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

Final 57/5/5, closed by Pakaran on 02:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willking1979 (talk · contribs) – As you may know, back in late May, I ran for adminship. That nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I have learned a lot, worked on several of my most-edited articles, continued to stop vandalism and created a new article: Big Blue Sports Network. I am now an admin at the account creation tool, where I created over 1,000 accounts and approved several tool users. In addition, I have continued to work on BLPs, including categorizing several as "Date of birth missing (Living people)" and tagging others as unreferenced. Willking1979 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: My answer and intent will be the same as in my first RFA: Blocking of repeat and flagrant vandals and semi-protecting articles (especially BLPs).

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

A: Creating and improving the June Buchanan and June Buchanan School articles. In addition, the improvements I made to the Alice Lloyd College article were much-needed. Maintaining and improving Letcher County, Kentucky (my home county) and its related articles were also much-needed

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: Since the last RFA, I was involved in a conflict with a user over the Jack Van Impe BLP. The user, now blocked, introduced original research into the article. This dispute carried over into WP:ANI, where I was accused of having a political agenda based on my userboxes on my userpage. My reverts to the article were based solely on Wikipedia's policies.

Additional optional questions from 7

4a. How do you feel (like/dislike/agree/ignore) about some of the less frequently cited essays and the appropriateness of following them as soft/firm policy? As a specific example, please see WP:CNR and discuss whether you feel it should have applied (or should still apply) to User:Willking1979/Big Blue Sports Network?

A: I would follow essays as policy if it would benefit the encyclopedia. Essays are not firm policiies unless there is consensus to make it an active standing policy. Personally, I think CNR does not apply to userspace items that redirects to another namespace unless the user requests the redirect to be deleted.

4b. If you wanted that page to be deleted as a non-admin what CSD code would you have used?

A: U1

Optional question from Jujutacular

5. The guideline WP:IGNORE states “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it”. Have you ever used this policy? If so, explain why it was appropriate. If not, give an example of when it is appropriate.

A: I do not recall using this policy. It is appropriate especially in extraordinary circumstances, such as breaking news affecting a subject of a BLP.

Option question from Sky Attacker

6. Consider the following situation. A vandal vandalized a page by replacing all content with "Jimbo Wales is gay". They have their edits reverted by another admin and are warned. They undo the admin's edit, so the admin warns them again. Twenty minutes later, the admin is not around and you notice that the vandal leaves a message for the admin involved saying "I'm going to come to your house and take you down." What would you do and why? Remember, that this user has only recieved a level 1 & 2 vandalism warning.

A: I would take the threat as serious and block the user at once. I would immediately notify law enforcement if the vandal is an IP, which can be traced to a geographical area. If it is a username, I would ask for a quick checkuser, in which those who have the checkuser rights can view the IP and notify authorities. I would also ask an oversighter to remove the threat from the public history.

Optional questions from Blurpeace

7a. When should semi-protection be used preemptively, if ever?

A: If there is a credible threat of vandalism from a group of people or when a major BLP subject (such as politicians and celebrities) has died or is gravely ill. In addition, if there are substantial edits which violate the BLP policy over an extended period of time by multiple IP or non-autoconfirmed users, then liberal semi-protection could be used preemptively to prevent further violations.

7b. Under what circumstances are administrators permitted to edit fully protected pages?

A: If there are major spelling or grammatical errors, or, in cases of a well-known and widely-viewed BLP, a major illness or death. In addition, if there are blatant inaccuracies in a widely-viewed article, I would also edit the article and include refs.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

8. Please pick one policy or guideline and explain in detail why you think it is a good policy/guideline to have.

A: The biographies of living persons policy is a good policy because it is designed to protect the subjects of those articles from slander and libel. When and if Flagged Revisions is fully implemented on BLPs, I believe that the policy will be made more relevant and useful than it is now. If FlaggedRevs is not successful, then I believe that liberal semi-protection is the way to go for BLPs.

9. What do you view as the greatest long term threat to Wikipedia's future? What, if anything, do you think can be done about this threat?

A: The leveling off of editing rates. It is hoped that the Usability Initiative (the "beta" Vector skins, improved editing tools, etc) would solve the long-term problem.

10. When is it appropriate to preemptively protect a page?

A: I have already mentioned this in question 7a: If there is a credible threat of vandalism from a group of people or when a major BLP subject (such as politicians and celebrities) has died or is gravely ill, then I will preemptively protect the page.

Sorry about that, I missed the above question somehow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11. It appears you currently have no interest in working in deletion. If your desires change at some point in the future, what steps would you take before getting involved in 1) closing AfDs and 2) evaluating speedy deletion candidates?

A1: If there are few, if any responses to any deletion discussion, then I will relist the article for another week to gain a consensus. I will close if there is consensus.

A2: I will evaluate CSD candidates on a case-by-case basis. The most obvious CSDs (vandalism, copyvios, attacks) will be deleted. On CSDs which the editor has appealed the tag, I would evaluate them based on the editor's comments, the content of the article, and Wikipedia policy.

11a. Perhaps you miss understood my question. What I meant is what steps would you take to educate yourself about how the processes "normally" work. Or, put another way, AfD and CSD both have certain nuances that (IMO) can't be learned simply by reading policy - do you think you are sufficient familiar with how these processes work already or would you try to gain additional experience before using administrative tools in these areas?

A: I am very familiar with the deletion policies. However, I would also look at previous AFDs to educate myself on how to diffuse any potential conflicts that may arise.

Additional question from Keepscases

12. Your user page contains opinions such as the belief that the current Reid/Pelosi Congress is the worst in history--why exactly do you think this? Holding such views, how do you avoid pushing your personal point of view in articles?

A: I believe this because politicians in Congress on all sides of the spectrum have failed in many cases this congressional session. I avoid POV-pushing by looking at grammatical errors, reverting vandalism and adding refs from unbiased, balanced reliable sources to articles. Policies must trump personal opinion in Wikipedia articles.

Additional optional questions from Bwrs

13. Have you ever written any GAs or so improved an article that it became a GA?

A: Although I have never reached a GA status yet on my articles, my long-term goal is to get Alice Lloyd College to that status.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

14. Before deleting an article tagged as db-nocontext (A1) what checks should an administrator perform? When should deletion reason be changed?^{Kalani Gacon}

A: I would check the article logs to determine if the article had been deleted in the past and for what reason. Deletion reasons should be changed in rare circumstances, such as mistakenly marking a deletion as A1 when it should be A2.

Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB

14a. I don't understand your answer to Q14. What does the article's deletion history have to do with whether or not it is a correct A1 candidate?

'A: The article may have been deleted in the past. In addition, I would check the article history as well to determine if there have been any attempts in building context.

15. Let's take this from the hypothetical to the real. You come across the following article on CAT:CSD. It is tagged as A1. What do you do?

Edgar Lacey was the starting forward for UCLA from 1964-1966.

A: I would decline speedy at this time, mark as a stub, and place {{blpunreferenced}}(if subject is living; {{unreferenced)) if not living) and {{expand}} tags on the article. If no one adds any refs within a certain amount of time, then it may be listed at AFD.

Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett

15b. For the real example I was pointing to, in the case of Kalani Gacon the content was "Kalani Gacon is the first Australian to create a short film" (by Kalaniman2). (Also Film transition claims this person is a famous filmmaker.) As an admin what would you do when you find this being tagged with CSD-A1 tag?

A: Based on the Film transition article, I would ask the author to find reliable sources for both that article and the biography. I will remove the speedy tag and place stub and unreferenced tags. If no refs is found within a certain number of days, I will tag the biography for deletion and discuss it at AFD.

Additional optional questions from Shawn in Montreal

16. Your userpage states that you are a Republican, that you "believe that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi run the worst Congress ever," and that you "support FOX News Channel," whatever that means. You state above that you feel WP policy should trump personal views. Could you point me towards any edits where your BLP or anti-vandalism work has improved articles on individuals who hold political views opposed to your own?

A: Some examples: Family of Barack Obama: Reverted vandalism here and here.

Julian Carroll, former Governor of Kentucky, current state senator and a Democrat: BLP tagged as unsourced here.

Brereton Jones, another Democratic former governor: BLP refs needed improvement here.

Additional optional question from A Nobody

17. What are you thoughts on this discussion?

A: I agree with Protonk's comment that merging would tamper with the AFD process. If there is a major consensus at AFD to merge, then it should be merged only when that AFD discussion closes. If the article is merged during a discussion, it could be disruptive, especially among those editors who already voted during AFD.

• Links for Willking1979: Willking1979 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Willking1979 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Willking1979 before commenting.

• For those without access to the ACC tool, see this list of active users [1] Stwalkerster [ talk ] 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Editing stats on talk. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I see no problem. @harej 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me}   01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Were it not for Willking, there would be literally tens of ACC requests that I would have forgotten to finish/close. A great person to work with at ACC and a fine candidate for adminship. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sure. Unless something really bad comes up, I support you getting the tools. iMatthew ^talk at 02:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support BejinhanTalk 02:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support No issues with this user at all. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support without question. I know Will from ACC and his work is top notch. It's a definite net positive giving him the mop. Regards, Javért  |  ^Talk 02:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support You seem stable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - unlikely to misuse the tools. Trustworthy editor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Supported last time, no reason not to now. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support without the slightest of a doubt. You're a great asset to Wikipedia - keep up the excellent work, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support No qualms here. hmwitht 05:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - No problem. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. With over 26,000 edits, why not? –BuickCenturyDriver 08:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support I'm satisfied.  7  08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Per all above.Abce2|TalkSign 10:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Don't see any reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support 20,000+ edits - no reasons not to be granted the tools  Francium12  11:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I am very happy to support this RfA. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Striken as Theo as been indefinitely blocked for being a recreation of a banned user. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support it looks like issues since the previous RfA have been addressed. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I thought this should've passed last time. Ray^Talk 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Meh, obviously. 25k edits and brilliant work at ACC. Definitely. Pmlineditor  Talk 14:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per the "You aren't already?!" argument. The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - no concerns here.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Althought there are lots of auto edits, I dont see any glaring problems. AtheWeatherman 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support I see no reason not to support; Willking1979 has answered the questions well, has contributed enough to articles in my opinion, and seems clear on what they would do with the tools. -- Atama頭 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. Awesome Support This editor seems, so awesome, like kind of really awesome. They may have a few faults but in an awesomely awesome way which is awesome because even the best admin's aren't awesomely perfect. Isn't it awesome that he appplied for RfA and that some awesome people have viewed this page? How awesome is that? It is awesomely awesome. So, Willking1979, be awesome and accept this awesome support.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (for those that remember "Very Serious Editor" this support is partly in tribute to him--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I awesomely accept this awesomely awesome support. :) Willking1979 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support Solid contribs. Good answers. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Has a lot of good contributions in the areas in which he plans to work, and the answers to the questions show he knows the blocking and protection policies. Timmeh (review me) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Support extends from voting yes on the user's previous rfa. I have always been impressed with this user. And fully support their effort to a be an adminOttawa4ever (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per same reasons I offered last time in that nothing has happened since then to diminish my generally positive opinion of the candidate and looking at the current tally, it seems overall the candidate has only increased the positive opinion of my colleagues for him as well. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34. Weak support. Make sure to check the article's history when deleting an article for no context. Other than that, no problems. Malinaccier (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, I've seen Willking around, and nothing strikes me as a problem. Good editor, seems to know his stuff about policy and process with admin duties. And the one oppose is far from concerning IMO. JamieS93 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. Weak support. Would be stronger if you had any GAs... but I don't have any of my own (the only original contribution of mine that I submitted for WP:GAN was quick-failed), so I can't complain. Bwrs (talk) 05:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Willking1979. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Pro --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - supported last time, happy to support again. Robofish (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Great candidate! Steven Walling 07:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support solid contributions, great help at ACC, good answers to the questions. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - That's numberwang! Glacier Wolf 16:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Better answers this time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - Looks good :). Airplaneman ^talk 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
45. the 46th support - I thought I was promoted with low amount of support, good luck trying to beat 55.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 14:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support – I know I !voted oppose last time, but I think he does show more clue than the last time I saw him that I'll think he'll do an OK job. Use the tools, and use them often. There is plenty of admin work out there to do. MuZemike 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support why not? --Dr. Szląchski (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, feel similarly to Irbisgreif (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support, yes, I see no difficulties. --candle•wicke 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support A knowledgable editor. He will do a good job. Bravo! 13:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Well if he becomes an admin maybe he won't beat me to as many account creations... but seriously looking over all your contributions I think you can be trusted with the tools and be more helpful to the project with them, hence you should have them Jamesofur (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Looking good. No reason not to support. Valley2city^‽ 18:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support, seems good. Wizardman 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support There some obvious weaknesses but nothing that will stop him from being a great admin! - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. I don't see why not. — Σxplicit 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Per above. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Lack of article writing experience, only a few edits in Wikipedia Talk namespace. Yet almost 1000 edits to User:Willking1979/Status? The new article is a few tables of facts, not much of an article. I'm concerned that the candidate may not have much perspective considering the lack of participation in both content and policy development. Gigs (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The reason why I edit that is for other Wikipedians to know that I am either online or not online. I, along with other Wikipedians, have real-life responsibilities. Other Wikipedians have a status page as well. Willking1979 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I personally think a status indicator/page is a complete waste of time. You could have created a GA or even FA in the time you spent making those 1000 status edits. Timmeh (review me) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Really? I'm sure it takes all of 5 seconds to alter the status. 1000*5 = 5000 sec = 83 mins (between Dec 2008 - now). A good article in 83 minutes across 9 months? I don't think so. Status is useful for users to find out if they will be able to get a quick response from another user. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I've rewritten articles in 83 minutes. Anyway, I don't think it's useful. All you have to do to see if someone's online is take a look at when they made their last edit. That's what I do anyway, and it works for me. Also, isn't there a bot that automatically updates statuses? I remember using such a bot a few months ago before it went offline for some reason. Timmeh (review me) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, 83 minutes over 9 months is different than 83 solid minutes. At any rate, good call, looking at the last edit. I guess I'm still an unclueful noob :) Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   timmeh, you could have cured cancer or invented the longer lasting lightbulb in the time it took you to make a GA. Why do people always assume that the marginal wilingess to edit is the same across all namespaces despite obvious evidence to the contrary? Protonk (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Our main goal here is to improve the encyclopedia, not cure cancer or invent a new type of light bulb. I wouldn't have any idea how to even start on either of those. Besides, I'm sure you'll agree that improving articles is much more productive than updating statuses. Timmeh (review me) 00:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Of course I'll agree to that. What I don't agree with is the unspoken followon; "edits made to things other than article space trade off with edits to article space". That's one of those common sense articles of faith that probably isn't true and certainly doesn't have much empirical support. Yes, project space/talk space is a distraction, just as minesweeper is a distraction on the PC. But it is one thing to call that a distraction and another thing to say that time spent being distracted is equal to the same time spent working productively. What seems much more logical to me is that people are inclined to be distracted, inclined to comment in talk space or split hairs in project space and that article work is actually quite difficult by comparison. It is certainly more/less difficult for different people. So while this conversation may have prevented you from improving 1 article to GA, it certainly hasn't prevented me from doing so. It is further illogical to argue that the setting of a status flag (something done when you sign on/off) is somehow immediately equated with 1000 productive edits to articles. Isn't it more likely that the result of him not setting a status flag would be logging off 30 seconds earlier? Protonk (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You've got some good points. Thanks for explaining. :) Now, let's get back to building and maintaining the encyclopedia instead of wasting space here with off-topic arguments. Timmeh (review me) 01:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW I've found status indicators tremendously useful for finding someone to contact about a time-sensitive matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FWIW, my opposition wasn't really about the status page. I guess people lock onto the blue text. Gigs (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose I apologize in advance for the length of this oppose. I wanted to be thorough since no one else has offered any real constructive criticism and I didn't think it helpful just to say "insufficient answers to questions." The length of this oppose should not be viewed as anything more than my attempt to be thorough.

   There is nothing wrong with automated edits - in fact, I view automated editing overall as strong benefit to the encyclopedia. However, when an RfA candidate relies almost exclusively on automated editing it doesn't leave me with much to evaluate, and I must rely largely on the answers to questions. In this case, the answers to several questions leave me with great doubts about Willking's communication skills and clue level.

   First there is the candidates tendency not to explain his answers, but rather just to give as short of an answer as possible. There is nothing wrong with a short answer per say, but I am looking for an insight to the candidate's thought process and 1-2 sentences doesn't give me much to go on. I can only conclude that Willking either doesn't want to take the time to explain his answers, which makes me doubt he will communicate effectively as an admin, or that he can't, which makes me doubt his ability to make the correct choice in situations he is unfamiliar with.

   As to specifics, the answer to 7a is not wrong exactly, but it shows a lack of critical thinking about the question, IMO. I personally can not imagine a credible threat of future vandalism against a specific article. The answer to 7b is wrong. There is no reason a spelling error has to be "major" to be corrected during full protection, nor are administrators allowed to edit through full protection just because the subject is an article of immense interest currently. The answer to 14 is also off. There is nothing wrong with an admin changing a deletion reason if the supplied reason is incorrect, or even correct but less than ideal. In my experience, deletion reasons should be changed a lot more often than only in "rare circumstances." Additionally, the article's deletion history is not relevant to whether it is a valid A1 or not.

   Finally, the answers to several questions are basically non-answers. Answer 5 doesn't outline a concrete situation to use IAR. A11 tells me nothing. 14a doesn't explain why Willking thinks looking at the deletion history is relevant despite me directly asking that question.

   Overall I view the answers to most questions as either purposeful fence sitting, feeling too bothered to give a thorough answer, or an inability to give in depth answers. I view all three possibilities as a problem, so I must oppose. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me respond: As a matter of disclosure, in 1995, I was diagnosed with mild cerebral palsy, a neurological disorder. By the grace of God and the help of many friends both in real life and on Wiki, I have pretty much overcame this disability. While I understood the questions clearly, I was under the impression that the size and depth of my answers would be acceptable. The reason I bring up my disability is to show other Wikipedians and the world that people can overcome any barrier in life. And of course, like Wikipedia, overcoming barriers is a Good Thing. Willking1979 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You are certainly free to expand some of your answers, if you so choose. To be clear, the problem wasn't the length per say, but rather that the answers didn't reveal any deep understanding of policy. It is quite possible you possess such knowledge, but if you do I personally can't tell based on the current answers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In my opinion, it's far better to have short answers that are straight to the point rather than beating around the bush. People hate reading text blocks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Except they aren't "straight to the point" as several didn't even attempt to answer the question asked and others were dodges. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not enough edits, sorry and I see lots of assuming bad faith. A new name 2008 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richboyliang (talk • contribs) [reply]

   Could you give us a couple of examples of assuming bad faith? It would help me, as I'm not seeing that myself. Thanks, Dean B (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Could you also please explain why you signed as A new name 2008 even though you are Richboyliang? --Chris 10:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I've reported this at ANI: the RFA deception is a major trouble sign, as we've seen in the past. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Indenting vote; user blocked indefinitely. NW (Talk) 15:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose The answer to my question was not what I would expect an admin to do. For a "no context" CSD, you should make sure by looking at the history of the article that a vandal has not cut it back to what it is. Also check whether there is enough context there to know what it is about. For the second part, it probably should have been deleted as a CSD-A7 or a prod if you half believed the claim made. Also I am treating the answers here as the kind you may give a user when they ask you to explain your actions. They should be more explanatory and pointing to the more information that a new person needs to read. This does not mean that you would not eventually become an admin, but I suggest you read up on deleting, not just page protection and blocking. Vandals will often create stuff that needs deleting or alter stuff so that it looks as if it should be deleted, but should not be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose Moving from neutral. I too find it worrisome that a potential admin would apparently not know to check the edit history on a no-context speedy tag. This is basic stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   What I meant by "editing logs" is the complete article history, which is made up of the article and its logs. I just want to clarify this to all of you. Willking1979 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, but in your own words: you're checking the log to see if the article had existed before: not the changes to the article in question. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose: Basic lack of content creation and article building as well as name space edits.. South Bay (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral I opposed your last RfA as most of your edits were automated (and I couldn't judge your knowledge of policy). I'll admit, I've only gone back about 10000 edits, but I still see mostly HotCat/Huggle edits. I'm going through the list, so I might support or oppose later. (I'm looking for noticeboard activity [Help desk, BLPN], Afd work, policy discussions, etc.) ƒ(Δ)² 15:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Went back till Feb (your last RfA was in May, so that was a tad unnecessary). I see nothing new except your work with the account creator tool. Still neutral. ƒ(Δ)² 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I can't evaluate this candidate on the basis of a random sample of his edits, because the proportion of automated edits is so high that the samples are useless.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral Per the above. this list of automated edits is disconcerting. But I don't see a strong reason to oppose the candidate. FWIW I think the current congress is one of the worst in recent memory but likely for very different reasons than the candidate. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral, the answers to question's 7a and 7b aren't satisfactory for me. Otherwise alright candidate. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral (see Oppose) While his user page displays a level of political bias unusual amongst RfA candidates that I have seen, his edits don't raise any red flags (as opposed to blue flags, I guess) for me. But while Huggle vandalism fighting is an invaluable part of Wikipedia I don't see much else on the non-automated edit side -- especially since his last self-nom -- to move me to support. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not to make too much of a deal about this, but I found his reply to question 12 about the highly partisan and divisive Reid/Pelosi attack userbox "I believe this because politicians in Congress on all sides of the spectrum have failed in many cases this congressional session" rather disingenuous. That's not what the userbox says and his reply strikes me as just after-the-fact "spin." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah. This doesn't need to be turned into a poltical litmus test, but I think it would have been more fair to just admit a political lean. I don't want to assume one exists, but the userboxes kinda render that unecessary. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Switched to neutral from support per answer to my question. Improving actual contents is why we are here first and foremost, not bureaucracy wonkery. If actual content relevant to hundreds or thousands of editors and readers can be improved, it takes precedence over some snapshot in time discussion in which maybe only a half dozen editors participate. We cannot lose sight of that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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