Jump to content

User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Candidate8[edit]

FINAL (51/19/5); closed at 00:28, 4 December 2099 (UTC)

Candidate8 (talk · contribs) - Candidate8 is easily one of the chief contributors to topics related to Japan here on Wikipedia. He has over 12,000 edits, including extensive work on samurai clans, establishing a standard format for clan articles, and raising several to Good Article Status. Candidate8 has also done extensive work repairing the damage caused by now-banned user User:Exiled Ambition, who created hundreds of extremely poorly written, stubby, ungrammatical, and occasionally plagiarized articles on samurai-related topics. Candidate8 has been active in discussions on WP:MILHIST and elsewhere, and as far as I can remember, has always contributed to discussions in a mature and constructive manner. I believe he would make an excellent administrator, both in terms of making good use of editing tools to improve articles and in terms of contributing responsibly, calmly, and in an informed and mature manner to discussions and debates. Nominator1 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2099 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and thank Nominator1, both for the nomination and for the assistance he has given me in the past several months. If mad an admin, I hope to use the added capability to better patrol Japan-related (especially Japanese history-related) articles (whose quality is still, in many cases, pitifully lacking compared to other WikiProjects), and improve their quality all around as best I can. Candidate8 (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2099 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to do what I can to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals; I'd also like to keep an eye on new articles, especially new history-related articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions to Wikipedia are the following: Tsugaru clan, Nanbu clan, and Satake clan; I also take pride in having gone through every single article I could find by User:Exiled Ambition and clearing each of copyvio. I consider these my best because in the case of User:Exiled Ambition, I was removing unintelligible gibberish that he'd stolen and poorly reworded; in the case of the clan articles, I believe I have gone above and beyond average in improving and lengthening them. Japanese history content on Wikipedia is generally very poor; for many people who are interested but not able to use Japanese, this is the only information on the internet. That being the case, I am focusing at the moment on quality rather than quantity; my dozens of edits on each of these articles will prove that. Oh, and before the recent developments in the wake of E.A.'s banning, my best contributions to Wikipedia were my extensive edits to Tokugawa Yoshinobu, as well as my extensive overhaul and rewrite of Shimabara Rebellion, which had once been so bad that it made the news.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: In some cases where the other editor has been difficult to work with, I have opted to compromise or just drop the issue entirely (see my interaction with a certain IP user on Talk:Katō Kiyomasa, who regularly posts at length on Talk:Samurai and Talk:Bushidō). Perhaps the most notable conflict I have been involved in has been with User:Exiled Ambition, who is infamous in some circles for his repeated, blatant copyright infringement and poorly-written pseudo-intellectual gibberish. I tried to work with him, tried to reason with him, tried to suggest things to him for many months; finally, when he would not stop, I notified an admin (User:Hoary) and got the ball rolling on trying to negotiate one last time. When that fell through and he refused yet again, and got more and more angry and hostile (and when I produced evidence of his plagiarism), we moved to ban. In a nutshell, I tried all avenues of peacemaking and negotiation before moving, with the support of others, to have him removed (which I consider the final option- the "nuclear option," if you will). In the future, I intend to conduct myself similarly, and to work with the support and cooperation of others.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: If it's a prominent page, then per Wikipedia:Etiquette, working toward agreement (i.e. consensus) is important. But if it's a page no one's touched in a long time, and where there's not much (or zero) discussion going on the talk page, then I believe it more important to be bold-- as long as what one posts is verifiable, of course.
Now that some time has passed since you answered this question, perhaps you might want to try again to express yourself in different words? Your rhetorical tactic is evasive in this context. As I see it, Asenine crisply summarized the focus: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" If you don't construe this question as deserving a more thoughtful and revealing response, my question becomes "Why not?" --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2099 (UTC)
5. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A:See the recent exchange at User_talk:Candidate8#Deletion. Howeever, the user was banned soon after as a vandal.
6. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A:My current activities (i.e., improving Japanese history-related articles) will continue. However (to elaborate where I should have in the original Question 1), I plan on increasing the amount of new article patrolling I do, as well as monitoring and participating in Wikipedia:AIV and Wikipedia:ANI (I have been involved in ANI in the past, and have watched it for awhile).

Optional questions from Nsk92

7. Suppose you come across an IP address that had engaged in serious vandalism for months and had been warned and blocked multiple times before, with blocks ranging from 24 hours to three weeks, and with no constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Suppose you see this IP vandalising again. What would you, as an admin, do and what kind of block, if any, would you issue?
A: Warn them one more time, and then indef block them. There's no reason to put off blocking an IP that has been the source of that much trouble.
Followup: For clarification, can you cite relevant policy or a similar situation to this one as an example of this course of action? I know these questions can get tedious; I'm not looking for a long reply. I am just interested in seeing how you are mapping your intended action to previous action and/or policy you've seen, as a means of making sure we're on the same page.  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
8. Please describe, in your own words, the meaning of an indef block and describe some circumstances when an indef block may be appropriate.
A: An indef block is something I saw with my own eyes in the case of User:Exiled Ambition; it means, as the name says, that the person is indefinitely blocked, but can contest the block on their talk page if they think it's unfair. An indef block, I feel, is appropriate in cases such as E.A.'s, where the user has been making unconstructive edits or commiting vandalism without ceasing, has been warned about it sufficient times, and people have tried to reason with him/her and tried to help, but have either been spurned or ignored.

Question from How do you turn this on

9. Your answer to question one doesn't really show understanding of what admins do, per WP:ADMIN. Can you confirm you have read that page, and understand it? Is there anything you'd like to add or modify in your original answer?
How would you like me to confirm...summary in my own words? If this can be clarified, I'll gladly answer your question in full.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Candidate8 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • Just a note, the first three supports were cast before the RFA was transcluded. Useight (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2099 (UTC)
Support[edit]
  1. While I have not personally interacted very much with Candidate8, I am well aware of his excellent work. He has done much to improve articles dealing with Japanese history and samurai. Particularly note worthy is his constant use of references which are often so lacking in other articles. I have only seen quality work with a mature attitude. Wikipedia could hardly go wrong with him as an administrator. Keep up the great work. It is appreciated. Bendono (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2099 (UTC)
  2. I enthusiastically support Candidate8. Based on his many contributions to fields I follow closely, I believe he will be a trustworthy administrator on Wikipedia. Fg2 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2099 (UTC)
  3. He would make a good admin. -- Taku (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2099 (UTC)
  4. Support. We need more like this. – iridescent 00:17, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  5. Support. Candidate8's committment to improving the quality of Japan-related articles is obvious, and allowing him access to a few extra buttons is unlikely to cause him to go berserk. I also like the way he's not afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel, as in "poorly-writ the project space. The fact that you focus most all of your attention on the 'pedia is great. Most admin tasks aren't that difficultten pseudo-intellectual gibberish". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom and contribs. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  7. Support Maybe he's not 100% on all admin processes, but I doubt he'd mess up and he doesn't sound like he's going to go on a spree of doing dumb things. He's clearly a good user, and I don't see an RfA should fail just to come back in 3 months for some minor details that I believe he'll take to heart and fix. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  8. Support, good article writer. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:56, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  9. What happened to net positives? — Who cares if he hasn't participated in an AfD if he has no intention of working there. The candidate has stated they want to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals. We need more admins like you—content-focused and well spoken :) —Cyclonenim (talk • contribs • email) 10:07, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  10. Taking the WTHN route. Who cares if he doesn't have much AfD work? Moni didn't have that much and she passed. I don't think it's very fair to oppose someone who gets almost no recognition for his huge quality edits. Furthermore, gnomes are the best people for adminship. I'm also confused with that, since HH didn't pass once and is currently #2 on WBFAN. I think that's plain ridiculous. —Sunday • (Testify!) 11:36, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  11. Support - if a candidate has no intention of working in AfD, their AfD contributions are irrelevant. Candidate8 isn't going to abuse the tools, works well with others when they aren't sure about something, and is an excellent general contributor. Absolutely no reason why they shouldn't. Ale_Jrbtalk 12:47, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  12. Support, mostly per Iridescent and Malleus. Another fantastic editor with stupid oppose reasons. Keeper ǀ 76 16:34, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Keeper, calling the opposes stupid? I'm shocked at you! I've deducted 5 brownie points. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:54, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I didn't say which was stupid. No attacks from me. But some are stupid, so if you feel you need to "subtract" more points, sobeit. This is an article writer, not a vandal. Needs the tools to make Wikipedia better. I've never worked with Candidate8, but even just a brief view of his contribs shows someone that is here for the right reasons and shouldn't have to ask some flake like me to move a page over a redirect or block an obvious vandal. Keeper ǀ 76 17:39, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  13. Support -- Attention to detail is the hallmark of Candidate8's work; but the more significant effects of Candidate8's contributions are illustrated in those crisp edits which caused me to ask myself, "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Why didn't I see it that way?" No less important, Candidate8's willingness to commit to a long-term project is matched by an ability to follow-through on that commitment. The expressed interest in being an administrator becomes a plausible next step. --Tenmei (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  14. Support There is no adminship topic draft. If someone gets the bit and never wants to to a history merge, why should we insist that they be familiar with the concept of history merging? at no point, ever, ever ever ever ever, will an administrator be forced to close a deletion discussion. We are, of course, empowering him to close that discussion if he wants, but if he doesn't express an interest in doing so immediately, we should judge that on two things: will he (just assuming the male pronoun here) dive right in or learn how the process works first? If he makes a mistake, will he accept criticism and work to rectify it. If the answer to those two questions is yes, then great. If no, then that would be a great reason to oppose. I guess in general I don't buy the "admin experience" argument. I can make >50 reports to AIV (I have), but that doesn't make me any better at actually physically blocking someone. Since 90% of those reports were made by huggle (which now automatically sends a report for vandalism reverted after a final warning), those are even less helpful. Furthermore, experience at things like AIV AREN'T HELPFUL for general admin wonkery. It is an easy up/down to block a user who inserts "poop" into an article after being warned several times not to. We are, in fact, proposing to do so with a script. The hard part is getting a complex request where guilt is not cut and dry (or maybe not even present) and assessing that request on its merits. Will the editor make the right decision in THAT situation. Will they block someone on the say-so of someone else? Will they help mediate a content dispute? Will they de-escalate conflicts? None of that has to do with project-space edits. This is a process to see if an editor has gained the trust of the community. A better way to determine if the candidate has earned that trust than counting edits is to look at the content and context of his contributions. Do they show someone who is thoughful, reflective and helpful? That answer appears to be "yes" here. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    ↑What he said. – iridescent 18:24, 27 September 2099 (UTC)↑
    Yep. Well said Protonk. I have yet to file a report at AIV, and I have yet to respond to someone else's. Good process, mind-numbingly easy I imagine, but good grief. Keeper ǀ 76 18:25, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  15. Support RFA makes me laugh. Here right now on this page we've got one guy being opposed for not writing enough articles, and this guy being opposed because he does write articles. A good contributor is a good contributor no matter their chosen area of expertise, we shouldn't try to force people into areas they're not interested in before they can be admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  16. Net Positive. And I agree with our two headed editor above about the joys of RFA inconsistency. But that's for another day. Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  17. Support. While you don't have much experience in the projectspace, you've been editing for quite a long time and have done a lot of good for the project. You've got the experience and intelligence to succeed as an admin. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  18. Support only 2 edits to AN/I, that alone is proof of common sense. RMHED (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  19. Support per Malleus Fatuorum. I enjoyed reading the nanbu clan, also deletion codes can be learned, judgement in deciding what to delete matters and has been displayed. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  20. Support. Personally, I think it's about time we start promoting solid article-writers, rather than those who are most adept at navigating the bureacracies. Also, what Protonk said--no one (outside the fishbowl of RfA, that is) will ever DEMAND that this user (close an AFD, evaluate a GA, close a sockpuppetry case, craft a bot) that he hasn't himself chosen to do--and you know what? I trust that if an admin sees something that needs to be done, and finds himself interested enough to want to try, that he'll LEARN how to do it. People are not static entities--neither are admins. IMHO: if an admin is smart enough not to use tools he/she doesn't understand, or to ask first, then he/she is worthy to be an admin. I think Candidate8 is smart enough. Thus, support. Gladys J Cortez 20:45, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  21. Support Demonstrated he's a good editor, and I trust he'll go slowly at first and will ask questions if unsure. -- how do you turn this on 22:29, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  22. Support I've run into Candidate8 on many Japan-related articles and through those collaborations I"ve come to find him a quality editor who wants to improve the product. While a lack of admin experience would lead me to go neutral/oppose on some, my experience with Candidate8 makes me think he'll ask questions when unsure and learn what he needs to be a good admin. Not already knowing everything related to being an admin is not a bad thing in this case. TravellingCari 23:56, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  23. I have nothing to add which hasn't already been said, but I'm going to let that stop me. Every little helps in adminstuff, just like it does in building articles, and there isn't any of it is rocket science. Candidate8 seems to be a solid, sensible editor, with plenty of experience. Sysopping him would be a net positive, surely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  24. Support: I know that adminship is not considered to be a reward for anything, but removing copyvio. from Wikipedia ought to be rewarded. Bwrs (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  25. Support. Not a compelling answer to question 1. However Candidate8 has excellent contributions and a reasonable understanding of policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:18, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  26. Support - Net positive. iMatthew (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  27. Support I see absolutely no indication that this editor will overstep his knowledge when using admin tools. I also have no problems with his lack of WP-space articles because he has not indicated a desire to work in those areas. If he wants the tools to keep articles relating to Japan in good condition and to delete the couple of nonsense/cruft articles about Japan that show up, more power to him. I know I certainly can't tell whether a lot of Japanese-related articles are legit or not and I daresay the vast majority of both editors and admins here can't tell the difference either. Having an active article-writing admin in your area of interest is an invaluable asset to any Wikiproject because you don't have to fully explain the entire situation in order to get what needs to be done done. I know I am extremely thankful that David Fuchs is an admin whenever WP:VG-related articles start getting hit, and I'm sure Candidate8 will provide similar assistance to other WP:Japan members when they need admin help. Sysopping him will definitely be a positive to the project. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:01, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  28. Support I see no reason not to. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  29. Strong support - Lack of edits to the Wikipedia: space looks like a positive to me. We currently have too many admins that do nothing but monger drama in to learn. I became an admin with basically no experience in admin areas. It wasn't a big deal. Now should be no different. So, same as always: Do the candidates contributions leave the impression that he may abuse the tools? No. Is it reasonable to AGF for this one and assume the candidate can be trusted? Yes. Does the candidate appear to be capable of being taught? Yes. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:26, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:15, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  31. Support. Candidate8 is a dedicated user who has made few mistakes. I'm confident he would do well with the tools. VG ☎ 17:24, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  32. Support all seems good to me. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:12, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  33. Support Per Protonk, Thingg, and Jennavecia. Seems strange to me that an RfA for an editor with 12,000 edits, two years' experience, and 80 WP-space edits is in danger of failing, when a candidate with 6,000 edits, one year's experience, and 300 WP-space edits would probably pass with little to no concern about 'experience'. AlexiusHoratius 23:52, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  34. Support Although it's slightly disconcerting to see the lack of namespace edits, admin processes can be learned and taught. Candidate8 is a great editor overall and I feel will make a good administrator. --Banime (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2099 (UTC)
  35. Support: Cautious, well intentioned, experienced editor. A combination that does not lead me to worry. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2099 (UTC)
  36. Support - but Candidate8, make sure you understand deletion policy before using your admin-ness, okay? - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  37. Support - Sure, Why not? Seems like a prolific, seasoned editor --Flewis(talk) 05:41, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  38. Support - good 'pedia builder. Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  39. Support - We need more article building administrators. I mean, we are an encyclopedia, right? Tiptoety talk 18:44, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  40. Support Changed from Neutral as the applicant has addressed my concerns, and otherwise seems unlikely to abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  41. Support. What's wrong with a potential admin wanting to spend their admin time furthering the project they are part of instead of the neverending noticeboards? --Smashvilletalk 21:18, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
  42. Support. Lot of good commentary above. Has experience with the parts that matter. --JayHenry (t) 05:26, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  43. Support Fundamentals are key. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 06:14, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  44. Happy to support in one of my rare RfA contributions; a lack of experience in certain areas is not really relevant, because I believe I could trust this editor to know when to act on their own judgement and when to seek assistance. All the prerequisites of a thoughtful, trustworthy, effective admin appear to be present. EyeSerenetalk 12:28, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  45. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  46. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 18:47, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  47. Support Good editor Ijanderson (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  48. Support If successful, take it cautiously when you are acting in an area you do not have experience of. Overall am confident candidate will not misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  49. Support - user comes across as sensible and I am confident he will take it slowly in unfamiliar areas. There is nothing so magical about adminship that cannot be learned by someone with decent judgment and the ability to ask when unsure. WJBscribe (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  50. Seems experienced enough. Just make sure you stick to the areas you're most familiar with, and if you decide to branch out, just take it slowly. Acalamari 22:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
  51. Support—I'm not particularly swayed by the arguments presented in the opposition. Having poor edit summary usage is a matter of ticking a box in the prefs and that problem is fixed. For AfD experience, it's not like he's going to close them. As WJBsribe said above, closing an AfD can be learned on the job very easily. Finally, Candidate8 can, and will make good use of the tools. It's false that article writers have no need for the tools; whether it's a history merge, a semi-protection in case of heavy vandalism, deleting a self-uploaded fair-use image that will no longer be used in the article, or even auto-patrolling a new article, saving a new page patroller time, they are still simple tasks that can be done by a trusted article writer, instead of an editor solely dedicated to cleaning backlogs. We need more admins, and all admins; we need every type of admin, not only backlog-cleaners, who will make at least 50 actions a day. Maxim(talk) 00:03, 4 December 2099 (UTC)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose aside from this one edit[1] back in June the candidate has never participated in any AfD's until three days ago when he nominated eight pages for deletion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), seven of which were immediately speedily deleted, by a varying assortment of admins, and closed early. In light of this appears it seems that Candidate8 does not know or is unable to determine which types of articles merit speedy deletion, which is worrying in someone who says "I'd also like to keep an eye on new articles", which I assume would involve application of the deletion tool. - Icewedge (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Point taken, however, following this notice, and having perused this, I have instead been tagging things with speedy deletion tags. Candidate8 (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Perhaps you might like to explain why you weren't doing that before? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    To be perfectly honest, due to unfamiliarity with it. As you can see, most of my work has been editing rather than involvement with AfD or patrolling, though I'm working on changing that. -Candidate8 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I have the unfair advantage of being able to see his deletion history while you can't (let's not go there…) – aside from copyvio tagging, his first tagging (for AfD) was at 01:16; within an hour he'd stopped sending things to AfD and CSD-tagging them instead. As an inveterate sender-of-things-to-AfD-when-I'm-not-sure, I think someone who veers towards getting a second opinion on things they're not sure of is A Good Thing. Normally, a lack of involvement in deletion would be a warning flag for me at RFA, but for someone who clearly doesn't intend to delete articles I don't see it as an issue. (And I don't see any incorrect deletion taggings). – iridescent 01:50, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I don't see it as an issue either. Hence my support. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I can only agree with Iridescent here. Deletion is complicated 3-way process with lots of rules for each avenue for deletion. Candidate8 was initially erring on the safe side, and learned quickly from his initial experiences. If anyting this is an argument for supporting him. VG ☎ 16:50, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    110% agree. Keeper ǀ 76 17:40, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per above - I think it demonstrates that you need to learn processes a little better before becoming an admin. You are obviously a trusted user and I would enthusiastically support after some sufficient amount of time to demonstrate an understanding of admin-related processes. --B (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Even though the candidate is a great article writer, that doesn't excuse having only 81 Wikipedia namespace edits. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:51, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Why does there have to be an excuse for only having 81 Wikipedia namespace edits? An explanation perhaps, but why an excuse? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    A lack of "wikipedia space" edits is prima facie evidence of someone that is here for the right reason, namely, making a better encyclopedia. Keeper ǀ 76 18:29, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. You could use some more experience in the project namespace, getting a feel for the areas. Other than that, I think I would support in a few more months (the standard 3-6). Synergy 05:39, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Insufficient experience in admin related areas at this time. Sorry. Rami R 08:54, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Lack of experience, to put it mildly, and a curious answer to Q1 (the candidate appears to be confusing admin duties with WikiProject coordinator duties). Ecoleetage (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Per the comments above me. America69 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Worrying lack of experience.  Asenine  13:10, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    You opposed him before he even answered your questions. Why bother asking then?? VG ☎ 17:12, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Because if he didn't ask them at every single RFA, someone might think they actually were optional Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Asenine -- Is it possible to encourage you to reconsider your opposition? I single you out from amongst others who appear to echo a similar point-of-view. For me, your "optional" questions were singularly thought-provoking; and Candidate8's characteristic response has caused me to be bold in proposing that you reconsider a judgment which may have been too hasty.
    • You explain that you feel inclined to withhold support because of a "worrying lack of experience;" but I see that glass as half full, rather than half empty. My support has evolved precisely because of Candidate8's experience -- and because of contributions which are no less significant and necessary because of their specialist range. In this context, I assume the weltanschauung which informs your opposition is conventional because of the others who have responded in a similar vein; but I wonder if you might consider re-framing your view of relevant factors?
    • Rather than focusing on what you perceive as lacking, I would invite you to re-examine the strengths Candidate8 brings to bear -- including the strong support which has been earned amongst those who have closely followed serial contributions which are well-grounded in English and Japanese sources. --Tenmei (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    I ask my questions at every RfA. Most of them are not for the benefit of myself, but for people who want to ask such questions but either don't want to put the candidate through the trouble of writing answers, or simply can't be bothered. Questions are publicly available for a reason, you know. And I'm not a fan of being badgered, either.  Asenine  11:37, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    Oppose - A troubling lack of wikipedia mainspace edits and an edit summary usage that's worse than my own. Nice article writing though. — Realist2 14:12, 27 September 2099 (UTC) Removing oppose, consider this a neutral. — Realist2 17:54, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Good article writer: Yes; Experience in admin-related areas: No, which is vital for adminship. macy 16:24, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  10. Oppose low wikipedia space contributions makes it hard for me to put any confidence/trust into you (as an admin). Q1 is sort of ify too, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest there.--KojiDude (C) 18:31, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, a great content contributor. However, as usual I do not really consider article building to, in itself, qualify anyone to wield the admin tools. They are, after all, tools that are not particularly useful in article building, and unfortunately your contributions to the areas the tools would be useful in seem sporadic and, in places, inexperienced. ~ mazca t | c 20:25, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, you have great article building skills. However, per comments above, your lack of experience in admin related areas is troubling. Come back in 3-6 months with more experience in those areas and I might support. RockManQ (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, per WP:NOTNOW. An excellent content contributor and certainly a trusted editor who will not intentionally misuse the admin tools. However, being an admin requires a certain minimal proficiency in WP policies and guidelines, which is usually demonstrated by experience in at least one admin-related area (XfD, AIV, etc). With so few projectspace edits and a fairly weak answer to Q1, the candidate does not have such experience yet, particularly not in the area of intended admin work. The answer to Q7 confirms this weakness. Unlike registered users, IPs are virtually never indef-blocked. Instead, in cases of continual misconduct, IPs are given a series of blocks of escalating length (e.g. 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, etc). Please get a bit more projectspace experience and re-apply in a few months; there'll be no problems then. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per lack of edit summary usage, 81 Wikipedia namespace edits and a generally low number (~2000) non-mainspace edits. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. For the lack of experience. The answer to question one is very vague and I fail to see what Candidate8 will do as an administrator—regular editors can also fight off vandals. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 20:23, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    Comment I just wanted to say that I don't think that the fact non-admins can be vandal-fighters is a good reason to oppose an RfA. I mean, obviously a non-admin can fight vandals (I do so myself when I find the time), but it would be far easier and more effective if I could block them myself after seeing them make several consecutive unconstructive edits than wait the 10-15 seconds for someone to check out the AIV report and make the block. I realize that wasn't your only reason for opposing, but the fact that the candidate is a vandal-fighter shouldn't be a reason to oppose imo. In fact, it would make me more likely to support in most cases. Thingg⊕⊗ 20:47, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, let me elaborate. I wasn't opposing for his answer to the question, I just don't find clear in what areas exactly he would contribute. "I intend to do what I can to keep WikiProject Japan free of vandals" is very vague. Is Candidate8 only plan to fight vandals in the WikiProject Japan? Is he going to just watch those vandals, or also participate in WP:AIV and other parts of the vandal-fighting projects? That's what I was trying to get at Thingg. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 05:10, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
  17. Strong Oppose Seems the user wants adminship as a trophy. (judging by # of admin edits)--LAAFansign review 22:42, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    "Admin edits"? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:58, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    What I mean by that is admin work (AIV, XFD, etc)--LAAFansign review 00:00, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  18. Oppose At this time only. Based on everything so far, once you have more admin-type work under your belt, you should be a sure thing. rootology (C)(T) 05:52, 2 December 2099 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per everyone's concerns, the answers to questions.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Neutral[edit]
  1. neutral - I'm loath to support based on the lack of project space contributions and taciturn non-answer to question 1. If the candidate could elaborate further, much obliged. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:11, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Neutral I was going to support until I noted the lack of communication evidenced by the proportion of talk page edits to mainspace, and the amount of edits without an edit summary. I feel that the most important tool an admin has is communication, and given that this candidate has made much of the problem in having Japanese related articles improved owing to the lack of understanding of the language, so I cannot support unless there is some acknowledgment of and undertaking to improve this aspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2099 (UTC) Changed to Support. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I can't understand what you're saying about the Japanese related articles. Can you clarify? Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:26, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Just that s/he attributed the lack of quality in Japanese articles to the fact that few en-Wikipedian's can speak Japanese; while s/he can, and English, they don't seem to practice it as often as might be considered useful... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I don't understand; are you saying I should teach other people Japanese in order to "improve the aspect" of understanding Japanese among en-Wikipedia users? Candidate8 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    No. I am saying that you do not communicate enough in your editing, while acknowledging how lack of the ability to communicate effects - for example - Japanese related articles. i.e. You are aware of the consequences of lack of communication, but do not apply it to your own interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
    As far as edit summaries go, point taken, and I am trying to work on that at the moment (if you check my contributions for the last couple days I think you'll notice they've gone way up). As far as the lack of discussion on talk pages goes...very well, but bear in mind that most of the articles I edit are on topics that while notable lack the kind of interaction that most other articles on Wikipedia seem to produce. There are a handful of people who even periodically work on articles in this field (Edo period Japan, which is a rather niche field as far as Wikipedia editors' professional expertise goes), and I think all of them commented here. While I'll gladly interact with others on talk pages where there's real interaction happening, what's the point of essentially talking to myself on pages like Talk:Matsudaira clan? Still, thanks for what you've pointed out, it is food for thought. -Candidate8 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2099 (UTC)
    Okay, nice answer - and I see your point regarding talkpage editing. I don't see much point in changing my !vote at present, given the circumstances, but I will likely support in a future Request (as long as those edit bars for the last couple of months have no or very little red at the end of the blue). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2099 (UTC) ps. In your preferences page you can request that WP forces you to make an edit summary. It can help you pick up the habit.
    Re-reading what I said right at the beginning, since you have understood my concern and undertaken to address it then I am duty bound to support. So I shall. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2099 (UTC)
    Neutral Per answer to question 1 which shows confusion over adminship duties. When one applies for a job, they should know exactly what they're applying for. A mismatched answer like that shows a lack of understanding of the job. However, great article work, and I don't think an oppose from me would be helpful. -- how do you turn this on 19:03, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Adminship isn't a job. I have yet to receive a paycheck. Keeper ǀ 76 19:27, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Jobs don't necessarily get paid. I'd expect a volunteer to understand what they were letting themselves in for as well. -- how do you turn this on 19:32, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    Is the underlying issue not in your interpretation of the admin "job"? While it's true that administrators can do all sorts of weird and wonderful thing us mere mortals cannot, they are as you say volunteers. So if they have no interest in certain aspects of the job, like closing AfDs for instance, why should they be forced to demonstrate some skill in that area? Any more than regular editors should be forced to take part in FAC reviews, for instance? Doesn't make any sense. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
    I don't think it at all necessary for admins to work everywhere and have experience everywhere. I do expect them to understand what admins do though. His answer to Q1 gives me the impression he doesn't really. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 27 September 2099 (UTC) Moving to support. -- how do you turn this on 22:29, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I want to support, but I can't. Let me make this clear- Candidate8 is a great, valuable editor. He's done great things, particularly with WikiProject Japan. However, he remarked he wanted to keep his WikiProject 'free of vandalism'. To me, this sounds more like a job to do with WP:BROOM rather than WP:MOP. I usually look for a reasonably well-rounded administrator candidate when I support. Of course, I recognise that each admin usually will have their own *specialty*, and there are always exceptions. However, I believe that some more experience is necessary before Candidate8 runs again. I count 2 edits to AN/I with this. I see none to AIV, for a admin candidate who is more or less stating he wants to focus in vandalism. I'm also concerned that Candidate8 doesn't fully understand an admin's job in the community. Also see less than perfect use of edit summaries. I'm leaning towards oppose. IceUnshattered [ t ] 20:43, 27 September 2099 (UTC)
  3. Neutral leaning towards support. Major concern is Q1 non-answer, will reconsider after I see a clarification. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:54, 28 September 2099 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - while nominally meeting my standards, the oppose comments give me pause, especially edit summaries, lack of XfD issues. Perhaps another time, with more experience? Bearian (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2099 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - due to inexperience as revealed by some of the answers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2099 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate8&oldid=1148680468"