Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ

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

OverlordQ

Final: (29/20/4); ended 10:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OverlordQ (talk · contribs) - I met OverlordQ, oddly enough, when he was warning me for brushing against 3RR just recently; I had actually assumed he was already an admin. When I discovered that he was not, I took a quick look into this user's contribs, and was highly impressed. OverlordQ has been active with us for a year now, and has racked up over 4000 edits. He's a competent and proficient vandal fighter, with over 1000 deleted contribs and over 60 reports to AIV, and leaves civil and helpful reminders and warnings. He's involved in the important WikiProject on open proxies, and furthermore, is also heavily involved in an area that many admins never see or venture into: bot operation. He currently operates User:OverlordQBot, which clears the Sandbox, and will hopefully soon be cleared to watch other pages as well. This is a highly trustworthy user, one of our more rare technically inclined, who would only benefit from having the mop. GlassCobra 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I respectfully accept your nomination Q ^{T C} 10:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: As GlassCobra mentioned above, I'm heavily involved with Vandal patrolling, as such the main areas I wish to help contribute to are the ones most closely assoiciated to this such as WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:UAA. These three areas usually pop up the most when browsing the RC feed, and having the mop available, I feel, will help me improve in these tasks. In addition, I wish to further help the open proxy project, which is lacking in active admins to enforce the decisions. Furthermore, I would be willing to help with other housekeeping tasks such as WP:DYK, and taking care of Speedy Deletions in the less controversial WP:CSD#G7, WP:CSD#G8, Redirects, and User Pages until I had more experience in this area.

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

A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia have been my contributions to Vandal Fighting. While we have the lovable ClueBot doing a large percentage of the grunt work, there is still a vast amount of small scale vandalism that is done and easily gets past the Vandal Bots and needs a human eye to detect, and in some cases reporting to WP:AIV. In addition, the other main area where I've made important contributions is the technical side. I currently run one Bot which monitors the Introduction and Sandbox, and am putting the finishing touches on a second which will help identify the biggest contributors of vandalism by IP, Range, and ISP in order to help vandal fighters better focus their time and increase efficiency.

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 believe the only real incident of stress between myself and another user has been some respectful banter with AzaToth over some subtleties in how WP:TWINKLE works and whether or not a certain bug existed. While this didn't get beyond the point of spirited discussion, I believe the best way to reduce stress, and to prevent it, is to step away and do a non-wiki activity, giving yourself time to cool off and approach the situation with a clear mind.

Optional question from candidate himself

4. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?

A: Most definitely. Although the janitors are not voted for, I feel like any duly elected representative, the peers they represent should be able to hold them accountable for their actions. Opening yourself to the possibility for recall, I feel would help an admin make better decisions by making them better analyze the situation before making rash or hurried decisions.

Optional questions from CharlotteWebb

5. What does the "Q" stand for?

A: Well my nickname has evolved over the years but it's current, and longest, iteration comes from the depths of internet humor in the form of the Evil Overlord List. Of course, of my friends and I, we couldn't all be The Overlord, so I took a name from another source I enjoyed and plopped a Q on the end.

I see. Are you still a member of myg0t?

Questions from Chetblong^{T C}

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A ban usually results from a consensus from the community or a decision by ArbCom to restrict a user from editing certain pages. This can be enforced by either AGF that the involved party will not violate his ban, or can been enforced by a block which is a technical limitation from editing any of wikipedia.

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: I would first contact the involved admin to get their view of the situation to see if I was not overlooking any pertinent details, and give them my side. If after discussion we could not accomplish a consensus, I would bring it to the BLP Noticeboard.

8. When should "cool down blocks" be used?

A: Never. At the risk of looking like I'm quoting the policy page, they usually only serve to make the matter worse.

Optional question from Lankiveil

9. What articles, if any, have you made major contributions to in the past?

A: I think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to one of my major Wiki-weaknesses. As of yet, I really have had no major content contributions and can't point to any article and say "Look at my work there" without having to use trivial housekeeping examples such as spending twelve hours with a movie to keep a list accurate, or spending some time with an article to keep it from being /dev/null'd again. At the risk of sound apologetic, I can only say I hope to contribute more content in the future.

Optional (really, optional!) question from OhanaUnited

10. What is your opinion on Admins open to recall? Would you put yourself open to recall? Why?

A: Probably a bad sign I can't answer my own question. But to answer yours, my opinions mirror what I said above. Admins should be answerable to objectionable actions, just as users are. My answer to Q4, in spirit, was to say I would put myself open to recall. This is for numerous reasons, not only the ones I mentioned above, but also as a self-governing check to prevent myself from making questionable and rash decisions as I have made in the past Q ^{T C} 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that the candidate had already asked and answered this question above? --Stephen 08:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Would you join?" is not the same as "What is your opinion on it?" The candidate offered a little opinion when indicating willingness to join, but may or may not have many additional thoughts on the nature of recall, the state of the category, and related issues. Doczilla _RAWR! 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional from miranda

11. What's BLP? And, how should it be interpreted?

A: I've put this question off longer then I should have mainly due to my want to do it right, as BLP has been involved with some of the controversies regarding Wikipedia in the past. To put it plainly BLP is the policy implemented in Wikipedia involving articles on people who are alive. To me, in order to not violate BLP, the article must be written concisely and clinically. Whereas some things may slide in general articles as, for want of a better phrase, 'artistic license,' these types of edits must be expressly guarded against. There are no second chances with adding uncited, unsourced, or unreliable information. Furthermore, things that could fall under the controversial 'Trivia' section are expressly forbidden unless it is a well-known and published action.

Optional question from Rigadoun

12. Many of the opposes are based on a perceived overuse of brief or casual deletion reasoning. For a typical article from the list of diffs from Le Grand Roi, what was your typical process in determining that it should be deleted, and how long did it take? Are there any of those which you feel deserved a lengthier rationale, or are they all pretty self-explanatory?

General comments

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

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

---

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

Discussion

• Although a well-rounded admin is desirable in all candidates, as has been pointed out below, there are a few areas which I could use some work in. I have taken these criticisms to heart and I feel I should re-iterate my intentions of only using the tools I would be granted in the areas I am proficient at. While I can't say I would never close an AfD myself, it was always my intention to forgo these areas of possible controversial changes until I had received sufficient coaching from other experienced admins. Until such time, I would limit myself to helping with any work in the less controversial deletion categories such as G7/G8,R1-3, etc Q ^{T C} 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Yep. WODUP 10:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. :) GlassCobra 10:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   — Dark ^(talk) 10:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Sort of. I know you're a good contributor, but UAA reports like this are a little troubling. I blocked the user for an indefinite period of time but not for the rationale given when reported. And, how come there is a big time range between your Wikipedia edits? Like here for example. Apart from that, nothing else I can find. Rudget. 13:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Kommentar As for the UAA report, I was going by the real names section which states You should not edit under the real name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person, or you make it clear that you are not. While I agree the report might have been premature and to WP:AGF, to me the user appeared to not have made a good faith move to make that distinction. As for the disparity in continuous edits, that can be attributed to end of semester and other things that have needed my attention. Q ^{T C} 14:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Haha, those exams can be really stressful. Malinaccier (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Support per my standards. I reviewed the user talk pages, and nothing stood out. First time I've seen a 'bot related comment expressing concern that the bot was down (as contrasted with the usual comment that the 'bot should be put down). In reviewing the last 1500 contribs, I saw lots of CSD warnings. I like that. I did see a couple of possibly hasty taggings, but I'm sure the nom knows the difference between tagging and actually deleting. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. Trust nom, and am sure the user won't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Mønobi 15:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Intelligent and friendly, based on past interactions. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support per above. NHRHS2010 20:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support good contributor. RMHED (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support He is a good user. Best of luck! Spencer^T♦C 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support' No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 01:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Strong support - Trustworthy user. I don't think he will abuse the tools. Also, has beaten ClueBot. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak Support - Good contributor and trustworthy, but he could use more contributions to writing articles and I would like to see more mainspace edits to stuff other than Wikipedia:Sandbox/Archive.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
15. I trust ya, and, I know you won't abuse the tools. SQL^{Query me!} 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Great user and will be a great admin. Good luck. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Although the rather weak AfD comments cause me some concern, I do not find any convincing reasons to oppose OverlordQ. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Per the most idiotic oppose (take your pick). User:Dorftrottel 03:08, February 18, 2008
19. Support - Per Dorftrottel; I don't see any problems. The arguments are weak and some people's are abilities are better aimed at vandal fighting than article building. There is no point telling someone they need to create more articles if thats not what they want to do. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Support (leaning towards weak): The low number of article edits is a concern, however that is a quick OJT fix. The main jobs needed with the admin tools are the ones that with which s/he is already proficient. Good luck!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Excellent v-fighting. Twenty Years 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Support without hesitation. Valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I don't see this user as likely to abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 21:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - ugen64 (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support - no reason to oppose. Rami R 14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support - no valid reasons to oppose. Plenty of invalid ones though. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support No problems with him receiving the mop. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Give him the MOP! Now! Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong Support. 4000 edits, over a quarter in the mainspace, a good amount of Wikipedia edits, and seems to know policy. Would make a great admin after a while learning how to use the tools. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 08:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - I changed my vote, because the candidate clearly does not understand the guidelines for article development, particularly Wikipedia:Summary style. Instead of helping me improve USB connector, he blanked it with a redirect (and no other explanation [1]). Then, when I asked for help he simply justified his initial blanking of the article. I don't want an "overlord" who imposes his will on me, but an equal partner who collaborates on organizing information usefully. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose. While the nominee does have some good vandal work (as seen here), I am a bit hesitant to support the use of Twinkle, even if the page suggests it can be used in such a fashion, for deletion nominations. I truly believe that it should only be used for vandal fighting and as some other users have abused Twinkle for mass nominations of articles for deletion, I am concerned that an admin who also uses Twinkle (even if not abusively) may be sympathetic to those who do use it in a disruptive fashion. Other edits that are questionable as overly short oder per nom style edits: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. In other words, no or limited originality of argument displayed in the preceding edits, all of which were deletes, as well. And while I may be a fan of Aliens, two separate edits above have "nuke it from orbit" as the "argument" for deletion!

   Notice as well that some of the above were accomplished relatively rapidly:

   00:44, 30 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empornium (3rd nomination)‎ (→Empornium: Strong delete)

   00:43, 30 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlameBush!‎ (→BlameBush!: Speedy delete)

   00:42, 30 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Science Conference Rankings‎ (→Computer Science Conference Rankings: Delete)

   00:41, 30 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andean Wolf‎ (→Andean Wolf: Comment)

   I think we should spend more than a minute reading over an article, checking for sources, reading each other's comments, etc. Finally, not much balance in the sense that I had a difficult time finding "Keep" edits in AfDs from this nominee, except for these three: [28], [29], and [30], which of course pale in comparison to the number voted for deletion above--a number made even larger by the numerous nominations of articles for deletion with Twinkle. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Kommentar I am concerned that an admin who also uses Twinkle (even if not abusively) may be sympathetic to those who do use it in a disruptive fashion ? The vast majority of Twinkle users (including myself) would not be sympathetic in any way to those who abuse it - why would OverlordQ be any different? EJF (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Because the other diffs provided above show a strong lean toward deletion of articles without much explanation other than "per nom" or "nuke from orbit" as well as such rapid posts above that suggest inadequate consideration of the articles' merit and the discussions regarding the article, rather just a desire to delete in the quickest way possible. Thus, if that is the case, then the nominee could be in agreement with those who would rapidly nominate articles for deletion with Twinkle without much explanation as well. In other words, specific behavior I identified and explained above leads me to this conclusion. It does not mean that you or any other specific editors would have such sympathies. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Per EJF. That's a far reach. I know it's not true of myself. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   The main problem I see is an overwhelming majority of deletion participation being repeitious "per nom" and "per the above" votes rather than argument and an incredibly disproportionate amount of deletes to keeps. I am a fairly strong inclusionist, but even I have posted more than just three times to delete articles. So many deletes with cut and paste "per nom" comments, some that occurred quite rapidly after each other, multiple noms for deletion with Twinkle, etc. are all disconcerting. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Maybe he just processes much more faster then some people (me for instance). It may just be he reads and comprehends faser than say-- me. The question is not the speed but the reliability/accuracy. I must say, I thought "delete per nom" had gone out the window uring my wikibreak-- for the very concern you mention. Last year this time and before it was taken to mean, "I've checked myself and concur with the nom." At least when I used it. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   If nothing else, I would feel much more comfortable with an editor who works harder to improve and expand articles rather than just wanting to delete them and "nuke from orbit", while perhaps humorous, as the sole comment following a Delete does not really add to the rationale or justification of removing other editors' volunteer contributions. So many "per nom"s just don't seem right. Again, though, fine as a vandal fighter, but I don't see evidence that would make me want to trust the tools to close AfDs based on scores of nominations for deletion, numorous "votes" rather than arguments to delete, and only three keeps that I could find. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Kommentar I'd agree to that, content contributions is one of my bigger Wiki-weaknesses, and getting ideas/thoughts from brain to paper has always been a undesirable trait, of which my excess use of per nom is indicative of. Of course installing afd_helper probably didn't help either. Thank you for you comments, I'll take your suggestions under advisement. Q ^{T C} 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

   Dear OverlordQ, I appreciate the polite reply to my concerns. Accepting criticism in a mature fashion is an admirable character trait. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, it's not my strength at any rate. I will begin to respect your RfA opposes if and when you oppose someone for indiscriminate inclusionism for the first time. This is a typical POV oppose of yours. User:Dorftrottel 16:28, February 18, 2008

   I have yet to see an RfA with a candidate who practices "indiscriminate inclusionism". I also caution you against using incivil language like "idiotic" in RfAs or focusing on the participants in the discussion rather than on the candidate. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

   I think it's sometimes important to qualify comments via the commenting user's contrib history. User:Dorftrottel 18:22, February 18, 2008

   Dorftrottel, I would not support indiscriminate anything. In the four or five AfDs I've participated in over the past two days, I have argued for delete maybe half of the time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed: Torque). The key is arguing for, not voting for. "Per nom" and copy and paste "votes" are not what we are supposed to do in AfDs and that is a major aspect of my concerns in this particular instance. I noted above that even one of the only three "keeps" I found from the candidate was a "per nom." As for commenting on the participants in the discussion, would it be fair to note your own contrib history, i.e. such edits as [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc.? If not, then, we should focus any discussion on the candidate and not on each other. And my opinion in that regard is that the candidate has done good vandal fighting and posted a polite response to my concerns expressed above. I would just like to see better arguments made in AfDs before supporting allowing the editor the ability to delete articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose - No experience in article building - low mainspace edits per count, which means that even with over 1000, the user is most likely reverting vandalism - which has much merit, don't get me wrong, but there is no editorial experience. Fails my criteria. Sorry. Also, the diffs from the other oppose worry me. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose - I agree with Wisdom. I would like to see more articles from this user. miranda 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The above diffs, and the fact that this editor has very little article building experience, seem to indicate a tendency to take the path of least resistance - it only takes a few seconds to revert and report petty vandalism, or to say "delete per nom", but to find sources to build articles, or to help to keep articles on valid encyclopedic subjects, takes a lot more effort. I don't see any evidence that this candidate has the experience to understand the editors who put in that effort when making administrative decisions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The automated edits, the lack of mainspace contributions, and the short AfD comments that do not cite policy all lead me to believe the user does not have significant or sufficient experience on consensus and policy, two areas I feel will be necessary as an administrator. SorryGuy  Talk  23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose I was leaning to neutral, but SorryGuy's summation rings true. Please dive in and participate more in collaborative encyclopedia building. VanTucky 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose There are too many problematic areas: terse afd comments, excessively automated editing, very short answers to the questions being asked at the AfD, that just echo the standard nutshell positions. I don;t hold with always requiring mainspace activity for people in specialised areas, butt he plans to work in the mainstream of Admin activity. I am not convinced that he has yet taken the trouble to understand policy. The part which bothers me most is the almost total lack of substantial activity in WP Talk space. A particularly compelling particulars, I note his comment at his nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.rite "since I'm too lazy to add every page as he makes them, just look here", or his 3 comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East German jokes: [38], [39], and [40] He leaves many form notices for people, but no personal comments or advice. Perhaps someday he may learn what is really involved in working here. DGG (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

   Comment AGF please, I updated my statement. I'll admit my phrasing probably wasn't the best choice of words. Q ^{T C} 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Sorry, too much concerns. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

   COMMENT: I am still undecided how I will vote. As for the "TWINKLE DEBATE," however, to penalize someone for something they haven't done yet is disgraceful, unfair to the nominee, and against the principles of WP. Has the nominee misused Twinkle to date? If not, then the hypothetical discussions about what others may oder may not do in the future is a moot point.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

9. Regretful Oppose, sorry OverlordQ, I think you're a great user, but the combination of little actual article work and the rather short AfD "arguments" leads me to believe that you're not quite ready yet. Get some more verbose AfD arguments, and get some decent article contributions under your belt, and I will eagerly support you next time around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
10. Oppose. Insufficient evidence of encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose, per answer to Q6, user did not say what the difference is between a ban and block, the user only said what a ban was, and did not elaborate on that enough to show that they grasp the policy. Sorry, but I don't think the user grasps the ban or block policy well enough to be an admin. --Chetblong^{T C} 20:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Reluctant Oppose - You're a great user, but looking at the other opposes, I have to agree with all of them. Soxred93 | talk bot 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Weak Oppose Unfortunately, as much as I want to see this user become admin and as much as I'd like to separate article-building from Wikipedia discussions, the odds are against OverlordQ. I do not really mind the "per nom" deletion discussions as sometimes it is just a waste of time to write a reason for an obviously deletion-worthy article. However, it is the lack of mainspace edits that I am concerned with. I think that if a user has actually experienced the article-building process, then they look at articles a little differently. Maybe I'm wrong. However, I still keep to my oppositional opinion. Maybe the user could try running again after helping out an article or two. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Oppose. The candidate is good contributor but needs more experience. Keep up the good work. Majoreditor (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Needs more mainspace, I think. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose You're on the right track, but I still feel that you need more experience before you can be handed the tools. Best of luck next time! Icestorm815 • Talk 00:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I'm concerned about the answers to the questions, the other concerns, and first and foremost, the seemingly misunderstanding/misinterpretations of policies. It may cause some disenlightenment to say that I think that you should focus a little more on material article contributions. Not the dime-a-dozen minor edits on 1,000 different pages with no particular purpose, in which there's nothing wrong with minor edits, but some edits that are working towards some kind of tangible goal with the encyclopedia first, some future RFA second, or less. This may cause some thoughts because some would remark that this is a forum for discussing trust with the tools, however, I personally could not confide in a person that is not here for the encyclopedia, but for a fast track to adminship. Also, per DGG above. Jd027^chat 01:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    Comment That's really the opposite of what I'd expect. I'd think if somebody wanted to fast-track admin they'd *only* write articles and no do any of the other things. Q ^{T C} 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    Further Comment, I would tend to agree. It sounds a bit like sending a person to jail pn the presumption that he/she may possibly commit a crime sometime in the future. I would also like to remind everyone that becoming an admin is not a promotion. It is allowing someone to volunteer their time to clean up others' messes. Let's stay focused here folks!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    we need the volunteers to clean up the messes, not to make them worse, and unless we are confident that they both know what the policy is for cleaning, and what the final results when cleaned ought to look like, I do not see how we can trust them with it. Cleaners need to be be aware of what they're doing.DGG (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

    Good point! But do Overlord's clean-up jobs look like someone that doesn't know how to write an article?--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 07:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

18. Oppose unless an experienced admin is prepared to coach very closely, and only permit use of the tools as and when the mentor feels the candidate is ready. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 20:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Oppose Weakly The only fear I have is some of the answers above. I think the experience level is of concern. Canyouhearmenow 22:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Oppose Needs more experience in the area of writing articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Depends on how much help he gives me merging USB connector into Universal Serial Bus. I believe that new articles which appear redundant should not be "blanked" with a redirect, but that the new information should be merged into the existing article first. Or else the new article can be maintained as a breakout from the parent article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   From the article USB connector it mentions it can be only three types, which contradicts what is in the USB Connectors section in the USB article.
   The next line The wide, flat Type A connects a cable to a desktop or laptop computer. The end is a wide rectangle. while not on the page in exact words, the description can be derived from the picture in that section. Furthermore the connection types are not limited to computers and laptops.
   Next is The fat Type B is used for larger, typically stationary devices such as a printer or MIDI keyboard. First, fat is a dangerously ambiguous term, in the connectors section of the USB article it gives Standard-B approximately 7 by 8 mm which is a better description. Technically Standard-B are for *any* device connected to a host.
   Finally there is The skinny types (mini-USB and micro-USB) connect to a portable device such as a camera or digital audio player. The end looks like a wide grin. This is also already covered in the USB article by Micro-USB is a further connector, that was announced by the USB-IF on January 4, 2007.[8] It is intended to replace the Mini-USB plugs used in many new smartphones and Personal digital assistants. In addition the description can be again derived from the picture in that section.
   So to conclude, it was my opinion that there was not any new content to be actually merged. Q ^{T C} 12:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   Based on your response, I have changed my vote (see above). --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   And *sigh* changed it again. All your editorial criticisms have been helpful. I'm planning on keeping USB connector and also starting USB cable as child articles of USB for quick reference. Some readers might not want to wade through information on nanoseconds and manufacturers' standards. They might just want to know what cable to buy to connect two devices. Good luck on your nomination! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

   In order to keep this Style talk off here, I've elaborated on your talk page a bit more on my reasoning, I admit I was a bit over-clinical here. Q ^{T C} 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral Sorry, but it seems you could use better edit summary usage, which is 87%, and really should be 100%. Also, with an total of less than 2000 mainspace edits, it shows a little lack of experience. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral - good so far, but there is a distinct lack of experience after all this time. I will not be upset if this user becomes an admin, as there are no major concerns. I am right on the edge. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
4. You aren't really that unsuitable, as the opposers suggest - but, I would prefer a little more experience (when I look at the answer to question 2, I do expect article work to be mentioned, even if really minor – that's why we're here, right? :)) Just do some minor work to articles, and take advice from the opposers and you'll pass swimmingly in a few months' time. Majorly (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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