Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Plasticup

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

Plasticup

FINAL (27/31/16); closed by EVula at 18:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup (talk · contribs) - I was going to perform my self-nom immediately after the Colts won a game, hoping to catch Kurt in a good mood, but after watching Peyton last night I'm not sure I can wait that long. Sorry Kurt. So anyway, on with the blurb. I've been here for a couple years: long enough that I recognize a lot of names and generally know my way around the place. For the most part I am a content contributor at the Tropical Cyclones project, where I have written four featured articles, one featured list, and a bevy of lower-quality pages. I am currently working on two featured topics, the details of which can be found on my userpage. Plasticup ^T/C 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: To be blunt, not much. I have never taken much interest in XfD, RfC, and all that jazz. They are very important of course, and I have participated a few times to get a feel for them, but writing articles is what I'm about and I don't intend to do much else. Writing articles is generally best accomplished with a keyboard and rarely requires a mop, which is why it has taken 13,000 edits before I found the need to make this request. This month I have had to ask administrators several times to do simple things like move pages over defunct redirects, and I would simply like to be able to do that for myself. I understand the guidelines and hope that I have demonstrated that I can be trusted with the tools.

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

A: I suppose the technically "best" would be my feature articles, but the piece of which I am most proud is Hurricane Dean, which is one FAC away from a Featured Topic nomination. (plug: FAC reviewers needed, btw)

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 don't get particularly worked up over Wikipedia-issues, but a recent encounter with User:Bluenorway required a little dispute resolution. His comments are on my talk page. The gist of it is that he was inserting POV material into the Hurricane Gustav article, which eventually lead to a POV-fork. I calmed him down in his first few hours of editing and others have since picked up the NPOV torch. They seem to have it under control, and I am happy to step back. I find that if an issue requires one editor to crusade tirelessly from beginning to end then others will probably perceive her to be harassing.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: The user can demonstrate his newfound appreciation for the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia when the block expires in one week. I have never personally witnessed such a reformation, but I hear that it is possible. That said, as I was the one to hypothetically place both blocks I would remove myself from judgment and ask another, impartial, admin to review it.

Optional question from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

5. Do you plan on taking more several-month breaks, as you did recently?

A. I don't plan on it, but it is a distinct possibility. I don't force myself to come here when I don't enjoy it—that only makes people irritable.

Optional question from SoWhy

6. Is there a specific reason why your edits went from 135 to 7400 to 1800 edits in the last three months? Especially, is there a specific reason for the peak in July?

A. It dropped off last year because I was finishing my Economics degree. Senior year was a bit more than I expected. As my academics drew down I came back here. The highest monthly peak was largely from some projects involving AutoWikiBrowser. I worked on a number of things that month including some typo checking, disambiguation pages with links, and a personal project with non-breaking spaces. I have never put much store in edit counts and would rather measure the value of my contributions as the articles which I have written.

Optional question from Kaaveh Ahangar (talk · contribs)

7.: If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

A. I'm not a huge fan of the recall procedure as it currently exists, but in the absence of a viable alternative I would join the current program. My criteria would be 6 requests from editors in good standing, admins count for double, within a span of 3 weeks.

This question should not be used for the basis of one's !vote. In fact, the question itself is extremely unpopular as it poison's the well---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from  Asenine 

8. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: There is not going to be a one-size-fits-all answer to this. I am having trouble thinking of a consensus on content that is not based on verifiability. I suppose I have seen some consensuses that are based on a cabal-like mentality of "this is they way it is always done", which may fit the bill here. In that case it is important to consider two possibilities: a) that an old-boys-club isn't the appropriate way to run this place and b) that the consensus probably developed for a reason. I would try to understand how/why the consensus developed and whether it includes a broad range of open-minded editors, or is the opinion of one insular clique. Consensus is a powerful method, and for me to go against it would mean one mind (two if you count the anon) going against the many minds that developed the consensus. I would want to fully understand the consensus before evaluating it. In a BLP I would give more weight to the verifiable option.

Ah, but I can think of a counter-example. If the anon is using only certain sources to push a POV (e.g. WP:SYNTH) or is giving undue weight to a minority opinion (conspiracy theories are the prime examples) then the consensus may rightly be to not include (or only briefly include) the information. Like I said, and I know this probably isn't the answer that you are looking for, each situation would have to be evaluated on its own merits.

9. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: Sure. I mentioned one in Question 3. In two hours the user went from asking whether my edits were furthering my own financial interests to collaborating on two articles which he clearly held dear to his heart. PB666 deserves a lot of credit there too.

10. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: My activities will change very little, except that I wouldn't have to ask admins to move/lock/etc for me. I don't plan on launching into other projects or into unfamiliar categories. I like the places that I work and I plan to stay there.

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• I don't get why you have to single out Kurt. While he certainly has his opinions, albeit unpopular ones, it's not a reason to make fun of him in your nomination statement. It's bad form and I don't think that's a good sign in a user who wants to become an admin. Maxim (☎) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It was meant to be humorous, just poking fun at a staple of the RfA process. This section can be very stuffy and I was hoping to lighten the mood. Personally I find my favorite editors to be the ones capable of making/taking a harmless joke, and from what I've seen of him I didn't think that Kurt Weber would be offended. I am honestly surprised that so many people have jumped on this. Plasticup ^T/C 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a time and a place, and the opening statement of your nom simply isn't the place. –xeno (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would have found it hilarious, up until you mentioned Kurt by name. That is when it crossed the line. Also, I should note, that I'm opposing for reasons above and beyond this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I love humour, and I certainly agree RfA should be a bit less serious, but I think there should be somewhat a line drawn between when it's funny and when you're unfairly singling out another contributer. On a different note, I'm impressed by the featured content. Maxim (☎) 19:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The candidate’s opening remarks were grossly misinterpreted and I find the overreaction entirely artificial. How is this any different than the good hearted joke from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lomn? Knowing what I know about Kurt’s sense of humour and his love of the Colts, only through assumption of bad faith would I ever cosider the above mentioned joke as a sort of personal attack, incivility or some other incorrectly perceived form of transgression against Kurt. The bottom line is this: Kurt would not be offended by this, neither should you. If you doubt my assertion that Kurt might actually appreciate the above joke, please read his response in the above linked RfA. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you do not describe peoples reactions as "artificial" unless you have some very sound evidence to back it up. As you don't - and I know you don't - I'd suggest you may find ad hominum attacks do not sit very well with editors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, this statement is a little more of a "dig" than Lomn's joke, as it insinuates that kurt opposes because he's in a bad mood (or at least that he might support or not oppose if he were in a good one). Also Lomn's statement was a lot more lengthy, ending with the brief joke. this one starts with it... i wouldn't go start a job interview with an off-colour joke, nor should you start a self-nom statement with one. –xeno (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacks??? Who am I attacking? First of all, by "I find" I mean to say that it is my opinion that the reaction is artificial and, as such, I can’t provide concrete proof that the reaction, in fact, is artificial. Second, my attacks are ad hominem? Really??? I thought I commented on the reaction of the editors and not the editors themselves. I really think you misunderstood me and I apologize if I made it easier for you to do so but I assure you that you did misunderstand me. When I called the reaction artificial, I was referring to the fact that Kurt is an extremely sensitive subject in RfAs, especially when a candidate mentions his name without being prompted to do so. Even then, people tend to have an opinion every time Kurt voices his opinion as well as every time Kurt is mentioned by someone else. In this case, I thought the comment made by the candidate was completely benign and undeserving of the backlash it received. Had Kurt been around to respond in a playful manner before negative opinions had time to form, I’m sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. That’s all I wanted to say originally and I extend a sincere apology to anyone that might have been offended by what I said because no offense was meant to anyone. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I wouldn't start a nom or job off by forgetting to capitalize "I",Xeno (but you already have the job, non?) :). Anyways, I'm going to choose to ignore the whole thing with that and try not to have it influence my vote, if I cast one. I find this whole discussion pretty much useless. Kurt can take whatever view he wants on this, but I'd like to let this go. For the sake of peace in the drama-filled RfA, let's let it go. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• This seems to come up often enough to deserve an essay. WP:KURT seems to cover the basics. Make any improvements you feel necessary Protonk (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Laughed my ass off with the nom. People need to get over this whole "single-out Kurt" view. Plasticup was poking fun at a situation that pisses a bunch of people off and is a big controversy. I think what Plasticup was getting at was that he knew Kurt was going to oppose him for the self-nom, and since Kurt's sig says Go Colts! that he would try and get him in a good mood. Obviously this was a joke and not meant to disparage Kurt. We all know Kurt has taken a lot more crap then this little joke, let's judge the merit of the user. S/he is will be a net positive to the community if made administrator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Support I know the comment about Kurt was in jest, and some people just don't have a sense of humour. 4FAs=good. I really can't see anyone's logic that content creators can't be admins. You may not block 5,000 vandals, but merely use the tools to delete articles in the way of redirects. And that's the kind of user I want. Peace man --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. Being a Colts fan myself, I took the comment in the nomination statement as it was intended - homorously. I'm seeing a lot of AWB-assisted edits, especially in July - but, I'm also seeing a lot of good work on a variety of articles dealing with Hurricanes, and I'm impressed. On the balance, I think this user could be a good administrator, though as Xeno notes there's a time and a place for everything, and some tact may be of benefit in dealing with potentially sticky situations. Overall, adminship here would be a net benefit, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Support I see no reason for concern and I doubt that even Kurt would think that the opening remarks by the candidate were meant to be derogatory in any way. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Support I don't see the jest in the nomination as anything more than a harmless joke. Regardless, I have seen plasticups good work at the reference desks which is more than enough reason to support. What happened to supports per WP:WTHN? Best, --Cameron* 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak support I don't really find the joke much of a problem, more people's attitudes towards it. Going with Cameron on WP:WTHN for now. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Support; good contributor I would have supported even without the nomination. My mom always told me, as I was growing up, that "if you're not worth a laugh, you're not worth much"— Kurt is a conspicuous feature of RfA, and is well aware that his views are both marginal and subject of regular attention; I would be surprised if he takes that particular good humored ribbing any worse than any other self-nomination.

   And besides, who knows? Maybe Plasticup is right and a Colts win would have mollified Kurt.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 21:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

8. Support nice balance of good communication skills and useful editing. I would hope Plasticup would have the good sense not to use the tools in unfamiliar areas like deleting things. ϢereSpielChequers 23:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, some people need to lighten up, I had a quiet chuckle at the joke in the nom and I'm sure that Kurt wouldn't mind. Also, nothing to suggest this user would misuse the tools in a malicious fashion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC).
10. Support although I doubt it'll make any difference now. Hurricanes are a tricky area to work in as you have some fairly high standards set by other editors there, and I can't see any problem with you. I somehow can't imagine Kurt complaining about someone making sarcastic comments in an RFA. – iridescent 00:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Support per WP:WTHN. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
12. Support Despite the very solid points brought out by the opposition, my sense is that the candidate is not likely to abuse/misuse the tools. Sometimes we become a little obsessive in our drives. I'm sure I do. His motive in seeking the mop isn't to wield it like a sword or a club. He just believes it might be usefull from time to time to do a little light cleaning. And I have to resepect anyone who amasses this many constructive edits that aren't machine-like vandal reverts or CSD taggings. While admins should try to grow their skill sets, it is more important to know one's limits, and I think the candidate does. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong support — Article-writin' admin who seems to have a lot of CLUE. I hope some of the oppose !voters reconsider opposing this candidate over a simple joke that almost certainly did not offend its subject in the slightest. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 08:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support I, too, hope some of the oppose !voters reconsider this candidate as he contributes largely to the project. why should administrators time be taken up with his housekeeping when it could be better spent doing more constuctive work if plasticup had the necessary tools; this is one way of removing the backlog! !vote on the on the question "will giving him admin status improve wikipedia or not?" rather than on the appreciation of his sense of humour Mjchesnel (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Support per article work. Modest answer to Q1 impressed me, too. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Impressive honest answers (and to a certain degree, the 4 FA's). Cheers mate! Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Support His answer to question 1 is entirely correct. The mop allows you to do things normal editors cannot... so anything that it allows you to do is an administrative task. To single out certain areas as more administrative than others is wrong (though we could say some are more helpful to the community). The joke about Kurt is accurate, appropriate, and is no more or less appropriate in his nom statement than anywhere else on the 'pedia. A contribution is a contribution. He does not, however, meet my standard of 4000 edits per day to qualify as a regular editor, but as he has been here longer than most regular editors, I will ignore this for now so long as he promises to include some additional fiber in his diet, open himself up to being open to the possibility of agreeing to think about submitting himself for voluntary recall. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

    4,000 edits per day? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

18. Support — Plasticup won't misuse the tools, in my opinion. Why are people concerned if the candidate doesn't plan to actively take part in standard admin business? The point is, we will have one more administrator! Even if the candidate only uses the tools for personal edits, we have incrementally decreased the amount of work each individual admin will have to perform. Magic! Why does it matter if Plasticup takes an extended break? What an editor does with their life is none of our business. It boggles my mind that we will only allow people to be admins iff they promise to let us control their life. I like a candidate with the candor to say "I'm probably not going to help out, just use the tools when I need to". Otherwise we are inviting candidates to play the "good admin" and claim they will help with XfD, RfC, and "blah blah blah", even if they have no intention of doing so. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
19. RIP humor on Wikipedia - you will be sorely missed. Srsly. (Won't abuse the tools.) Grandmasterka 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Support - Seems like a nice fellow. Utan Vax (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
21. Support - Hesitated a bit because I'm not sure I like the idea of an admin who wants to use the tools in areas where he/she edits but, on the balance, a good sense-a-humor and honest answers to questions are worth a lot! --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
22. Support The explanations for a couple of the strange things are good. You seem a good editor, and the Kurt thing is astonishingly overblown. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Seriously, his nom statement was funny. I see no reason to oppose him. --Tex (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - Dam good editor and fine Wikipedian in general, I think he has proved himself and would make wise use of the tools.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
25. First sentence of nomination shows dedication and seriouness needed for adminship, while answer to Q1 shows that this person is actually here to build an encyclopedia. Giggy (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I wish Kurt supported. That would have been epic.
26. Strong support - More admins need to have a sense of humor. Too many stuffy people bringing the atmosphere down here. I also do not believe candidates need to have experience in all admin areas. We volunteer to edit here, adminship is all the same. I came into adminship with ZERO XfD experience. I closed a few AFDs on request one day, totally effed it up, reverted it all back and stayed away until I felt like dipping my toe in again. Did them all right that time, but still don't much care for it. And that's fine. We need all the help we can get, and the oppose section of this RFA examples pretty much every shameful vote that shows how broken this process has become. From POINTy opposes that disregard the candidate completely, to those that conflict with tradition and a few that conflict with each other. The long standing "one should not have to show a need for the tools" has been chucked for this RFA. Last week everyone maintained, as it has been from the start, that "adminship is no big deal", but for this RFA it is now a big deal (which I've been saying for months, but now it's hitting the oppose section). Having a sense of humor is a show of poor judgment?! And now, apparently, if someone doesn't have as much time to spend on the project as others, their small amount of time is not as valuable. Why do we not want someone who makes 125 edits a month to devote even 12 of those edits to admin work? That's 12 less edits on the backlog each month. And what if he finds he enjoys a particular admin task and spends all of his 125 edits there, or maybe increases his involvement? Take what you can get in time and quantity when you're looking for free labor. Clearly, this RFA is beyond saving, but Plasticup has his heart in the right place, and he's working to improve the project with what little time he can. The beating people take in this pathetic process is horrible. He made a joke in his nom statement and he basically gets stoned for it. Like Kurt said, lighten up. It's the internet, this is just a website, and it was just a joke. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 07:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Non-moral Support - I don't see anything wrong, and shows a need. Doubt that anything bad'd come of it. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Y'see, a nom will prep you for the hell that is RfA, but when you're on your own...

Oppose

1. Sadly, not this time. I dislike the attitude in the self-nomination, attacking another editor in the process. Answer to question 1 shows little interest in adminship, and getting the tools to assist with your own articles, as it seems to me, isn't really appropriate. I'm sure you can wait a bit for articles to be moved by an admin. Good job with your article(s) though. Show more interest in adminship, then I'll support you another time. Thank you. how do you turn this on 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose agree with Maxim. Not good form to single out an editor in a negative way, even in jest when opening an RfA. Oh another reason, in order for me to consider somebody an active participant, I consider 150 edits per month to be active. By this standard, he has only been active for 3 months in the last year. If you drop that down to 100 edits, then only 4 months in the past year.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose — forcing a user to sit out a week seems unnecessarily punitive when they could start making good edits right away (as this editor did). vandals are a dime a dozen, and reblocks are cheap; constructive contributors are golden. also, the kmweber comment in the nom statement was probably meant to be funny, but it displays poor judgment. –xeno (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose I don't at all see the experience I come to expect. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Per nomination statement. It is a big deal, after what I've seen over the last few days in the popular press, and your total lack of creating the collegial atmosphere one would hope we ought to have gives me no confidence in granting a block button to you. Pedro :  Chat  19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
6. I agree with Pedro; wikipedia needs to grow up. A nomination statement that justifies itself by reference to what the nominator perceives to be an unpopular editor is both childish and unconstructive. But what is worse, it leaves a taste of gang mentality. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose It's weird that this is the third oppose I've given in the last month that's partially based on the nominee trying to bait Kurt Weber into the RfA. Obvious maturity issues here; administrators often represent the project to outsiders without realizing it, and accordingly they need to behave like grownups. Townlake (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose: I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. (Seriously.) I don't find fault in poking fun at the situation, though I'd like to see more overall experience. seicer | talk | contribs 21:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose The joke in the nom wasn't too bad but did display poor judgement for a potential admin. Question 1 also seems that admin would be almost completely wasted on you. Decent experience but I'd just expect more from an admin. --Banime (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Per Pedro. Adminship is a big deal. Also, you really have shown no need for the tools and your nomination statement along with your answer to Q1 reinforce that, remember adminship is not a trophy. Tiptoety ^talk 22:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose At this time, I am regretfully unable to support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Skinwalker (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    While I oppose, I see this as one of the lamer reasons to oppose. Damned if you say yes, damned if you say no. The question shouldn't have been asked, but I don't think an answer to it, despite one's feelings is sufficeint for an oppose.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Well, those criteria look awful familiar... –xeno (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    I realize that my oppose rationale is fairly unpopular, but I cannot support candidates who commit to a broken process that has a vanishingly small chance of working as intended. In short, I view recall pledges as empty campaign promises that are made ad captandum vulgaris. I am agnostic as to whether or not the recall question should or should not be asked, and I don't ask the question myself, ever. I'm happy to discuss my position further, either at WT:RFA or my talk page. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

12. Oppose Sorry, but I see the answer to 1. as a reason not to grant admin tools. You're saying that you don't have much experience in certain processes (e.g., XfD), but do work on those processes from time to time. Going along with How do you turn this on, I don't see a real need for access to these tools... when it happens to me, I just do something else and check my watchlist periodically. Additionally, I agree with xeno in that vandal IPs should be given a second chance in the event that they make a "sudden reversal"; it takes a little extra time to watch that user, and a persistent vandal will just come back after the block anyway. I will say however that I disagree with the above comments that the nom was in poor taste (now that I get the joke). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Oppose I'm seeing too much article writing, and not a lot of admin participation. To be honest, the joke about Kurt was funny. I don't see why anybody would get on your back about that. If someone finds "I was hoping his favorite football team would win so he'd be in a better mood" insulting/mean, they need to grow a pair. But, yeah, get more admin experience and I won't have any concerns.--KojiDude ^(C) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Speaking solely for myself, the problem isn't that the candidate made the joke - it's that it was made at the front end of what is supposed to be the candidate putting their best foot forward to request the tools. The nomination leads with a straw man argument against an anticipated oppose, calling out another user by name; to me, that's troublesome, even if the other user is in on the joke and is cool with it. Townlake (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

    Agreed 100%.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose Per unforgiving answer to Xeno's question, jab at Kurt in the opening sentence of a self-nom, and self-admitted lack of admin work or desire for admin work. What's the point of getting the tools if you won't use them? To hang them above the fireplace? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Seems a bit bitey to me.  Asenine  23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose per Eric and Balloonman's comments. iMatthew (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Inactivity and per Balloonman's oppose. Macy 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose Per the inactivity and Balloonman and Pedro. Was it also nesscary to single out Kurt. He is intitled to his own opionin, just like you are. America69 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
19. The joke was obviously meant to be non-offensive, but it shows poor judgment. But beyond that, the answers to the questions, particularly xenocidic's question, appear far too rigid. Ral315 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose I am glad to see that people are finally finding the Kurt wisecracks to be immature and unfunny. To repeat a line I used the last time a candidate started off with a snarky Kurt remark: to make a spin on that line from the film Jerry Maguire, you lost me at "Hello." Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ecoleetage, you should look at some of the history between me and Everyme when he was dortroffel. It's taken the two of us month to extend vaious olive branches towards each other to restore the rift that we had concerning KMWEBER!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    Eh, if I am going to spend my time online, I'd rather look at this: [1]. I don't have time to mine the depths of online disagreements and disputes, but I always have time to absorb thick servings of tacky, retro camp. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

21. Oppose, the first time I have ever done this in an RFA. I would have voted neutral over the Kurt comment, since it suggests you aren't taking this seriously, but then your answer to Q1 was just wrong.

    Yes, for those of us who do a lot of editing the tools are wonderful to have to extend our reach — you can restore a deleted fair-use image and write a proper rationale for it, which is a lot easier than having to find it, download and reupload anew. But first, the whole point of having the tools is so you can do administrative tasks. Even clearing out C:CSD on a semi-regular basis is of value to the community. Second, anyone who thinks they can just administer on the side while they create ever-more wonderful featured articles with the tools' help is seriously deluded. Every administrator on this project has gotten that talk page message or email right at the point where you're about to call it a night from someone who noticed you were an admin or picked one at random from the list begging for help with some article or with some user. What would you do in that situation, especially if it involved some complicated administrative task? An administrator must be ready to do everything an administrator can do, even if they never have to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

    He kids you not, he's 26/1/1] in his voting pattern!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

22. Weak oppose - not impressed with some of the above answers, and per Pedro and Balloonman - Alison ^❤ 06:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Sorry, but this editor has not been a regular contributor, and with several concerns raised, and a sparse user page, I'm sorry to oppose. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
24. Oppose - Just doesn't instill confidence in me at all in regard to his attitude and activity. Sorry. Spawn Man (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
25. Sorry, oppose. Daniel Case brings up some very valid points. I don't expect every admin to be knowledgable or active in all areas but you want to limit the use of your mop too much.    SIS  08:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose because it's a self-nom but wow...lighten up, people. I can see the argument that jokes of that nature, regardless of the subject, don't belong in an RfA period (although I don't agree with it), but...wow. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
27. Oppose - Not sure you have the experience necessary for an admin candidate. Admins are expected to be available at least most of the time (the inactivity of some is a case that could be argued) so to be not, is not someone I'd support as a candidate. cauldron 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
28. Oppose per answer to Q1. If you don't intend to participate in admin work, then why are you asking to be an admin? --Smashville^BONK! 21:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
29. Weak oppose because of the answer to Q1. I agree with Smashville. Why would you like to be an admin if you don't want to do anything as an admin? the event horizon (t • c) 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Because he wants to be able to preform quick and easy tasks without wasting time requesting admin assistance. Nothing wrong with that. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

30. Oppose. Based on your answer to Q1 I don't think you need the tools, and your nomination statement doesn't inspire my trust. Sorry, Majoreditor (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
31. Oppose. As the others said, your answer to Question 1 was controversial. Especially the "I would simply like to be able to do that for myself". Sorry this didn't go as planned. Sincerely, H2H (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral because of that nom. I realise you were only having a laugh but it's not nice to single out Kurt. I'm worried if this attitude continues into the admin role. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral Plasticup is a great editor, and does excellent work for the WPTC, and I hate to have to go neutral. However, Maxim and Balloonman are right about your nomination statement. I'm also concerned about the answer to my question. Sorry, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral : Not enough adminly activities for me to support. Nice article work but talk page editing is low. Concerns about your abilities with dispute resolution. At least your honest.— Realist² 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Per Juliancolton mostly. I tried to state that you were a great content builder, but that comment was unacceptable. Also, I see you have not been active for six months, as usually required at RFA. Try working more at the wikipedia space and come back soon. :) —Sunday ^Scribe 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
5. I would oppose, but this user has also made positive contributions to Wikipedia, so I would make this a neutral. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral Mostly due to answer to Q1. Good article work, so I won't oppose, but asking for something you aren't going to commit to seems a tad pointless. --Rodhullandemu 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral. Malinaccier (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
8. Basically oppose, but by now there's no reason to pile on. user:Everyme 07:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
9. Neutral per Everyme. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Neutral. I'm not going to suddenly jump into the oppose column for one sentence, although I do think the joke would've been better without mentioning any names (but I did find it clever). Out of thousands of edits, one alone carries little weight. I do think he knows what he's doing and is plenty familar with policy. But he's only been active for about three months and quite a lot of his edits were via automated tools. That's the reason I can't support. Useight (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
11. Neutral (actually, an oppose with some moral support) - I won't oppose for just one joke. Maxim and Balloonman are right about the joke, and I wouldn't like such an attitude in an admin. I am, though, concerned about the answer to Q1. Why request admin tools if you'll barely ever use them? Plasticup is an excellent contributor, but doesn't seem to need adminship or to have the right attitude about it. Adminship is no big deal, but there are some expectations with regard to RfA candidates. There's no reason to pile on here, though - this RfA will probably fail anyway, and I find it somewhat annoying when hordes of users vote on the oppose section of a request for adminship, especially when the user is a good contributor and the RfA has practically snowed anyway. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
12. No-Pile Neutral - I don't think I can support this candidate just yet. This is not because of the joke. As mentioned before by others, Q1 is an issue. I don't doubt this user's contribution record, just the need to use admin tools. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
13. Neutral - can't get off fence. Kurt comment was silly, contribs are good. This is not going to pass anyway, sorry. Give it 3 months. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
14. Neutral. Excellent mainspace contributions. However Plasticup should engage more in discussions with other editors, either through Talk pages, XFD or elsewhere. This would help in unfamiliar situations when consensus needs to be established. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
15. Neutral: As long as RfA remains a clear popularity poll, where >75% always passes and <70% always fails, then Kurt's voting will remain a disruptive issue which will continue to require three Support votes to offset it. Congratulations, folks: RfA has become a process where half the action revolves around Kurt Weber, and numerous RfAs succeed or fail around that. Is there a single process or section anywhere on Wikipedia where a single editor has such an enduring impact?  RGTraynor  19:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment: I'm sure the Crats give Kurt's votes all the credence they deserve. --Rodhullandemu 19:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Proof of that would be appreciated, including whether all Kurt related votes in an RfA are discounted. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Reply: I'm sure they don't, actually. To quote from the RfA review this past summer: "In the last year, 331 candidates have passed RfA ... Only three passed with less than 75% - and those three had 73, 89 and 176 Supports respectively. By contrast, not one single candidate who hit 75% and did not withdraw failed to gain nomination." There is no way in hell that 75%+ RfAs = a record of 328-0, while 75%- RfAs = 3-250 someodd if the bureaucrats are taking any notice whatsoever of anything except for the vote tallies.  RGTraynor  20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    A quick calculation shows that the correlation between the 75% barrier and the result is over 0.9895. This means that the effect of bureaucratic discretion to evaluate the arguments is completely negligible. — Coren ^(talk) 00:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

    Let the revolution begin! Hiberniantears (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

16. Neutral - I think this issue over the opening statement has been overblown a bit, but both the supports and the opposes have valid points. The choice of opening statement does show a bit of a lack of judgement, but I don't think an RfA should fail just for that, we all make mistakes from time to time and this one could just be a classic wrong place, wrong time thing. Good to see lots of contributions, but I would like to see just a little bit more experience in admin areas and a little bit more long-term experience overall (your edits are very concentrated towards recently). Overall, I am close to supporting, but not quite off the fence. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:56, 13 September 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.