new editor. A mitigating factor is that candidate has never participated in a !vote here, so may not realize how unRfA like the decision appears, but that just begs another question—how does an editor with a professed desire to become an admin decide not to ever participate in the process? I don't view it as a requirement to participate; I've supported editors who have not, but it seems odd.--SPhilbrickT 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   You're right that things seem weird. I've already opposed just based on edit history and the answers so far, but looking into the nominator a bit more, this nomination came on the heels of this exchange. -- Atama頭 01:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for that link, Atama. That IS weird, on both sides. I couldn't imagine accepting a nomination from that user after such an exchange. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

6. Neutral Per Pedro. Nominator even seem to have an idea about trolling even though he was new here and therefore had not an idea what featured article templates were for. BejinhanTalk 02:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
7. Me too - I think Pedro's on to something here, alas. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but...can't support at this point. Not obvious what's going on, but still...  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral - I would also have to agree with Pedro. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 04:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral as per Pedro - sorry, Mysdaao, but although I read your comment above, I personally would have waited a couple of months and then self-nominated (or hope that someone else nominated me). I'm here on the neutral sofa at the moment rather than over there on the oppose one, as I want to look into the candidate a bit more before making a final decision. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

   It's also strange that you would accept a nomination from an editor who was telling you to leave them alone only 4 days ago, and threatening to report you to admins for daring to remove content on their user page which was copied from your user page and which did not belong on their user page (such as your barn stars, etc). I think this is bad judgement on your part, and I am going to look more deeply into your history to make sure that bad judgement is the exception rather than the rule. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

10. Neutral Too many concerns to justify Supporting at this time. Warrah (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral - I'm struggling to understand how you got from here to accepting this nom. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral – per Pedro. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 20:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
13. Neutral At the very least, I think accepting the nom was a lapse in judgment, as Pedro has shown. Also per Mkativerata in the "Oppose" section.  fetchcomms☛ 00:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
14. Neutral I don't think that I have ever opposed someone with the percentage of support but the whole nomination thing is really fishy. I have the sneaking suspicion that there is a sockpuppet issue going on here as this whole thing just feels rather weird. I'm likely wrong though and will be willing to support you next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
15. Neutral - some concerns over the nomination like many others. I am assuming good faith and thus will not oppose, but in good conscience I can't support. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
16. Neutral Some issues raised by the opposition relating to the nom, have me not opposing, but more urging that you wait just a few months and give it another go. I appluad your help of new comers, but I strongly caution accepting a nomination from individuals with less than 50 edits. I respect your editing skills though and think there is potential to be a good admin. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
17. Neutral, but with moral support. I'm torn on this one. The whole "flame war to nomination in 3 days" thing is bizarre, but I've seen far more bizarre things than that in my time, so I'm minded to let that go. On the plus side, we have a candidate with a good number of edits who seems to be positive and constructive, and who I would probably trust not to misuse a mop (certainly not deliberately). But against that, the answers to the questions leave something to be desired - some seem wrong to me, and others don't really have the depth I'd hope for. Really can't choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 11:40, 14 March 2010

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.