Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 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.

Until It Sleeps[edit]

Nomination[edit]

Final (14/25/6); Originally scheduled to end 07:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC). Withdrawn by bureaucrat. --Deskana (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs) – On August 2007, after seeing some vandalism that appalled me, I decided to register, with the sole intent to help protect Wikipedia from vandals. I started out rather slow, and then my editing seemed to sort of level out into about 3-4 edits per month. On August 2008, almost exactly 1 year after I registered, the same thing glared at me through my monitor, and prompted me to get back into vandal-fighting. Since then, I have garnered over 17,000 edits, had my username changed, among many other things. Now, I know that I have only participated... scarcely in things like AfD, and RfA, but I have always paid a visit to those things now and then, whether or not I edit them. And I have had several people tell me that I should do more article writing, which I have attempted, but seem to have a sort of Writers block when it comes to stuff like that. But as a vandal fighter, I have protected the work of the tirelessly contributing article writers, no matter how large or small their contributions have been. Until It Sleeps 05:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this RfA nomination. Until It Sleeps 07:03, 1 February 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: I intend to continue vandal fighting as a administrator. I also intend to work on the administrative backlog, notably the CSD category, which I've seen get to an ugly 130+ pages. I also intend to keep an eye on AIV and, naturally, AN/ANI.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that my best contributions are, naturally, vandal fighting. They are my best contributions because, well, they are the vast majority of my contributions. I've tried article writing, but I feel that I have not been very stunning in that venue, I've also tried things like New page patrol, but that is far too slow-paced for me. Vandal fighting is essentially the only thing that has kept my interest.
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: In the area of edit conflicts, I haven't had any serious conflicts over editing other than an editor coming to my talk page when I happen to make the occasional mistake. As for other uses causing me stress, I did have an IP editor from a university various userspace pages with vulgar animations multiple times. Although this normally wouldn't cause me much stress, I happened to encounter it when I went to my userspace at school, only to see pornographic images fill the screen. Luckily for me, there were no teachers in the room, but considering the consequences had there been one, that definitely caused a sudden surge of stress. He continued to replace pages, both in my main userspace and my alternate account's userspace.
Throughout the day, the ever helpful J.delanoy assisted me in fixing it so that something like that could not generally happen again, without some effort and a 4 day wait for someone wishing to attack my userpage. As for dealing with future conflicts, I will still resolve them a calm, but firm manner, and still request assistance shall the need for it arise. Just because somebody has experience, doesn't mean that they cannot make mistakes, nor should they refuse assistance in the event of those mistakes.
Additional question from IMatthew
4. After receiving the advice from your admin coach, and many other editors, suggesting that this RfA may be too early, why did you go ahead with it?
Why not? Adminship is no big deal right? It's just a request, it's not like your existence on Wikipedia depends on whether you get adminship or not(Although some I've seen thought otherwise). You can apply here any time you wish, there is absolutely nothing stopping you.
Additional question from — neuro(talk)
5. I find your question to Q4 to be highly unsatisfactory, as it fails to address the question in whole. I'll break it down into some sections:
a.) Did you disagree with these editors that your RfA was premature?
A: Originally, I did, but now my opinion of the fact has changed in that I do need more experience in a broader area. So now I do believe that my RfA may have been premature.
b.) Why did you request admin coaching, and yet jump the gun on starting an RfA?
A: I guess I got a little impatient. This whole thing essentially grew from impatience. I was/am impatient in my coaching, constantly nagging Juliancolton for more questions, nagging and nagging. It's just my nature, I like things that are fast-paced, hence my love of vandal fighting. But obviously, that has to change for Wikipedia if I am to ever become an administrator, in this RfA or the next, should I run again.
c.) Your comment about the fact that one can "apply here any time" seems to indicate an improper judgment on the seriousness of an RfA, and the time and effort that people put into formulating responses and !voting. What is your response to this?
A: Well technically anyone can apply at any time, no matter their position (Unless they happened to be blocked or banned). The only thing affecting this fact is what the community thinks about their request at their current level of editing experience. As I can see below, I now believe that I might have been a little trigger-happy in regards to this.
Additional question from Jonathan321
6. Why did you say that you wanted to be an admin, than you did not want to be one, and then, just a few weeks later, say you wanted to be an admin again?
A: The reason I did not want to become an admin for a brief period is because of the lovely drama concerning Ecoleetage's most recent RfA, where he called the employer of a user who opposed him. This appalled me to the point where I thought the RfA process was irrecoverably damaged, and then I did not have the desire to go near here. After observing it for a while, I believed it to be "safe" to return.
7: Additional question from Thor Malmjursson:
Why do you feel the need to self nominate for adminship, and do you consider self nomination something which should ideally be avoided?
A: I felt the need to self nominate, well, essentially per WP:WTHN. I felt that it really wouldn't hurt to try and self-nom. I do realize that self-noms should be generally avoided unless there are extreme circumstances that would make you feel that you had to self nom.
Additional question from Ironholds
8. Following on from Jonathan321's first question: exactly why did misbehavior by an admin candidate convince you that the process was broken?
A:

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/Until It Sleeps before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Because it was clarified that the request had zero content. See Balloonman's comment below. — neuro(talk) 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support: I have no reason to believe you will not be trustworthy if given the tools. The amount of time you have put in to vandalism fighting is worthy of thanks. I am also sure that you will find other administrator mentors to broaden your horizons. Being an administrator is, after all, no big deal. --Chasingsol(talk) 07:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support - I actually came here to oppose (for once in my life) per total lack of article building, but then I realized that this guy = Vandalism destroyer (I did not know this, and I remember seeing many good things from VD) and I saw, looking through a few pages, enough clue to convince me that he can hold a mop. So....weak for a total lack of article-building, but a support because he will be a net positive, IMHO. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I believe that Until It Sleeps would make a great vandal fighting admin. And to roux, who said something along the lines of we don't need vandal fighting admins as they are soon to be superseded: It is better to think in the now with RfAs, we never know how long the abuse filter will take to be finished to WMF server standard, and while it is, Until It Sleeps can really contribute to the prevention of vandalism, and even when it is finished, it isn't going to be 100% accurate, and it can't handle unblock requests either, we will still need admins like Until It Sleeps. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  5. Support Collaborates well. Thinks on his feet. Assumes good faith. Assists new users. It would benefit Wikipedia to give UIS the ability to protect pages and temporarily block editors. Kingturtle (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why only temporarily? — neuro(talk) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps because all blocks are temporary? 'indefinite' simply means 'with no fixed date of unbanning' rather than 'for all eternity'. Ironholds (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise, but indefinite can and often does mean that. I assumed that Kingturtle said 'issuing temporary blocks' to mean 'issuing blocks which are definitely temporary'. I realise that in that sense all blocks are temporary, but why did Kingturtle mention it if it was already implied by nature? — neuro(talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportSeems OK. Using automation to help one review and revert vandalism should not be an automatic disquailifier. You still need to think about what you're doing before you do it. That's what counts. The thinking behind the act. If one is making errors in reverting and warning with twinkle or Huggle, one should not be trusted with the mop. If one is using automation constructively, that should weigh in favor of trusting with the mop. The automation based opposes seem to be on principle rather than specifics-- they cite no specific examples of how the candidate has misused or been wrong with Huggle. (I've seen Hugglers that did make a mess, and would not trust them.) It seems like a litmus test rather than a fair appraisal of the candidate's ability to help the project with the mop. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :The recommendation from the candidates editor reviewer, who had never done one before, was to do more article building because of the reviewer's political sense that opposes would arise based on a lack of article building. While that does indeed occur, an editor review should be an assessment of the editor, not "how to pass RFA." Article building is a plus for me, not a hard and fast requirement. Dlohcierekim 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Top-notch vandalism reverter no doubt that he won't use the tools correctly.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "no doubt that he won't use the tools correctly" - Um, I assume that was a typo... — neuro(talk) 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it was, I'm awful at writing.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to oppose.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 16:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Plenty of anti-vandalism experience. I definitely think he would be a great sysop in that area. Sam Blab 17:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not have sysops in 'areas'. Once you are a sysop, you get the whole thing - that's what we've got to trust him with. — neuro(talk) 18:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sure Why the hell not? Give me one good reason you think Until it Sleeps will abuse the tolls and I'll switch to oppose.--Res2216firestar 18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he will abuse them, at least not willingly, but considering the fact that other people (and even his admin coach) told him not to create this RfA yet, I am wary about him being able to gauge consensus. — neuro(talk) 18:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Yes, exactly. I don't think he'll abuse the tools maliciously, but I think it not unlikely that he will misuse them through ignorance/inexperience. I'd much rather see this RFA fail and the next one in six months (after gaining significant experience in content creation, participating in discussions at AN/I and related, judging consensus at XFD) succeed with flying colours than see this succeed and watch a parade of "UIS should be desysopped due to ABCDEFG" posts on his talkpage and at AN/I. I'm not saying that would definitely happen, but I think there is a highly nontrivial chance. //roux   18:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I advised him against it, but told him that he can apply if he wants, and I think this RfA will fail epically, but he has a pretty good understanding of that area.--Res2216firestar 18:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - excellent vandal-fighting experience. He does lack experience in other areas, but presumably that's the area he would be most involved in as an admin. I have no problem promoting an admin on anti-vandalism experience alone; we can always use more vandal fighters, at least until Flagged Revisions is implemented. Terraxos (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has multiple awards on his userpage, has never been blocked, and his comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seek & Destroy was consistent with the close. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Don't see why not, he won't break the wiki. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I trust this user and know him to be a ninja at vandal hunting. Clueful editors can quickly learn about other areas - I believe this user would not break the wiki and would be a huge asset in vandal pwnage. FlyingToaster 21:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No problems here. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I believe in on-the-job training. A user with a good heart and good intentions should never be denied the ability to doing good to the community. That, and UIS is awesome.  :) (Note: No I am not a sock of a sock of Grawp.) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Moral Support because of this it shows you understand the community, you'll succeed and become an admin in the future just remember that being cut with a cookie cutter doesnt ensure a good cookie Gnangarra 10:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose - Purely mechanical reversions and reports to AIV through Huggle usage. I usually don't have that much of an aversion to the use of tools, but if you're only card is Huggle, then I have an enormously difficult time finding meaningful edits. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - sorry. I recognise that we need all sorts of admins, but I have seen very little from you in admin areas, particularly the sensitive ones such as AN, AN/I, AE, etc. The focus on editcount is bad, bad, bad, the laser-lock on anti-vandalism is short-sighted (what will you do once FR and the Abuse Filter are implemented?), and in general you just don't contribute much to the site. Don't get me wrong; reverting vandalism is a necessary thing, but as much as we need admins who focus on a specific area, we need admins to have a base level of competence across the site. Think of being an admin as like being a doctor: all doctors can set a bone, deliver a baby, suture a wound. Some specialise in osteo or OB/GYN or surgery, but all of them can do all three. At the moment you're a surgeon who doesn't know how to do anything else. In addition, this is your third RFA. The others are deleted so I can't quote from them, but I am concerned that a) three RFAs have happened in a very short period of time and b) you haven't, if memory serves, learned much from the opposes in the previous two (which were, again if memory serves, closed per WP:NOTNOW. I move for this to be closed on the same basis, and/or (adding after striking) I move for the other RFAs to be undeleted for the duration of this one). //roux   07:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Hey there Roux. The reason that my first "active" RfA was deleted, was because I declined the nomination. It was rather early for me in my opinion. As for the one before that, I was relatively new "again", and didn't quite get the hang of fomatting. Thus it was closed as "malformed," and thus I decided to wait a while. Until It Sleeps 07:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, that doesn't jibe with my memory, but I could easily be off--this is why I asked for them to be undeleted. Provisionally struck my comments pending hopeful undeletion. //roux   07:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up the RfA I believe to be in question, it was created at 13:45 Vandalism Destroyer (now known as Before it Sleeps accepted the nomination.) At 13:54, nine minutes later, before anybody !voted, he changed his mind. The nom is pretty vanilla, and recreating would add (IMO) zero value to the discussion.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment from the peanut gallery: The abuse filter will be utterly ineffective against the vast majority of vandalism. Its purpose is solely to target long-term vandals who have a specific modus operendi. Flagged revisions will likewise do nothing to prevent vandalism, it will merely make it so that on 350000 or so articles, you will not be able to see the vandalism. It will still be there, and it will still need to be reverted. In addition, 350000 is only around 1/7 of the total number, and I have also seen no plans to enable them in other namespaces. J.delanoygabsadds 21:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose - Little to no experience at venues the candidate wishes to work at, sorry. You're a good guy, but I need to see more work in administrative areas, especially the ones you mention, before I can lean towards supporting. You only have 930 non-automated edits, which is much, much too low. The answer to Q3 is also highly unsatisfactory. You have a grand total of one edit to either AN or AN/I, and even that was automated ([1]). Your edit summary usage is low, too (there is an option for this in your preferences). — neuro(talk) 08:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I do realize that edit summaries can be forced. In fact I do have that option set in my preferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Until It Sleeps (talk • contribs)
    Then why do you ignore it? — neuro(talk) 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I don't. Although for some very unusual reason, occasionally it won't force one on me, even though I've only attempted to save it once. I have been finding that it has been helping me with my Edit summary usage for sure, however. Until It Sleeps 08:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to strong oppose, iMatt is right about the off-wiki stuff, even if some people see it as not being relevant. It shows judgment issues, and I have suspicions about potential power hunger. I also can't support an admin who is potentially going to leave the project once something inevitable happens (the trial of flaggedrevs). — neuro(talk) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just been informed that his admin coach, yes, you heard right, his admin coach told him not to start this RfA, and yet he still did it. Dropping the 'potential' from power hunger, this is pretty blatant, sorry. You're a good guy, but I can't support someone with power hunger. — neuro (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers to questions are making me wary about this user's policy knowledge, too. Comments like "self-noms should be generally avoided unless there are extreme circumstances" indicate a severe lack of experience. — neuro(talk) 07:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Adminship requires thinking; 930 edits without automation isn't anywhere near enough. Insufficient experience with disputes in articlespace, insufficient experience with decision-making in projectspace, means I can't support. Daniel (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Fair enough. Until It Sleeps 09:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Until it sleeps has basically no experience outside the world of vandal-fighting. He does a great job with Huggle, but I can't yet trust him with the other features of adminship, for example: protecting pages, deleting pages, editing protected pages, etc. Roux mentioned the idea that vandal fighters will be more obsolete in the future (abuse filter, flagged revisions), and while I don't believe they'll be totally obsolete, there will come a time when Until it sleeps will seek to work in the (numerous) other admin areas. Simply put, he doesn't have the necessary experience to do that, as I see no evidence of handling disputes, nor any evidence of consensus-building or judging consensus. Adminship is granted as a package, and Until it sleeps is certainly asking for the full package, so I'd rather see some solid evidence of policy knowledge, policy discussion, consensus-building, and an ability to handle disputes, before supporting. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Hello Peter. Although I do agree with you relating to my experience with actually protecting pages(Or, requesting protection, in my case), deletion, CSD, etc., I have thoroughly read through the policies regarding those things. Feel free to visit my admin coaching page, or you could just go ahead and ask some questions here. However I do realize that experience does require me to actually do these things, like requesting protection, going into New Page Patrol more often, etc. Until It Sleeps 22:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose Although off-wiki, several editors tried to suggest that you may be coming here too early. You stated that nobody could change your mind, and that you were coming here no matter what. That makes me think you may just be too power hungry. I know off-wiki actions should not have any involvement in the RfA, which is why I'm mainly opposing on your lack of article work, and lack of experience in any area other than vandalism fighting. I also remember a few weeks back, you retired from Wikipedia while upset at the decision of Flagged Revisions being passed for a test. I believe you were convinced off-wiki to stay, but what happens when the trial starts? As an admin, can't take a break, and come back the next day, then take another break, and come back in two days. It's just not a good admin quality. Also, the notice on your userpage (about Flagged revision) is worrying. Keep vandalism fighting, please! But you are not ready for the tools yet. iMatthew // talk // 14:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any notice on his userpage about flaggedrevs. Am I missing something? — neuro(talk) 14:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's under "About me on Wikipedia" iMatthew // talk // 14:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that is actually quite worrying. — neuro(talk) 14:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something about that comment? Is it just because it is soapboxish? I don't get it. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, I guess it would seem a little worrying wouldn't it. I should probably clarify it better. I am preparing to change based on what type of trial, if any, is implemented. I'm considering the fact that Huggle might not be compatible with Flagged revs. So it's a question of how do I fix vandalism on pages preotected by Flagged revs if Huggle is not compatible with them. And it is also considering the fact that I might work in other areas "Behind the scenes", per-se. I hope this clarifies this. Until It Sleeps 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - UIS, as your admin coach, I don't think you're anywhere near ready. I told you this on IRC last night. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Switched from support. Not ready yet. Extraordinary user who will one day make a fine admin. inserted after Cobra Just last month had talkpage comments about overzealous Huggling. Using automation to help one review and revert vandalism should not be an automatic disqualifier. You still need to think about what you're doing before you do it. That's what counts. The thinking behind the act. If one is making errors in reverting and warning with Twinkle or Huggle, one should not be trusted with the mop. I for one don't require a lot of content building, but I see it as a plus and would recommend easing of on the Huggling and digging into content building. The 'pedia's most important need I see after vandal reversion is citing sources. Way too many articles without supporting references. Have a go at that, please. For more ideas on building the 'pedia, ask on my talk page, or ask one of the real content builders. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Yes, it seems that in terms of RfA, using Huggle(Or any automated tool for that matter), can be a double-edged sword. It can help people with it's ability to have them see vandalism and revert it quickly, and it can hurt them for the exact same reason. Until It Sleeps 22:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, it's when you are almost solely using Huggle that it becomes a problem. It is wise to use the most efficient tool for the job, but merely using that tool doesn't say enough about a candidate to warrant a support. — neuro(talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I haven't always used Huggle. I've used twinkle, albeit nowhere near as much as Huggle. And I've used AWB as well, NPWatcher(Which I seemed to lose access to when my username was changed), and I've created 60+ accounts at the ACC tool as well. Until It Sleeps 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Dloh and a couple others, but it's not a good sign that his admin coach thinks he's not ready and he went for it anyway. Also, this probably didn't need the 2 suffix; if the first one was declined and deleted, it's safe to say that it doesn't count. GlassCobra 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Your admin coach doesn't think you're ready. You have very few article edits. 2/3 of your edits are from last month. I'm sorry, but you're just not ready. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I didn't want to oppose this. In fact, I feel like I probably should have stayed out of it. But I'm going to tell you bluntly that unless you undergo a major personality shift, I cannot support you, for several reasons. I have no problem supporting vandal fighters. But they cannot be just pure vandal fighters who have never tried their hand in anything else. You have not tried your hand in any form of article writing, or worked in Requested moves, or helped along in a major policy discussion, or something like that. I don't care if you come out of it with an award from one of those places, but there are some things that you can only learn by getting into article writing. Secondly, when you work on Huggle, I've noticed that you seem to brag about your editing speed. Such a thing is not healthy. As an admin, one has to remember to act slowly and deliberately (maybe I should listen to this advice too). I don't believe you would abuse the tools, but I don't think that at this moment, you would be ready for them. I do encourage you to keep this RfA open for at least another few days though, and get some more advice from other editors. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Sorry, but I have to agree with Wisdom89 that most of your edits are tool-assisted and most of your edits to the Wikipedia: namespace are Huggle edits [2]. —macyes: bot 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose When your admin coach says you are not ready, won't nominate you and opposes at a RfA that is sufficient to oppose. This person knows you the best and I trust their evaluation. Obstinacy of going against strong advice shows a level of immaturity that I do not ever want to see in an admin. Being basically a process operator of an automated tool demonstrates no real judgment in any wiki area, not even vandal fighting. The vast majority of vandal edits are trivially identified. This RfA looks to be a massively multiplayer online gamer looking for a level up. --NrDg 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I agree completely with PeterSymonds. --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose If your admin coach says you're not ready you're not ready.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 16:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose- I can do nothing more than agree with those who have opposed before me and say that this user needs more article experience.-Kieran4 (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I'm all for using Huggle as a tool, but I agree with those above, you can't Huggle your way to adminship. I want to see you do your own manual work. Useight (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - sorry, I love the vandal-fighting, but you should have discussed this with Julian first before putting yourself through this. The opposes above are pretty valid for your lack of experience. --David Shankbone 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Normally, I hate to see these pile-on opposes, but in this case I feel that you need a bit of a smack in the face. Your disrespectful indifference to everyone that told you that you were not ready—these people care about you—is rather disturbing. — Jake Wartenberg 17:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose You're an amazing anti-vandal guy, and we need those as sysops. Once you get into the other areas more (try writing a GA or two, maybe a couple DYKs; weigh in more in Wikipedia-space discussions; perhaps xfd?) I think you'll be more than fine if you try again later. Everyone has their one specific thing they're best at, even admins, but you just need a bit of diversification. rootology (C)(T) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Neuro, Iamawesome800, and Rootology. You're a great editor, but you need more experience the areas you want to work in. LittleMountain5 22:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - Experience consists of little more than vandal reversion, your own admin coach opposed you, as well as the strange attitude toward FlaggedRevs. You seem to be extremely concerned with it, yet you haven't really participated in any discussion regarding it, except for registering some votes on individual proposals (which also make up 3 of your 10 total edits to the Wikipedia talk: namespace). From the few comments I've seen as well as discussions in #wikipedia-en, I'm not sure if you really understand how FlaggedRevs works at all. Mr.Z-man 02:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak oppose trending to neutral. On the plus side, he's got the experience to block real vandals appropriately. However, his impatience may cause him to over-block. If he gets the bit I hope he overcompensates and lets a few vandals go to avoid improper blocks. His specialization and use of semi-automated tools make it very difficult to judge his non-vandal edits and his overall policy knowledge, things that will have to be addressed before his next go at the bit. As far as his history prior to reforming, it's just that, history. Before running again: Find some way to communicate that you have broad policy knowledge, and have an RFA regular or coach go through your non-vandalism edits and declare that they are reasonable. Also, as part of your RFA, state the steps you will take to make sure your innate impatience doesn't cause you to use the tools inappropriately. See you in 3 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opposed - 3 reasons; less than 1000 manual edits, not a great deal of non-article space contribution, and the fact that this is a self nomination, which (having learned through experience) is not good. You will be nominated when ready, if your own admin coach opposes you, this clearly says you are not ready. Come back when Julian reckons you're up for it. Sorry :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - your own admin coached doesn't even think you're ready. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Awesome username, and good at what you do - but you need more article edits. If only 5.4% of your edits are to article development, how can you possibly understand how the users you block or delete the articles of feel? How can you help with disputes in content?  GARDEN  10:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral leaning oppose (See my RfA criteria). You do a great job but in your last 750-1000 edits (which happen to be in the last week...!) There were about 10 manual edits. All the rest were Huggle edits. I want to see more manual edits. If you can do that with manual edits, you will get supported in no time. K50 Dude ROCKS! 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've had great experiences with Until It Sleeps (abbreviated UIS from now on), but this is way too premature. You're a great Huggler and vandal fighter and I would love to support you, but I can't bring myself to do it... yet. I'm sure there is some subject that you could write on, regardless of whether you've found it yet. For example, my interests lay in Tropical Cyclones and Chemical Weapons. What I'm basically trying to say, is don't get discouraged (the RfA crowd is vicious) and find an area that interests you. VX!~~~ 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA regulars are vicious now? — neuro(talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, yes. --Deskana (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Deskana. Although this RfA seems... actually rather nice in terms of reasons, I've seen editors Strong Oppose relatively new editors just because they are new, even though they are just trying to help out, and it ends up getting SNOWed. They should be helped instead of that. Until It Sleeps 23:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Nuetral Per arguments by Garden, Roux, and Nuero, I went here from Support. Resident Mario (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)No offense, though[reply]
  5. Neutral Think UIS jumped the gun. But as he hasn't jumped the shark, see no reason to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. User is just not ready. I'm sorry, but... Jonathan321 (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Don't wish to pile on. Recommend waiting until your admin coach gives you the goahead. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 2 February 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/Until_It_Sleeps_2&oldid=1147994390"