Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AutomaticStrikeout

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

AutomaticStrikeout

Final (18/26/20); ended 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC) - I have decided that at this time, it will be best to withdraw. Thanks to everyone for participating. AutomaticStrikeout 21:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

AutomaticStrikeout (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, tonight I put forth AutomaticStrikeout for adminship. Since April, he has amassed 11,500+ edits with an impressive 75% to articles. He's started a taskforce (WP:UMPIRE), a sub-project (on NFL referees), and has revived WP:TAFI, which he continues to lead. On the article creation side, he has created a plethora of articles including 2013 in baseball, 2010 Yale Bulldogs football team, Al Lavan, and articles several umpires including Cory Blaser and Kevin Causey. On the administrative side, whenever I come across him in AFD discussions or other discussions of any kind, his opinions are thought-out, cite policy, and are civil. Though, I don't always agree, I never have any doubt that he's acting in good faith. If you look through his edit history, you'll see the great number of minor edit contributions updating stats on baseball players. These tireless tedious contributions show a work ethic that we need in our administrators. Wikipedia needs active and dedicated administrators, and that is why, today I present to you for your consideration a fine contributor, AutomaticStrikeout. Go Phightins! 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you for the kind words, Phightins! AutomaticStrikeout 02:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily, I intend to work in dealing with persistent vandals and help with page deletions. I expect that I will also do some page protecting as well.

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

A: Well, I would consider my work in updating infobox stats and fighting vandalism (particularly on umpire pages) as my best work. Those two areas of work involve helping to keep the Wiki up-to-date and also helping to get rid of vandalism, the thing that may be responsible for most Wikipedia criticism.

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: Yes, I have had some unpleasant interactions with users in the past and to be honest, I have not always handled those situations perfectly well. However, I trust that I have matured since then and I will do my best to show the maturity and civility rightly expected of an admin (and really of anyone).

Additional question from Hahc21

4. You have stated you will work with page deletion, so, I want you to give me your personal opinion about how and when to use CSD instead of AFD, and how do you consider is the best way not to discourage (or to encourage) new users when their pages get deleted due to lack of notability?

A: My personal opinion is that CSD should only be used to delete a page if there is no reasonable controversy regarding its lack of notability. If there is some uncertainty, I personally prefer to go to an AfD, which gives some other editors a chance to weigh in. Regarding discouraging newcomers, to be frank, I don't think we can expect to avoid seeing some newbies lose all interest they might have had one their page is deleted. I think the best way to try to prevent someone from walking away is to politely explain to them why their article was deleted and make sure that they understand that their effort is still appreciated and that any future notable article(s) written by them is/are not likely to be deleted.

Additional question from Connormah

5. When, if ever, would you block an IP or user that has not received 4 warnings?

A: If the IP/user was committing serious BLP violations, that would be one instance. I might also take such action if the IP/user had made it clear that they were only here to be disruptive or if they had disregarded any warnings given so blatantly that any further warning would be pointless.

Additional question from OlEnglish

6. Regarding question #3. Can you go into more detail on one particular "unpleasant interaction" you've had with a user and how you did not handle it as well as you'd have liked to? And also, what would you have done differently? Thanks.

A: Well, what I had in mind when I responded to question 3 was this discussion with Carthage44 regarding a notability dispute. It'd be easy to put the blame on Carthage, he wasn't very nice and this wasn't our only clash, but I am responsible for what I type and I was wrong. It was not ok to bring up his past record and getting down to his level was also unacceptable. I probably should have withdrawn from that conversation earlier than I did.

Additional questions from I Jethrobot

7. Consider that you come across a new article in recent changes with a title in Japanese characters and the body of the text is substantial and written completely in Japanese. It is not clear what the subject is. The article also has with a CSD-G1 tag on it from another user. There does not appear to be a similar page on ja.wikipedia. The creating editor does not seem communicative, and the editor who tagged it writes on the article's talk page "I used google translate and it didn't make any sense." Is this article appropriate for speedy deletion under this criteria? If not, is it appropriate under some other criteria? If it is not appropriate for speedy deletion, what should be done about the article?

A: The G1 criterion excludes articles that have coherent non-English material. If the material was not coherent, even in another language, I believe that G1 would be an applicable criterion for speedy deletion. However, Google Translate is not always reliable, and I would certainly need to see the translated text myself instead of taking someone's word for it. A2 would not be appropriate as the article in this scenario apparently does not exist on another wiki. Probably the best approach would be to either PRDO the article, or send it to AfD.

8. You have correctly blocked a user for both general edit warring and violating 3RR on a given article, because they continued to revert despite several warnings. The user provides an unblock request saying, "I'm sorry if I offended other editors, edit-warred, and changed the article too many times. I want to keep contributing." How would you handle this unblock request?

A: I would not respond to the request as I was the originator of the block and would prefer to let another admin weigh in. If I was to come across that same scenario and I was not the blocking admin, I think it would at least partly depend on who the blocked user was. If it was someone with a block log for edit-warring that was longer than my arm, I probably would not be inclined to unblock. On the other hand, if it was a trusted user or a newbie, I think the best approach would be to give them the benefit of the doubt and either shorten the block or reverse it entirely. However, it would be wise to first consult the block admin.

Additional question from Ryan Vesey

9. I'd like to see a bit more on your knowledge of CSD. Can you look at User:StephenBuxton/CSD Exercises and answer them in a userfied page and link us to the answers?

A: Here's the link. I have finished answering.

Optional questions from jc37: In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

10. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

A: Well, I'd say that it's best to err on the side of caution, and if there is any doubt, lean towards saying that I am involved. I do not think that this should apply to protecting a page due to persistent vandalism, but if I was involved in a content dispute on an article (the disputed content not being vandalism), it would be best for me to not protect (or unprotect) the page. To be a little more specific, I have made multiple edits to many of the umpire pages. Recently, there was an instance where persistent vandalism led to the protection of Sam Holbrook. Now, I have edited that article several times, but I would have no objection to protecting it myself had I been an admin. However, I am currently involved in a discussion (I wouldn't call it a dispute) regarding the inclusion of some content on that same article. If some users began to edit war over the content (which I don't expect to happen), due to the fact that I have taken a position regarding its inclusion, it would probably be best to let an uninvolved admin deal with the situation.

11. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

A:

12. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

A:

13. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

A: Well, I would have to take a look at the situation first to determine exactly what is going on. If two users were indeed edit-warring, and it wasn't a case of one editors inserting clear vandalism and the other reverting it, my action would depend on the severity of the edit-warring. If it was only a couple reverts each, I'd probably just give both users a warning and open a discussion on the article talk page (if one wasn't already open). If it was more extensive than that, I would block both for edit-warring (the duration would depend on several factors, including the amount of reverting done, any inappropriate edit summaries, any previous history of edit-warring, etc.) and attempt to get a discussion going on the talk page so that other editors with a good knowledge of the article topic could reach on consensus on what content should or should not be included.

14. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

A: So that I will be able help with some of the admin tasks I mentioned above, deleting pages (primarily CSD-tagged pages), blocking vandals and protecting pages. I don't really intend to drastically change how I edit, or the areas I participate in, I simply wish to have the added tools for those times when I come across a situation where they could be appropriately used. That doesn't mean that I won't help with admin-related backlogs and keep an eye on some of the noticeboards, but I don't intend to make major changes to the areas in which I edit.

General comments

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

Conversation not related to the candidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a general note, I'd like to ask all users involved in this RFA—nominators, voters and commenters—to keep civility and patience. Let's not repeat what happened on the previous Request for adminship. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who, in your opinion, has so far not "kept civility and patience"? Must be someone, else you wouldn't have posted this rather prissy comment. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it as "a general note". I am not saying anyone has not kept it yet, but reminding everyone that we must. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I appreciate the proactive statement before things escalate to the general foolishness and assholery that is so commonly manifested in RFA. Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what has led you and Hahc21 to believe that they might? Kudpung's comment about anecdotal comments? If so, I suggest that you both consider buttoning it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a friendly reminder. These discussions have had a tendency to become overly negative and incivil (see Sigma's if you disagree) and the more votes and comments come in, the less scrutinized each one is, and in turn the more crass they tend to be. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with a general note to learn from past experiences so the process can be constructive, not destructive. Go Phightins! 02:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion. Not mine. Let's not be naive. Look at when this was posted. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out what's going on here. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my opinion...I think it's better for this note to give someone a friendly reminder before they do something they may regret than for them to do it. If they read the note and think twice, nobody ever knows, whereas if they post it, there are numerous implications, mostly negative, that are likely to occur. Thus, as Ben Franklin said, an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. Go Phightins! 02:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly, out of curiousity, do you think is going on here? Go Phightins! 02:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really curious or merely ignorant? Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I appreciate your characterization of the obvious connection that I'm missing as ignorant, but I really don't see anything here that strikes me as particularly odd as to why an editor would post a general note reminding others to remain civil in an RFA, of all places. Go Phightins! 02:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as said above, I just made a friendly reminder. I haven't read the whole page and only know that people is opposing due to inexperience and the "admin of the day" thing. I haven't read all the comments there so what I wrote above, I repeat, was pointed to no one. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in what sense was anyone opposing because of inexperience or the admin of the day thing a threat to "civility and patience"? Or is it simply your view that all opposition is bad? Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave explanation enough of my comment. I won't continue this pointless discussion. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You gave an explanation that I find unsatisfactory. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Malleus Fatuorum - I find your paranoia unsatisfactory. Giant Snowman 08:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

It seems to me that posting this sort of warning in advance on a candidate's page tends to create a negative impression, implying that something about the candidate is likely to be so divisive that ill-advised comments might be made about it. I do not think this impression was at all intended, but such was my immediate reaction to seeing it, so I suppose others might see it similarly. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

Support

Support As nom--Go Phightins! 03:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I hope my support vote doesn't torpedo your RFA but I'm glad to be the first one. Kumioko (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seemingly no issues here. Regards, — Moe ε 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite some of the concerns about the user's amount of time on Wikipedia, I'm still of the old guard in having a general 6-month policy with which I'm willing to be slightly flexible if a user has a wide-range of edits and contributions. I think this is a case that warrants such exception. Michael (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User has clue, and has a wide variety of contributions. Lectonar (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, ideally a longer tenure would be preferred, but there's no reason to suppose he is not as familiar with the guidelines as the rest of us. It would take a superhuman to remember them all. Deb (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient experience (more than 6 months total, more than 3 months dedicated to administrative things), very nice CSD log. Not very thrilled by the candidate's proposals, but I haven't seen an example of poorly thought out actions that would lead me to oppose. —Kusma (t·c) 14:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I spent about 30 minutes going through his history, given how new he (or she) is. I am enthusiastically supporting him based on what I saw and my own observations of RfAs over the last 6 years. Two things I liked in particular -- always civil and always careful to ask questions before trying something new or when trying to figure out some murky policy question. He has good instincts. As an admin for almost 5 years, there's still much I don't know so I'm always careful to check out policies and guidelines before I venture out of my experience. That and civility will take an admin far. I prefer him over some much more experienced candidates I've seen that still just didn't "get it". Editors serve our readers and admins serve our editors; AutomaticStrikeout appears to understand this dynamic and will do a good job taking care of our editors and our content. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support While the short duration is always a concern (heaven forbid we get another PastorTheo or John254!), on the balance this looks like a worthwhile shot. We complain that there are not enough admins, that the RfA process is broken, that adminship should not be a big deal, then shouldn't we be defaulting to support rather than oppose? --regentspark (comment) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be defaulting to anything, rather than judging the candidate on his or her merits? Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Malleus here. Without commenting on the merits of this candidate, I think compromising the importance of evaluating the merits of a candidate because of a perceived need for more admins is a somewhat dangerous line of reasoning for supporting any candidate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But so too are the inclinations that X number of edits or X amount of time makes a better admin which have been mentioned numorous times on the oppose section below. Kumioko (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While some of the opposes and neutrals mention a set criteria, those criteria exist because time is linked to experience. I know AutmoaticStrikeout well, and I'm still concerned about the amount of experience he has. He's a great editor, but I'll probably end up in the neutral column, I'm waiting on some answers though. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what Ryan Vesey said, I believe the difference is while time or # of edits may be an imperfect measurement of experience, it has some value, and is better than no evaluation of experience at all. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted but he has a good number of edits across multiple namespaces, seems to have a level head and an abundance of common sense in knowing when to ask questions about things he doesn't understand. These to me are more important than arbitrary amounts of time or edits. I think that what the user doesn't know already will be quickly learned once they get the tools and I just don't see this editor doing anything harmful intentional or otherwise if given the tools. There are only so many things he can learn without the tools and I can tell you it took me a whole lot longer to learn how to use the tools without having them than it would have if I had. I still don't have them and probably never will but I can tell a good candiate when I see one. BTW, he voted against me at my RFA so its not like I have close personal ties to them. I've just seen them around and generally been impressed by their actions in the short time they have been here. Kumioko (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count is an indicator for exposure to policies and conflict. Somebody with 300 article space edits probably has not seen many policy discussions. Somebody with a thousand edits probably hasn't been in many content disputes or seen a large cross-section of opposing editors. By 3,000 edits, an editor has probably been in a few content disputes, opposed some difficult editors, confronted some reasonable policy arguments, and understands WP:N/WP:V/WP:3RR. Or gotten blocked for ignoring those issues. But the numbers have to be tempered. Reverting vandalism is not likely to provoke a substantial content dispute. An edit count figure is just a correlation; it does not mean the expected has happened. A high edit count can also indicate trouble. If an editor has 30,000 edits and claims to have avoided all conflict (Q3), then I'm dubious – or at least curious about such uneventful editing. A high edit count with a poor understanding of policy suggests the candidate is picking up policy by osmosis rather than studying the policy pages. Glrx (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(od)I suppose default is not the right word because that would imply supporting a candidate with no information but I meant it to come with a ceteris paribus assumption. Note my "this looks like a worthwhile shot" (the merits) and the "short duration" concern which signifies a heuristic (one that I too have used in the past). --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User means well, has a moderate amount of experience, and always pauses to be sure actions will meet the standards of the community. On that basis alone, I think he can be trusted with the tools. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)(I copied this from below so the tool could count itKumioko (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Support It's my belief that people (remember; there is a person behind the user name) who strive to be admins, work towards it as a a goal, are obviously learning quickly, and are sincere — should be promoted, with advice, and trusted to improve. The rules have become dizzyingly complex. You're not going to get good admins if you don't let them do some OJT.→Stani Stani 23:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you do if they fail their OJT? Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can't, really. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Opposes seem to be about length of time editing, and six months seems like forever to me. As to your weird proposal, the sort of whatever that goes with relative youth, which I don't consider a deficit. Eau(W)oo (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think AutomaticStrikeout has more than enough experience to assume adminship, on the understanding that part of what makes a good administrator is knowing which admin tasks one is ready for and which one is not, and I trust the candidate on that. (Although it is true that the tools only come in a bundle, no administrator performs all the different functions that admins are capable of.) Six months of well-rounded experience on the project, to my mind, is sufficient, and my interactions with the candidate have all been positive. All that being said, for better or worse it has become apparent that the current RfA isn't going to pass, so it might make sense for the candidate to consider withdrawing at this time and trying again a few months down the trial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you'd support this premature nomination. But once again you're wrong in doing so until there's an easy out for administrators as well as your easy in. Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew the substance of your edits prior to seeing the post's as well. Just remember, being well-known does not imply well-regarded. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to expand on that here or elsewhere? Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to stand on the above sentiment in abbreviated form. Any elaboration would be off-topic if continued here. IMO - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because it is my belief that "lack of time" is a completely unfair reason to vote against. If they show the required qualities then that is plenty enough in my view. "You are good, but come back in 6 months" seems pointless to me. --Lemon Twinkle 10:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I may not always agree with his views, but I certainly do trust him with the added bit. I'm not concerned with the experience issues; 6 months is plenty enough time. Some of our best administrators got promoted in less than that. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support You look like a quality editor and I see no reason to think you'd misuse the tools. But have to agree a tactical withdrawal might be wise at this point. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish you the best of luck on your next RFA. — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I see insufficient evidence that they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 14:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose - I really hate to oppose a good candidate but unfortunately I'll have to. I've seen AutomaticStrikeout around and at the first sight, I don't see any major flaws by just few quick checks (which is certainly insufficient). However, they have been around for merely 7 months which according to me is just a touch-too-rushed nomination. 7 months is a good sum but just little bit lower then what I'd like to see in a candidate at RFA. They tend to work at CSDs, but their log suggests that they are doing this just from August 2012 which generates experience of hardly 3 months and this is way too low if you are aiming for adminship according to me (despite of accuracy in tagging). Sorry to oppose but I can't support a candidate with just 7 months experience overall and 3 months for the work they want to do. I'll be happy to support you at your next run after waiting for good 6 or 8 months without getting controversial (if this RFA fails) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my criteria. Less than six months just isn't (imo) enough time to understand WP the way an admin needs to (among other reasons). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Whatever the age of the account, AutomaticStrikeout appears inexperienced in handling anti-vandalism reports (AIV), copyright violations (SCV), inappropriate usernames (UAA), patrols (NPP), deletion (AFD/CSD/XFD), and developing content beyond their immediate preferences. Although the proportion of their CSD nominations rejected lately is reasonable (6.8%), the user has nonetheless contributed only 146 deleted edits across the entire project, and certainly 102 since August 2012. Attempting this RFA is commendable, however, considering the recent controversies and dearth of successful applications, and I hope that the editor contemplates another application after accumulating further experience. Kind regards, Mephistophelian (contact) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose The amount of edit count doesn't equate to more experience, especially if the user only has a little more than 6 months of experience. I would suggest that the nominee gain more experience on the administrative aspect of the encyclopedia before running for the election again. Cheers! --Hydriz (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keen, honest, civil, and reliable, but still far too unsure of many policies and guidelines. These proposals here and here appear to demonstrate that he is not yet sure of how Wikipedia works. His 52 AfD votes matched the result in 76.2% of the time but the number of AfDs is probably to low to attach any substantial metrics to. However, his answer to Q4 doesn't convince of sufficient knowledge of deletion, his page patrolling gives me pause with around 20% of his recent deletions being tagged with the wrong criteria, and this is well below par for a reasonably practiced non-admin patroller. It's important to get these criteria right, not only to avoid wrongly deleting articles as an admin, but wrong tags also send the wrong message to the creators. On some admin areas that require knowledge he is still unsure of the procedures as demonstrated by his comment at one AfD nomination on 4 October: "I'd speedy this, but I don't know what, if anything, is the proper criterion for that" and only seven weeks ago states "I don't entirely understand how sockpuppet investigations work." He was given some good advice at his recent editor review but has still chosen to run for admin when probably he should have waited longer. If he keeps up his current rate of work however, he will increase his knowledge exponentially, and in another six months or so I'm almost sure I would support a re-run. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness Kudpung there are a lot of admins and longterm users that don't udnerstand how SPI works. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness Kumioko, I believe have stated enough, but not all reasons that demonstrate that the candidate is not ready for adminship. Discount the one for SPI if you wish, I don't mind. Anecdotally but true, I have been blatantly accused recently of not only not doing enough to prevent the wrong users being granted the tools, but of having a deliberate agenda to abolish opposition from all RfAs! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not anecdotal, as I've accused you of that several times. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a patently false assertion. Kudpung is quite keen on supporting candidates who he feels are ready, willing, and able to handle the sysop bit, and opposing those he does not feel meet that threshold as of yet. Kurtis (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep doing what you're doing, come back in 6 months or so, and you'll pass with no problem. If you're interested in closing deletion discussions, I would suggest participating in more AfD's (you've only voted in about 50 of them) and also perform some non-admin closures before the next time you run. This tool might also help you identify things to work on. -Scottywong | speak _ 13:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness Scotty, your tool, although well meaning and getting better, doesn't really work that well. No offense intended. In fact it crashes for me due to my edit count. I will also note that for a user to have voted on 50 AFD's and only having an account for 7 months its quite good and is more than some editors who have recently been promoted. Kumioko (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tool is admittedly still a work in progress, and the toolserver servers have been having issues of their own lately (which might explain the timeouts and crashes). I agree that a 7 month user participating in 50 AfD's is quite good, however for an aspiring admin who indicates an interest in closing deletion discussions, it is not adequate (in my opinion). It takes more participation than that to build up a sufficient understanding of the process and its nuances. -Scottywong | chat _ 15:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I only wanted to indicate that it may not be fair to Oppose on the grounds of the tool which some may do. I'm also not sure about non admin closures, I used to do some of those and was told by several individuals that its best to leave closures to admins so I stopped doing them. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - User has clue, and I have no doubt as to his good intentions, but I don't see a solid level of knowledge being represented in the answers to questions above. For that reason alone, I have to oppose, but I do not blame the editor. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 15:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Changed to Support. User means well, has a moderate amount of experience, and always pauses to be sure actions will meet the standards of the community. On that basis alone, I think he can be trusted with the tools. The Illusive Man^(Contact) 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per lack of experience. Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Response to Q2 is sparse. Articles cited in nom are brief. Need evidence that user knows how to judge encyclopedic content, and, while they may, this has not been demonstrated as of yet. My suggestion prior to running again, if this is unsuccessful, would be more substantive contribution to articlespace -- Samir 18:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though I respect your opinion, I would point out that several of our recent admins have had comparable or even fewer articlespace contributions to A.S. at the time of their RFA (e.g., Bagumba, Mr. Stradivarius, and Yunshui. I bring this up not with the intent of discrediting either their RFAs or your opinion, but just as an FYI. Go Phightins! 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Edit count (11,500) is fine; distribution fine. Six months is enough in my book as long as there is a clear picture. Q1 is weak: "dealing with persistent vandals", but only 14 WP:AIV edits. Q3 lacks detail: Mea culpas are OK, but I'm at a loss for what happened and what was learned. (Q6 was answered while I was writing this oppose; it does not explain what was wrong.) Q1–Q3 put me on the fence. Sampling some AfD votes gives me some trouble; I want to see some reasoning displayed -- more than voting "per nom". When anybody writes an article, they invest some significant effort, and I think some effort should be spent explaining why an article should be deleted. (See A4, "the best way to try to prevent someone from walking away is to politely explain to them why their article was deleted".) Some tentative AfD nominations give me more trouble: "I don't think this is notable";[1] "The subject of this article may not meet our notability guidelines";[2] "This article may or may not be notable...."[3] An AfD asks other editors to weigh in and spend some effort on the article; that request should not be made lightly. "May not" isn't satisfying. I'm off the fence. I need evidence of a clear understanding of WP pillars. Glrx (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
maturity and experience. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I actually have no problems with experience. It's just this weird proposal that Trusilver brought up that is keeping me from supporting. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since that keeps being brought up to the detriment of my RfA, I'd like to re-state what Ryan said below. Originally, I was planning to take over the Wikipedian of the Day which has been done by several users. However, I found out someone else was doing that. Since I still wanted to do something, I proposed that idea. It's not that I think admins are special and deserve better treatment, it's that admins take a lot of heat for simply doing their job and I'd imagine that sometimes they need more encouragement than others. It was not, as some have suggested, an attempt to stroke their egos. AutomaticStrikeout 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone takes heat here for "simply doing their job", and admins are by no means unique in any sense. Just try failing a few GANs, voting Oppose at a few FACs, or defending a few articles from copyright violations, and you'll soon find yourself at AN/I or worse. Which is why content-building experience is vital. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not enough experience for me to support. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like a good candidate, but not enough experience. I would say come back in another six months. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 00:26, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd be more comfortable with at least 6 more months of tenure, and 14 edits to AIV is a little low for me to be comfortable (not that I question his ability to see what's vandalism/not (that's easy), but there are things like block evasion and LTAs that I feel he should get more familiar with).--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good candidate, not enough experience. Zac (talk · contribs) 02:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I hate opposing a good candidate, but Mephistophelian and Jasper have a point. Your AIV reports are very little. When you have about 30 or more reports, I will support you without any hesitation. --Webclient101 (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though I like the admin of the day idea--if the editor was ever thinking of me, of course. Yeah, not enough experience. To build up a portfolio of decent CSD nominations or AfD contributions is one thing, and correctly identifying vandalism is pretty much the same thing. But there's a lot of things here that simply take time to learn; I'm learning them still. I'm not convinced that the candidate has learned some of the more difficult things, and the reason they want to be admin--well, that's really the area where we need people least. Sorry Strikeout, I've seen your contributions come by and I have no problem with them, but a good editor does not yet make a good admin. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly per the answers to Q9 (CSD exercise). I realise that these are somewhat tricky and some of the points are somewhat subtle but the candidate missed enough that I don't feel I can support. My concerns are: Exercise 1 - No mention that R3s need to be recently created (I also don't think it's a misnomer but that's less of an issue), Exercise 5 - in my opinion this easily meets the low standard needed to avoid A7 and Exercise 6 - Seems to miss that the editor seems to be a minor revealing identifying information and so follow up action will be needed. These suggest a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge of our guidelines and policies and I fear therefore that this may be more widespread than just lack of knowledge of CSD. However there doesn't seem to be anything more concerning there (such as vandalism etc) so I would expect to support once the candidate has more experience. Dpmuk (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about being an administrator Just write some well-documented paragraphs in articles, discuss articles on talk pages, and you'll be an even more valuable member of the community. Your suggestion of "an administrator of the day" "since I wanted to do something" suggests that, like many future hall of fame baseball players, you need a few years to mature. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expressing this so well. The candidate's pace of editing might be sustainable, but it also might be a subconscious run-up to RfA. If the former, then the project will benefit from a highly productive editor. If the latter, then support here would be based on a flash in the pan. Time will tell - which is why any sense that someone sees adminship as a trophy is a worrying sign. It's just a mop. -- Scray (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too soon by any sensible measure. Even if you had been a fully endorsed, competent, Admin-ready candidate you would have received a flat oppose from me for your bizarre proposal to elevate an Admin a day for some sort of ultimate community recognition [4]. Admins should be neither seen or heard but should go about their work in a level, non-ostentatious manner. Blandness is better than brio. There is enough drama without creating a badge for the most dramatic intervention each day or whatever you proposal would achieve. It really is a silly idea I'm afraid and indicates a lack of maturity, sound judgement and awareness. Leaky Caldron 10:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Praise and recognition is just as important for motivating our volunteer admins as it is for regular editors. A page has been created with quotes from a small fraction of the ancient, modern and contemporary sources supporting this view. The candidate's idea was sound, the problem was in the wording and mechanics of the proposal - but given how skeptical the community is these days, even Talleyrand would have trouble getting that right! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary was accurate. The suggestion was (in my personal and clearly expressed opinion) absurd and lacking in any merit whatsoever. As to the wording and mechanics, effective communication is an essential requirement for an Admin. If the candidate has indeed not explained the proposal fully and with precision then that is another reason to oppose his RFA at this time. Leaky Caldron 14:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KW. Not enough experience yet. Intothat darkness 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I generally hate to pile on, but I have to oppose due to the inaccurate answers to question #9, which indicate a poor understanding of the deletion policy regarding speedy deletions, along with the necessary and/or helpful follow-up communication with editors. Best wishes in the future. Cindy(talk to me) 19:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I'd like to see more breadth of experience in topic areas and AfD. While I've seen nothing that makes me suspect the candidate would abuse the tools, a further period of wider experience would be beneficial and will hopefully demonstrate that the suggestions for development raised here by others have been considered. Would like to support you next time. -- Trevj (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sparse answers do not allow me to judge that this user has sufficient experience. --John (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. Seen some good work but not enough in the admin related areas for me to support this person as a sysop. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given the lack of experience at this time. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Good user, but has been here less than six months. I remember even back in 2006, six months was the general guideline. I think six months to a year is the minimum amount of time for a user to actually be able to absorb all the policies, guidelines, and even the dynamics of Wikipedia that aren't written down. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They became active from April, so actually they have been around for more than 6 months :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24 April to 15 October is less than six months (by my calculation, at least). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable supporting at this time. Mainly I prefer longer tenure for admin candidates. I will not oppose on that basis alone. Good luck. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice candidate but I wanted to see some more contributions from this user. --Ankit Maity ^Talk _Contribs 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This[5] tells me that the candidate isn't quite there yet. I'm not comfortable with an administrator candidate that feels that administrators somehow require some type of special recognition. Trusilver 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For more background on that, he was looking to take over the editor of the day system. When he learned that Gerda Arendt was still doing that, he considered another system. His primary look was to editors as a whole though. Ryan Vesey 14:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the point that Trusilver was making; the proposal was ridiculous. What's next? Best block of the day award? Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my oppose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for an editor who I'm sure will make a good admin in the not too distant future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great editor with impressive contributions, and the simple answer is "premature" but there are other issues raised above. My advice would be to withdraw before harsher opposes come along, and come back in a while. There's a lot you can do without the bit. -- Scray (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing a great job AutomaticStrikeout and I'm sure you'll be a great admin one day, but that day is not today I'm afraid. Keep doing what you're doing and come have a chat with me in a few months, I might even nominate you. Worm^TT(talk) 11:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need longer here to become fully familiar with guidelines/policies, but see no other major concerns than that. I strong advise you to try again in 6-12 months time. Giant Snowman 11:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent candidate in a few more months. I've seen enough of you to know you have a pretty level head and common sense, but I can't support yet because I think you need to work on the nuances of policy a bit more. I'm with Worm and Kudpung, and would echo their sentiments. I think it takes a year just to learn the basics, and I see you have very little experience in the Wikipedia space. The tools come as a kit, and you need to understand most of them before using any of them. But you are definitely pointed in the right direction and I'm sure I will support a future run. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just under 6 months - not a major worry to me. I tend to agree with Mephistophelian (oppose #3) on this, and I do believe Automatic needs to review relevant policies, and engage more in the specific area he wishes to work in (Answer to question #2) - however, I don't believe that this is enough to to oppose on. I wish Automatic good luck with this RfA - If unsuccessful, I'd encourage that they take onboard the opposes' comments as constructive critism/advice, and all the supports as praise , and barring that, In six months time, I'm sure Automatic will find himself here again, however, with a polar opposite outcome. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support this. Saying that, I can't oppose this. So, I'll go neutral. The user has good intentions, but not a high enough edit count in current times, or enough time served. Come back after six months, and you'll probably get my support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Next time (so long as he/she doesn't go berserk in the meantime...). A good editor, with a lot of edits. However, I'm not sure that some more experience wouldn't go amiss. I'll be interested to see the answers to the newest questions. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some reservations with the responses from the candidate on my questions (#7 and #8). In #7, I am happy that AutomaticStrikeout said he would need to see translated text himself and noted that Google Translate is not always reliable, but there are alternatives to PRODing or AfDing the article. For instance, there is an entire WikiProject dedicated to Japan-related topics, and many users there would be a better judge of whether the article's content was meaningful or not, which could be translated into English. It's possible that AfD would also have this same effect by it being posted on relevant noticeboards, but AfD is not for cleanup. As for #8, I am glad to see that AutomaticStrikeout knew it would be incorrect as the issuing admin to respond to an unblock request. However, were he not the issuing admin, he stated that he would probably unblock them if it was a "trusted user." However, the unblock request takes the form of a classic non-apology apology, where the blocked user doesn't actually own up or acknowledge their problematic behavior. If anything, a trusted user should have the wherewithal to make a proper apology. I am also left a bit wanting at the responses to the opening questions, and I would like to see more visibility of the editor in the WP namespace, such as in AfD or ANI (though there are many other venues that could use attention). AutomaticStrikeout seems like a strong and fair-minded editor here, and I personally have no reservations with the age of his account or # of edits he has contributed, and I would be happy to support him at his next RfA given that at least some of above concerns have been addressed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See you soon per Dennis Brown. You'll make an excellent candidate with a bit of time. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work, and I'd be happy to support in a few months! :) – Connormah (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He consistently acts with good intentions, is civil, and always receptive to pointers for improvements. If there was a dire need for more admins, I'd have no problem with AutomaticStrikeout learning on the job. That said, I'll remain neutral. Aside from those others have mentioned, some areas for refinement include distinguishing vandalism versus possible good faith original research. Arguably a bit hasty to give the same IP editor a final warning when the same dynamic IP had constructive edits a few hours earlier. There is an opportunity (no matter how small) to retain and educate some of these "problem" editors. These are minor and easily corrected, hence my neutral stance. His "weird" proposals don't bother me; innovators need to think outside the box and sometimes (if not often) fail. I see no reason to believe AutomaticStrikeout would not follow consensus as an admin, even as he strives to improve on the status quo as an editor.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - You are a great editor but in my opinion its quite early. Torreslfchero (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - TAFI? Great. This? A bit troubling. Can't support at the moment. Theo polisme 11:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding pile-on WP:NOTNOW Neutral If I'd posted yesterday, I would have said "oppose", but right now this is more of a moral support. Adminship is not a trophy, and as such, it's not something you should be asking for so early on the project. When a handful of trusted admins approach you in the future and say "are you ready to try again", then it's probably time. At that point, get them to nom/co-nom. This nomination was far too early in your "career" to succeed. Keep up the good work, improve in the areas as suggested, work carefully in the admin-ish areas, and at some point after your 1-year mark some admins will likely come a-callin' dangerous panda 11:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. The contributions pie chart is that of a content creator. Unfortunately, seven months is not enough time in the harness for the full toolbox, in my opinion. Try back in six months for a resounding confirmation process. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

v t e RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters	XTools Edit summary usage
Analysis	Articles created Non-automated edits AfC stats BLP edits AfD votes AfD closes CSD log PROD log
Cross-wiki	CentralAuth Global contributions User rights