Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/52 Pickup

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

52 Pickup

Final (36/3/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

52 Pickup (talk · contribs) - There is no possible reason on God's green Earth why this individual should not have access to the administrator weaponry. One of the finest and most knowledgeable editors that I have that I come across on wikipedia. He has started at least one project ([1]) that I know of and participated in many others. He's helped translate some of the foreign languages that he knows (including Australian!) into English. He has done extensive work on the building of many of the best (and protected) infoboxes on English Wikipedia like {{Infobox Australian Place}}, {{Infobox German Location}}, and {{Infobox Settlement}} that are seen by millions everyday. I've seen his interactions with a very, very difficult editor. Over the course of a month of very frustrating back and forth discussions, trying to please every little objection from this editor, 52 Pickup maintained a very good composure (much better than myself) and eventually the article was changed for the better and brought inline with other German articles. He has dished out plenty of vandalism warnings and reverted vandalism where it has occurred. He has worked on FAsa GA (1) and participated in FACs ([2], [3], [4]). Due to the fact that much of his work on wikipedia has been so successful and propagated so widely, much of the things that he has worked on in the past is now permanently fully protected. This has lead and will continue to lead to 52 needing to ask admins to unprotect or edit for him templates that he in fact created and/or is one of the main editors to.

Therefore, please join me in giving 52 Pickup an enthusiastic show of support! —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
With an enormous vote of thanks to MJCdetroit for his support, I accept the nomination. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:31, 22 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: At the moment I have a few areas in mind, but, like my work on Wikipedia in general, my interests are very likely to cover more ground as time goes on. But for now my admin work would be mainly:

• Dispute resolution - Time spent in disputes is time not spent working on articles. Sure, discussion is vital here, but in all-too-many cases discussions bog down and become far worse (just look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars). I like to nip such problems in the bud before they get out of hand or otherwise impede the improvement of articles themselves. I am a firm believer in impartiality on Wikipedia - for this reason I do what I can to support Requests for comment, Third Opinion and Countering systematic bias - and I believe I can also be of assistance in dispute resolution at an admin level.
• Hunting vandals - Since this site is rapidly becoming more relied-upon than established encyclopaedias, there is no place for vandalism. I have absolutely no tolerance of vandals and have no trouble reverting, warning, and (if this RfA is a success) blocking/banning troublemakers.
• Template maintenance - I've done a lot of work with templates while here and, as stated in the nomination, I have now reached a point where I have become locked out of some of the things that I maintain. As an admin, I would like to be able to continue my work here, as well as help out with any wider-ranging template issues that may arise.
• Deletion - I participate in TfD and AfD, and would like to help speed things up there.

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

A: A lot of what I consider my best work is behind the scenes, but necessary for the smooth-running of many articles:

• {{Infobox German Location}} - I created this template in order to make construction of articles about German locations as easy as possible, and without any knowledge of German. When creating such an article, the first place where most editors go is to the corresponding article on the German wiki, most of which use the infobox template de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in Deutschland. Now, if the complete template call is taken from the de-wiki (without translating field names or field entries) and placed into an en-wiki article, IGL will automatically present all the information in English, with zero need for translation in most cases. Actually IGL does a little more than it's German counterpart (photo, categorisation, error checking, etc).
• As an aside: Infobox Australian Place - one of the templates mentioned in the nomination - is one where my input has not been major in comparison to others. If there are problems with IAP, I help out when I can. Occasionally, I'll throw an idea at the main developers - if they don't use my ideas, then that's fine with me. I don't want to dictate how templates should work, but I feel that it is very important to share new ideas in this manner (I've done the same over at {{Infobox Swiss town}})
• {{Infobox Former Country}} - My first major creation on Wikipdeia. Similar to Infobox Country, only for countries that no longer exist, this template has grown and grown in versatility and appears to have become standard for such articles.
• WikiProjects: I created WikiProject Infoboxes as a meeting point for infobox designers to exchange ideas, act as a help desk, stamp out misuse and shoddy design, but not to enforce standardisation or policy. I also revived WikiProject Former countries and help maintain WikiProject Germany
• Flag of Germany - My first serious attempt on making one article as good as possible. Before I started work on it in July it looked like this. Now it's at FAC.

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:Two conflicts come to mind. I dealt with them in the way that I will continue to deal with them: keep cool, remain impartial, get other people involved if necessary, or keep it 1-on-1 if needed, and let the facts do the talking:

• The conflict described in MJC's nomination. After making Infobox German Location, I set to work on a similar template for the 16 states of Germany - up until this point, these articles all used separate manual table code. After completing the template, I had no problems converting all 16 pages, except one. For this article, a particular user had effectively claimed ownership and constantly reverted any changes without comment, or with immature non-constructive comments. This particular user has a long history of unnecessary and excessive reverts, hostility towards other users and article ownership, as his block log will testify. But after a long drawn-out and frustrating discussion a solution was reached. Discussion here
• In solving one problem, I came up against another. While working on Weimar Republic I became aware of the problem of the English translation for Deutsches Reich, the official name for Germany from 1871 to 1943/45. At first I didn't think much of this problem (what's in a name?, and all that), but it became clear that this issue was responsible for a low-key but incredibly persistent edit war across the various relevant articles (the other main ones being German Empire and Nazi Germany) and reams of arguments on talk pages (particularly at Talk:Nazi Germany). It was clear that these two words were bogging down work on these articles far too much, so I did some research (most protagonists were going purely by opinion alone) and reached the solution in an attempt to put this matter to bed. And everyone was happy - except one particular user whose belligerent attitude towards German issues is well-known to many admins. If I were to let this user undo what I had done, this dispute would still be raging. So I confronted the user directly over the matter, and he never interfered with this issue again. Discussion here

Optional questions from other editors

4. Pending resolution of the process, what would be your personal standards for granting rollback to an editor? Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A: Top priority is the user's involvement in edit wars: if the user has been involved in any edit warring (and not following discussion or any other form of resolution) then I would be very unlikely to grant rollback. Second is the user's track record in fighting vandalism. In short, it is important that a user would use rollback to deal with vandalism and not push any personal agendas. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

5. "I have absolutely no tolerance of vandals and have no trouble reverting, warning, and (if this RfA is a success) blocking/banning troublemakers" - How do you intend to ban users? Pedro :  Chat  00:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Banning is not the task of a single admin - I should have been a bit more clear there. I intend to ban trouble users the same way that all good admins do: via discussion, starting at the admin noticeboard. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

6. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. First and foremost, you need to be very, very sure that the admin has been using sockpuppets abusively, and have strong evidence supporting this so there is no doubt that there is abuse taking place. Mistakes happen, sometimes suspected sockpuppetry is not what it appears to be. But, given your question, let us say that this admin has been deliberately malicious with sockpuppets. Then I would report the admin like any other sock puppet user. Admin review may follow. Being an admin is, to me, not about having power, but about trust. Admins that use sock-puppets in an abusive manner have demonstrated that the trust placed in them was false. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

7. You witness severe edit warring on a page that you minorly contribute to. In the midst of all this, you witness another administrator who is highly regarded in the community step in and block one of the users as a "cool down" method. How would you react to this situation? Would you contact the administrator? Would you take the liberty of unblocking the user? Do you sit out and allow the block to expire? To you agree with the actions taken? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. "Cool down" blocks are not allowed (WP:CDB) so I would not have any trouble contacting the blocking admin to point that out. Highly regarded or not, no admin is above the rules. When contacting the admin about the error of this "cool down" block, I would ask them to reconsider the block. While I do not agree with the block in place, I would not jump in and undo it since unblocking the blocks of other admins is not encouraged, and can also further inflame the matter that was originally responsible for the block. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

8. You wrote for this reason I do what I can to support Requests for comment, Third Opinion and Countering systematic bias. Since any editor may participate in the above dispute resolution processes, how exactly would adminship help you solve disputes more readily and efficiently? How would you take part in dispute resolution at the admin level? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Quite right: being an admin brings nothing new to 3O, RFC or CSV. But I have followed various admin-level disputes but have not gotten involved because I'm not an admin, although I have reported various cases to admins in the past, either directly to particular admins or via Twinkle. But I believe that I have proven my ability to handle disputes at the non-admin level, so I think I can help out in admin-level disputes, too. There are only so many admin-level disputes that non-admins can get involved in, so obviously my experience in all manner of disputes is incomplete. Should this admin succeed, I would first start with areas that I have already had considerable experience in, such as deletion issues and 3RR, and I would also keep an eye on WP:AN/I and help out there. That might not look like a lot but, as I said, I want to start where I have a solid idea what I am doing and do not want to spread myself too thin from the very start. Quality over quantity. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

9. I'm concerned about the vagueness in the nomination from MJCdetroit; it is short on diffs and detail. Which difficult editor on which German articles? Which FAs? Which FARs? And so on; links and diffs would be helpful. Do you believe infoboxes should be imposed on articles if other editors dislike them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from nom.: Sandy, I wasn't intentionally being vague but I believe his contributions speak for themselves and that 52 would be able to expand on my statements within his first three questions. I did however misinterpret something regarding FAs from his user page and have struck that part out. I did revise the nomination above to include some links, but 52 Pickup did cover most of the first part of your question in questions 1-3, as I thought he would. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's still misleading, though, and not quite correct. You say three FARs, but you link to three FACs (just for accuracy). He entered comments on two of those FACs, and nominated one, which is still open, so I'm not sure why FA participation is even mentioned in the introduction. I'm sorry for nitpicking, but after the Archtransit (talk · contribs) debacle, we need to make certain that FA participation is represented accurately at RfA. I'm unclear what you are referring to by "the fact that much of his work on wikipedia has been so successful and propagated so widely". Is that a reference to infoboxes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Archtransit debacle, but I trust your reasons for the nitpicking. I meant FAC not FAR, but catching things like that is what makes you good for all those FACs and MOS discussions that I've seen you involved in. Yes, that is/was a reference to his infobox work, which by the way I believe is good enough by itself and he IS that important to infobox/template development to warrant giving him the administration tool belt. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 05:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thx, MJCdetroit, I just wanted to make sure the intro was clear. Maybe you can change the WP:FAR to WP:FAC? I was afraid I was slipping, as I didn't recall seeing 52 at FAR before. Thanks for the responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. i) Difficult editors: see Q3

ii} FA is a relatively new field for me. Since I have not yet written a featured article (pending my current FAC) I have wanted to get a feel for the expected standards as an author before I got involved as a reviewer - this probably isn't necessary, but it makes me feel more comfortable with my judgements in this way. From my experience with publications in real life, this way is the best for me. My involvement in FAC and FAR will increase, no question there.

iii) Should infoboxes be imposed if editors don't like them?: Generally, I would say no, except for some things where an encyclopaedia entry would be expected to have one (eg. cities or countries). An infobox can be very helpful for articles, but the infobox is not the article. For example, I am aware of the infobox disputes related to biographies and I believe that many of the boxes involved there are not needed. Many boxes are also not very well conceived or executed: setting up WP:INFOWATCH was my way of addressing this problem. And I made it expressly clear from establishment that WP:INFOWATCH was not a lobby group for blanket use of infoboxes or for setting policy or standardisation. And so far it has worked very well for all involved. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

10. What is the difference between a ban and a block? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. WP:BAN: "Formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent."
WP:BLOCK: "The method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."
Blocks are imposed by a single admin and can be overturned, bans are imposed by the community as a whole. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

11.Looking at your edit history it appears as if you recently took a mini-sabatical from WP. Eg in 4 of the past 6 months, you made fewer than 135 edits and in three of them less than 100. This was following two months where you made almost 3000 edits. Is there a reason for this drop in production?Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. This edit near the start of my break should explain it. A few months ago, I started a new job in a different country. In the last months I have had to adjust to the new job and move home. During the first few months of this period, apart from being incredibly busy with all this, my Internet access was severely limited. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

12. What, if anything, did you do to prepare for an RfA?Balloonman (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. For a while, I have read various admin-related pages to see what type of work is required of an admin (and also to make sure that i had not crossed the line anywhere as a non-admin). This was all before this nomination came up, but since then I have looked at the RfA checklist to get a better idea what you are looking for in a potential admin, but not to come up with stock answers (anyone can do that). When answering these questions, all I have done is double-check various policies and tried answer all questions as clearly and honestly as possible. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

13. 52 Pickup is the name of a cruel, mean-spirited prank. In my youth, I fell for this joke many times and remain traumatized by the experience. May we thus expect that your administrative actions will be applied with a similar level of cruelty and wickedness?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Only if you ask nicely... No, not here. The most likely card play you'll see from me is something like this - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A 56 pickup.

14. Or were you merely named after a 1952 model of a pickup truck, not unlike the one in this photo?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Nice car. Actually, I can't remember the motivation behind my name choice. But I did have the card game in mind - no idea why. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

15. Are you related to User:75pickup? (I was about to save a comment below when I realized it might be a case of mistaken identity.) — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Not at all. Sorry. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

16. What are your attitudes toward Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? If you become an admin, will you add your name to this category? (Note that there's a default recall process but you can also tailor your own criteria as others have done) --A. B. ^(talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A. I think WP:AOR is a brilliant idea and should be mandatory for all new admins (for at least a "probationary period") and probably for all admins. Sure, there is ArbCom, but in some cases where it is clear that an admin is being abusive, I can imagine that this relatively simpler recall process could do the job just as easily (and quicker) than ArbCom, saving the Arbitrators' effort for other matters. The granting of admin status is a show of trust by the community, but once one becomes an admin that trust must still be justified. If an admin is not prepared to lose admin rights through one's own harmful actions, then that admin should not have been granted the rights in the first place. The ability to choose one's own criteria is interesting - I can see potential for abuse, but then anyone who opens themselves to recall and then abuses the recall criteria clearly isn't honest or serious about the process and will probably eventually find themselves before ArbCom if they behave improperly.
If I become an admin, I will place myself open to recall. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

17 Following up on the concerns expressed by some below that you may be weak in your policy knowledge and unprepared for this RfA, have you read all the material on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list in the last month? Hint: don't answer the question immediately -- go skim it now and come back and answer this question when you can answer yes. (Bonus points awarded to all admins reading this if they've read all this stuff in the last month!) --A. B. ^(talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A. Yes, I have. Every page. And, if I become an admin, I will read it again and again... - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See 52 Pickup's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for 52 Pickup: 52 Pickup (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Comment: Looking at 52's contributions might be a little deceiving because he has had major input into the building of some infoboxes but may not have been the actual editor to "pull the trigger". The example that I am thinking of is {{Infobox Settlement}}. In that instance, I was the actual editor who saved the edit (shown here). However, after a lot of discussion it was 52's idea that was installed by me and credited to him. That very important edit became the backbone of Infobox Settlement, which has since then grown to be transcluded on over 54,000 articles. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by nominee: Since Mainspace involvement is an important issue in RfA, I thought I better clarify something. A lot of the article work I do (especially translation work) is done in draft pages in my user space (eg. [5] [6]). This way, it is possible to work on an article without needing it to be completely readable after each save. Of course, I do not do this if working on an article that is very active. After my work on the draft article is finished, I move the work into the Mainspace, either section-by-section or all at once. Afterwards, the user-space draft is no longer needed so I delete it - this of course deletes the drafts' edit histories and so my edit count plummets. But does this count as a single edit? Technically, yes, although it took many draft edits (all now deleted) to get there. - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/52 Pickup before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support Hell Yeah! (as nominator) I am not even gonna wait for his answers to the questions before I say yes. Actions speak louder than words anyhow. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I have admired 52 Pickup's editing since I first encountered him in 2006. He has continually impressed me with his level-headedness, impartiality, and technical savvy. I believe he would make an excellent administrator. Olessi (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. After reviewing Pickup's contributions, it is clear to me that he meets the required standards of civility and trustworthiness, as well as the technical editing ability, to be granted access to the administrator tools. I am confident that issuing the sysop. flag to 52 will benefit the project as a whole, and I am happy to support his request. AGK (contact) 00:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Support Nice editing, can handle the mop constructively. Spencer^T♦C 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. 52 Pickup needs the tools. Axl (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. It's a real shame that I've never come into contact with you before. Looks like MJC has run into a winner here. Rudget. 12:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I think you could make a good admin.   jj137 (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak support - trustworthy editor, however your answer to Q1 could be improved slightly. Addhoc (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Wherever I have come across this user's contribs, he looked cool. No problems that I could see. User:Dorftroffel 16:43, February 23, 2008
11. Support Track is oaky with over 3000 mainspace edits no concerns.The user's track shows civility.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support. I am absolutely convinced this candidate will not misuse the tools, and there is a definite need — considering all the work on now-protected templates! Strong, strong support. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support The user is trsutworthy and productive editor and certainly is working towards the improvement of articles. Will most likely continue to improve after adminship.--Okay311 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)— Okay311 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
14. Support - 52 Pickup will be a benefit to the project as a sysop. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Would make a great admin. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Although he may need to study up and doesn't particularly need to tools, I see no reason why he would misuse them. Fine contributor. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support the answers to my questions quell any concerns I might have had... and per my wife ;-) Balloonman (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Support I believe that this user will be a very good member of the Admin team. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support 52 knows his stuff where it matters the most - and that is where often he needs to rely on admins to make the final edits for him. As elsewhere he has proven trustworthy I can only see benefits from him becoming admin. why did I not think of nominating Agathoclea (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support I really can't say anything that hasn't been said already so I'll just let my vote do the talking. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 16:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support. I like what I see and I find the oppose arguments alleging a lack of policy knowledge to be unconvincing. Ronnotel (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support Give him the mop. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 04:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Yea, give him the mop. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 11:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Strong support, extremely helpful and nice user, great template wizard, I was planning to nominate him myself. Excellent long-term commitment to good content too. Kusma (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support -- "support" because I think his answer to question 17 addresses the "oppose" concerns and "strong" based on his overall record and his answer to question 16. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Expanding on my comment: the candidate subsequently reviewed every page listed on the very extensive Administrators' reading list in response to my request in the questions above. I dare say that as of today, he probably understands our rules better than anyone most admins. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

26. Support - meets my standards, although I prefer more consistent edit sumamry usage. No worries here. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support – I know we a tendency to look for the perfect editor to give the Administration Tools too and have to say honestly looking at 52 Pickup edit history, reviewing the Support opinions, and yes the views of the Oppose, this nominee has come danm close to the perfect candidate. Good Luck to you and if you need a nominator, if this round fails, let me know, would be honored to place your name in contention again! Shoessss |  Chat  23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

    Damn close... I thought the same thing when I nominated him. Others should remember that when an editor creates a sub-par article it is only seen on that one page, but when a sub-par template or infobox is created it could be placed on hundreds of pages. Therefore, it is very important to get an infobox right. 52 Pickup has been getting it right since September of 2006 and can be trusted with the admin tools to keep getting it right! —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

28. Support Jmlk17 10:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
29. SUPPORT: I have looked through his user history located here with over 3,700 edits in the mainspace, checked out some of his userpage history and has been acting with honor as can be seen here. I am confident this user would not abuse the mop! Good Luck, 52 (card) Pickup--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong Support: I looked through your answers to the questions and briefly through your edit history, and I think you would make a Great Sysop! :) Mifter (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Support: He may not use the tools as often as others might, but judging by his contributions and ethic, I believe that whenever he does, he will have benefited Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - I'm sure you'll make a decent admin. BanRay 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Clearly fair enough!--Bedivere (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Support contributions seem find, answers a good... seems right for the job Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support, brilliant answers. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEPARK} ^talk 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak OpposeI'm sorry to be the first but I'm not totally sure you're ready. Your initial response to Q1, followed up by my comments in regard to it, and then yet another query regarding banning [7][8][9] leaves me thinking you actually had no idea before reading up. Now, don't get me wrong, no-one knows every obscure policy/guideline/essay; However I strongly feel you entered this RfA without fundamental knowledge of the difference between a block and a ban and modified your answers as you found out. This is good, but learning with the buttons at the same time is not so good. Sorry, but Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Maybe I wasn't very clear at the beginning, but I've always known that banning is not done by one person, although it may look otherwise. There is a clear procedure for banning and is far more detailed than blocking - as it should be since blocking serves a different purpose than banning - and I would like to be involved in these separate procedures if an admin. And, by following various banning discussions in the past, most discussions invariably start from discussion at WP:AN. Maybe I should have been clearer. - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A lack of clarity is perhaps actually more the issue than your knowledge - and a lack of clarity is an issuse because admins must / should be clear in their communication. However I appreciate the honest response and will consider further in light of it. Pedro :  Chat  21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make that a weak oppose. I'm still concerned that you need to understand block/ban but I trust you'll go easy with the block tool and seek advice and input from others if you are unsure. Pedro :  Chat  11:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Changed to oppose after linger in neutrality for a bit. My rationale is as follows: While this user is a brilliant editor, 1. Wikipedia namespace contributions are lacking and confined mostly to project pages (reflecting great editing skills once again) 2. The answers to the questions, per Pedro, seem to reflect a misunderstanding of key policy points prior to answering. Also, the answer to Q12 is a little bothersome. Prior to an RfA, users will be inclined to "study up" on policy or admin related guidelines for "preparation", and while this is good practice, this is not an exam. It's also suggestive of a candidate who wasn't exactly ready to be nominated. Sorry, but I must oppose. Good luck though! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   See my comment above related to my mainspace/namespace activity. Experience in admin matters is, by definition, something that a non-admin cannot readily acquire. I've never banned anyone before, nor blocked anyone (although i've submitted plenty of offenders to AN/I via Twinkle after sufficient warning), so an intimate knowledge of the procedures involved is something I do not yet have. So to enact policy without being sure of what you're doing is silly - as is answering questions about such policy. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   The questions you refer to are purely situational and should correspond to how you've dealt with non-admin scenarios that require administrator attention - steady participation in areas such as WP:UAA, WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SOCK, WP:3RR, and WP:ANI familiarizes the user with future sysop procedure. Your answers to my questions, and others, should reflect your understanding of policy without leading me to believe that you had to read up while you answered. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   How many admin candidates have done any less? Well-prepared candidates would still want to make sure they are well-prepared and that they don't have any inadvertent policy misunderstandings prior to RfA. In fact, I would expect any admin candidate to do this, not hold it against him. Essentially, he coached himself. Should we oppose all candidates who have been coached by others too? --Ginkgo100^talk 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   I think you've misunderstood my objection. I specifically said that the practice is good, but that this isn't an exam. Yes, brush up on policy, make sure you don't make any errors. That's kosher. However, as Pedro pointed out, the candidate's answers lead me to believe that he/she learned through this RfA and altered answers accordingly, which again, isn't exactly a tragedy, but convinces me that perhaps they aren't quite ready. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   As the person who posed question 12, I think it is very important that somebody prepare themselves for Adminship... they should fill the gaps in their background/knowledge. I also think it is very appropriate for one to learn DURING their RfA. The key, IMHO, is not to know all of the answers to every possible question, but rather to demonstrate the ability to find the answer. RfA's aren't an exam, but they do offer the community a chance to 'educate' potential admins. It is also an opportunity for a prospective admin to demonstrate that even if they don't know all of the answers that they know how to find them! Thus, his answers, IMHO, were very appropriate.Balloonman (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - As users have already said, the user's answer to some of the questions have made me very skeptical about whether he really knows the key policy points from practice, instead of from just "studying up", as Wisdom89 said above this comment. In addition, most of his work seems to be with templates. After that, he seems to be concerned with his FAC. He does not show much of a need for the admin tools. Maybe if he had more experience in AFD and if he participated more in vandalism reversion, then he would have enough experience to know what he was doing when it comes to the admin tools. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

   The timing of this RFA and the FAC is purely coincidental, but since both require rapid responses, the two are now all I work on at the moment. This means that I am currently neglecting my other regular activities (monitoring my watchlist, patrolling recent changes and new pages, and Afd/Tfd). I participate regularly in vandalism reversion, so I am unsure about the problem here. - 52 Pickup (deal)

3. Oppose - Per User:Wisdom89. Answers to questions are a bit weak, and seems to demonstrate a lack of hands on experience related to admin duties. I am not sure i see a need for the tools. Tiptoety ^talk 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

   The immediate need is clear: due to the successful propogation of some of my work (and the reliance of so many articles on this work), I am gradually becoming locked out of items that I either created, significantly contribute to, or maintain. So while having admin access would increase my ability to contribute to the project, not having admin access is slowly decreasing this ability as more of my work becomes locked. My assistance with other works which are also admin-only is also sometimes requested. As stated a number of times above, I am also becoming increasingly reliant on admins to do my work for me in other matters: work which I am quite capable of doing on my own, and not just simple vandalism-reversion. Going by the support above, admins that I have worked with have seen from my past actions that I am sufficiently experienced, trustworthy and capable to continue with admin rights, also so they can continue their own work without having to do my work, too. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

I'll wait for some more answers before !voting. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 10:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEPARK} ^talk 17:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am slightly skeptical about the user's need for admin powers since most of the user's work seems to be in templates and other related material. In addition, as WBOSITG, I am eagerly waiting for the rest of the questions to be answered. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 15:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Changed to oppose Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the templates this user edits are now fully protected. Admin powers are therefore critical for this user to continue this work. --Ginkgo100^talk 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call them "powers". Icestorm815 • Talk 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but editing protected pages isn't exactly wielding a mop. I guess I should say, he needs keys to the janitor's closet. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I am leaning towards oppose at the moment (due to what seems like a lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace and various other tasks administrators would need to take part in), but I need to see how the candidate answers the rest of the questions. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C) 02:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)}

Neutral leaning toward strong support. Switched to support. The issues raised by others above about your policy knowledge and preparation for this RfA are curable with an hour or two's work. Please see my question 17 above. When you've read (or at least skimmed) everything listed on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list this month, let me know and I'll be happy to support! Bonus points if you add your name to the recall list. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral Good answer to Q17. Very good. I'm sure you'll be okay, despite my misgivings on block/ban. Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.