Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WBOSITG 2

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

[edit] WBOSITG

Final (talk page) (114/10/4); Ended Tue, 13 May 2008 15:37:27 (UTC)

WBOSITG (talk · contribs) - I’m pleased to present WBOSITG to the community. Since registering on Wikipedia under this username in August of 2007, he has made over 12,000 edits and has helped create a featured list, has created four DYK’s, has written a good article, and has helped promote a portal to featured status. WBOSITG has also had plenty of experience in other areas of Wikipedia. His 721 deleted edits attest to his knowledge of speedy deletion policy, and his work at the help desk shows a general willingness to help other users.

I acted as WBOSITG’s admin coach, and our progress may be viewed here. For reference, WBOSITG previously edited under the usernames User:UncleMontezuma and User:Elevenzeroone for a short while until July 2007. I thank you for taking the time to consider whether WBOSITG is ready for the tools and the responsibilities that come with them. Malinaccier (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Wizardman: WBOSITG is a user who I supported on his first RfA despite his relative inexperience at the time. That in itself probably says quite a bit. 12k edits, a lot of article writing, fairly balanced editor, there's not much I can say that others haven't already. Of course, he's another user who's at the help desk often, there's quite a few good admins who have come from doing that. Really, I think the two co-noms have said it just as well as I could have. Wizardman 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Dihydrogen Monoxide

I've been watching WBOSITG (gosh, that's hard to type) for a while now, since before his previous RfA. I didn't get a chance to support/oppose there; only to ask an optional question. He likes Bloc Party, thus making him an awesome candidate (no big deal and all).

Seriously though, WBOSITG (thank god for copy-paste...) has done some excellent work around the project in the last few months, working on the concerns raised (and then some). I'm fairly certain that in the many months spent editing hardcore, he's gained plenty of experience, as requested there. He's written a FL; Bloc Party discography, and a GA; Aberdeen F.C.—both of these show ability to edit constructively and collaboratively. He's also active around project space areas...not as important as the article work, but good evidence of knowledge of policies/guidelines/unwritten rules.

In short, I present WBOSITG (typed it in full this time; proud?) as a quality admin candidate who will do well with the tools. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To begin with, virtually none - I plan to fade into the role of administrator if this RfA is to pass. I will attend new administrator school before doing anything; I don't want to suffer the consequences of not doing this. After this, I'll lend a hand at speedy deletions. I will probably begin with just the really obvious deletions and move on as I get used to the tools. I aim to also visit WP:AIV to help out there - again, easy decisions to start with, moving to harder ones in time. Among other things, I will also update T:DYK, as this is occasionally left for a long time (although I emphasize occasionally).

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

A: Well, Malinaccier pretty much covered my best contributions, but apart from those listed, I'm happy about the progress Bloc Party has made: Well, see for yourself =P. It's now a good article nominee. I am yet to write my first FA; although Aberdeen F.C. is pretty darn close. I also enjoy vandal hunting on Wikipedia, but as an administrator I would try and take this a little more carefully than now.

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: I try to keep away from conflicts as much as possible, but sometimes being bold leads to conflicts. If something crops up, which it occasionally does, I try to talk about it on the talk page of the article or on the user talk page, asking why this occurred and try to work a compromise. I'm not a fan of Wikidrama, but there is no avoiding the Wikipedia is full of the stuff. (On a side note, if the other user was an admin and the conflict may involve admin tools, I would definitely work this out with them and would not undo their action until that understanding is obtained.)

Questions from TravisTX

4. I find that many articles are tagged incorrectly for speedy deletion. Below are copies of some actual articles. How would you handle them? (The names and titles may have been changed for BLP concerns.)

• Billie Lee Turner

A: This first one is incorrectly tagged; it is not patent nonsense as the tag suggests, but should instead be tagged with an A7 under the criteria for speedy deletion - no indication of importance is indicated. (Funny though, because on checking this for a copyright violation, Google has cached the old page =P)

Note: I deleted the example article because properly-sourced version has been recreated as Billie Lee Turner. Anyone wanting a copy of my version, please email me. —Travis^talk 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rob smith

A: This again is not patent nonsense - it is pure vandalism. It appears to be an attack on the individual, or merely something created in five minutes. Should be deleted under G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

• Sushmita mitra

A: Well, whether the person is notable or not means nothing in this case; a quick Google search finds the page to be a copyvio of this page. Should be tagged with G12 under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Well, well, well - you did your homework better than I did. Since it happens to be a copyvio, I need to delete my copy. Good catch! —Travis^talk 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

=D That's got to be a good thing! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from RyRy5

5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?

A: A number of policies come into use here. Firstly, I would semi-protect the article for a period of two week, to prevent any short-term vandalism. Secondly, I would warn and/or block the IPs for a suitable period of time (perhaps a week). If the article was about a living person, and the vandalism involved adding libelous or uncited information, I would take this up at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?

A: I would give the account an indef block to prevent whoever was using it from doing something really stupid with the admin tools - assuming it wasn't the admin themselves, which doesn't seem likely. I would then take it up at the administrator incidents noticeboard and wait for an appropriate response. If the admin were to return, I would recommend he change his password and ask for an unblock, after checking that he is who he says he is via email.

Note that admins can unblock themselves.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While admins are capable of unblocking themselves, it is custom (& policy?) that they don't unless it is an obvious mistake or bad faith act (and even then it is still preferred someone else does it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional (yeah right) question from Tiptoety ^talk

7. You come across the article Nancy Reagan to find 7 users engaging in a clear edit war over Mrs. Regan's height, and after reviewing the page history you find that this edit war has been going on for a little over three days. You also find that within all of the nonconstructive edit warring there are a few IP's and autoconfirmed users making positive constructive edits. You head on over to the talk page to check to see if any progress has been attempted to be made only to find that 3 of the 7 users have made a attempt at discussion while the others have shown no sign of interest in talking about the dispute. You do a little research and find that Mrs. Regan is 5'6 (per a reputable source). Note that 3 of the 4 users who are not participating in the discussion have violated 3RR. What action would you take? Would you protect the article? Would you block and who? If a request was made at RFPP how would you respond?

A. Wow, that's a stonker of a question! =P But seriously, I would definitely fully protect the article for an indefinite period of time (assuming the editwar participants are all autoconfirmed users), until a clear consensus for change is reached. I would then inform the editors that have been contributing effectively of this decision, perhaps making a temporary page for these editors to contribute to. I would also post my decision onto the talk page of the article, also stating my reputable source's information as well as why the source is reputable. Hopefully the users involved in discussion will accept this is correct and will not continue to editwar after the page's protection expires. After posting the information, I would then block only the editors who have violated 3RR, for a short period of time (perhaps 24 or 48 hours, maybe longer), informing them they have been blocked for violating 3RR. I would also point them towards the talk page and my information. Finally, the remaining user, who has not violated 3RR, would be warned about the possibility of violating the rule, and also pointed towards the talk page. If a request was made at RFPP (assuming I had to respond, I don't plan to be active there) I would probably fully protect for a week or so, at the very most, to discourage the vandals but not to turn the good editors away from improving the article. This would be with the caveat that users try to reach a consensus.

[edit] General comments

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

• Links for WBOSITG: WBOSITG (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Active: 5 August 2007 - present

• Links for UncleMontezuma: UncleMontezuma (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Active: 8 March 2007 - 7 July 2007

• Links for Elevenzeroone: Elevenzeroone (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

Active: 11 July 2006 - 8 March 2007

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

1. Beat the nom support WBOSITG, I've sen you around. You are a prolific article writer and will make a great admin. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, in spite of the longish name. ;> xenocidic (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Would-have-beat-the-nom-support were my internet not being less reliable than a British Leyland motor. A brilliant editor whom I've come across on several occasions, and who has come a long way since his first RfA back in January. A Brit too, just in case he wasn't perfect enough. Good luck, as if you'll need it. haz (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support - I see this user around a lot. Absolutely no concerns from here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Support - Wow... what is there to say. I see him everywhere... Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Support-- I actually thought this user already was an admin! I see this user around a lot...No worries what so ever. Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - This user is a net positive for Wikipedia. I like his humble answers, and I trust that he will not impulsively run into situations without conscientious thought. Also, he has done some nice article/encyclopedic work. I'm sure there are a few mistakes at WP:CSD, but I'm not interested in a few diffs creating pile ons. Good luck! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support I really thought he was an admin already. See WBOSITG all the time, and I have no concerns. Enigma ^message 20:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Dorftrottel (canvass) 20:33, May 6, 2008
10. In before the nom Support - WBOSITG has learned a lot since his previous RfA and I trust that he would not abuse the tools. Plus, I respect the judgement of his co-nominators. I completely agree with Wisdom89’s statement. Best of luck! —Travis^talk 20:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
11. I buried my secrets in the Support. ;-) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    =P You won't be the last, CWii! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

12. Sound chap. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Sure. Interactions seem good, no problems I see. --JodyB _talk 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak support. I like that the candidate has contributed to good articles and featured lists; however, I am somewhat dismayed by the participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimension X (TMNT), i.e. lack of a rationale or argument, just a stance. Nevertheless, other AfDs I've seen the candidate in have been relatively spot on, so I'll go in the support camp. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
15. SupportTotally!-- Barkjon  21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
16. Aww, come on, why didn't you let me nom? This is an excellent candidate with whom I have had many positive experiences. He'll definitely make good use of the admin tools (unlike me, who barely uses them anymore...) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Gasp! Instant desysopping in order! =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

17. Support -- lots of great contributions. Two caveats though: I wish the answer to the Billy Lee Turner speedy had not invoked no indication of notability (Prof. Emeritus w/ 60 graduate students might be taken as one), but the Google search before tagging tells me the user will use the tools well. Also wish there was more article writing to back up the great editing: the Good Article that the nominator says WBOSITG wrote, Aberdeen Grammar School, seems to have had hundreds of edits and most of its current prose before WBOSITG found further references and cleaned up to GA. A confusion between the process of "writing" articles and editing them for WP MoS etc., should not exist among administrators, (but I think this might just be a bad choice of phrasing on the nom's part). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Aberdeen Grammar School is not actually a GA. -- Naerii 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    (ec, that was quick Naerii!) Yeah, that's Malinaccier's fault =D Aberdeen Grammar School's not even a GA. Oh well, I'm sure he meant Aberdeen F.C.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

    Woops. Sorry :\. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

18. Support per nom. Involvement in GA and FA shows article building expereicne. I reviewed the opposes of Gwynand and Naeri. 4 of the 5 examples cited by Naerii resulted in deletions, so I can't fault WBOSITG's judgement on that score. The one, already cited by Gwynard is from March. Going back, I found other non-problem AfD nominations for April as well as CSD notices about red linked articles. That tells me he is communicating with the article creators and that admins had found his CSD nominations acceptable. (I would like to see more noticing of article creators, but that's my personal opinion.) So while WBOSITG is not always on the mark, I believe he has sufficient knowledge and experience to use the tools. Dlohcierekim 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Support - User is to be applauded for taking articles to AfD if they are uncertain of notability - I'd oppose if they were tagging them for speedy deletion, but I see no real evidence they would be deleting stuff that shouldn't be deleted if they were promoted. Nick (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - The opposes are about problems in XfDs - nominating the wrong ones. This, to be fair, doesn't really worry me so much, as that is exactly what XfD is for - sorting out what needs to be deleted. Just because someone made what has been considered an incorrect judgment does not make them unfit for adminship. We are all human. Support is mainly based on WP:WTHN. asenine ^{say what?} 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
21. Another watchlisted redlink. I've seen Joe around, and I think he'd help the project as a sysop. Also, must support per the ALL CAPITAL LETTERS CABAL. W00t! WODUP 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
22. Support No worries here. Clear and cool-headed, and commitment to walking before running is commendable. --Rodhullandemu 23:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
23. Weak support. Seen this editor around and there won't be any problems. The only reason my support is weak is the answer to 4.1 -- article claims he was a full professor at a major institution, so A7 wouldn't apply, IMHO.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
24. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Met him a couple of times reporting vandals. I have complete confidence that the tools will be in good hands. His civility is a clincher for me. Prashanthns (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
26. Support as nom. Wizardman 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Support I've gone over the contribs (and the opposes made) for a while, and still can't think of a dominant reason not to support. Mostly trustworthy. --Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Diverse experience, dedicated, willing to learn, wants to help, and I see no evidence that he will abuse the tools. Yes! κaτaʟaveno^T_C 00:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. This user is everywhere, good answers to questions, widespread activity. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
31. Support - good contributions and shows a willingness to learn. Will use the tools properly and with due caution. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
32. Support. As nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I believe WBOSITG is highly qualified and has grown considerably since their last RFA (hate it that I wasn't aware of it last time around). The opposer comments have not managed to convince me that any glaring problems will exist if WBOSITG got a hold of the tools.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. The points brought up by the opposers are a little disconcerting, but they are very minor and everybody makes mistakes. Making WBOSITG an admin would definitely be a net positive. He's a very active editor, has lots of experience in the Wikipedia namespace, and communicates with others; he's also very civil. He also has more edits than me (but I'm catching up). What more could I ask for in a candidate? Useight (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
35. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
36. Support - will make a great admin, but I have to admit, I didn't recognize the name until I saw the signature. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Have not directly interacted with user, but have seen him around and have seen good contribs from him. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
38. Weak Support This candidate's answer to Q.1 strikes me as a cause for concern. To me, that says that we have a timid candidate on our hands. I'd rather see someone who is a bit more eager to jump in and take part. However, I can understand the answer, after reviewing the rationale again. WS for now, but I may change to a full S after further thought. *EDIT* Changed to full support on 5/12/08. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Good nom and great edit history. I've seen this user around a few times and have no worries about his ability to justly use the admin buttons. --CapitalR (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
40. Support per life(everything). ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - trustworthy editor, agree with Useight about the opposes. PhilKnight (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. Seeing that I have not had much actual experience with this editor, I did a little bit of digging into his history and wasn't able to find anything that really concerns me that much. I note the arguments of the oppose side below and do not find them persuasive enough not to support, although I do hope that the candidate will take them into consideration and be a little bit more conscientious about handling deletion in the future. But that aside, I see no reason to think that he will abuse the tools intentionally or unintentionally. Trusilver 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
43. Support per question 4. I dont think you will abuse, and your keen eye caught that copyvio. Good job! Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
44. Strong Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
45. Strong Support-Would not abuse the tools. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
46. Support No reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark
48. Support - Admin-Coached = Pass. J/k. He has obviously done his homework on his questions and seems to have a good understanding. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
49. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Obviously well-rounded editor, and approaching the tools with care, rather than zeal. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Changed from neutral. I feel WBOSITG can and has learned from any minor concerns raised in this RfA. So I've buried my neutral in the garden. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
52. Support, default vote per AGF. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Have seen him/her around, and liked what I saw. Love the editing - hate the name! But never mind; good admin material. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
54. I oppose the admin coaching, per Kurt. Also, your answer to question 5 is somewhat off the mark (minor though): "Firstly, I would semi-protect the article for a period of two week, to prevent any short-term vandalism." The question mentioned "two or three" vandals; revert, warn, and block if necessary, no protection needed. "Secondly, I would warn and/or block the IPs for a suitable period of time (perhaps a week)." On the mark... nearly. Block for a week only if they've been blocked at least once (I myself prefer a 72 hour block as #2, though, and a week-long one for third block). Also, per Anthony right above. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support. Read stuff first, ask questions first. Go slow. It's much easier to not be the header of an ANI post than to have to defend your actions. Go slow. You have my support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Support - A well qualified user who has made us proud. --Sharkface^T/_C 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Had good interactions with WBOSITG. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support The points brought up in the oppose rationales don't give me a substantial pause for concern (though I would advise you to take it slow with the delete button, looking at some of the diffs). I've seen you working hard in many places, and you've done a fine job of maintaining your cool in discussion. Definitely a net positive. VanTucky 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
59. You have my full support on this RfA! —paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 21:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
60. Support per my requirements for adminship. Will (aka Wimt) 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
61. Support. I've considered this carefully- I read through everything and pinged WBOSITG on IRC. Though I don't like admin coaching and think he has some things left to learn, my interactions with WBOSITG have been very good, his answers to the questions are fine, and, most importantly, he has a really great username. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
62. Support Great interactions with this user. Spencer^T♦C 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
63. a gentle support despite the poor taste username. I hope the candidate reads what other have said about going slow. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
64. Strong Support In all of my experiences with this user, he as always been civil, and in general always shown that he can handle responsibility and I would more than trust him with the tools that Sysops are given. Good Luck with you RFA!--Mifter (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
65. Support - I knew he wasn't an admin yet, but I never understood how that's possible. King iMatthew 2008 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
66. Support Looks okay to me. I'm glad that the candidate plans to take things slow at first, but I'm confident he'll make a fine admin. :) GlassCobra 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
67. Support Knows policy, and if takes it a just a bit slower, should make a fine admin. Overall, seems unlikely to bury bodies in a garden. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
68. Support. Yes, I do think so. Best of luck. SorryGuy  Talk  05:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
69. Support You have been taught well and learnt from your mistakes from the first time. Good luck Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 06:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Per others above, take it slow and don't be afaraid to ask. If in doubt, do not hit delete. However on balance I find your contributions lead me to believe you will help far more than hinder - thus being a net positive to the project with admin tools. Pedro :  Chat  07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
71. My favorite username of all time. the_undertow ^talk 08:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
72. Support - Great candidate. Seen him around a lot, doing lots of useful and constructive work. Will make a brilliant admin. Good sense of humour too. AND my the holder of my favourite signature at the moment. ;-) Lradrama 08:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
74. Support I definitely trust WBOSITG. You can learn some of the ropes as you go, like we all did. hmwithτ 09:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
75. Support Helpful, resourceful, polite. I thought you were one already! Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
76. Strong support - This guy would make a wonderful addition to our admin ranks. He is civil and able, and totally dedicated to this project. I have absolutely no reservations about giving this guy the tools. He'll use them wisely, fairly and with the project in mind. Good luck, my friend! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - latest interaction while cleaning up vandalism was fantastic. No reason at all not to —Alex.Muller 15:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
78. Support - Wah, hes not already one! Brilliant guy. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
79. Natürlich. Rudget (Help?) 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - Seen him around loads (who can miss that appalling neat-table-breaking full-version user-name?). Mature, sensible, polite editor: I trust him with the tools. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
81. Support a good candidate who will not abuse the trust of the community. I've noticed some concern over the answers to the questions, and would advise the candidate to tread lightly until he has a handle on the ins and outs of adminship. New admin school will help - but, as the candidate is already probably smarter than I am, I have no qualms about granting the bit. Best of luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
82. Support- you've helped so many people. I agree with everyone else, too:) Lunakeet 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
83. Support At first I find your signature somewhat confusing, but after seeing your contributions I have no reason to oppose you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
84. Support I thought you already were one, so I was surprised to see your name here. No real concerns with WBOSITG, should be an asset to the project. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
85. 110% Support One of the best editors I have come across personally, I think he would make a great Admin. He deserves it, he is an alright bloke to have as one, again support. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
86. I buried my support in a list of other support statements. By the way, I reviewed the admin coaching, and I don't see anything wrong with how it was done. I think WBOSITG had good answers to the questions and has an understanding of policy, so I don't see reason for concern. On the other hand, if WBOSITG had had a number of sub-par or completely wrong answers and had to be continually corrected with "correct" answers to the questions, then I'd think the coaching was just being done to make it possible to pass an RFA. Not the case here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
87. Support Can be trusted with the tools. I'm a little concerned with the answer to Q5 (I think a week is way too long for an IP block, unless there is a history of previous blocks, or it's an IP address from a school or other educational institution), but no other issues. Horologium (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
88. Support I have had some interactions with this editor on IRC, and they, as I am typing, helped a wikipedia editor. A Norwegian wikipedia user. I'm amazed at this. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 18:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
89. Support - I've seen this user around a lot recently, net positive, will make an excellent admin. Although... exactly what secrets are buried in this metaphysical garden? :-P, only joking! RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:17, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
90. Support Seen a lot of good things at AIV, and appears to have learnt from the previous RfA. No concerns with handing over the keys to the mop cupboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
91. 'Support A well rounded editor, well capable of using the tools in the correct and prescribed manner.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
92. Strong Support An asset to wikipedia. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak Out!} 23:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
93. Support — I have noticed this editor around and I like what he does. Zginder 2008-05-11T02:11Z (UTC)
94. Strongest Possible Support I cannot say enough about this user. Excellent user, wish I could have co-nommed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
95. Support Sorry this took so long. RL got in the way... Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
96. Support I'm happy to support you this time. EconomicsGuy (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
97. Support Yes. I've seen the editor all over the place, and abuse of the tools is highly unlikely. Bring on WP:100! PeterSymonds | talk 12:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
98. Support Will be fine as an admin, as long as the amount of support he's gained here doesn't lead to overconfidence. He will certainly need to attend the new administrator school and take things slowly first, as there are apparent gaps in his knowledge. Epbr123 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
99. Support Active and trustworthy, will do well I'm sure. And because someone has to be #99... Bencherlite^Talk 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
100. Support WP:100. Comfortable that user's judgment has been, and will be, exercised properly in the best interests of the project and is worthy of community User:Avraham/RfA-B -- Avi (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
101. Support. I have a few concerns, but I don't believe any are substantial enough to warrant my opposing. I feel WBOSITG is fairly competent and trustworthy, and although I predict a bit of a shaky start into adminship, I feel as though he's pretty much there; that he'll "learn on the job", is my hope. I also share Xenocidic of support no. 2's thoughts. :) Best of luck, Anthøny 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
102. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
103. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
104. Support. We want you on that wall. We need you on that wall. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
105. Support. Trustworthy. Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
106. Support, a good user overall, will make good use of the admin tools. --BelovedFreak 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
107. Support, per Malinaccier (talk · contribs), Wizardman (talk · contribs), and Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
108. Good user: no problems here. Acalamari 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
109. Support per answers to questions, good history, and in particular having been impressed by the user's contributions and conduct in the past. Hadn't got around to supporting before as the outcome looks so certain, but after reading comments in the oppose section I decided to express my appreciation for a young editor who shows a commendable level of maturity. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
110. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
111. Support. Everything said already. Just can't believe I missed this RfA AVand^talk_contribs 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
112. Support- The answer to question seven leaves me slightly concerned, however everything else looks fine, and I've had good interactions with this user. Probably pointless me !voting, but meh. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
113. Support- The fact that I'm no. 113 in this list is prima facie evidence of...oh, forget it. I've got no doubts WBOSITG will use the tools wisely. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
114. Weak support - Concerns noted from opposition, but I've made mistakes, and lots of them. I do not see clear evidence of probable future abuse of the tools. Good editor, meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose. I've spent the last 30 minutes or so reviewing your Wikipedia space edits and I have to say I have a lot of concerns, considering that you show interest in CSD. this nom isn't really bad, but their is only 3 words in your reason for nomination. This afd nom also doesn't show much research on your part to check notability, or if you did, then an incorrect interpetation of notability. Here I agree with the nominator that this is not a great speedy candidate, although you claim that is the place for it. Not sure why you did this. I don't want to make this a massive diff fest, but I'll just say that I have major concerns with your XfD participation in general and wouldn't feel comfortable giving you the admin tools, despite your good contribs. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, can I explain some of them. The first one I was nominating for someone else (granted the nomination statement is a tad short), the second was a bit stupid, on the third the author requested deletion during the RfA (which is a CSD#G7), and the last one was a bold attempt to explain something that is quite unclear. Apparently hoaxes are covered by that section, and it was not clear; the current explanation of a G3 is rather ambiguous. I hope this clears some of your concerns up. Thanks for taking the time to provide diffs, though! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Comment correct me if I'm wrong, but G7 wouldn't apply because it doesn't satisfy this criteria "the page's only substantial content was added by its author". xenocidic (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   But the only other edits came from a blockable username. Should they count? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Web - to be quick, it still isn't a speedy, one of the main reasons the user brought it to AfD is because he had a problem with how another editor is editing the page. Right there would make it clear it is not a G7, and the topic of TV station would not be a speedy under any other reason. Thank you for a civil and explanatory response to my oppose, and good luck. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 20:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and thank you for the wellwishes! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I don’t know, G7 says, …if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. It looks pretty clear that all of the substantial content was added by the author, the rest being either promotional or an inappropriate note/warning from someone claiming to be the network’s president. —Travis^talk 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   ← The phrase only substantial content being subjective, I can understand why it was brought to AfD. xenocidic (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   I see your point. To be honest, if it had seen the article tagged G7, I probably would have deleted it. But given the lack of notability, I figure the AfD will be successful. —Travis^talk 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Further conversation should be taken to the talk page. Thank you. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and probably more (I only went back around 600 contributions). None of them have any proper rationale or any evidence of trying and failing to verify notability, whether it be through Google or otherwise. I'd like to see at least a cursory effort at researching and presenting a justified reason for deleting. -- Naerii 21:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   In 3 and 5 (I may have the numbers mistaken) he nominated the articles himself and they were deleted, and in 4 he voted delete, and it got deleted. I think what you've just established is that the majority of his actions in Xfd's are good ones. I don't get why you're opposing?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   He is evaluating the candidate's contribution to those RfAs, not necessarily the outcome. You might disagree with the opinion, but I feel it is much more important to evaluate the participation than the actual outcome of any XfD. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   You might like to note that the articles were eventually deleted because of the rationales that came from other people. I am concerned that article authors will see their articles being nominated for deletion with no rationale or reasoning and to me it would be understandable if they were pissed off by that. I'm also concerned as to how he will close AfDs if he thinks that "non notable" by itself is a valid rationale. -- Naerii 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Oh. That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for explaining, btw.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose — Admin coaching is a sign of power-hunger on a level with self-nomination. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Before anyone argues with this (as it is almost inevitable someone will) please take it to the talk page. Thanks in advance. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I support, but would like to state that this is quite agreeable. I too am rather wary of people who have undergone admin coaching, and I'd say it's actually worse or at least far more telling than self-nominating. Dorftrottel (warn) 17:11, May 7, 2008

   =( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Kurt, in wbositg's defense, as a co-nom I'm against admin coaching myself, so i understand your concerns. But since others nommed as well I wouldn't have thought it to be a big deal in this particular case. Wizardman 18:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   The first two comments in this thread (by Kurt and WBOSITG respectively) made me laugh out loud. A slight variation in a typical Kurt oppose, which was handled beautifully by WBOSITG. Brilliant. As a regular RfA participator, I'm used to Kurt's comments, and some huge debates have occured in the past (which is why I'm not getting involved again), but before people launch another anti-Kurt appeal, look on the funny side of it. Lradrama 08:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

   There's no need to be so condescending and uncivil towards Kurt. He makes a fairly valid point here, as proven by the basic agreement with his concerns expressed by one of the noms. If you are not able or willing to see that, it's still not a reason to laugh about Kurt; or Gwynand, for that matter. Dorftrottel (warn) 19:50, May 8, 2008

   Please note that self-nomination is not nessecarily a bad thing, either. According to the RfA guidelines, self-nomination means that, if the RfA were to pass, Wikipedia would have an admin sooner than if the user were nominated by someone else. In fact, it says that some people will approve of a self-nomination even more than being nominated by someone else, so it's rather a weak reason to oppose, same with Admin coaching: it's there for a reason. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Sorry guys and with due respect to the nominators and supporters but I just can't support this after looking at those empty AfDs. I don't feel at all comfortable giving this user the delete button yet. Sarah 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

   Hey, there's no need to apologise, it's your opinion! =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

   She's not apologizing to you anyways ;)Prashanthns (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

   I think Garden means he doesn't have to apologize to anyone, as it's her opinion. · AndonicO ^Engage. 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

5. Oppose, quite young, doubts as to priorities. WillOakland (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate on this please? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   I don't think high school students should be WP administrators. I know there's a certain idealist viewpoint that age doesn't matter but it is not a view that I share. WillOakland (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, thanks for the explanation. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   FYI, there're admins who are under 18 and they're doing a pretty good job. An example is Annonymous Dissident. Age is not the issue. Maturity is the real issue. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   There are plenty of young admins that are mature, effective, and respected by the community. Just off the top of my head: Rudget, Malinaccier, Master Of Puppets, and WhisperToMe. —Travis^talk 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   If the user is a constructive contributor, shows effective skills nessecary for adminship, and contributes with sufficient maturity, then age wouldn't affect their actions as an admin. In fact, do most adults even have that much time on their hands for such admin duties? Also, a lot of users don't give their age, likely for privacy reasons, so we should look at their contributions, not their age, because according to the RfA guidelines, age is a rather weak reason to oppose. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   Those admins didn't become admins with my help. I categorically do not want high school students as admins because I believe it pushes the project away from an encyclopedia toward a fanboy site. WillOakland (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   99% of people under 18 are probably immature; I concede that. Does this mean that we should exclude those who are demonstrably in the other 1%? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

   I think this opposing user concedes that the opinion on maturity of 1%, but does not share the opinion. Per WBOSITG, fair enough!Prashanthns (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

   To be frank, this is disappointing from my viewpoint. If we were like other teenagers would be contributing constructively, and even being nominated for adminship? Other teenagers, at least where I live, have hobbies that are somewhat criminal whereas I and WBOSITG (for example) edit an online encyclopedia. We are nothing like others. I get flack all the time from children in school, yet I defend that. I hope that is known. Rudget (Help?) 10:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Well said. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

6. Gurchzilla (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   Could you elaborate a little as to why you are opposing, please? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

   prima facie evidence of power hunger, of course -- Gurchzilla (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

7. looking at the concerns raised by others, then looking into them myself I agree that there is reason to be cautious with giving this editor the mop. Gnangarra 12:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose, I don't think this user is ready. I agree with Gnangarra. Nakon 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Weak Oppose - Per answer to Q#7, I would not have protected the article in this case as it clearly goes against what wikipedia is all about "The free encyclopedia, anyone can edit". Full protection should be used sparingly and only when blocking is not a option. I would have warned the users who are participating in the discussion that if they continue to edit war they will be blocked, block the users who violated 3RR and block the other's for WP:EDITWAR which does not require the 3 revert rule to be broken. I ultimately feel that admins should be chosen for their good decision making skills, and feel that the answer to that question did not demonstrate that to me. Also per WillOakland (sorry dude). Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Too mechanistic a view on edit warring: an arbitrary four reverts isn't the prohibited behavior, hostile editing is. Also, page protection in response to edit warring only exacerbates the previous problem, the lack of discussion which led to the initial edit war; as well as preventing constructive users from participating in improving the article in question. I suggest you read User:Heimstern/Editwarring and User:Dmcdevit/Thoughts for ideas on how to combat such behavior without undermining our "anybody can edit" ethos. east.718 at 02:34, May 13, 2008

[edit] Neutral

1. I only vote in favor when the editor has at least one year editing on the project. Bstone (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   The editor has been here for more than a year, but with his present account for less. WODUP 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

   Then what is the point of placing your comments here? —Dark ^talk 07:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I think WODUP meant that, while the current account named WBOSITG is less than one year old, the candidate's involvement with the project as an editor is greater than one year. If Bstone's criteria is that the current account be a year old or older (indicating stability), then it's irrelevant. If he refers to actual editing experience, regardless of account, then it's a valid fact to highlight. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I had hoped DarkFalls was commenting to Bstone, as it doesn't make much sense to throw in a neutral if your stance is that you cannot support for the reason given. I could be wrong though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   You're probably right - that's twice today that the indents have turned me around. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but the indent is/was confusing as it wasn't formatted properly. Don't be too hard on yourself : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral. To be honest, I think WBOSITG is a great contributor and see no major problems with abuse of tools. The concerns raised about AfD and CSD are in fact minor, but to add, I also disagree with the answer to question 4-1, concerning Billie Lee Turner. The article did in fact merit closer inspection, as it mentions him as a professor. Doing some digging in the garden (sorry, couldn't resist ;p), I found enough ghits and scholar hits to convince me that the article meets wp:PROF, so I have recreated the article (..and I know that it was once deleted as A7, the probable basis for the result for your answer, which might hold true for the original article (I can't see deleted pages mind you). I just feel that a little more research should have been done, seeing as how this is an RfA and not an AfD. Answers should be well thought out.) That being said, I wish you luck and I hope you learn from the oppose remarks, theres no harm in taking things slow. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) changing to support SynergeticMaggot (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   I was ready to support, but some iffy answers to questions (example, #4), quite a few of the edits that have occured are in fact solely anti-vandalism work (which, whilst I appreciate, doesn't take that much skill or understanding of policy to co-ordinate), and the opposes that have been pointed out. With AfD you need to quote relevant policies and if there are none explain your opinion further, not just per nom, or per someone else. These are easily remedied, and the noms are good, so I'll stay neutral, unless of course a suitable response here could sway me to support. Rudget (Help?) 15:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

   Ok. I did try a Google search to see if the first guy was notable, but nothing of importance came up (which was why I noted the cache of the old page ;) ). Just to clear that up a little. Anyway, if "suitable response" means cut down vandalism fighting and focus of other areas, and improve my comments in WP:AFD, I'm already on it =P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:.26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Naerii, above. Otherwise a good editor. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral per Naerii, clearly helpful but AfD issues are a worry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - Pending response to my question raised above. Tiptoety ^talk 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose.

   Neutral I wasn't going to vote in this RfA, but since it is fairly close, I decided to look into it more. I would really like to support, but some of the issues raised in the Oppose section have me worried. As a vandal-fighter par excellance, (if I do say so myself) I think that vandals and trolls are given way too much respect already. Copper, I'm sorry, but I just can't bring myself to support this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Crap. Wrong one. Sorry.... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral Although this is a good editor with excellent contributions in some areas, there are things which concern me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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