Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fences and windows

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Fences and windows[edit]

Final tally: (128/5/3); Ended Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:13:24 (UTC) Closed by Avi

Nomination[edit]

Fences and windows (talk · contribs) – Fences and windows would, I think, make an excellent sysop. If you participate at AfD, you will already know his name, but for those who don't, a short introduction is in order.

Fences and windows has been with us since 27 December 2006. With a clean block log since then, over 15,000 edits at the time of typing, and having authored a range of fascinating and idiosyncratic articles of which my personal favourite is Underwater basket weaving, his main expertise is nevertheless at AfD rather than as a content contributor. I invite you to examine Fences and windows' contributions and satisfy yourself of the thoughtful, sane and sensible attitude he displays.

You'll also see that this is a user who is sometimes active in the more contentious areas of the encyclopaedia; he has participated in RFC/U, in DRV and so on. I think this is a huge net positive. I do sometimes disagree with Fences and Windows' opinion; but I can never find fault with his conduct.

For your convenience, here is a link to Soxred's tool.

I'm choosy about who to nominate for adminship, and I do this very rarely—it's been so long since the last time that my only previous nomination has almost retired from active editing in the meantime. I've been badgering Fences and windows to stand for adminship for some months and he has always previously declined, so I am delighted that at long last, I have permission to make this nomination.

I commend Fences and windows to the community. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination by Black Kite[edit]

I very rarely nominate for adminship but always try to make exceptions for what I believe are exceptional editors. I first encountered Fences and windows on deletion-related pages. Since I tend to lean slightly towards the "deletionist", we were often on opposing sides of debates, yet I was immediately impressed with the manner in which he calmly and logically explained his views on notability and other relevant issues, in stark contrast to many other editors who frequent these areas. Such communication with other editors is a vital tool for any administrator. He has a good background as a content contributor, and his activity at AfD, DRV and RFC means he has a good breadth of activity in project and admin-related areas. I agree with the nominator and believe he would make an excellent administrator.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Accepted, thanks! Fences&Windows 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Mainly areas to do with article deletion. I'm familiar with AfD and proposed deletions, and I've done some speedy deletion tagging. I'll always give a full rationale for AfD closures and otherwise explain my admin actions. Other than that, I plan to lend a hand with AIV and RPP and other areas that might have backlogs, but I'll tread carefully while learning the ropes.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've created or expanded quite a few articles, often in eclectic areas as S Marshall notes. Underwater basket weaving and Wound licking are two that I took early this year as I was getting more involved in Wikipedia from being stubs to B-class articles. Sex after pregnancy was written from scratch on request to replace an article on the topic that suffered from original research and a how-to tone. I revamped Starbucks, Human evolution, Tag (game) and others by removing original research, restructuring, and adding references. I've rescued around 200 articles from being proposed for deletion, expanding and improving the majority of them in the process. You can see more about my editing on my userpage here.
I've participated in quite a few debates at Articles for Deletion - finding sources is my most useful contribution there. My editing goes where the sources take me. I helped start the small but growing Article Incubator —though the real credit goes to Fritzpoll and GTBacchus— and I've helped draft a proposal, Wikipedia:Notability (news events), to help with the thorny and perennial problem of how to handle articles about events.
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: Sure, a few conflicts, they're hard to avoid if you're not a pure WikiGnome. Editing Wikipedia can be a little frustrating sometimes, but it's not exactly stressful. Usually things can be worked out pretty quickly on article or user talk pages, and maintaining a sense of humour helps. My one memorable run-in with sockpuppetry was quickly resolved with a couple of reports to SPI, and the editor took my advice and returned to contribute useful edits.
Optional question from Skomorokh
4. Have you ever edited from an account other than Fences and windows (talk · contribs)? If so, would you care to disclose the account(s) in question?
I registered an account under my real name, but I never used it. Fences&Windows 21:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries; have you edited under any other accounts?  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No others, just some IPs. Fences&Windows 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Spartaz
5. Please explain how you think our BLP policy should be applied to articles nominated for deletion?
A: The same as all articles that concern living people: rigorously. They need to be well sourced, balanced, and to avoid causing harm. Poorly sourced or unsourced material should be removed. Articles about living people that can't be sourced well or be written neutrally using the available reliable sources should be deleted. We should also be sensitive to the BLP policy while discussing articles concerning living people, particularly at AfD. BLP1E is often a consideration at AfD; unless that person is central to the event and the event is significant, BLP1E generally means we shouldn't have an article about them, though it doesn't preclude there being an article about the event (often the best solution to a BLP1E bio) or there being a section concerning them and the event in another article. WP:NOTSCANDAL, which refers to BLP, is also relevant to some articles nominated for deletion. Regarding the recent proposal to default to delete when there is no consensus over the notability of a living person, if WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP are not concerns, I don't think a lack of consensus over Wikipedia:Notability (people) should override them. If I see no consensus yet I favour deletion, I'll add my arguments instead of closing as delete. Fences&Windows 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Royalbroil
6. I am not familiar with your work. I see you're familiar with deletion, so I have a question in that area for you. What would you do if you ran across this speedy deletion nominee? Is it eligible for speedy? What if it were a prod and enough time had elapsed? Royalbroil 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Wow, this is like a school test! I don't think that A7 applies here, as the article makes a credible claim that he's a middling race car driver, especially as he beat a blue-linked driver in one season. Despite the lack of sources, it's not eligible for speedy. For prod, I think the news coverage of his racing career would be enough to deprod, e.g. [1][2][3]. There's also substantial local coverage of him later on as the VP and co-owner with his brother of Scotty's Fashions; it's the same guy as that firm sponsored his Nascar career. Fences&Windows 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox
7. It's sometimes interesting to ask a candidate how they would respond to current or recent situations that have arisen at WP:ANI, so here's some recent "drama" related questions for you:

7a. Should there be some sort of "back door" made to permit banned or indefinitely blocked user to suggest changes they would like to see made to Wikipedia, with users or admins in good standing evaluating their proposals and making the changes if they are good ones? The idea being that this would discourage them from further disruption via socking. Does it make a difference if they were banned by the community, banned by arbcom, or indef blocked by an admin? (Note that I am not asking for a regurgitation of the banning/blocking policy, but rather your feelings on whether this is a good idea or not.)

A: An interesting idea, somewhat akin to the WP:Reward board where paid editing is allowed under scrutiny. In a way Wikipedia Review already serves this function. Meatpuppetry on behalf of banned users isn't allowed per policy, but as this proposal would be to bring the interaction with the banned user into the open where it is disclosed and can be assessed by several editors the proposal might have some merit. There is a de facto gaping hole that allows persistent vandals or disruptive editors to sock until each account is blocked; the proposal could be a way to coax them into being collaborative under the watch of the community. If it just turned into a mess of vandalism and insults it could be shelved. An alternative way of dealing with disruptive but potentially useful editors could be turning on flagged revisions for an account rather than an article.

7b. What would you do if you see a report of a mildly offensive username that has made a few edits that are not vandalism? What about a username that has words in it that you wouldn't use when talking to your grandmother, but which has not made any edits?

A: 'Mildly offensive' is to hard to judge, it could mean nothing to many editors but be mortally offensive to some. I'd discuss it with the user if I did think it was problematic and suggest they change it. If they won't discuss it or I can't decide then -> Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Assuming that "a word I wouldn't use when talking to my grandmother" means a swear word, I suppose it depends how obviously offensive it is. Any of the 'most offensive' terms as defined by the BBC should probably be blocked immediately. Sexual swearwords, terms of racist abuse, terms of sexual and sexist abuse or abuse referring to sexuality, pejorative terms relating to illness or disabilities, casual or derogatory use of holy names or religious words and especially in combination with other offensive language.[4] Fences&Windows 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I parsing your list correctly? It seems to include "casual... use of holy names". Would you want to block User:GoddamnScientist for a username violation, to pick an actual example? rspεεr (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The average Wikipedia editor is not so easily offended as the average listener or watcher of the BBC. 'Goddamn' has lost most of its religious connotations; what is blasphemy in one age is a mild curse in another. So, no, I'd not say an account with such a username should be blocked. Fences&Windows 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Coffee
8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. If I had a strong opinion on it I'd add to the debate rather than closing it. Relisting is also an option when there's been low levels of participation. If after taking into account any socking, SPAs, canvassing, arguments that aren't based in policy etc. (though not all policy-based arguments necessarily quote or link to policy) I can still see no consensus, I would close as no consensus. This defaults to keep, as there isn't yet community approval for closing contentious BLP AfDs as delete. That said, WP:BLPDEL gives provision for summary deletion in some serious cases such as unsourced attacks and irredeemably non-neutral articles, and in the unlikely event that the AfD participants missed this or failed to fix the article I would consider closing as delete, highlighting the possibility of a deletion review in my closing statement. Fences&Windows 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. If the subject of the BLP has requested deletion, this may sway thing towards delete. Fences&Windows 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. It's a comprehensive and well-written policy that serves Wikipedia well. The presumption of privacy, the requirement for all content to be well sourced, and the exemption of removals under BLP from 3RR make keeping our biography articles neutral and non-vandalised much easier.
I've expanded a few BLPs. One in particular that has suffered from repeated vandalism and attacks is Altaf Hussain. I've sourced it and I regularly revert vandalism to the page. I helped keep a relationship rumour about Camilla Belle out of her page until it was confirmed by reliable sources, I sourced Meena Durairaj and kept speculation of her year of birth out (which has been changed at least 120 times), and I've removed non-neutral material from Philip Green. I wrote an article about a convicted sex offender, John Worboys, that I hope is conservatively written and well-sourced. I keep various other BLPs like Ryan Seacrest watchlisted to revert vandalism, and I know that urban legends about Richard Gere have no place in the article. Fences&Windows 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Þjóðólfr
10. What are the three best things and what are the three worst things about Wikipedia.
A: The best thing is that anyone can make it better and the worst thing is that anyone can make it worse! The fact that anyone can edit is at once the greatest strength and greatest weakness of Wikipedia, but so long as we have the right structures and processes in place and we keep our content contributors happy the good should outweigh the bad. An adjunct to that is that new editors are essential, but the steep learning curve of markup, jargon and rules means that few new editors can contribute well. The principle of consensus is another excellent aspect, which ensures that we need to discuss and persuade rather than bulldozing other editors. Inertia may be one of the worst aspects: we may be too neophobic. We need to avoid closing down discussion too quickly and to give new ideas a chance, for instance the Article Incubator was nominated at MfD before it even had a chance to make any mistakes. As regards content, the best thing is that we demand sources. Without this rule we'd be like Knol or Yahoo! Answers. The worst thing is that not all our articles are sourced well or at all, giving us a credibility gap between our ideals and reality that takes a lot of editor-hours to fix. Fences&Windows 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Ray
11. Could you please describe the situations where an admin should ignore !votes at AfD?
A: Blatant sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, single purpose accounts, !votes that give no reasoning at all, banned users, other signs of bad faith, arguments based in liking or disliking the topic rather than in policy, arguments that are now moot as the article has changed, and arguments that don't take into account major problems with the article concerning verifiability, neutrality, BLP, or original research, as "these policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Fences&Windows 20:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Bigtimepeace
11. You say in your response to Q1 that you'll "always give a full rationale for AfD closures" which is great and something I find particularly important, obviously especially when an AfD's consensus was at least somewhat up for debate. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that pledge slightly by providing one or two examples of what you would take to be very good AfD close rationales, and one or two examples where the rationale was notably lacking, and then explain quickly what was good or bad about these. If it's too troublesome to find specific examples (or too opening-a-can-of-worms, in the case of speaking about a specific bad close!) perhaps you can speak more generally about how admins closing AfDs should go about explaining their rationale—i.e. what to do and what not to do—so we can have a more specific sense of your thinking on this question which goes to the heart of activities you would do as an admin.
A: I'd rather not go into specific examples of closes I thought gave insufficient explanation as I don't think this is the right forum to examine the actions of admins. I liked SoWhy's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Warrick, as I said at the time,[5] and Backslash Forwardslash's close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination), again as I said at the time and despite a DRV being opened.[6] The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado balloon incident was bold and epic - oh, that was done by the questioner... honest I didn't pick that one deliberately to suck up...
If there is any substantial disagreement in the debate it is good to explain the closure, 'substantial' meaning that at least one editor gave a dissenting argument that shouldn't be ignored. There are some 'obvious' closures, especially when there was unanimity, but even in those cases I'll have had to understand the points being made to reach a decision, so quickly typing out my reasoning won't be a hardship. As AfD isn't a vote a minority viewpoint could heavily influence the decision if it raised serious enough issues and the majority argument wasn't grounded in policy. As for general points, the summary concerns the arguments and not the editors who made them, and it should give enough detail that it shouldn't be necessary to read the whole debate to get a gist of the consensus. If my reasoning is ever questionable I'd much rather someone could see it upfront rather than needing to approach me for my reasoning; admin decisions may look like the Oracle to many new editors, but there's a human behind the decisions who can make mistakes. Fences&Windows 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. You say above on Q8 regarding BLP AfDs, "if the subject of the BLP has requested deletion, this may sway thing towards delete." Assuming the subject of the BLP is relatively unknown (which is of course necessary per policy if we are considering a deletion request by the subject), do you have in mind particular situations where we would not honor a deletion request by a marginally notable individual? Drilling down a bit further, if a marginally notable subject requests deletion which results in an AfD, and the discussion results in a number of "keep" comments which say "we should not care what the subject wants" and an equal or higher percentage of "delete" comments which cite the "where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete" clause of the deletion policy, how are you going to proceed in terms of evaluating consensus and closing the AfD? Thanks in advance (assuming you have time) for your answers, which have been excellent so far.
A: If there was debate on how well known the person was that would affect my decision as there's no clear dividing line between being a public figure and not being a public figure. The keep arguments in your hypothetical example would be disregarding deletion policy under which we can take into account the wishes of the subject, so if there was no other substance to the arguments I think such a debate could be closed as delete. Fences&Windows 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please notice that it is "can" take note, not "must" take note. We can equally choose to ignore it. It is not an invalid argument to say we ought to ignore it. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was interpreting "we should not care what the subject wants" to mean we should not care in general, i.e. a somewhat flippant disregard. I realise the wording uses the word may, making it clear that we have no obligation to delete. We should always consider what the subject wants, so we always care what they want, but sometimes their notability will be sufficient that consensus is to keep the bio nevertheless. Fences&Windows 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from DGG
13. For 2 or 3 of what you consider the most difficult AfDs in the list for a few days back, give your opinion on how you would close if there are no further comments.
A: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucible (software) is tricky as nobody's made great efforts to find sources. There's a strong argument that it does not have independent notability, but the proposal to merge the software tool to the parent company per WP:PRESERVE is well made as the tool is verifiable, so: Merge. p.s. I added two sources to the discussion.
Although I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews, I'd like to use this example as I've already struck my !vote and left a comment instead. The arguments from both sides are well made; the out-of-date source material isn't ideal, but the topic is notable. I'm not convinced of the delete arguments WP:MADEUP, WP:SYNTH, WP:POINT, or WP:COATRACK, as they don't seem to apply. The issue of exactly what the article is about is a good one - attitudes to illness, genetics of some populations of Jewish people? - but there isn't consensus to delete. I'd say there is no consensus - though I considered keep - and I'd recommend Incubation, to continue discussion on the talk page and heavy editing to update the article, though of course I couldn't enforce it.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthiest historical figures (2nd nomination) should close as delete for all the lists. The 'by year' lists have a clear consensus for deletion. For the other two lists, those arguing for deletion raise problems with original research - acknowledged by the keep !voters - that appear to be inherent in such lists and not fixable by normal editing; the inclusion criteria are defined by editors and not by outside sources, and the editors supporting keep haven't proposed how to resolve the OR issues.
I would not know how to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prithee; I would add my opinion and allow an admin versed in the dividing line between dicdef and encyclopedia entry close it. If forced, I'd say no consensus. Fences&Windows 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Similarly for 3=2 of the most disputed articles still at Deletion Review.
A: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Andrew Storms and Tim D. Keanini: both should be restored. The arguments about lack of notability don't address the speedy deletion process and there's agreement that this wasn't followed correctly.
Wikipedia:Deletion review#The Storks etc. Consensus endorses deletion. The speedy deletion of pages created by a banned user is within policy (articles meeting the criteria for speedy deletion can be deleted even if contested), and there is no consensus to overturn.
Wikipedia:Deletion review#EmoTrance is a strange one as it isn't a deletion review as such but more a recreation review. Userfying the recreated article appears to be the consensus, so it can be worked on to properly show notability. Fences&Windows 01:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • I have stumbled across some further edits that I find a bit troubling. This series of edits during a deletion discussion added a lot of non-substantial information to the article. When the nominator removed much of it, F&W responded with a paragraph or so that read (at least to me, anyway) as quite defensive. However, as no one (other than the nom) had recommended deleting, Pastor Theo performed a non-admin closure, as "keep", before any further discussion of F&W's edits there took place, so it's hard to tell whether or not my gut feeling that this user tends to get defensive when challenged is right or wrong. I've experienced it myself, in an AFD, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about it, but I just thought these diffs were at least worth mentioning. Here's a link to the entire (short) deletion discussion. UA 11:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing stats posted to talk page. JamieS93 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. As nominator.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Easy and strong support, I watchlisted this the minute Marshall posted the link on F&W's tp as I wanted to be an early supporter. F&W is one of the most thoughtful editors I have come across. -SpacemanSpiff 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - has some excellent contribs, seems friendly. — Oli OR Pyfan! 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Rd232 talk 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Great editor. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I think I have disagreed with F&W as often as agreed, but even when they are wrong it is for good reasons :). - 2/0 (cont.) 20:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as co-nominator. Black Kite 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Great candidate. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Contrary to popular belief, I am always happy when I have the opportunity to support a self-proclaimed atheist at RfA. Keepscases (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. Absolutely. Tan | 39 21:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support without hesitation. Crafty (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Good contributor, with a good attitude. I think they would be a good mop-wielder. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. This contributor does a great job in facilitating cooperation with his editing. Location (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support This one falls under the "they weren't an admin already?" category. As the nominator said, Fences and windows is well-known to AfD regulars, and I support him based on my observations of him there. He's a terrific mainspace contributor in addition to his excellent work at AfD and with PROD and CSD – and a trustworthy longtime editor. Giving him the mop will absolutely be a benefit to the community. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - A great editor, and I've participated in policy discussions with them and find their arguments reasonable. -- Atama頭 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Duh. Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Absolutely. Sterling work— creating content, sourcing and improving articles coupled with sound grasp of policy.   pablohablo. 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Without reservation. Hipocrite (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I too like what I've seen of this user. Deor (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support We've "bumped heads" occasionally, and each and every time I've come away with an appreciation for this editor's willingness to engage in meaningful discussion and for his acumen with matters dealing with policy, guideline, and process. He has my full suport. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have never heard of you knowningly before, but you seem very qualified. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A thoughtful editor, respected on both sides of the aisle at AfD. --Chris Johnson (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. (triple edit-conflict) Have seen the candidate around, and the impressions have been positive. Reviewing the candidate's history, I was especially impressed with the AfD work (including deletion sorting). I trust the judgment of both the nominators, so I have no reservations here. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I don't see any reason not to. Logan Talk Contributions 23:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Qualified. Sole Soul (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support his AfD record appears strong, and judging from his contributions I think that his rescue work, cleanup and sourcing meet my standards for contributions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Sure; I've disagreed with the candidate on numerous occasions, and while I'd appreciate if they would make better use of edit summaries, I've got no reason to believe they wouldn't handle the bit with particular care. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support, yes. F&W is an excellent, experienced editor who gets it. JamieS93 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Fought the good fight on the Richard Gere gerbil issue. Obviously understands the importance of BLP. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. AfD is an important area of Wikipedia where the administrative tools make a major difference. Judging by the comments about him, F & W is probably one of Wikipedia's most seasoned editors in this area. My own experience with F & W has been very positive--in the deletion discussion we were in together, he worked hard to find verifiable references to substitute for the hate sites that were used as references for the article in question. Although the article was eventually judged unsalvageable and the references he found were not added, I was impressed with his reasoned analysis of the issues at hand and the labor he put into trying a new approach to this very heated discussion. AfD is a very contentious part of Wikipedia and it's difficult to always agree with a particular editor, but F & W should be good at making sensible decisions and keeping the heat down. Plus, I think F & W is one of Wikipedia's more modest top editors. --AFriedman (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Fences and windows is a calm, reasonable and dedicated wikipedian working on various projects for the benefit of wikipedia who has lots of experience and knowledge of wikipedia and its various policies and guidelines.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Spartaz Humbug! 02:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Well thought out response to my question and spent the time to research the answer. Once you get to be an experienced admin, it gets so easy to just hit delete. We need admins who spend some time to analyze marginal cases. Royalbroil 03:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I very often disagree with Fences & Windows, however, "The bearer of a slighted message, cannot be justified in considering himself offended, if he be treated with politeness; because the character of his friend is a mere matter of opinion, upon which two very estimatable gentlemen may differ, and it must always be a censurable intolerance, which would attempt to force upon one man's mind, even the correct opinion of another." Gigs (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 04:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - You may want to work on XfD stuff per the opposes below, but I've seen enough good work to support. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support You may need to work something out on the AfD, but you're good enough to support Wikipedia in the near future. Good luck! - --Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 08:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fences and windows. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I have no reason to believe that F&W is unwilling to learn from mistakes and I think A Nobody's examples will serve as a reminder he will learn from. The only negative thing about this candidate as far as I can see is their signature. I really don't like sigs that use a different background color, it makes them stick out in discussions. But that's just my personal opinion and certainly no reason to oppose ;-) Regards SoWhy 11:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. A fine addition to the admin corps. I already was impressed with his AfD work, but I took to the time to review the areas mentioned in the opposes. None of the discussions mentioned concern me, and I quite appreciate the editor's attempts to the strike a moderate tone at this essay on AFD participation. Should have the tools. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No problems here. A8UDI 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Solid candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I first encountered Fences and windows after seeing an edit that led me to think that this user was a "shoot first and ask questions later" deletionist. However, after an amicable follow-up discussion I realized that my initial judgment had been wrong (although that one edit had been a mistake). Based on my subsequent observations and review of the some contributions history, F&W is a careful and helpful contributor who would I expect would use admin tools responsibly and productively. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - he isn't already?--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 14:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support generally seems to get it, even when i disagree with him (which is often) his views are reasonable, doesn't play games, and appears healthily disinterested in questions of ideological purity.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. snigbrook (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - seems like a reasonable person, should do a good job with the tools. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support With some very minor reservations. I do want to note the breadth of impressions this candidate has left on voters vis a vis his "deletion" stance. That should be a cautionary note for anyone interested in painting candidates with broad strokes--one person's deletionist is another person's inclusionist. Protonk (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Clear and concise judgment across the board. --King Öomie 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support – I don't see a reason to oppose here (unlike the oppose reasons so far, which seem to smack of bitter wiki-political infighting as usual). He'll do a fine job as an administrator. MuZemike 17:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ask you to strike your accusation against me, or clarify who you mean. I can't speak for the other two opposers, but my oppose is not about "bitter wiki-political infighting" or anything resembling that. I find it offensive that you have characterized it as such. UA 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll bet a dollar he isn't talking about you. And I find this remark humorous given your willingness to criticize the candidate over his alleged defensiveness. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He may well not be, but his brush was broad in his accusation. As for what you find humorous, I'm unclear how asking someone to strike or clarify an accusation is similar to F&W becoming defensive when his rationale was challenged at AFD. Completely dissimilar situations, at least the way I see it, but I guess you can't help what you find funny! :) UA 18:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you can't. Perhaps a less passive-aggressive comment on my part would have been to suggest that responding defensively to an accusation appears to be a common enough failing that we might agree admin candidates are human too. As I noted above in the discussion section, F&W appeared to be responding to DG's over the top edit summary, not refutation of claims in an AfD. That's not so dissimilar from this case. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Yes, why not? AtheWeatherman 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Total Support despite the very valid oppose reasons from Editors ANobody, UA & Ikip; per all the above the candidate warrants full support. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I have encountered this editor before at AFD, and while he was sometimes on the other side of the !votes I have nothing but respect for this editor. Clear, concise and levelheaded, will make a good admin. RP459 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Sure. S/he'll do fine. MastCell Talk 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Good editor.--Staberinde (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Very good contributor. Warrah (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've had good interactions with this editor, find them to be reasonable, and see nothing that bothers me greatly in the oppose section. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I like the question answers, cursory sampling of edits looks good, as have the few times I've seen the editor around. Frankly, I think the arguments linked by the opposes are, if not the most articulate I've ever seen, decent and supportable and net positives to the discussions wherein they occurred. RayTalk 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per above. Dlohcierekim 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Frankly the opposes convinced me. AniMate 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahaha, that's classic!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if you find mocking good-faith contributors, simply for opposing an RFA "classic", I guess so. UA 02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    QQ Badger Drink (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. The opposes seem to be arguing on the basis of disagreement regarding the merits of a few articles. Quite frankly, if that is to be used to oppose then no one who participated in AfD would ever become an admin. As it happens, I probably disagree with fences and windows as much as I agree, but the reasons given are normally articulate and well thought out. Quantpole (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My opposed is based upon what I perceive as a lack of judgment, particularly with regards to the two situations I mentioned, as well as a general gut feeling. Both of these are perfectly acceptable reasons to oppose, just as "I like him" is a perfectly acceptable reason for supporting. (Note that I'm not saying that is your reasoning, just that the bar those who support have to jump over is much lower than the bar that is set for anyone opposing.) UA 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Andrea105 (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support — A reasonable editor; 'nuf said. *nod* @ AniMate ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Looks good - a great user who will definitely benefit from the mop. Airplaneman talk 02:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support User seems to make fair arguments in AFD's and has put forth a good effort in that area. Could have been clearer on notability and deletion, but otherwise answers are satisfactory. Mrathel (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support. Will be a great AfD closer 1) because of his huge amount of experience 2) because he seems to be quite in the middle between inclusionism and deletionism, allowing for a fair reading of the discussions. Good luck! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Have encountered this user in several places and have always seen positive contributions to every area that I've run across. Frmatt (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No reservations here. I don't believe the candidate will break anything, and will make a fine admin. ArcAngel (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Absolutely. Excellent answers to questions. GedUK  08:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support He has 2048 edits in a single month!!!This itself shows how dedicated he is to Wikipedia.He will make a great admin. AruNKumaRTalK 11:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no comment.  GARDEN  18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per nom. Sluggo | Talk 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Always resonable at AfD, willing to reconsider his !vote, recall one instance when he recommended WP:INCUBATE which tells me he has the best interests of the project at heart. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I am satisfied by the user's contributions as a whole and by his/her responses to questions. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong support Wizardman 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support My interactions with this editor have been almost entirely positive and always rational/civil. Overall, I would say giving him/her "keys to the mop" would be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Decent answers to questions, I find the opposes wholly unconvincing and reading them actually helped me be sure I wanted to support. That he left the ARS after seeing problems there shows he does have good judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Happy to pile on. When I read Black Kite's co-nom I was convinced, but I already had a good impression of this editor. Jusdafax 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Weak Support - While all my experiences with this editor have not been the best, and I don't entirely agree with his stance on BLPs, he still seems level headed enough to be a good admin. Good luck with the tools! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Fences & Windows has been an excellent contributor at AfD, and I fully trust him with the tools. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. Well-thought answers, and I don't feel the need to agree with every word of the answers to support a candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per nom, good answers, good edits. --John (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support This is an easy one! Do live up to your answer to question 1 and lend a hand at AIV, RPP, and other underserved areas; you'll be an asset. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Has done a good job so far. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per A Nobody. Badger Drink (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Fences and windows is an excellent editor and an insightful researcher. Abductive (reasoning) 08:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong support. I've seen good work showing good judgement by this editor. His answers both above and to Oppose voters all hit the mark. Should be an excellent Admin. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Got a good feeling. The opposes don't really persuade me.  GARDEN  18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support after review of solid contribs. You'll do just fine. Keeper | 76 18:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I've spotted F&W's comments on a few occasions recently and they seemed well thought through and balanced. That's the sort of person we need as an administrator. Answers to the questions are good too. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per noms. Theleftorium 20:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Seems to be solid...Modernist (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support- very clueful editor. Reyk YO! 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Seems a very thoughtful editor and excellent answers to the questions. I've no concerns with Fences and windows taking on an admin's role in AfD discussions based on the well reasoned responses to some specific questions above. I've also recently been impressed by the effort to get Wikipedia:Notability (events) to guideline level and this editor has played a key role in that. The concerns of those opposing really do not convince me, and in fact Fences and windows seems to have comported himself well in most all of the situations discussed. Should do well as an administrator and I'm happy to support. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Samir 13:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. I have met the candidate occasionally and got a very good impression overall. Excellent answers to the questions, and excellent judgement in all the borderline AfD cases that were featured by some opposers. Hans Adler 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. It's not difficult to close AFDs, even if your arguments are weak. Voting and closing are two entirely different things. Majorly talk 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. By and large pleased with what I have seen from this editor. Shereth 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, in confidence of good sense and care, dave souza, talk 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Good answers to questions, seems a sensible editor who has the experience, both in number of edits and in the breadth of areas covered to be very effective and trustworthy with the mop. HJMitchell You rang? 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support I don't see any problems. I appreciate the arguements about deletion; it is a sensitive issue to have an article deleted. However, this type of fighting is why turn-out is often so low - why get involved? It is only going to haunt you. No problems in judgement, and I am not going to try to separate a possibly less than perfect statement from an imperfectly cited answer from a minutely reworded response. Look at the body of the work, not playing "gotcha".King Pickle (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support indeed. Checks out well (including and especially AfD: I cannot agree with the complaints cited by Opps), admirable answers, positive contributions and a pleasure to work with. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Another sane admin candidate actually moving toward approval? If this keeps up I may lose my jaded and cynical view of this place. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong support - trustworthy - thought s/he was already.  7  10:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. I checked through the candidate's edit history yesterday and liked what saw. Fences and windows is a thoughtful, experienced, helpful editor. Majoreditor (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. I've seen the candidate around, and wanted to refresh my memory, so I looked at F&W's contributions at Talk:Abortion, and I like what I saw: thoughtful research and good people skills under difficult conditions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. This is a user that I have a lot of respect for. We drafted WP:EVENT together, and I believe I also handled a MedCab case in which he conducted himself in a manner that I would expect of an admin. I believe F&W will make a good sysop, as he appears to have the decorum that I believe is necessary for the flag. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Trustworthy editor, good nom and great answers. Extremely unconvincing opposes. Astronominov 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support: Constructive Editor who is a net positive. I have no doubt that he will listen to the concerns raised by those who oppose. -Ret.Prof (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Net positive, no reason I can find to make me oppose, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Great user who works to improve Wikipedia. The Arbiter★★★ 22:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Looks good. Malinaccier (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support per A.Nobody. @Kate (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. SuppertWTHN?Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Per not finding a reason to block or oppose per the good responces to the questions above--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Yep - Great editor. December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 04:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Yes because I've had good experience of this person, and because I've looked at the Oppose comments below and find I agree with Fences and windows that Rusty Ryan should have been deleted. I am somewhat surprised that it survived the AfD! Also, the harmless statement in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol appears to be correct. And, having looked at the deleted Children of Michael Jackson I agree with Fences in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Michael Jackson that the article met our guidelines and had put forward a good argument for the children having acquired enough notability for a standalone article. Sometimes notable people have notable relatives - WP:NOTINHERITED makes that clear. SilkTork *YES! 12:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. I see a lot of reasonableness from this candidate, which speaks well to their ability to properly use the tools, if and when. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Helpful editor, good contribs, reasonable decision-making history. --StaniStani  18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Strong support An excellent editor with thoughtful contributions to discussion, even when we don't agree. Opposes appear to be frivolous and partisan. ThemFromSpace 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Everything that I reviewed indicates a very competent, friendly, and thoughtful editor. I think our project would benefit by more research and forethought prior to hitting a "save" button, rather than much of the "off-the-top-their-head" types of efforts that are often seen on WP. F&W appears to me to be just such an editor, and the admin. corps could certainly benefit by the style of research and objectivity that I see from F&W. — Ched :  ?  19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Strong support Without any reservation. I'm dissapointed with the opposes by the usual suspects from my ARS colleagues below, to my mind their arguments show this candidate deserves the tools (and I don't mean as punishment!) Verbal chat 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Any perceived judgment issues seem part of the natural learning curves, i trust this editor to make good decisions and ask for help when needed. -- Banjeboi 20:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards. On the positive side of things, the candidate has never been blocked, does have some barnstars on his userpage, and has made some reasonable arguments in AfDs as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German-Libyan relations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avatar (Ultima) (although I said to keep, and he said to merge, this merge was expressed in a reasonable manner), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Mexico relations, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean (2nd nomination). With that said, the candidate has also made some frustratingly weak arguments elsewhere: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Ryan (2nd nomination) (the delete "vote" was enough to make someone say to "keep" per the candidate's delete...), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Vampire Folk lore) (a clear "no consensus" discussion in which the candidate did not follow WP:PRESERVE, redlinking in this case was simply unreasonable; I can respectfully disagree, but in one like this I cannot trust that judgment as reflective of the actual value of the content under discussion), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination) (again, not following WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, etc., i.e. not getting that deletion is an extreme last resort), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot (no reason/rationale provided, just a vote), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley (a WP:PERNOM style "vote"), etc. Some of these delete votes seem to against common sense even and are dug in without a willingness to accept a compromise and that is particularly disheartening. This candidate is someone who at times I had hopes/faith in, but more so than anything else, really lost me over the "Lamia" article and the overreation of quiting the ARS over it is not the kind of calmness and composure I look for in admins. I hope to see more of the first few positive examples I list above that would maybe change my mind down the road, but I do not have confidence in reasonability and calmness at this time. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (please do not count this against F&W as "badgering opposers") I disagree with every of the bad examples you mention. Also, I find it unfair to judge the candidate's AfD work as if he was the closing admin - he was an editor at that time, and he is entitled to an opinion. I understand very well that you hold a grudge because of the Lamia article, it was you who tried to save it. But this should not kill an RfA.--Pgallert (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have no other way of knowing how he might close AFDs then by looking at how he approached them as an editor, i.e. what kinds of arguments persuaded him in these discussions. With regards to "Rusty Ryan", no, we are not convinced that mentioned only in passing is a valid reason to delete (red link). If this character from a major film series is WP:V in multiple WP:RS than he is at least worthy of a redirect rather than a redlink. For "Lamia", "already covered elsewhere" is a reason to see what we can merge, again not to just remove everything from the edit history. As far as the validity as a search term. For the "honorific titles," the article is indeed sourced, and WP:JNN is never a compelling reason to delete. Well, it is to whoever created the article and per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. What it really comes down to is that I only participate in so many AfDs and only argue to keep so many as well, i.e. only for articles that are slavageable in some capacity per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Therefore, anyone who says to redlink rather than transwiki, merge, or redirect even an article I say to keep, I cannot trust and do not want to close AfDs reasonably as presumably they are not adequately considering other alternatives to redlinking. I fully believe that Wikipedia:Editors matter and barring we are discussing something libelous, a hoax, or a copyright violation, if any reliable primary or secondary sources exist, we usually have some other alternative than deletion. I simply will not support administrators who do not demonstrate a willingness to consider such alternatives. Moreover, once ANY editor in good standing requests more time to improve an article under discussion that is not a hoax, copy vio, or libelous, then we expect the community to show them the courtesy to do so on a project that does not have a deadline. That is the real meaning of WP:AGF. We do not say, "Well, I don't think it's improveable, so tough." No, we say, "Okay, take a few months and let's see what you can do!" Wikipedia does not exist only for what we care about after all. No one should be an admin who would want any established editor to just stop work on something that is not legally damaging instead of continuing to improve it. If someone is willin to give it a whirl, we must give them the best opportunity to do so, not toss out some arbitrary seven day deadline on a volunteer project. Not force them to start over. Not declare without any real certainty that the article can "never" be improved. Admins must be considerate to other editors in that regard. If it helps, note his comment here: "The premise of the article is that "there were eight distinct conflicts that greatly affected the history of Europe, ranging from the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC to the Battle of Vienna in 1683." Oh, really? Absent any sources that describe these battles in this way, this article is improper synthesis." So, I checked Google Books and Amazon.com, and sure enough there is a source that describes these battles this way: Eds. Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster, Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe: Battles of Macrohistorical Importance Involving Invasions of Europe. Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Vienna, Battle of the Metaurus, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains (Alphascript Publishing, 2009). 120 pages. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no inclusionist, but I'm a big fan of WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, I've helped set up and advocate the Article Incubator to give editors time to improve articles out of articlespace, I regularly suggest alternatives to deletion at AfD, and I've put in plenty of hard work to source and improve articles at AfD. Re: Rusty Ryan, I did provide new sources while arguing for deletion, which isn't the mark of a deletionist! Consensus was to keep, so the close was fine. Deletion is often followed by a redirect being created, I think this was a minor oversight on my part. I left the ARS as I felt it was not living up to its promise, our disagreement over the Lamia AfD was only one reason. I don't want to go into the Lamia debate again. Fences&Windows 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on the AfD for that last one, the book A Nobody gives is a copy of Wikipedia articles, just like all books created by these "authors" and that "publisher". Not a reliable source, not an independent source, not a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    and deceptive enough to fool a regular contributor here. There have been some considerable discussions about how to deal with that publisher--anyone may resell our material, even commercially at an unreasonable price if they can find people fool enough to buy, and they do credit Wikipedia though not in the clearest way, but they do not give the necessary list of contributors to meet the license. Any candidate who was taken in by them would not be ready for admin. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I strongly oppose this nomination, even though I normally simply sit out these things. I definitely share A Nobody's concerns, as the arguments I've seen from this user at AFD's are simply weak, and I haven't been impressed with how s/he supports opinions proffered there. I'm particularly unimpressed by this "keep" recommendation, which offered no real rationale other than basically "it's really not hurting anyone." Also, this rationale, where s/he argues for keeping an article on minor children, with a one line rationale. It's not just that I disagree with these recommendations, it's that I find the judgment behind them very questionable. Enough so that I bookmarked this redlink, which I rarely do, just in case this person ever stood for adminship. UA 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should point out that at MFDs for userspace, "no harm" is considered a valid, albeit weak, argument, unlike at AFD. Gigs (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I don't frequently comment at XfDs, I'll cede that point to you. Even still, someone who would be so glib about keeping an article on minor children does not have the judgment necessary to be an admin, at least in my view. Clearly many disagree with me, though, and F&W seems to be headed to an easy pass. I hope s/he surprises me. UA 06:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the MfD I did go beyond the 'no harm' argument and I'd have thought this was water under the bridge. For the Children of Michael Jackson MfD, thank you for raising this - absolutely, point taken, and it'd have been good to have been dropped a note at the time if you felt that strongly about my !vote. I think this was during a short 'GNG is the best guide' phase and is admittedly one of the weakest arguments I've ever made at AfD. The main arguments raised were ONEEVENT and NOTINHERITED, BLP concerns were a bit lost among all the tl;dr walls of text. Two weeks before that !vote, S Marshall had offered to nominate me for adminship; I declined, saying that "I still have to learn all the intricacies of Wikipedia guidelines and policies." Having seen more of the concerns over BLP since, I'd not make the same argument again. The consensus was clearly to delete and I'm fine with that. Fences&Windows 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, per User_talk:Fences_and_windows/Archive_7#Confused editor appeared to counsel other editors with action he himself did. Seems like double standards. Plus wavering views per WP:ARS on where he stands on articles.[7][8] From my view, editor seems to want to appease all sides, flip flopping from one polar opposite to the other, while taking no firm stand. Ikip (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious, Ikip. What actually is the history with the ARS here?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ikip. I left the ARS as I think it has promise but isn't living up to it; I wasn't seeing a lot of articles tagged for rescue that I felt were good candidates, and there was too much !voting and too little rescue work being done. I opposed the MfD of the ARS earlier in the year and I'd do so again. You acknowledged in that thread that it was not me but other editors who said A Nobody was badgering editors, I don't believe I said that he was. Cyclopia wasn't concerned by my note about the Maura Murray AfD, indeed they changed their assessment of the article. My own reference to me badgering him was a self-deprecating turn of phrase. I commented on the talk page of two other editors about that AfD and it's not something I normally do. Fences&Windows 14:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (@Ikip) I don't see that as 'wavering' or 'appeasing all sides' so much as judging each article on its own merits without regard to the views of any particular "side". This is not a negative in my book.   pablohablo. 15:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I must oppose, because his interpretation of the username policy seems to endorse religiously-motivated username blocks. Names that have religious connotations should not be conflated with being "offensive". It's a bad idea. The policy doesn't really support this, and when people have placed username blocks for religious reasons in the past, it has been done unevenly. The net result of religiously-motivated username blocks is to favor religious beliefs that are well-regarded in English-speaking countries and penalize those that are distrusted minorities. rspεεr (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't endorse such blocks, I apologise for giving that impression. If the use of a religious term in a username is derogatory it may be sufficiently offensive to block, but mere use of a religious term would be fine, e.g. "Nun on the run". I've struck the "casual" part of the BBC's summary of the most offensive terms. Fences&Windows 13:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose His comments throughout this AFD [9] make me concern how he'll close AFDs in the future. An administrator should be able to make rational decisions based on a good reasoning skill, not just mindlessly follow the suggested guidelines. Dream Focus 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we've heard from Robespierre and Marat, who view Danton as too moderate. Abductive (reasoning) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go with Larry, Curly, and Moe,   pablohablo. 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In F&W's defense, his opinion that the article should have been deleted may have ultimately been against consensus (and perhaps "wrong") but it was based on an attempt to find sources per WP:BEFORE that seemed to confirm the opinion that notability was lacking. He did "snap" at someone based on a misunderstanding but apologized for it. While that AfD might not have been his best moment, we all make mistakes and I see a lot of positive things from it (policy-based arguments, willing to apologize for mistakes, etc.). -- Atama頭 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nobody felt my comment was incivil, so I am sorry he took it that way. But my comment was just meant to point out the strength of certain people's convictions, using historical figures (all of whom are still admired by some) as allegory. Abductive (reasoning) 21:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral just oh so very slightly leaning support - A Nobody states a very good point, however I can't oppose. But I can't support at the moment either. Smithers (Talk) 02:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral - Until my questions are answered. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - Like the editor's contributions, but would like to see more New Page Patrolling (currently only 225 patrolled), and no real history of vandalism fighting. Shadowjams (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I know that I opposed and all, but I'm curious how patrolling X amount of new pages and/or vandalism fighting particularly prepares one to be an administrator? UA 10:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at least as valid as the requests for GA or FA, and arguably more so. Contact with new pages and vandalism means that the editor is familiar with the dirty underside of Wikipedia and the trashier things that can happen, and understands how to react within the mainstream of community practice. As somebody wielding a mop, you're more likely to come into contact with dirt than the typical editor, and it is a core administrative function, and in my opinion far more important than the ANI drama wars. RayTalk 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly see your point. Thanks for responding. UA 17:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a reasonable amount of vandalism reversion, with 1800 articles watchlisted I come across it every day. I've done some recent changes and new page patrolling, though my new page patrolling has been on the backlog. I think I've seen plenty of the dark underbelly of the site, but I can understand your reservations. Fences&Windows 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. Not really my concern, honestly. I think 225 new page patrols is more than enough to get you well past the point of diminishing returns as far as getting the flavor of new pages goes. I was just answering a hypothetical and explaining why it is a legitimate concern. For othe reasons I oppose any sort of litmus-testing of the "you haven't done enough of [blah]" variety at RfA, unless blah is "anything on Wikipedia," hence my support above. RayTalk 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm late to respond. RayAYang actually reflects my feelings well. All I want to add is that new page patrols are important to any admin working in deletion work. That number needs to be balanced against the number of edits a user's had. I'm very worried about users with 0 patrols. I'd also be bothered by a user with 30k edits that has 10 new page patrols. I have less concern with the 200+ patrols here (I'm not opposing). I think a healthy page patrol contribution is part of a rounded edit contrib. I don't insist on FA or even GA contribs because admins don't get special privileges on those edits. They do though on many issues that directly touch NPP. So insisting some level of familiarity with NPP is helpful. That's all. Don't read anything more into my comment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Something about his comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut Night (2nd nomination) bothers me. It's not Wikihounding to nominate articles for deletion in good faith... even if someone who worked on the article has been in trouble lately. While I doubt he truly would block someone for Wikihounding for starting a legitimate AFD (which, rightfully, ended in a deletion) to me, his words in the AFD implied he would. I attribute this more to poor word choice than anything else, but I did feel I should drop a note in the RFA just because it's a good chance to be heard. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair they were speaking about wikihounding in general rather than accusing the nom. In that case wikihounding seemed to be going on and is indeed prohibited. Proving someone is indeed wikihounding is a rather tough hurdle, however. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not to beat a dead horse, but in that case the nominator didn't seem to have even heard of you before nominating the article for AFD. If that's true, insinuations that they could be blocked for Wikihounding are in poor taste... and could upset a good faith editor. The whole case is ambiguous, I realize, which is why I wouldn't oppose over it. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fences_and_windows&oldid=1146518748"