Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Skater 2

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

Skater[edit]

Final: (13/24/15). Withdrawn by candidate. Closed by HJ Mitchell at 01:07, 1 April 2010.

Nomination[edit]

Skater (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm Skater and this is my second self-nomination for Adminship. On my last RFA, I was told I needed more experience and to reconsider my "goals" on Wikipedia, which I believe I have. Being an admin is not something one should work for, their efforts are better put in creating and improving articles, and building the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world. As of right now, I have a total of 4,446 edits with most of my deleted being the work of my work in CSD nominations.I honestly try to assist anywhere I'm needed, but I'm simply not a big article writer, though I do have a few stubs created under my belt and a few deleted for various reasons (Mainly non-notable). I've been a vandal hunter for as long as I can remember, using Huggle, Twinkle, and Lupin's anti-vandal tool.

I believe that one of the main reasons someone might oppose me might of been my recent "retirement", in which I did not edit for 2 months and I certainly owe an explanation if I'm to be trusted with the tools. During the time, my eyes were opened to a darker side of the community, one where the Wikimedia foundation did not listen to it's own users on the "Wikipedia Forever" campaign, and one of the users I admire very much was indef blocked for sockpuppetry (Though he has since been given a second chance).I have since found my love of Wikipedia once more and look forward to hearing what the community thinks of me, whether support, Oppose, or neutral. Warm regards,SKATER Speak. 16:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination--SKATER Speak. I think I've seen enough for now, and I withdraw the nomination. I would like to thank you all for taking the time to contribute to this RFA, whether you supported, opposed, or remained Neutral. I will work on the upcoming months to utilize your advice and make the third time the charm, or I might just stay like this and use it to become a better editor. With respect to all--SKATER Speak. 00:23, 1 April 2010 (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 I intend to take part in WP:CSD, and WP:AIV, but I will most likely also dabble in WP:UAA, and where ever assistance is needed.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: It's very hard to say for me to be honest, I'm quite fond of the articles I've created and expanded, but they are all simply stubs, some maybe Start-class worthy. However,my CSD and Anti-vandal work is also close to my heart.
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: It is inevitable that a user will come into a conflict with another User. I myself have been in several situations of the sort. Most I have resolved by simply taking it too WP:WQA, where I am an avid mediator, but the most serious was a genre warrior who has since been indef blocked that went to WP:ANI. I try to understand the views of those who I have the conflict with and always attempt to Assume Good Faith until proven otherwise. I will most likely continue this in the future as well.
Additional optional question from Mike Cline
4. Which of the following do you believe should take precedence for a Wikipedia admin and Why?
a. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are deleted
b. Ensuring that articles that don’t comply with WP policies and guidelines are, when at all possible, improved until they do.
c. Mentoring new and established editors by helping them understand policies and guidelines in a way that allows them to write better articles and improve the encyclopedia
d. Fighting vandalism by blocking persistent vandals and IP addresses.
A:Hi, and thank you for your questions! After thinking on it, All of those are very important tasks for a sysop to do. In my opinion, option C is the most important. Wikipedia is nothing without it's editors, and all editors should help each improve one another. I would be nothing if it weren't for all the people that have mentored me and informed me of the mistakes I've made and what I've done well. D would most likely take second place, as vandals jeopardize the integrity of the project.--SKATER Speak. 03:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from Mkativerata
5. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion tags? [1] and [2]. Note I'm more interested in the reasoning than the actual answer.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Well, both of those appear to be about notable subjects assuming the facts are real. Yet number one clearly doesn't meet Wp:ATH in it's current status. I would most likely Userfy both of those and leave a message explaining the problems I had with them.
Why don't you take another shot at this one, seeing as it's the root cause of so many opposes? Tan | 39 19:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how it couuld be of harm to take another shot at it. After relooking at it I will fully admit that I have made a mistake on this, not the first time I've made and certainly won't be the last. The first one, I would actually keep as it does assert some notability (assuming that it's talking about the "College", and not High School, hopefully I'm understanding British sports correctly). If it was about the High School, however I still wouldn't speedily delete and take to AFD due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. After reading up on WP:BLP, the other one I would immediatley delete, and leave a message at the creators talk page explaining the reason and what they could do to fix it.
Skater, I don't know if you're aware, but Brighton College is an English boy's school and "Harlequins" could refer to Harlequin Amateurs or Harlequin F.C., so it could merely be talking about a boy who has played at approximately the equivalent of varsity level high school rugby with a couple of games in an amateur side. It's not entirely clear from the article, but I thought if you're American you may be confused by the "college" references - it's not the equivalent of the US understanding of "college" sport.Sarah 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's right either way, though. We can't tell if the article means the professional side or the amateur but it's a credible assertion so if it turns out to be the latter, it should go to AfD. Saying that, I'm totally ignorant of rugby. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of it to be honest, I couldn't even tell what Sport it was. I'm just a fan of old fashioned, American Football.--SKATER Speak. 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think HJ Mitchell hits the point that I'm trying to get at with this question. There are a number of parts of the article that create ambiguities about the level at which the athlete has played. Either way it is a credible assertion of notability. In my view, the safe course is to decline the CSD. The overriding principle for the A category of CSD criteria is when in doubt, don't delete. This is based on a real example that ended up getting deleted by prod. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I wasn't trying to suggest it should be speedy deleted; I was trying to give him more information as he may have wanted to clarify his response as keep and take to AFD or keep and talk to the poster/look for sources that may help clarify the article etc as I don't think a simple keep - remove the tag and move on - is really correct for a BLP in that state. Sarah 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from DustFormsWords
6. Given that you are intending to work in CSD, could you please explain your understanding of the A7 Speedy Deletion criterion and why it doesn't apply to computer software?
A:Certainly, It states clearly that A7 is only for " An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Computer software does not fall into this category.
7. Expanding on question 3 above, could you link to examples of significant disputes you have had with other Wikipedians (whether good faith editors or vandals) and explain why you resolved them the way you did?
A: I'd be happy too, I'm short on time right now, but I'll try to get to it later today or tommorow.
Here was the first dispute I was really majorly involved in. I found King in a flame war on User:Spooky873's talk page. (He was editing as the 67. Ip at the time). I took them both to the proper venue of Wikiquette alerts, and then after understanding that Spooky (now indef blocked) was changing the genre despite Consesnsus tried to reason with him to no avail, so I took the last option and went to ANI, where we were ignored. He was however, blocked soon after. I'll work on getting more examples.
Additional optional questions from BigDom
8. Do you plan to close any AfD's as an admin? If not, is there a specific reason?
A: I'll probably dabble everywhere as an Admin, I've participated in AFD's before, but I highly doubt it'll be my highest level of focus.
9. Please describe the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3 in your own wording.
A:Sure, A1 is no context, meaning the article dosen't identify the subject of the article, A3 mean it identifies the subject but dosen't have any information.
10: Assuming userfication is not an option, how would you deal with this speedy deletion tag?
A: I would remove the tag and wikify the article as he appears to be a notable athlete.


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. I've looked at your recent edits and see that you do a lot of good work here and I believe you would be a good administrator. —Soap— 02:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This user would definitely be trusted with the mop. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Probably won't pass, and the experience is definitely on the low side, but I've seen this user around for a while and I don't have any reason to think that they would misuse the tools, or otherwise question their judgment. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - It saddens me to see this RFA isn't going better. With our past dealings, I'd trust you implicitly with the mop. --King Öomie 12:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support This user is well trustworthy and experienced enough to obtain the mop. ~ Dwayne Flanders was here! talk 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support based on recent improvement, he fully meets my standards: in particular - sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, Rollback rights, article creator, great user page, etc. I am not ageist. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like the negative connotations of the term "ageist". There are valid reasons why minors should not be administrators on Wikipedia, just as there are reasons why they can't drink alcohol, vote, or serve in the armed forces. Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, no harm meant. I agree with you, Keepscases, and have opposed some younger candidates for immaturity, just not per se based on age. I think some editors between the ages of 14 and 18 can have suitable age and discretion. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Valid looking reasons in the oppose section, but not supporting weakly as from an admittedly quick random sample of your contribs Im not seeing a temperament issue, if anything you seem to have a nice collaborative attitude. Good stub creations, I like how you invariably have a template and an image. Good defense work against vandals. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral Support Looks like a well-meaning user, and to counteract certain opposes below which I find problematic. RayTalk 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per above Per A6, A7 and A10, and I think he's learned from A5. Particularly, I like the level of perception from A10. He looked beyond the empty text to the info box. Didn't read all the opposes. If some are based on age, well, I judge a candidate's readiness by their contribs. Some young people are mature enough to mop up and some not so young people will never be mature enough. (Oh, God. One day will be looking the age issue from the other end, as mental flexibility and judgment eventually deteriorate with age. Though I guess that's still a few decades off?) Dlohcierekim 14:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in my day, these young whipper snappers would...zzzz Thanks for your support.--SKATER Speak. 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per Keepscases. That and the fact that I see nothing wrong with this guy IMHO.--White Shadows you're breaking up 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...Not to question a support, but Keepcases opposed me.--SKATER Speak. 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skater-- Welcome to RFA, where the arguments may be highly fine tuned. Dlohcierekim 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know he opposed you. That's why I supported. His oppose is a (no offence) BS excuse to not let a minor (if you are one) to not get the mop. This argument was baseless and IMHO, stupid. Age should not be a determineing factor in an RFA. ony the candidate's skill and trustworthyness.--White Shadows you're breaking up 23:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Age used to be on WP:GRFA, but it was recently removed due to Keepscases' oppose. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes. He has a good amount of edits, and is a good contributor.-- Barkjon  16:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per White Shadows and Keepscases. Good luck! Aditya Ex Machina 17:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral support You clearly have good intentions. AniMate 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support: You are a good contributor. Give it time. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Regretful Oppose Appears to be under 18. Keepscases (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on this oppose moved to talk page
  2. Oppose I'm sorry, I really am, because you were pleasant to deal with in our one encounter, but someone who wants to work in speedy deletion with only 300 deleted edits worries me. I also find 80 edits to AIV to be somewhat on the low side. I know you were told in your last RFA to come back around February, but with three months of minimal activity, I think you should have waited a while longer. In my view, this is the ultimate not now case- in a few more months I would seriously consider supporting. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'll admit that I have not had much interaction with Skater, but all of it has been of a fairly volatile and rash nature. (My major interaction involved Skater nominating a page I had created for deletion because a wikipedia user he knew pointed out the page to him. That page got almost all Keep votes at AfD[3]. Another concern is that Skater did not endeavor to list the page in the music-related discussions, which I think is important for someone to do - I did not even know about those discussions at that point). There has been a general tendency to get dragged into arguments and have quick-fire responses when they weren't all that helpful[4]. Also, Skater seems to quickly establish views on a user, and these seem to be hard to change, and in my opinion are somewhat rash. My strongest reason for the oppose, though, is that Skater decided to retire in what I can only call a rash decision based on a single user being caught for sockpuppting (see the details here[5]. When that user was eventually unblocked with the promise of not doing it again, Skater came back to wikipedia. I don't know what kind of administrative decisions to expect from someone who operates so rashly. Also, I wonder why Skater keeps requesting administratorship - I feel like he thinks it's either a badge of honor, or he wants to do things differently from the existing administrators - but that's a personal feeling. Skater, I hope when you read this you don't automatically get angry at me, and instead try to see where I'm coming from. Luminifer (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not THAT hard to change his views on people. My first encounter with him was him bringing me to ANI (or WQA or whatever it was) for incivility, and now he's one of the editors I trust the most. --King Öomie 12:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not question your oppose, and will respect your opinion on my retirement Luminifer, and I will be the first to admit that I have occasionally jumped into a conversation without thinking things through. However, I must agree with King as he is the perfect example. I stumbled accross him when he was in a flame war with an Ip genre warrior and honestly thought that he would soon be indefed blocked if he continued. Now, he's one of the editor's I truly respect the most.--SKATER Speak. 15:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Concerns about temperament. Also, lack of experience. -- Cirt (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean by temperament? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the answer to question 5, the second one is a definite deletion under WP:CSD#G10. -- BigDom 06:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Q5 answer is troubling, this kind of material should be deleted on sight, and most definitely not be userfied. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose for a combination of factors that would not, on their own, sway me to oppose, but taken together, do. Those factors are: a limited record of content contribution; a limited number of manual edits (automated edits aren't bad, its just that manual edits are a better gauge of experience); and Q5 (per BigDom above, overlooking the BLP concern). As I said on my talk page, you are a very good editor. I think you should continue being a very good editor for a while. Adminship is a thorny crown and I do wonder why you want it at this stage: the number of admins who retire or voluntarily desysop show that it is obviously a title that many consider not to be worth the effort. I'd suggest enjoying the freedom of not being an administrator and broaden your engagement in the project and you'll probably come back here soon enough and sail through.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I don’t know if I can trust this editor with the mop for the simple reason that he has insufficient experience in what WP is all about—creating and contributing to articles. Article clean-up, reverting vandalism and nominating stuff for deletion is important, we all do it, but if you are going to mentor new editors in the ways of WP (answer 6 above), you really need strong article space experience—creating, improving and sourcing articles. This candidate has done very, very little of that. Put the mop away for a while and write some WP articles.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Lacks temperament. Hipocrite (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose regretfully, but with moral support. I was going to go for a neutral with a view to reconsidering as things progress (largely based on narrow experience), but the answers to Q5 both seem wrong to me (the first one asserts notability, so it's not an A7, and the second one makes unsourced allegations of criminality against named individuals, so it's a G10). And as CSD is where the nominator plans to work, that's not something I can overlook. I think more experience is needed in CSD - watch new CSD noms, decide how you'd deal with them yourself, and see what the closing admins do (and think on which ones get it wrong - they sometimes do) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I'm not bothered about your age, or that you took a wiki break; I would prefer to see a bit more content building, but my real concern is that you haven't yet got it quite right at CSD. Missing the G10 in the question was concerning - the information itself could have been correct and I'd be happy with either a G10, or an attempt to source the article or deleting it as G10 with a friendly note to the editor explaining that articles of that nature absolutely need reliable sources and offering to restore it if they supply a source. Your other tagging seems a tad hasty at times, this A7 was after just three minutes; so we'll likely never know what that editor would have expanded it to if they hadn't been tagged so quickly. I would suggest you try working at the back of the unpatrolled queue and maybe help some newbies get their articles through DYK or install wp:hotcat and categorise that which isn't obviously speediable. I hope you treat this as a learning opportunity, and if we are both still around in three months feel free to email me for advice as to whether I think you are ready to run again. ϢereSpielChequers 11:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't think you're experienced enough to hold the role.  f o x  11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Answer to question 5 very poor. Coupled with a generally low level of experience I think this is a case of please come back later. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.154.200 (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I'm not convinced that the candidate has enough understanding of the CSD at the moment - the first one could be declined as it makes a claim of importance; the second one, though, is a clear BLP issue - and should be deleted on sight. I can't support at this time when the candidate would allow such a BLP article to survive, given the defamation involved. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Moving to neutral[reply]
  14. Oppose I think you will be a fine sysop one day, but not quite yet. You definitely missed the problem in q5, and that’s important. I agree with your q4 point that item c is important, but those things can be done by any editor with experience; there’s almost nothing in the admins tools which will help you be a mentor to others. --SPhilbrickT 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Apart from CSD, I also have concerns of cooling issues from this user, which in my opinion he just isn't the right trait for an administrator. Minimac (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per temperment and experience concerns above, but suggest the candidate try again in 6-12 months after additional work. Here again I find myself in the position of having to ask that this Rfa be closed under the provisions of WP:SNOW; let's not drag this out. Jusdafax 17:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Regretful oppose Candidate is on the right track but answer to Q5 is worrisome. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 18:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose I would normally simply avoid commenting, given the consensus that's already established, or perhaps !vote neutral as a moral support, but this candidate fails my criteria in about every possible way: temperament, content creation, policy knowledge, dispute resolution experience, and (apparently) age. There's really a lot to fix here, and redoing question 5 wouldn't change my position. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per answer to q5. As the candidate says CSD is one of the main areas they would want to use the tools in, a better understanding of CSD criteria is absolutely necessary. Maybe after more experience in that area. I also can't help but wonder if candidate is over 18. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Thank you very much for your kind answers to my additional questions, Skater. As far as I can tell you are an excellent Wikipedian. Given the areas you have indicated you wish to work in, my only three criteria are (1) Will the nominee deliberately misuse the tools? (Absolutely no suggestion that you will), (2) Can the nominee demonstrate high-level skills in both avoiding and resolving conflicts with other editors? (Close enough; I'm happy with the answers you've given in that area), and (3) Does the nominee have a strong understanding of the policies relevant to their chosen areas of work? It's (3) where I have a problem, in that your grasp on the speedy deletion criteria as evidenced by questions 5 and 6 does not appear to be strong. Speedy deletions in general are only for the most blatantly uncontroversial deletions; the answers should either have been an unambiguous delete for well explained reasons in line with CSD policy, a declining of the CSD, or a referral to another admin for a second opinion. Your answer to 6 - which I asked to give you a second chance at question 5, and must confess I don't have a definitive answer to myself - is certainly technically correct but I was hoping for an answer that demonstrated a deeper understanding of either the CSD policy or the processes and procedures of deletion. Nevertheless I have huge respect for your contributions to the project and hope to see you back at RfA in six months if you're still interested. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I think the answers demonstrate insufficient experience to become an administrator at present, especially for someone wishing to work in the area of deletion and vandalism. Nothing personal and Skater seems like a nice enough, well meaning fellow but I just feel he needs more experience. Also, to be entirely frank, his userpage doesn't give me a great impression of maturity with the "proud" announcement he has never vandalised, the references to supposedly funny diffs (which are really just crude juvenile comments) and the userbox references to being a pyromaniac. None of these matter for an editor but it's just not the sort of maturity level I'm looking for in an admin candidate. Sarah 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Users (and admins especially) need to remember that Wikipedia does not exist solely for its editors. It exists for the readers (who outnumber editors by several orders of magnitude) and it is a service provided by the foundation. The "retirement" issue over the fundraising banner makes me question whether Skater realizes that. That incident, combined with some of the other comments here (Sarah's in particular) make me question maturity and temperament. Mr.Z-man 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Well meaning editor who would be an asset to the project with more experience and knowledge. As this is the second self-nom within Skater's patchy 12 month involvement in the project, I would suggest that Skater gets more involved in Wikipedia, becoming familiar and confident with our guidelines and policies, especially those that cause the most drama - CSD and BLP, and wait at least 12 months before applying again. Indeed, it might make sense to ask the opinion of an experienced contributor before nominating again. SilkTork *YES! 09:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - lack of experience in admin-related areas. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 21:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral. Concerns with sporadic editing, the wikibreak (the wikimedia foundation office is free to do whatever it wants, regardless of the userbase's opinions), high ratio of automated to manual edits, (37%; 1652 of 4470 are automated), and a lack of personalized interaction with other users. On top of that, you state you wish to work in CSD and UAA, but I see little evidence of extensive experience in either field (300 deleted edits and <6 edits at UAA simply isn't going to cut it). I know this is a long list, but please don't be discouraged. You're a fantastic user, and definitely on the right track; I'm positive you'll make an excellent sysop someday. But for now, I think you'd benefit from more experience first before becoming an admin. Sorry mate. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 03:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your criticism is always welcome Fastily, I am honored by your advice.--SKATER Speak. 03:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Sorry. With only 2,000 over non-automated edits, I can't support this RFA. I would like to see more participation in not only CSD-related areas but also other areas an admin should be familiar in, like WP:AN/I and WP:RS/N. BejinhanTalk 03:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the number of automated edits a reason? Are you suggesting people not use TW and HG and do everything the old fashion manual way? CTJF83 chat 03:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not saying that everything should be done in the old-fashion way, it's quite convenient to do everything automatically. But at the end of the day, I believe that more experience can be garnered from non-automated edits. While I appreciate Skater's anti-vandalism, I want to see a 'balance' in his editing. He should be knowledgeable in the areas I mentioned previously than only in CSD-related areas. Tagging articles for CSD, PROD, or categorizing them are part of cleanup but Skater has also got to learn the ropes of all the other parts in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not only about fighting vandalism. It involves many other aspects as well. BejinhanTalk 05:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if this is not the right place to ask, but how do you see how many of a user's edits are manual and how many auto? -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Soxred shows 1653 automated and over 3,000 manual. So I'm surprised that anyone would oppose for this candidates use of Huggle. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, a very handy tool, thanks - I agree that's a low percentage of automated edits, and it wouldn't trouble me. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WereSpielChequers, I'm wondering how you got 3,000 over manual edits. Is my method of calculation wrong? How I counted....the approx. total of automated edits is 1,653. Skater's total edits is 4,481. 4,481-1,653=2,828. Personally, I find it hard to support a candidate with only 2,828 non-automated edits. BejinhanTalk 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What strikes me in general about automated edits is that while some processes (huggle, etc) will generate multiple edits from one user decision, all of those edits are judgement calls by the editor- they're not truly automated. I've never understood people completely discounting automated edits. It would seem to make more sense (to me at least) to take the Automated number and divide it by 3 (in the case of Huggle, the three being Revert, Warn, AIV- or automation penalty). --King Öomie 12:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Also, this is not an oppose. I would love to support Skater, but due to my concerns above, I can't. Maybe I'll leave a note on Skater's talk page later to explain things further. BejinhanTalk 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral close to support 304 Deleted Contributions looks pretty good (which would cause me to vote support), but only 80 AIV edits (neutral) and six UAA edits (oppose). Altogether, it balances out to neutral. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger, and it doesn't make the blind sight of difference, but I for instance have never in my knowledge edited UAA.  f o x  20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to badger either, but how do these stats alone decide a !vote? I think all of his contributions, not just these, should be considered, as not everyone specializes in these areas. Airplaneman ✈ 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm really not sure what to say on this one, I don't think I should go for either Support or Oppose, there's just not enough postives and not enough negatives to tip the scale to make me vote on one side. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning Support, solid editor, plenty of experience, good faith contributor. Unfortunately, the answer to Q5 is flat out wrong, and I can't bring myself to support because of it. I'd encourage you to have another try in a couple of months. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  6. A cursory review of contributions suggests inadequate experience (still) and insufficient familiarity with WP conventions. I have no reason to expect Skater would abuse admin tools. With further persuasion, I could go either way. Since Skater is generally a good editor and a dedicated vandal-fighter, I would encourage this editor to hang in there. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral. It pains me to do this, since everything I've seen makes me think you're a great editor with the potential to be a great administrator one day in the not-too-distant future. I probably would have gone for a weak support if it weren't for question 5- unsourced controversial material about living persons needs to go. Immediately. I'm afraid that's probably sunk this RfA. I'll address the age thing, but only briefly: it's the third stupidest oppose rationale I have ever heard in an RfA- this is RfA, not the arbcom elections. If it was thought that those under 18 would be unable to handle the admin responsibilities, there'd be a policy. If you want to work in CSD, I suggest you spend a bit of time lurking around C:SD, maybe de-tag a few non-speediables or replace them with more appropriate tags. There's also a lot to see at the back of special:NewPages as well as at the front and it can lead to new, interesting articles or bring you into contact with less experienced editors whom you can help. As WereSpielChequers, whom I greatly respect, says above, do feel free to drop me an email if you have a query or in a few months' time when you can show the world what you've done with this feedback. I feel strongly that you could be a great admin one day, so I might even be willing to nominate you! I'm sorry I couldn't support, I really would have liked to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Waiting a few months and a bit of help for an administrator would help you a lot next time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Not right now.  fetchcomms☛ 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral(from Oppose) I'm not convinced that the candidate has enough understanding of the CSD at the moment - the first one could be declined as it makes a claim of importance; the second one, though, is a clear BLP issue - and should be deleted on sight. I can't support at this time when the candidate would allow such a BLP article to survive, given the defamation involved. However, I don't feel strong enough for a pile-on oppose, hence moving to this sofa instead. Incidently, if you want to contact me after the RfA is closed, I'm quite happy to discuss what I would have expected to see for Q5! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Q5. Sorry. Tim Song (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral - Although I can see that you're a good editor and I would have no problem supporting you in the future, I just can't do so at the moment - the CSD issues are just too much of a cause for concern. 6 months and more CSD work from now, and I'll have no problem supporting. —LedgendGamer 04:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral The timing for this RfA is premature. Warrah (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Sorry, Skater, but I don't think you have sufficient experience with content creation and improvement. You mentioned that you've created multiple articles that have been deleted for lack of notability; that's concerning because part of the admin package is autoreviewer. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral per WP:NOTNOW. CSD is a tricky area and the candidate should study it more since that's an area of particular interest to him. I expect any concerns I may have about the ability to keep a cool head will be long-resolved once CSD is mastered, and I don't have any other concerns at this time.--~TPW 12:04, 31 March 2010 (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/Skater_2&oldid=1144572967"