Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kingpin13

Kingpin13

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/25/8); Scheduled to end 08:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kingpin13 (talk · contribs) – Well, I've been thinking about adminship for a little while, ever since User:Dylan620 offered to review me for suitability, unfortunately he never got back to me on that, so here I am myself :). In regards to the project, I mainly work in areas related to CSD, new pages and recent changes (I have rollback rights), although I've taken a smaller part in some other areas too. I have also built a bot User:SDPatrolBot^{see code, tasks}, which I'm very proud of, and created a barnstar. Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2009 (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: If this request is successful, I plan to work regularly and often in the following areas:
WP:AIV, somewhere that I already have experience with, although I'd be blocking users instead of reporting
C:CSD, again, and area which I've already worked in, and I'd be deleting rather then nominating. I may also work in other deletion areas, but that'd be much more rare
WP:RFPERM, maybe it's hasty of me to offer to jump straight into this one, but I've taken part in some conversations on its talk page. And if I did work here I'd mainly be centered around approving users for NPWatcher, rather then rollback etc.
I'll also work (less regularly and less often ;D) at WP:PNT and WP:AN/I. As well as all of these areas, access to sysop tools will be most useful in being able to see deleted pages, something which I've often wanted in my deletion work.

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

A: Most of my work is not content building, and I admittedly use tools such as huggle, giving me only 6,000 non-automated edits (worryingly, <20% of my total). But I like to think that my best contribution to the project is all my edits as a whole. I'm also, as I mentioned earlier, very pleased with my bot, partly because nearly all the time, the users warned will end up placing a hangon tag on the page. If you wanted one edit which is my favorite (not necessarily my best) I'd choose this one ;).

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've been in conflicts, sure (not anything major), but I try not to let Wikipedia stress me out. If I find myself getting stressed by another user, I'll buy some chocolate, make a cup of tea, and come back to it (if it needs coming back to) when I'm in a calmer mood.

Optional questions from User:zzuuzz

4. You are fairly active in speedy deletion work, which is appreciated, but there are some comments below saying you are not active in building the encyclopaedia. Can you provide some examples of articles you have encountered in your speedy deletion work, or at AfD, which could have been deleted but you have instead rescued or improved?

A: Mainly I do minor fixes (redirect fixing, disambig page adding, category fixing, moving pages to the right namespace, etc). Here's a smallish (there are definitely more if you can be bothered to look) sample of some of the pages which I've declined for speedy or attempted to keep through AfD:

speedy declining:
[1]
[2]
[3]

AfD "saving:"
[4] (wrote this myself)
[5] (this was a merge vote. I Helped cleanup a lot of these articles, partly through helping the creator with a large range of questions. AfD still ongoing)
[6] (redirect vote)
[7] (merge vote)

5. Imagine this hypothetical scenario - an IP editor is reported to AIV for repeatedly removing content from an article without explanation after being warned, but in one of their edits you notice that they say they are going to sue Wikipedia for libel. How do you determine what action to take?

A: It may be a good idea to check the sources of the blanked article, or if there are none, to research the subject. If there are published, reliable sources then block the user straight away for legal threats, see WP:NLT. Also leave a block notice on the users talk page notifying them that they have been blocked, why, and that it's currently being discussed. If there are no sources then warn the user with a final warning for legal threats (or possibly block if they are a vandalism only account), and have a really good look for sources (talk to the creator of the page etc.), if there are still none to be found remove the unsourced content. Another possibility is to nominate the page for AfD if it fails inclusion standards. Start a thread at WP:AN/I, detailing what I have done.

Optional question from User:Coldmachine

6. You are active in speedy deletion work and I notice from your user talk page archive that you received several messages about providing useful edit summaries, avoiding WP:BITE, issuing inappropriate warnings, and making errors about labelling pages (e.g. as attack pages). These notes were placed from January through to March of this year. Do you feel you have learned anything from these messages and if so, what?

A: Yes I do. I learnt how to notify other users of their incorrect taggings ;). Nah, joking, although it is something I do now. I've definitely improved substantially since then, that was near when I started with CSD, and mistakes are inevitable during that period. Also I've since read CSD through a few times, once or twice while building my bot. And I feel much more confident of getting the right CSD now. On the separate issues: Edit summaries, I now always supply an edit summary, although another user has suggested I make them more informative, so maybe I'll start doing that. Regarding BITE, I now always try and get the right CSD, which means the user gets what they need: a message giving good clear instructions on how to proceed, or, if they need it (i.e. attack page creator) a strong warning to stop (what they need again). As to getting the wrong tags, I very rarely do that now (I think :/), I try and keep track of all the pages I nominate, and go back and decline if it's changed enough, and check if the admin agreed with me (although of course, admins don't always get it right either ;D)

Questions from Rootology

7a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?

A: Oh yes, I have previously edited with User:Derob ecnirp (very long time ago, don't hold it against me ;D) before using this account. Completely forgot to mention that. I also run User:SDPatrolBot from my own computer, but I don't think I've ever edited from that (may have logged in), and I have used IP address long ago. My brother edits Wikipedia too, as User:Spitfire. But basically, the only other account on Wikipedia I have ever edited as is User:Derob ecnirp

7b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: There are none

7c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: See above

8. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: Yes I do have beliefs. No I don't want to discuss them on here. No they have never effected my editing, although they can effect when I edit

8. Are you engaged currently, or were previously, in any activities off-wiki which (under your "real name", or your online "handle") which, if made public, could potentially bring Wikipedia into disrepute?

A: No

9. Are you over or under the age of majority?

A:

10. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today? What works? What doesn't? If you had carte blanche to 'fix' the BLP problems your way, what would that be?

A:

11. What are your views on Flagged Revisions, keeping in mind that the beta trials for WP:BLP subjects after the numerous polls and surveys this year are coming to English Wikipedia in mid/late 2009?

A: I'm opposed to Flagged Revisions. Think about it; the majority of edits coming in from IP addresses or newbs are good. So the minority are vandalism. So Flagged Revisions is just creating more work for us. I think that if we want to stop vandalism that Flagged Revisions isn't the right path, maybe stop IP addresses from editing and require an e-mail address to create an account, yes. But not Flagged Revisions

12. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall? If so, why? If not, why?

A: In principal yes, but... no, supposedly it's broken. If you've done something which is "bad enough" so that you ought to give up your tools, wouldn't you be "bad enough" not to, or wouldn't you have them "taken"? That doesn't mean that if many users opposed my actions, I wouldn't be willing to give up the tools.

13. Do you feel that admins should be subject to all policies, and the repercussions for possibly violating them, as if they were any other non-admin user?

A: Yes, admins aren't above or below any other users. Although, when deciding upon what action to take in the event of a violation of policy, it should be taken into consideration what other work any user (including admins) has done for the project. Hmm... I guess what I'm trying to say is, "yes, they should be treated the same as other users", but also "other users" shouldn't be treated like newbies (for example) if they aren't

14. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: "Fox's Chocolatey Shortcake Rounds" with a cup of English tea :)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: It really depeneds on how you define rights I guess. I'd presonally say, "yes, rights are just privileges or powers which are given (in our case) by agreement. So as we work in a consensus based "society", anything which we agree on, which applies to Wikipedians (take our right to vanish policy for example) thus becomes the rights of Wikipedians." Yes I will uphold them.

Question from DGG

16A. The article Sear cross was created on June 11, 2009, at 12:40 in the patently inadequate form of "==Background==Sean was born in [[Cape Town]], [[South Africa]] and raised in [[New York]]. He pursued undergraduate studies in Sociology at the [[University of Richmond]] and graduate studies in film at [[New York University]]. He currently divides his time between [[New York, New York]] and [[Vail, Colorado]]." You speedy tagged it as a7 one minute later. (It was deleted 5 min later by an admin, and recreated subsequently as Sean Cross. do you think you tagged speedy too early? What would have been the alternatives to a7? What do you think should be done with the present article?

A: With the Sean Cross page, no I don't think there was anything wrong with tagging it for a7 in the form that it was before, we get any articles about nn people saying omething along the same lines (e.g. "He was born in 19## and went to suchandsuch school. He now lives in, suchandsuch"). As to what should be done with it now: It certainly doesn't meet CSD A7 any more, a prod would be a bad approach as it would likely be removed, and, more importantly, the article doesn't need to be deleted. It meets Wikipedia:BIO#Creative professionals (if you twist it a bit, and call the festival his (co-) "creation"). And although some of the external links don't seem to talk about him, the rest seem to confirm that he s the founder of this highly notable festival. So would AfD be reasonable then? I don't think so, it should be kept in the 'pedia somewhere. So maybe a merge to an existing article such as the festival itself? Maybe, but it's not a path I would choose, although I wouldn't hold it against another user to propose a merge. Basically, I don't think there was anything wrong with me tagging it as it was before, and I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping it as it is.

Followup I think you may have missed part of my question. Was the tagging reasonable at that very short time after creation? DGG (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my reply to SoWhy's neutral: Users creating pages are told by an edit notice to read an article which tells them to make sure the page they create isn't a "single sentence or only a website link". I don't know how many new users actually read that page, but it's there, quite clearly. And I disapprove of building an article one letter at a time in the mainspace, that's what .txt and sandboxes are for, so tagging a minute after creation doesn't really bother me (deleting it (without good reason) would, it confuses new users attempting to create an article, and puts the off even more whereas the warning templates give sensible suggestions such as "request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material"). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

16B For German 45th Infantry Division it was created on German 45th Infantry Division with a bare link to a photo p. This is of course grossly inadequate; you tagged it the next minute with A3, empty & it was deleted. It has since been reconstructed as you see it now. Was there any other course than tagging for deletion that would have been helpful? In what way are these different from the many others you have been tagging immediately after creation which read like "Tim is a cool person at northeast high school"? DGG (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A: Yes, there are many other courses that I could have taken. One being tagging the page as {{underconstruction}}, and then watching it, and if after a few days it is still as empty, then tag it for A3. Another thing to do would have been to prod it, and then if after 7 days, if the prod was still there (it's likely that if/when the creator starts to expand, they would remove the prod) an admin would/could delete the page.

Questions from Tony1

17. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?

A: It sees like a good(ish) idea (difficult to say with out having seen it in action). The layout seems formal and welcoming to the supposed "victim" of the bad behaviour. AN/I seems sadly inadequate for such things these days. So to be any better this would need very trusted coordinators, possibably more trusted then admins. So where are you going to find these users (who aren't admins, but are good enough to be them (or preferably better)) to be the four non-admin coordinators? Also the whole page seems rather anti-admin, which is maybe suitable for a page such as that. It should suggest less serious ways to "deal with the admin" first (e.g. Talking to them). In principal it seems like a good idea. But what "punishments" are likely to be given out, and how are they to be enforced?

See the nutshell at the top: "AdminReview does not issue binding decisions, enforcement or judgements on any Wikipedian; it does not place on parole, block, or desysop admins, or revert users' restrictions. Instead, it relies on the good faith of participants to achieve favourable outcomes." What you say about "talking to them" to avert the process is well worth considering, and perhaps writing into Stage 1 of the process. Yes, finding good coordinators will be challenging; there are criteria here. Any advice on that? Tony (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The link you gave is red :/. But my thoughts on coordinators are probably similar to those at the intended location of the link (where ever that is). They will need to have been civil at all times, helpful to newcomers, have taken part in and understood many admin areas (yet not be an admin), be pretty active, been with the project for a while, and not made any silly mistakes :). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

18. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page?

A: I must admit that the layout on "your" page is much nicer, easier to read, but it seems to only centre around parts of Admin related stuff, so changing those parts of the WP:ADMIN page would seem to be a little bit too different to the rest of that page. Maybe the answer is to create another page, with a similar layout to User:Tony1/AdminReview#Wikipedia's policy on admin behaviour (or even just use that page), which is linked to from WP:ADMIN. But no, I don't think something like that should be used instead of WP:ADMIN. Partly because User:Tony1/AdminReview#Wikipedia's policy on admin behaviour is too much like a list, which has it's uses (e.g. easy to understand/read) but also has disadvantages (e.g. less content, too many points (they provide a really nice overview), more white-space).

19. What is your view on encouraging a pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases?

A: No, I don't think that's a good approach. I don't believe that an established user should be blocked for one case of incivility, this approach suggested by you above seems like a good approach if it was their first/second case of incivility. In a case of continued incivility (preferably after a final warning, and after they have been warned by a user in a manner similar to the one you suggested), then a block may be appropriate (if the user is definitely not going to stop (else the block wouldn't be preventive)). Although I would strongly encourage admins to use "mediation skills" as oppose to blocking users, but incivility is a serious issue, which can deter many user from Wikipedia, and give an unprofessional face to the project, so I don't think it should be used as an alternative to a block which would currently be considered proper.

General comments

• Links for Kingpin13: Kingpin13 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kingpin13 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Kingpin13 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - No reason to believe Kingpin will abuse the tools. Lack of content contribution does not worry me at all. Might I ask what your criteria for granting NPWatcher will be? I don't want to add this to the optional question list, I'm just curious. Aditya ^α _ß 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   I don't plan to have a set-in-stone criteria, but basically, I'll keep to the >500 edits, civil interactions with new users asking why "their" page was deleted, I'd take a look through their deleted contribs, if they have a significant number of noms in the past month which I disagree with I'd likely decline it. I'd also expect to see maybe 50+ pages "successfully" nominated, and preferably work cleaning up new pages, rather then just deleting. But I can probably learn more from reviewing Juliancoloton's actions (something I plan to do if this is successful) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Support I keep running across Kingpin at CSD where Kingpin is one of our best CSD taggers, with hundreds of tags in the months since the incorrect tags mentioned in the oppose section. As one of those who in the past pointed out an incorrect tag to this candidate, I would be delighted to have Kingpin as a fellow admin at CSD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I can't see opposing someone for having experience in the tool related areas. "Can't evaluate your edits"? How's the candidate doing in knowledge of speedy deletion? Content building is not essential to deleting CSD candidates or blocking vandals. Dlohcierekim 12:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Can't see the user going crazy with the tools, although I'd like to see more content to the mainspace. I can see Kingpin helping out at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 13:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support If a user is happy to do the background tasks, and has helped considerably in the past, I can't see why major article contributions are required. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Some people are anti-vandals and some are content builders. s/he just happens to be a very successful anti vandal. OtisJimmyOne 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, not enough admins currently. Oppose !votes not convincing. Good outweighs bad to me. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Support based on reassurances given in questions. Good luck with the RfA! Coldmachine^Talk 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Withdrawing support; I just realised user has only been active in the project since September 2008 which is not long enough, in my opinion, for admin qualities to show through. While I can't offer my support, I wish you the best of luck. Coldmachine^Talk 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Coldmachine, I'm still learning the ropes at RfA !voting, I'd be grateful if you could explain why a candidate who provides answers that satisfy you is suddenly redundant due to an arbitrary length-of-service. How long does a candidate have to have been on wp? Happy to move this conv elsewhere if it's in the wrong place if it's inappropriate here — just trying to learn! Bigger digger (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   I've put up a list of my expectations now, in which I explain just that point - I don't think an editor with ~5 active months of participation in the project can give a guarantee that s/he will be an active admin, or that a rounded view of the project and the sorts of issues to be encountered by an admin has been obtained. I just can't put my trust in someone who's not been around that long. Coldmachine^Talk 07:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for replying, I should have appended this on the conversation below. I'll have to agree to disagree on your time limits (if suitable at 10 months, why wait 2 more months, especially if we do need more admins?) but have ended up in the neutal camp with you anyway. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

8. Support. A good content builder does not necessarily make a good administrator, and the reverse is true. A short article-building resume does not concern me and I like the rest of what I see. Shereth 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Agree with above, also good answers to questions. tempodivalse [☎] 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. And yes, I'd be happy to help. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
11. Support I see no problems.--Res2216firestar 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked, but mostly per WP:AGF in that we have no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Anti-vandal fighters are key to the encyclopedia, and this user is no different.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. Good editor. While content contributions are nice, they are not necessary to be a good administrator as long as you have empathy. Malinaccier (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Support We need more vandal-fighting admins. As Aditya said as a comment in the Oppose section, "Sitting around reverting a single IP that's vandalising past the 4 warnings while waiting for an admin to clear the AIV backlog is very annoying.". While it still impedes the vandal from keeping his edits from view, a viewer could still happen to go to a vandalized version of a page... (BTW, although I haven't really stated on the wiki until now, my views on FlaggedRevs have changed.) You would make a great admin. In fact I'm changing to Strong support. ...also I'm signing my edit :P Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 23:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I've had only positive interactions with Kingpin and his CSD work is generally very good. The lack of content creation really doesn't bother me enough to oppose. The good outweighs the not as good. -t'shael ^mindmeld 00:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Support (switched from neutral) Kingpin13 has done valuable work, and would be even better as an admin. Pzrmd (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak Support Kingpin13 has done some amazing anti-vandal work, however, the concerns expressed in the oppose section are somewhat troubling. However, I still believe that Kingpin13 will be eager to learn and ultimately make a great admin. Good Luck -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Support purely to counteract David Fuchs' oppose. Adminship should not be an award for prolific content contributors; it should be for those who would use the tools in discussion-related areas.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Support In view of Kingpin's positive contributions to Wikipedia, I am happy to support this RfA. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Support to counteract opposes. This insistence on content building is silly. Wikipedia has plenty of need for admins who do administrative work. Arguably, that's more important in an admin than the other. Ray^Talk 14:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I sympathize with the opposition idea that lack of certain types of work can be a problem, but it just doesn't look like a problem here. "Automated" in no way means "trivial"; this candidate's work is hard, and I see no sign that he's flubbed it or that he hasn't been welcoming when appropriate and open to criticism. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - slightly low on experience, but probably would be ok carrying out the tasks outlined in his response to Q1. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
24. Support as a fellow vandal fighter. He shows no signs of abusing the tools. Jozal ^(talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Even thought there is lack of content building to show experience in a wide variety of areas, this user's conduct so far shows no indication that he would misuse adminship. Triplestop (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - All we are concerned with here is whether he can be trusted with the tools. What matters is not age, but maturity; he has not shown himself to be incivil or immature at all. Also, there are many admins (I'll admit I'm that type) who do a lot more insider work than content editing, but that's exactly what admins are for. You do not need the tools to edit pages, but you do need them to delete them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Their willingness to learn from previous CSD tagging errors/criticism lends me to support his ability to use the tools in a responsible manner. With hundreds of CSD taggings, errors are easy to make early on since we are all human. Icseaturtles★ 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. While he hasn't been here for long, he has shown a lot of diligence in the work completed, even if done with the help of some tools which make tedious work much quicker. I see nothing which leads me to believe the tools would be abused. I do recommend taking things slowly at first, though, until you are sure of how to use the tools correctly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
29. Excellent vandal fighter whom I want to see as a sysop. Pretty good work despite the very low article building. Pmlineditor  ^Talk 10:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
30. Support; I've always thought he was good at what he does. -- Mentifisto 11:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
31. Weak support. Has a sufficient number of non-automated edits. Undoubtably very dedicated, the bot is excellent, too. The positive slightly outweighs legitimate concerns over CSD and a general lack of content contributions. decltype (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
32. Weak support. Would prefer more article work, but supporting per 20Q. Wizardman 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
33. Support per the solid responses the the questions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Kingpin13 will appropriately use the tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Percentages don't bother me, but good intent convinces me. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - lots of non-automated edits too; user seems to have a clue and will unlikely abuse the tools. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
36. Moral Support: The question is whether you will abuse the tools, and nobody responds ! -- Tinu Cherian - 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. What everyone seems to forget is, if we selected only candidates that had made significant contributions to article building, we'd have administrative backlogs up the wazoo. Most people are either going to be good admins or good article builders. The people who are good at both are going to be few and far between. Matt (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
38. Support A good and familiar face. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
40. Support. — Michel Mapaliey (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I'm really sorry, I hate opposing candidates, but the amount of automated edits alongside the lack of significant article contributions (if you think I've missed an article, don't hesitate to reply!) make me concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   I was waiting for the automated edits counter to come back. 82.12% automated edits with Huggle is too much for me. Sorry. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Excellent vandal fighting and very helpful to new users. Unfortunately there's not much else so its difficult to determine competence with policy. The one bit I could find wasn't good - as recent as March of this year there were several cautions about inappropriate speedy tagging - I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable giving the delete button just yet. Definitely on the right track though and I look forward to supporting later. Shell ^babelfish 09:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Shell, I wrote one of those cautions, but I'm now in the support column because of the hundreds of subsequent tags. I agree that the candidate was not ready for adminship two months ago, but have no hesitation in supporting now. ϢereSpielChequers 11:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I believe that administrators should have a familiarity with the creation side of Wikipedia; the position of responsibility confers a certain degree of power (whether it should or not), and I feel that people who are largely fighting vandalism have a tendency to forget that we're here to write an encyclopaedia. I realize that not everyone wants to write articles, but I would expect an admin candidate to have had more involvement in the process than you have - perhaps you could participate in some GA reviews or something like that, to broaden your knowledge. I wish you the best of luck, and hope that you will come back to RfA later.  Chzz  ►  10:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - as above really; little demonstrated experience in administrative areas and concerns over CSD. Admin tools unnecessary for reviewing recent changes and combating vandalism... Coldmachine^Talk 11:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Admin tools are pretty helpful while combating vandalism. Sitting around reverting a single IP that's vandalising past the 4 warnings while waiting for an admin to clear the AIV backlog is very annoying. Try helping those who patrol recent changes to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

   As for those who say that content contribution is required, if all the vandal-fighters, CSD-taggers, and article maintenance people were to pack up and leave, I'd like to see how the godly article writers would survive. Aditya ^α _ß 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Strong Oppose - While I appreciate the assiduous work in anti-vandalism, I am afraid that I cannot in good conscience support this RfA. You have only been active for a few months and in that time you've been virtually automated, racking up 10+K edits a month. I cannot judge adequately whether you understand policy. I don't require FA or GAs, but I like to see some dedication to the project in the form of written work. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose, rather reluctant, due to lack of article building, great that he does lots of auto vandalism fighting, but I think at least some experience (i.e., more than he has) in building an encyclopedia is needed for an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I am wary of candidates who are perhaps too caught up in the minutiae and red tape at the expense of collaboratively creating the world’s greatest encyclopedia. Administrators need a certain level of camaraderie and teamwork skills that has yet to be demonstrated here. Of total edits, only 1.1% are article talk and 0.2% Wikipedia talk. The copious user talk edits consist primarily of telling other editors what they have done wrong. I suggest taking Chzz’s advice and spending some quality time with GA reviews or one of the various Wikiprojects. — Satori Son 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose lack of audited content contributions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose editor more or less says he's not interested in building encyclopedia content, no evidence in any of his contributions that he has the judgement one would expect (no evidence that he doesn't have judgement either, of course. THere's just, well, no evidence) and he doesn't need to be an admin to run his bot.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Nowhere have I said that I'm "not interested in building encyclopedia content", why else do you think I'd be here? How about if I promise not to use the tools when creating pages? :P - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   "Most of my work is not content building" you write. As to a promise of "not using the tools when creating pages" well, no one does. At any rate, your track record here is one that makes it impossible for me to evaluate with any level of confidence the quality of your judgement and the way that judgement would effect your use of the greater powers admins have on wikipedia. Being an admin is a big deal (contrary to a frequently cited trope) and since it's effectively an appointment for life (wikipedia is still plagued with admins who are blights on the project from years ago) i don't like taking flyers. While all of those gnomish edits are useful and welcome and i thank you for them they don't demonstrate admin material. I'm also not reassured that you didn't answer the question about whether you're over 18; while that's not a deal breaker for me, it's on the negative side of the ledger.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Why should his not answering a question that has nothing to do with his edits or how well he'd perform as an admin have any weight on your decision? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Because i think as a general rule minors have weaker judgement than adults, and he chose not to address the question of whether he is a minor or an adult. That's why i find it relevant -- to me it has something to do with judgement and temperment and could well effect his performance as an admin.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   You said it yourself. That's a general rule. We have individual RfAs so people can judge candidates individually. Applying stereotypes here is pointless. A person's 18th birthday isn't a magical one where s/he gets blessed with wisdom or whatever. That age is meant to be a guideline. It's not supposed to be applied arbitrarily. I'd support your argument if the candidate was 8 or something. But his answers show understanding of policy, clear logic, and maturity. You're going to have to rethink that one, Bali ultimate. Aditya ^α _ß 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   In addition to what Aditya said, if a 12 year old had very good contributions and interactions with other editors, he could easily lie, claiming he's twenty-something, and nobody would know he's under 18. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neither one of you is reading carefully. Yes, in theory there are some exeptional minors. And if a minor displayed exceptional maturity and quality through his/her editing here, the fact that they were under 18 would not deter me from supporting them (since i would be convinced by available evidence of their exceptional nature). Yet, here, we have a candidate whose judgement is impossible to evaluate based on the nature of his contributions and who seems to think the question of age is completely irrelevant. That, as i've explained, is a black spot against his judgement in my book. This editor is very far from that theoretical special 12-year old. I'm far less interested in the theoretical case of the exceptionally bright and deceptive 12-year-old who can succesfully lie about his age than the demonstrable fact that thiscandidate, whatever his age, ignored the question entirely, casting doubt on his judgement and discrimination (in my view, obviously), whether his real age is 10-years-old or 100.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   The optional questions are optional, even though it might not seem like it. So if he ignores the question entirely or partly or any combination thereof, it should not cast any doubt on his maturity, much less his age. He has answered plenty of questions. You may ask him some more. Meanwhile, if you have any concrete diffs of his immaturity, please let me know. Aditya ^α _ß 08:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ha, that was my little joke about not using the tools to create pages :), as it seems to be such an important part of adminship (not saying that it isn't, it's just ironic that I need to create pages to be able to delete them ;D). As to me not creating much content; I don't, but that doesn't mean I'm not as interested in building the encyclopedia as someone with 10 FAs - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose per lack of substantial content contributions. Like the other opposers, I cannot adequately judge your understanding of policy. I need a few months of non-automated contributions, to different areas of the project to determine that you will not abuse or misuse the tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Can you please clarify how the user's experience in article-building is relevant to this discussion of whether or not he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Limited collaboration with other editors. Minimal content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Can you please clarify how the user's experience in article-building is relevant to this discussion of whether or not he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. Content creation is an important aspect of this. When an editor does so, he gains insight: how to structure an article, write prose, establish notability, add references, and collaborate with other editors. These are important skills for admins too, because admins can delete pages. Before an admin deletes an article, he should consider the possibility that the article might actually be notable, except the relevant references haven't been found yet. This is especially important for speedy deletions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Axl. It seems that I would know from my small experience of writing how to structure an article, I don't know about writing with prose, we all have different styles, I also know how to estabilsh notability (thanks to working with speedy deletions and AfD (yes, I did actually learn something from it)), I (personally) think I'm pretty handy with references (I've found myself cleaning up the references on new pages), as to working together with other editors, I do that on my talk page, at AfD discussions, here, even. People seem to think I'm going to be too keen to hit the delete button. I think this is because some of the pages brought up by SoWhy, all of which were A1 or A3 nominations by me, and met the Critera when I tagged them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    In my opinion, you don't have enough experience in these areas. In particular, prior to CSD tagging, do you consider assisting the article creator to improve the article? Do you search for references to establish notability? I draw your attention to this essay. I don't think that you would be a good administrator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    I have searched for references for some articles before tagging them for deletion, normally (nearly all the time) I don't find any and when I get back the article is already tagged/deleted (I don't normally search for references, as a lot of the articles I tag consist of something like "He is epic" x50, or similar), if an article doesn't meet CSD then I don't tag it, simply as that. You seem to be looking for evidence that I haven't tagged an article, which you are going to be hard pressed to find. Which may be why there is little evidence of that. I have also assisted users in creating articles, or introducing them to Wikipedia. Not all CSD taggers are deletionists (although I'm not saying I'm not one) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    Much of your CSD tagging is appropriate. However that isn't enough to justify adminship. I'm not looking for evidence that you haven't tagged an article. I'm looking for evidence of collaboration to achieve content creation. I'm looking for evidence of technically accurate CSD/AfD articles that you chose not to tag, but to research and improve. I'm looking for evidence of a sustained effort to improve an article, such as a Good Article. Reviewing your contributions and your answer to question 2 shows that this is lacking. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    So basically there's nothing/not much wrong with the work which I do, but you'd like me to build more content. Ahh well, I can live with that, although I really don't get why content building is needed. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

11. Per Shell and Axl. Daniel (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
12. That wikipedia's way of working demands an army of vandal fighters is not a reason to ignore the fundamental importance of administrators having a clear understanding of the problems encountered in content creation. If more understood that, then perhaps we might begin to see fewer destructively punitive blocks being applied to established and productive editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    It's actually normally CSD taggers such as myself that end up helping newbs with content creation. And thus I can comprehend (maybe not completely, I wouldn't know) the "problems" encounted when creating content. I've even had a page which I created go through AfD. It's unfair to suggest that just becuase I have't created as much content as other users, I would block them - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose Lack of article building. Vodello (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Can you please clarify how the user's experience in article-building is relevant to this discussion of whether or not he will use the admin tools properly, if granted them? Stifle (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose Sorry, but per the comments above. America69 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Sounds like he's probably a kid, and with nothing to help me gauge his level of clue, I'm going to oppose. Kids in general are poorly suited to positions requiring good judgement. Those complaining that "age is irrelevant" here are making the same error we've seen over and over: Exceptional individuals do exist, but only a total bonehead would assume that a particular individual is exceptional, without evidence. But I'm also going to call out the "not enough writing" opposes for being boneheaded also. We can use admins who function more like janitors than like writers. There's nothing wrong with that. Everyone contributes in their own way, according to their skill set and preferences. If someone enjoys doing nothing but fixing vandalism all day, let them do their thing- it's a net gain for the project. Friday (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Much of what admins do impact editors and their articles. I want an admin who has worked on articles, and cared about their content, cared about it a lot. I want those memories to influence a decision on blocking for edit warring, or on whether to semiprotect an article. I don't expect a FA, but I want to see at least some articles a potential admin has sweated blood over.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    That all sounds very emotional. Wikipedia works much better when editors don't get so emotionally involved. Friday (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Call it perspective, then. As for emotional, Vulcans need not apply.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose I just got the impression that this editor was too indecisive with question #5. I understand that the question wasn't too detailed, but legal threats are a very serious matter, and I'm not sure I can trust the tools to someone without a way of properly gauging their level of maturity in dealing with these kinds of issues. -- œ^™ 05:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose I don't think you are ready yet. I can tell you will get the tools one day, but just not yet. Sorry! (iMatthew - talk) at 00:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose, per Axl (talk · contribs) and Vodello (talk · contribs), would like to see additional experience in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too many automated edits, bro. Doesn't give me any confidence.--Koji† 02:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Does not understand the advisability of the alternatives to deletion. It's not just a matter of his tagging earlier, but his current tagging, and the way he defends it here. We do not need more admins likely to drive away newcomers by not giving them a chance. Some understanding of this could perhaps be gaining by actually communicating informally with them instead of using notices. I do not thing an admin need be a content expert, but it would help to do some more work in content creation himself. Wehwalt has it right, a little above. DGG (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose There are not enough manual edits for me to judge whether or not the candidate knows policy and common practice to the degree expected of an admin. hmwithτ 15:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Hi hmwith, thanks for your !vote. Can I just point out that I have 6,000 non-automated edits (double the amount suggested for admin candidates), and that just because many of my edits are automated doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for them, it's still me adding/removing that text to them, and you should be able to see my understanding of policy from what I do with new pages, which edits I revert, why I revert them etc. I don't get the difference it makes between clicking rollback in Internet Explorer, or clicking rollback in huggle? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

22. Oppose for several reasons. There are a lot of automated edits and the non-automated ones don't really strike me as much more than required for CSD and minor housekeeping. There's nothing here to show me how the user will react when things go south. I am not a big fan of inclusionism, but some of theses CSD's are just, I'm sorry, flat out bad and show bad judgment. If you'll flag one when it shouldn't be, you'll delete it. Not enough work in Wikipedia talk, policy pages. Lack of solid participation in building articles -- I don't require a GA or FA but I want to see enough that you know when the editing gets hot what it actually feels like. Not really enough time, and finally? I just get the feeling the user isn't ready. It's not any one thing, it's all the things taken together. Good contributor and vandal fighter. But not feeling it for admin, sorry. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
23. What BSFS said. In the tiny sliver of a review that I did, it was the automated edit count that drove me away from a possible nomination. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Dylan, yes I know that 80% is a high number of Automated edits, but do you not think that 6,000 non-automated edits are enough? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

    This oppose is disappointing, given the fact that you thought Kingpin13 would make a good admin less than a month ago, yet when he responded to you welcoming your comments regardless of them being positive or negative, you never replied back talking to him about any concerns you then had, choosing instead to oppose his RfA. Acalamari 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose per concerns noted above. The constant oppose-badgering is also annoying and sad. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
25. Regretful oppose per the concerns raised by AmusedRepose. One two three... 10:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I'm not sure on this one. I like your bot and I see that you dedicated much time to the project. On the other hand, the high automated count split your edits evenly between reverting in article-space and warning in user-space. Except for the bot-related edits, I have not seen your name in Wikipedia: or Talk: namespaces at all (at least I cannot remember you anywhere there). Also, you have only started to be highly active 3 months ago and while your CSD work is usually correct, two things bother me: 1.) You use "db XX" as an edit summary, which is not at all helpful to the creators of the article or others reviewing the edit history and 2.) you are often quite hasty in tagging pages and make mistakes with A1 and A3 tags (see these examples:A1 one minute after creation and the context was clear already. Would have been an A7 maybe but too hasty nevertheless.; A3 two minutes after creation; A1 with context (if one reads the article name, it's quite clear, what this is about);Another A3 one minute after creation; A1 with context (would have been A7)). I think hasty taggings are quite harmful to the goal of this project and might seem BITEy. I'm concerned that you will start deleting those pages if you gain the mop rather than allowing people time to work on them. Regards SoWhy 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   I think I've been pretty active for 5 months now (I think soxred's tools don't count deleted edits in the monthly counts so back then I was doing more CSD stuff, which adds quite a bit on each one). Anyway, on A1 and A3, I admit that use these two very quickly, I certainly don't plan to delete that quickly. But users creating pages are told by an edit notice to read an article which tells them to make sure the page they create isn't a "single sentence or only a website link" (most of those articles were). I don't know how many new users actually read that page, but it's there, quite clearly. And I disapprove of building an article on letter at a time in the mainspace, that's what .txt and sandboxes are for, so tagging a minute after creation doesn't really bother me (deleting it (without good reason) would, it confuses new users attempting to create an article, and puts the off even more whereas the warning templates give sensible suggestions such as "request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material"). Now the other ones (i.e. which didn't meet the CSD), seem to be Weightlifting Weight Classes which didn't make any sense to me, a seemingly random string of figures doesn't amount to context, and VIACK which seemed to just be "it a website, here's the link:". And about the edit summaries, it strikes me funny that you'd bring that up as the helpful bit for the creators (who likely don't know about edit summaries) is the message placed on their talk page. Anyway, thanks for bringing these up, it's good that you found these 'cause I'm always looking a round for my nominations which don't get deleted and they are hard to find. Sorry about the long reply :/, I was on a roll ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I've seen you in the recent changes while I edit, which is quite good really. But, a balance with non-automated huggle edits would be quite better. As per above, I would like a little bit of editing in other namespaces. But I must say your current work so far is quite impressive, hence I shall neither oppose or support yet. This does not mean I cannot trust you with the tools. иιƒкч? 09:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - I originally opposed due to concerns with WP:CSD and then moved to support based on a reassuring to my optional question 6 but I'd failed to check the period of time this user has been active on the project; the account was only registered in September 2008 so I cannot, in good conscience, support this RfA on that basis even if the candidate might be demonstrating good qualities at present. It's a deal breaker for me, unfortunately: I feel it's simply too short a span of time to be assured that this candidate is 'qualified' to take on admin responsibilities in my view when we don't even know how long s/he intends to stick around or even why s/he feels the need for the bit at such an early stage in his/her Wikipedia 'career'. We don't need "more admins". We need more active admins. Coldmachine^Talk 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Valid concerns. What would be your criteria for the minimum time an account must have been registered to earn your support? Aditya ^α _ß 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Taking a look at WP:ADMIN these phrases stand out: "adminship is oriented towards community trust and confidence"; "considerable experience is usually expected"; "candidates should generally be active and regular Wikipedia contributors for at least several months", and "Adminship is granted indefinitely". While the advice is somewhat vague the overwhelming point is that the community should feel able to place trust in a candidate and I think this requires (beyond the confines of an RfA) evidence of sustained involvement and a reassurance that the bit won't be abused. My personal view would be that ~1 year of activity would suffice in tandem with a deeper analysis of the level and area of involvement in the project during that time. Content creation/editing is key because we are, after all, here to ultimately build an encyclopaedia, but beyond that I'd expect some involvement in admin-related areas (AfD, clerking, mediation, RfAs; these would all be a 'bonus'). I hope this helps clarify. You've got me thinking that I ought really to create a subpage of my user area to outline the expectations I have before offering support, like some other users have above (e.g. User:A Nobody) since it's a good idea. Coldmachine^Talk 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hi, I should just point out that if you include my contribs from my previous (low activity) account, I have actually been registered on Wikipedia for 1 year and 4 months. Although I should also mention that I haven't been amazingly active during all of that time. Don't worry, I ain't goin' nowhere ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral - I found a few CSD issues, but given the sheer volume, a few issues are bound to come up. As a percentage, they are minor. Still, there is the possibility that new users will be turned off by immediate CSD noms, and I do echo some others' concerns about the dizzying rate of automated edits. I am inclined to think that similar percentages of error with blocking, protecting, and the like would not sit well. Still - I don't feel strongly enough to oppose.  Frank  |  talk  18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Kingpin13 is doing some good work, but I'm not currently convinced that the following (in no particular order) are being prioritised as they would need to be to garner my support for adminship: policy, content, procedure, noobs. I would recommend some more experience with building content and more importantly anything else which isn't speedy deletion or vandalism reversion. Further, I am not convinced that the answer to question 5 indicates a broad enough experience with problematic content, as admins are called on to make and enforce judgments about these kinds of problems all the time. Your absolute first priority should be to consider why the content is being removed and to ensure that no one is being libelled. I think you've almost got the right answer above, but it wasn't produced in a way that would make me comfortable supporting at this time - perhaps the result is a little too much emphasis on blocking policy and procedure over content. An understandable response in an RfA, but even allowing for this I find there's still something lacking. Experience methinks. Some time away from templates and automated tools may help with this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I really can't decide either way. That you may have made mistakes at CSD is not important to me, proves you're human. That you seem to do mainly task-related activities is not a problem — it leaves others to crack on with content without having to do loads of anti-vandal work. But your answers to the questions and your responses to comments give me pause. I think the responses by Aditya and WereSpielChequers are exceptional but only show the thing that's missing in your answers/replies. I'm sorry if that's vague. Put down Huggle (I'll go do some vandal-hunting), spend some time interacting with other editors (Helpdesk, WP:3O, etc) to prove you can interact with editors beyond short exchanges. This conversation encourages me but I need a bit more, more civility in the face of provocation and more negotiation and reaching consensus with others. You may never need these skills as an admin in your particular field, but it's important you can act appropriately. Happy to change if you can show what I'm looking for. Apologies for the verbosity. Bigger digger (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Sorry. (switched from support) Pzrmd (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Although it's not really applicable to how you would use the tools, please take a look at comma splice. Using more periods will make you sound much more professional. It'll make what you write much easier for readers to follow, too. I think some of the people in the oppose section may be having trouble with your writing style. Dekimasuよ! 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral - many plusses, a few minuses. Rollback rights, many edits, good awards. Could use more time dealing better with newbies, learning the art of when to hit the delete button. Good luck, and try again if you don't make it this time. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)