Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lear's Fool - Wikipedia

4. In what instances (if any) would it be OK to instate a block on somebody who has not been warned? Why?

A: There are a number of specific situations where administrators can generally block users without having given a warning. These include blatant violations of the username policy, abusing multiple accounts, making legal threats, obviously compromised accounts, deliberately outing other editors and so on. There will be other circumstances where a block without warning might be appropriate, such as particularly nasty BLP vandalism, personal attacks directed at other editors or edit warring from editors who have been warned about such behaviour in the past. And, of course, there will be unforeseen situations where someone who has not been warned should be blocked, and in these scenarios, individual administrators need to use their judgement, keeping in mind the principles of the blocking policy. Generally, it is my belief that users should receive a warning before they are blocked. This will often be part of simply assuming good faith, but even those who have made obviously bad-faith, block-worthy edits should often be given at least one opportunity to amend bad behaviour.

5. Assume that you have become an administrator. You block a troll that has posted the same attack message on five people's talk pages. The troll wishes to be unblocked, and in his/her unblock statement, he/she says they were just kidding around, and they promise to stop. What would you do in this situation?

A: Obviously there will be a number of subtleties in situations like this that will affect how I deal with it. First and foremost, while I can comment on the request, I personally am not in a position to decline the unblock, as I am an involved administrator. Per the unblock policy, what I'm looking for are convincing assurances that the block is no longer necessary to prevent harm to the encyclopaedia (for the purposes of the hypothetical, I am neglecting the possibility that the initial block was in error). Fistly, I will consider an editor who has a history of good-faith contributions and had not previously been involved in such troublesome behaviour. In this situation, keeping in mind assumption of good faith, an assurance that the user understood why their conduct was inappropriate and that they would not do it again may well be sufficient for a block reduction or unblock. In the other extreme, a user whose only contributions were such attacks would almost never receive an unblock in this situation, but I would be sure to inform them of the principles of Template:2nd chance. Situations between these two extremes are more complicated, but factors such as the ferocity of the attacks, and the situation that prompted them, will come into consideration.

Assume that you weren't the blocking administrator, but the administrator that handled the unblock request. You unblock the troll, and for a week, they contribute constructively. After a week, though, they go back to their trolling behavior, and when/if you tell them to stop, they send a nasty personal attack message on your talk page. What would you do?

A. Depending on the severity of the new attacks, it is likely that I would not choose to warn the user before a second block. In this case, the block length would be greater than before, and I would be much less sympathetic to a new unblock request.

If I had chosen to warn the user instead of making a second block, and the user had then responded with a personal attack on my talkpage, the question is then a matter of weighing up my involvement versus how "blockable" (as it were) the comments are. If I was confident that the attack warranted a block, I would block him or her and then request a quick review at the the incidents noticeboard. If, however, I was not absolutely sure that a block was appropriate, I would make a post on the incidents noticeboard requesting an uninvolved administrator make the call. It may seem over-cautious to give such thought to my "involved administrator" status in this scenario. However, I believe the extra time taken to follow this procedure is a small price to pay to prevent misuse of administrator privileges (whether deliberately or inadvertently), especially as a new administrator.

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

6. A user writes an BLP about "Lewis Hamilton". He is of questionable notability, and someone tags it as A7. You delete the page and the next day, Mr. Hamilton somehow finds you and emails you, thanking you for deleting the article because he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia, regardless of his notability status, because he wants to keep a low profile and has been stalked in real life. However, the day after that, the user who created the BLP asks you to undelete it, because you apparently missed a claim of notability (Mr. Hamilton won a Pulitzer four years ago). Ignoring the fact that you should have been more careful in reviewing the page before deleting it in the first place, do you now restore the page or leave it deleted, and why?

A: First of all, when dealing with Mr Hamilton (who is apparently a man of many talents :)), it is important to remember that he is probably new at this. My tone should be helpful and my explanations clear and without jargon. I would explain to Mr Hamilton that, although in some cases (borderline notability etc.) the wishes of a biographical article's subject may be taken into account, this is not current practice for people who are definitely notable. Next, I would ask Mr Hamilton to explain whether there was any particularly problematic content in the article. Taking his concerns into account I would take some time to rewrite the article offline, ensuring full compliance with the BLP policy. I would then restore the article, notifying the initial contributor that I had done so, and apologising for the inappropriate deletion. I would inform Mr Hamilton that he is free to ask for broader community input on the existence of the article through a deletion discussion, and assist him through this process if he chooses to pursue it. Finally, I would offer to blank all on-wiki discussions pertaining to this process that might be picked up by search engines.

7. If this were someone else's RfA, how would you oppose them (yourself)? Write a convincing oppose rationale to your own RfA and then a rebuttal to your oppose, if possible.

A:To be honest, I think those in the oppose section (particularly Malleus) have chosen the strongest reasons to oppose, so forgive me if my oppose rationale appears to lack originality.

Oppose. I have concerns about the extent of this user's content experience: not just the lack of article creation, but a lack of talkpage interaction. This, combined with problems communicating effectively in this RfA compels me to oppose.~~~~

I can understand concerns about the extent of my experience dealing with content disputes, particularly in the context of my article work being mostly on my own. However, I have participated in talkpage discussions on contentious issues, see Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image, Talk:Mike_Rann/Archive2#Recent Polls, Talk:Isobel Redmond#Evans Family and Talk:Julia Gillard#Lead, where I rewrote a section of an article which had been the focus of a formatting edit war (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). In all of these situations I maintained a cool head, abided by consensus and tried to be proactive in finding solutions and compromises.

Regarding my communicative abilities, my answer to question three was arcane and (post copyedit) is still wordy. I not going to make any excuses for not taking the time to look over it more: I obviously should have taken more care. However, I would ask you to consider my other answers and my talkpage as better examples of how I communicate. I am well qualified to work in the administrative areas I outlined in question one. My deletion work (both speedy and at AfD) is considered and conscientious, and I always endeavour to find alternatives to deletion through editing and fixing articles. My anti-vandalism work is accurate, and I have been actively participating in reducing the unreferenced BLP backlog. I am civil and helpful when dealing with other editors, and have never engaged in an edit war. Content is not my primary focus as an editor, but my article contributions are well referenced, well illustrated and (reasonably) well written. If, after looking through my talkpage history, you still find me to be so poor a communicator that it outweighs these strengths, so be it. Otherwise, I implore you to reconsider your position.  -- Lear's Fool 06:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK)

8. You are scrolling through your watchlist to see if there is anything important you need to do before you leave for the night. You happen to see that an administrator posted on the talk page of a new editor that you had recently welcomed, and helped out. The edit summary the administrator used, This kid has no clue what he is doing, draws your attention so you decide to check it out. You see that the administrator has been yelling at the new user, telling him that he has no clue what he is doing, and needs to read up on policy or he has no place on this encyclopedia. The new user responds with What? What did I do wrong, I don't understand. This is not fair.. This user has not vandalized Wikipedia, but just made a few mistakes any new user would. What would you do/how would you act, both to the user, and to the administrator who acted in that manner towards the user.

A: In this situation, I have three things to deal with: the administrator, the comment on the talkpage, and the new user.

The first thing to do would be to check the history and talkpage of the administrator in question to see whether there was a recent history of such inappropriate behaviour. If they had engaged in similar conduct in the recent past, and especially if they had been warned about it, then the only appropriate course of action is to block the administrator in order to prevent any further harm. New users are important to the project, and experienced editors (with or without the mop) do great damage when they drive them away. In a situation where the administrator's comment appears to be an aberration in an otherwise helpful and civil contribution history, I would be more inclined to leave a civil but strongly worded warning on the administrator's talkpage. I have dealt with situations such as this in the past, and have found that it useful to scan through the experienced user's early contributions, find "needy" edits, and link to the diffs to gently remind them that everyone was a new user once.

How I deal with the comments on the talkpage will depend on whether the extent of their incivility completely outweighs any value they may have as constructive criticism. If it does, it might even be appropriate to collapse or blank them, per Wikipedia is not a battleground and the talkpage guidelines, although this will not often be the case. Regardless, I would post on the new user's talkpage, kindly informing them of any mistakes they had made, inviting them to contact me with any questions (about the attack or otherwise), and informing them that the administrator's conduct was inappropriate and that they had been warned about it.

Follow Up Question from Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK)

You have had a civil discussion with the administrator, who has apologized, and stated that his actions were in an act of anger (regardless, still not an excuse). The admin apologizes to you and the other user, but questions why you intervened on a conversation/situation that had nothing to do with you. He tells you that if this happens in the future you should stay out and let the admin involved handle it, as they are capable. How do you respond to this? Do you agree/disagree, why?

A: I would tell the administrator that I must respectfully disagree. When a user sees an experienced editor unneccesarily attacking a newcomer, they should seek to mitigate the damage being done, usually through communicating with both parties (as in my answer above). As I said, a block would only be appropriate for an experienced user (admin or not) who had a history of such behaviour, and who had been warned about it. It is against the behavioural norms of Wikipedia to bite newbies in this way. Those who are unfairly victims of it should be helped, those who are guilty of it should be warned (gently or firmly), and those who are serially guilty of it should eventually receive a block.

Additional optional question from Guoguo12

9. Sorry if you're being flooded by questions, but what is your stance on Wikipedia:RfA is dead?

A:Nobody can deny that RfA's numbers have dropped in the last few years (see here), but I personally feel that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated. Candidates are being promoted, albeit at a smaller rate than previously, and, by-and-large, those that are successful should be successful. I think there are issues with the long-term sustainability of the current pass rate, civility and drama in RfAs, and whether all the candidates who should be promoted are being promoted. However, the community consensus that these problems are either real or important is weak at best. As I see it, only when it can be clearly demonstrated that the lack of admins has become a problem will the community decide to endorse a solution. Until that time comes, I would personally much rather reference some BLPs, patrol some new pages or write an article than fight a losing battle on another perennial proposal. This is not to say that reforming RfA is a trivial or useless pursuit: it isn't. It's just that editors of significantly higher calibre than I are fighting that battle (on both sides), and I would prefer to expend my efforts where they can have a greater effect.

Additional question from Keepscases

10. Have you ever edited Wikipedia in a state of intoxication?

A: I have not.

Additional question from BrownHairedGirl

11. Can your provide us with any examples of discussions or disputes over content or content-related guidelines in which you have played a major part? (My interest here is in the extent to which you have experienced the difficulties which can occur in reaching a consensus on how to uphold policies, because many of the conflicts between editors arise out such disagreements.)

A: At Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Recent Polls, I participated in a discussion regarding the inclusion of an opinion poll taken in the wake of allegations of marital infidelity leveled at Mike Rann. The poll had been added and removed, and since I felt it should be included, I began a discussion on the talkpage. This was my first experience with a content dispute, and with hindsight, my performance left a lot to be desired. Although the source (the Adelaide Advertiser) did draw a link between the allegations and a fall in poll numbers, concerns raised by others as to its reliability in this case were correct, and there were probably issues with undue weight as well. However, (apart from an unfortunate overuse of bold text), I respected the consensus and was able to remain reasonably level-headed, despite a number of assumptions of bad faith from an involved editor.

At Talk:Isobel Redmond#Evans Family, I brought an editing dispute between an established editor and an anonymous editor to the talkpage. The dispute revolved around the mentioning a prominent family in the South Australian Liberal Party with the faction they are associated with. I initially supported its inclusion, but after genuine questions were raised about the reliability of the source supporting it, and an unsuccesful search for a replacement source, I changed my position. After a discussion, an offline source to support the statement was suggested, which I was able to view at my library, and the statement was re-added. I feel I showed a willingness to compromise and swallow my pride when presented with convincing arguments. I also remained civil and articulate, particularly to the newbie IP editor, who User_talk:Lear's_Fool/Archive_1#Approach thanked my for my attitude.

At Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image, I worked to develop a consensus about the lead image of Kevin Rudd after a series of reverts relating to the image. After one editor brought the dispute to the talkpage, I decided to start a proper discussion on the issue by providing a gallery of candidate images from the Commons and asking for input on the talkpages of the Australian and Australian Politics WikiProjects. The discussion was a little contentious, and when I added an image that I felt was supported by a weakish consensus, I was reverted. In the end, however, because of a willingness of all parties to compromise, we were able to identify a decent image from the commons, which I cropped and added to the article.

As I have said previously, building and maintaining content is not now (and likely never will be) my primary editing focus. However, I hope that these examples, as well as my good record with non-content, policy-related discussions, goes some way toward answering concerns about my ability to deal with different types of conflict.

Additional optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

12. Why did you ask for Self requested Block ,I mean if one does not want to Edit one can merely stop editing?What is the policy on self requested Blocks ?

A: I requested the block from an administrator in the category of administrators willing to consider such requests in order to remove the temptation to edit during quite a busy real-life period. Self requested blocks are dealt with briefly in the blocking policy, and are neither endorsed nor prohibited by it. The policy leaves the decision to individual administrators, who will usually place strict conditions on such a block (see, for example, User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements).

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I would have refused to answer Q6 as it assumes that the candidate is negligent when reviewing the article submitted for CSD. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I must respectfully disagree. Obviously, one would hope that an administrator would not have made such a mistake, but I don't asking a candidate how they would respond to an error on their part is too much to ask.  -- Lear's Fool 16:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Had the question been about making a mistake (which happens), I'd agree. However that was not the crux of the question as I read it. As I said, I personally would have refused to answer, but that is just my opinion about the question, not about you. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support, his work referencing BLPs shows dedication to the project, have sen no reason to believe that he will misuse the tools. J04n(talk page) 00:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support as nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support, as per J04N, I have just looked back over this users contributions and greatly admired his work especially with referencing the unreferenced BLPs. I cannot see any reason why he would misuse the extra tools.--5 albert square (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, Quality contribs, very collegiate, seems to like working on backlogs so will doubtless be a valuable addition to the admin corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Contributes to articles (6 DYKs & unreferenced BLPs), works on backlogs (unreferenced BLPs), fights vandalism, no excessive drama that I could find, and works on new page patrol. The poor grammar is not in my opinion a reason for opposition. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak support. While the issues below are important, I still believe you would make a good addition to the admin team. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - seems competent, clueful and works well with others. Frankly, the opposes below leave me utterly perplexed, but I've long given up trying to understand the strange idiosyncracies of RFA, where a grammatical error is considered more important than 18 months of good editing. Robofish (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. SupportI am not going to hold your grammatical errors against you, as, if they were not made, the opposes would have been much different. I am not amazed by your answer to Q8, but I find no other reason why you should not be an admin. I like your answers to 4 & 5. Q8 answer is more of what I was looking for, very well.Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Support because nothing in the opposes is convincing at all. DC 05:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC) — Vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet indented. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Support Adminship is no big deal and you seem like a responsible and trustworthy fellow. Basket of Puppies 05:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I think he will do fine as a sysop. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. A sensible editor whom I trust with administratorship. harej 10:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. No regrets. One two three... 10:27, 30 December 2010
13. Support. A good candidate, with a record of useful contributions in many ways, and an excellent ability to deal with other editors. Reading the "oppose" comments below I think I have never seen such a poor set of comments in an RfA. The usual "can't be an admin because there aren't enough content creation contributions" argument has in this case been taken to a ridiculous extent. Even if you take the view that article-writing is a major qualification for being a good administrator (which I don't), in this case the candidate has made very good contributions. There are sufficient content contributions, including half a dozen very good articles created by the candidate, and substantial additions to other articles which is enough to indicate that the candidate knows what is involved in being a content creator: we don't need hundreds of new articles from everyone before they can be considered for adminship. There are perfectly good administrators around who have made no more contributions than Lear's Fool, and as a proportion of their edits far less. Worse, though, are those who oppose purely on the grounds that the candidate failed to adequately proof-read a comment here before clicking "save page". Yes, that was a fault, and in a borderline case such a slip might push one across the borderline from "support" to "neutral", or "neutral" to "oppose", but to oppose purely on the basis of that one mistake, without looking any further????? How many of us have never made such mistakes? And then there are the "drive by" comments, with little or nothing given in the way of reasons. The candidate's answers to the questions were not perfect, but there are no major problems with any of them. We have a contributor who has all the characteristics necessary to be an administrator, and my support is wholehearted. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Can't honestly see what the fuss in the opposition is. I see a decent candidate with a record of article work. A minor slip up in an answer (that was a mere grammar issue) should not be an excuse to oppose. AD 14:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: Candidate is experienced enough for adminship, demonstrates civility, and seems eager to improve after making mistakes. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. I generally don't like saying "as per xxx", but JamesBWatson has said it so well above that I really can't do any better than agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. As Boing! said above, JamesBWatson provided an excellent reasoning, that I can only agree on. I have to say, I find opposes because of less-than-stellar grammar in Q3 especially concerning. If the candidate's comments are understandable, then they communicate good enough to be an admin. We can't all be grammar experts (I certainly am not and still no one ever complained that they don't understand my comments because of their grammar). Regards SoWhy 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Weak Support. This is a marginal RfA. The candidate could have been more careful in answering certain questions. More significantly, his overall experience is somewhat lower than I prefer for admin candidates. That said, I feel that Lear's Fool has an acceptable track record in content creation and in sysop-related areas. He has enough of a clue to handle basic admin functions. Most importantly, he interacts well with other editors. It's these interpersonal skills, coupled with a willingness to learn, which lead me to support. Fools rush in to RfAs prematurely yet may mature to sage characters by Act V. Majoreditor (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support I've seen him for quite a while and now, I think he's ready. I hope he uses the tools sufficiently. Minimac (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support He'll be fine with the administrator tools. WAYNESLAM 18:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. His answer to his own 'oppose' represents a good natured user. He hasn't responded harshly at all, and thus demonstrated his maturity here. Lord Roem (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. I find myself agreeing with most of the supporters, including the nominator. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Not seeing any compelling arguments in Oppose. Content creation is not a key criterion for adminship for me. A single close-paraphrased sentence is not enough to push me to oppose; a grammatical error in an RFA response, even less so. Candidate seems to have been acting like an admin without problems for some time, so let's give him the chance to provide further benefit here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Competent and level-headed. I flatly disagree with the "not enough content" opposes. It's a mop, not a paintbrush. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support- I think this user would likely be a net positive with the tools. The concerns that have caused others to oppose do not worry me very much. Reyk _YO! 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I see no issues and the opposes are not convincing (Twinkle edits are not automated and his writing skills are just fine). ThemFromSpace 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support, will do fine. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - I see no reason to oppose. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support a good Australian editor. Stephen 05:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support I don't agree with the opposes (I'm here, after all!) and see no reason to believe that the candidate will abuse the tools PhantomSteve/talk|contribs 05:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Lear's Fool becoming an admin will make it more likely that my children remain fed. There is a shortage of admins working the Australian afternoon timeslot, which LF will fill. Because of that shortage I often find myself lured into performing administrative tasks from work, thus increasing the chance of me being boned ^{(no. 6)} and my family going hungry. But in all seriousness, LF is a good editor who will make for a good admin. The opposes raise concerns that are reasonable. Communication is important and if there's any more evidence of close paraphrasing I'd reconsider. But they're outweighed by the good. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support will help the project netwise. I don't think adminship is a trophy only awarded to our stellar content contributors; this user has written more than enough to demonstrate policy competence. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per nom, while noting the objections to the candidate's relative lack of content work, I feel they would still be a net benefit to the project if given the tools. --John (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. support I was on the fence for a while, and this is pretty close to a case of NOTNOW. But I see high-quality responses to the issues here and that pushes me just off the fence. Hobit (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. I'd like to see a little more article work and a lot less robo-editting, but based upon great thoughtful comments like this one I'm happy to support. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Positives outweigh negatives, and I'm not going to let myself get sucked into the years-long "automated edits" argument. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Lear's Fool has a sound understanding of policy, a calm demeanor, patience, and is a skilled editor. I am particularly impressed with how he explains policy to and interacts with newcomers (example 1, example 2, example 3). The arguments made on the nay side IMHO are minuscule. Lear's Fool will be useful to Wikipedia as an administrator. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support can't see any problems with the candidate's AIV or deletion work and I think that if given the tools they would use them appropriately. I don't think content has much relevance to the admin areas they want to work in and it's not like they never touch articles. I confess I was a little startled when they said in Q8 that they would block the administrator. Hut 8.5 14:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support, the answers to question 8 and 9, especially, show that the candidate is thoughtful and capable of handling a difficult situation. After reviewing the opposes, I find them...wanting, to put it as tactfully as I possibly can. Spot checking the candidate's edits doesn't reveal any recent red flags or misconduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support After due consideration of the oppose and neutral commentary (which I do find fairly valid to be honest) and dip checking many edits I think you'd be a net positive with the extra bits. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support I can trust you with the tools. Airplaneman ✈ 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support: I just finished reading the oppose comments and found them to be harsh with little to back them up. I took particular offense at Malleus Fatuorum's comment, "Is this really a serious nomination? If it is, then I'll be happy to provide a shed load of reasons to oppose it." I was very impressed the candidate's response. This candidate is a solid net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support: I'm a little disturbed by the 58% auto edits, but as the candidate (just) passes on the rest of my criteria, and as this is a !vote of trust that the candidate will not run amok with the tools, he has my confidence.--Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support As some might know, I usually do not support candidates with an amount of automated edits that surpasses their manual edits. But, I'm going to do this here for once because I think you have an attitude for it and some of the oppose reasons are pretty unreasonable. Bejinhan talks 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Weak support. The oppose comments have merit but I think you will still be a net positive, and you will be open to recall. Trebor (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Have seen no indication of major problems with this user, cursory check of edits gives me confidence candidate has policy knowledge and the right attitude. The Interior(Talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - I'd be more than comfortable with Lear's Fool having the mop and bucket. My prior interactions with him have been superb. Orphan Wiki 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. At first I sympathized with some of the oppose comments and worried about the adequacy of this candidate's experience. Then I looked at my own stats from when I passed RFA just slightly over a year ago. It turns out that without my even realizing it, I must have been an untrustworthy rogue who has terrorized the wiki with my incompetent use of the mop. Either that, or maybe people are demanding more experience than what is necessary for someone to be a decent admin. --RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support and for those worried about content; just because someone hasn't created a lot content doesn't mean someone knows nothing about it. For those of us who came in later (i.e. I came in March 2010), it's a lot harder because the easy stuff is either a full-blown nationalist war or is good to the point where we're learning from the content. The fact that the candidate hasn't found something so esoteric that no one besides them gives a fuck doesn't matter; he's been maintaining this precious (in all seriousness) content for you and everyone else to build upon and enjoy. I don't judge admin candidates for mantlepiece content awards, I judge them by their capacity to function as an administrator, and I'm seeing a user who seems level-headed and competent; therefore, I'm supporting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Lear's Fool has a reputation for trying to do right; I strongly feel any user with a good understanding, history, and dedication to wikipedia should be worthy of the mop. Nick Wilson (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support, not just based on excellent discretion, good work on the wiki, even temper, balanced contributions and open to recall , but even more due to the spurious at best opposes. I was neutral until I read through those and realized that they serve more to highlight what we need to be looking for. My opinion, but it's what matters to me.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose. Is this really a serious nomination? If it is, then I'll be happy to provide a shed load of reasons to oppose it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a serious nomination, and I would be grateful it if you could expand on the reasons to oppose. If nothing else, I'd appreciate the criticism.  -- Lear's Fool 00:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with Lear's Fool. Why would you think it isn't a serious nomination? Guoguo12--Talk--  00:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure you would. I've been through this meat grinder twice, and I know what it feels like to be spat out the other side. For me, administrators must have an understanding of how to build content, not necessarily by having loads of GA/FAs, but by having a record of writing rather than policing. Can you show me that record? Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I perused the article edits listed on the talk page. Lear's Fool wrote essentially all the content of South Australian referendum, 1896, John O'Reily, Robert Spence (bishop), Andrew Killian, and Union Hall (Adelaide).--Chaser (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) Give me a sec and I'll pull together a subpage with my content work. At this point, I'm not someone who's written a plethora of articles, but I wouldn't have nominated if I didn't have some experience writing articles.  -- Lear's Fool 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   User:Lear's Fool/Articles. It's certainly not as much content as I would like to create (of course, I intend to keep writing regardless of the outcome here). I hope this helps.  -- Lear's Fool 00:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   FREEZE: Where does it say an administrator has to have a lot of work in content building and not policing. If all the "policemen" left Wikipedia we would be nowhere. We would be vandalized in days. Getting an article to FA should in no way be a criteria for adminship, building articles has nothing to do with the tools and how s/he would use them. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed. But not for personal reasons. Can we unfreeze now? Guoguo12--Talk--  02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, we can unfreeze now. :P Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I see a lot of posturing, but no actual reasoning. Please enlighten us. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Stop badgering, please. This is an oft-debated issue, and many users feel content work is necessary. At any rate, all users are entitled to their opinions, and trying to start an argument with Malleus is called silly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect Fetchcomms, Malleus hasn't actually said this is a content issue. He hasn't said anything regarding the actual reason. I think demanding content work is silly, but I'll accept that weak rationale a lot faster than no rationale at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   With all due respect to you Sven it ought to be clear that this is indeed a content issue. Batting new editors at NPP or wherever is no indicator of how an inexperienced admin will deal with their shiny new block button when faced with an established editor they decide to take a dislike to. You address that issue and I'll maybe reconsider my position. Watching an editor deal with conflicting views on a contentious article can reveal a great deal, but I've seen nothing of that. Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My apologies. I misattributed your second comment to someone else and only say the top one as being yours. It turns out that you did provide a reason behind the oppose. My views aside, clearly my statements about a lack of reasoning were misinformed. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose and here's a first - per Malleus. Having said that - not yet, rather than not ever.Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Would it be a cheek asking for either you or Malleous to provide some reasoning for your oppose - especially as yours is a 'per' - or are there personal issues here between you two and the candidate? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Steve. This seems like an unthoughtful drive by vote, which strikes me as uncharacteristic of you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this has been overtaken somewhat by Q7 and the aawkwardness of Q3, but yes the major problem is content creation; I'm not one that tends to oppose purely on that usually but I think this editor needs more time to do that. As I said, not yet, not never. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose the circumlocutions and impenetrable grammar in the answer to question 3 spared me the pain of having to do further research. Prima facie disqualifying. If one would like me to do further digging i will, if prompted. I warn you though, you won't be doing the candidate a favor.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   How does a grammar error justify whether or not this user would make a good administrator? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, the "grammar error" tells me the candidate is a subpar encyclopedia writer and editor -- even when on notice that everyone is watching. Writing well is a neccessary (but definitely not sufficient) condition for being an administrator. But honestly, the circumlocutions trouble me more since they say something about the candidate's social behavior (indirect and strategically unclear, if i had to guess) and perhaps about the way his mind works. Do you really want me to dig in with gusto?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The candidate didnt mean to write the overly long sentences for Q3, he was merely trying too hard to give a rounded and complete answer. In Lear, the fool is the only one who tells the whole truth. If you look at the article talk pages he linked to, they show he handled the potential conflict in an exemplary and collegiate way. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   We have amazing admins who don't speak English fluently, let alone use flawless grammar. User:Alex Bakharev and User:Vejvančický come to mind. Your argument is exceptionally weak. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. I like you on a personal level and I think you;re a decent editor. I don't honestly know what Malleus is getting at because I haven't looked. I got as far as Q3 and I'm afraid I resigned myself to opposing. If you can't (or don't take the time) to express yourself clearly in your RfA, then how do we know you will as an admin explaining on ANI your rationale for an action or informing an editor of the reason for blocking them. This is only made worse by an attempt to copy edit your response, which completely fails to correct it to the extent that it makes sense. Sorry, as I say, I like you, but I can't support you having the admin bit, at least not right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. These efforts to address the Q3 wordiness should have been strikethroughs. This is an elementary standard of conduct in Wikipedia collaboration areas. Townlake (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   While I am going to try to maintain neutral on that, I don't think that alone, should be a reason for an oppose rationale. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   This is not exactly an obscure technical point. Let us agree to disagree. Townlake (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You are correct about the use of strikethroughs (especially given that users had already referenced the copyedit). I have readded the removed section as a strikethrough. Please note that it was not my intention to conceal the redaction: I did mention it in the response to the first neutral below.  -- Lear's Fool 14:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I appreciate your candor. I believe your action here was in good faith, but it indicates inexperience. I see no other reason to not support, but familiarity with community culture are is important for this role - it's not just a mop. If this RFA fails, I imagine I'll support your next one. Townlake (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you. Please note that my initial redaction was not through ignorance of the rules, but one of a couple of unfortunate lapses I've obviously made here. I'm not inexperienced in on-wiki communication, and my practice has always been to strikethrough changes only when they alter the meaning or force of a comment. I have found this to be a generally standard practice, and I could point out half a dozen times others have done this at this RfA, and at least once when you've done it in the last few months. My mistake here, of course, was that others had already referred to the pre-copyedit version, and that changing it without a strikethrough made everything harder to follow. It was absent-minded, and I'm grateful to you for pointing it out.  -- Lear's Fool 02:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Not much of a "thank you" if you're shaking hands with one arm and taking swipes with the other. Townlake (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose Minimal content creation (including only 6 articles/28 redirects) and highly active for just a year. I agree with Baliultimate's point above that a lot of the candidate's answers appear contrived and phony. Sorry.--Hokeman (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Per above. Concerns with answer to question three. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per User:Bali ultimate's second response. Nakon 03:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   So the grounds for your oppose stems from the candidate's less than stellar grammar? Can you really tell that an individual is socially unfit for being an admin based on his responses to bureaucratic questions? Bali ultimate's "rationale" is hardly a rationale at all; you don't even need to be fluent in English to be an admin, let alone use flawless grammar. If you want to use concerns over content creation, automated editing, or the substance (not some minor structural flaw or some quasi-legitimate personality analysis) of a response, that is all well and good. But to oppose a candidate on the basis of a run-on sentence seems rather disrespectful, if not straight-up cheeky. Apologies if I seem curt, I just can't accept any of these absurd "he uses bad grammar" opposes as valid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose - I had a look at Philip Wilson (archbishop), an article you say was "a lot of fun to put together", and in a single spot check in the "Alleged mishandling of sexual abuse of children" found close paraphrasing. In my view, better to work on gaining more skills before gaining adminship. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Anything more specific? Please comment on the article talk page to say exactly what you believe is "close paraphrasing". AD 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, done. I spot check many pages these days. It would be difficult to deny that is not close paraphrasing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed, no one is denying it, but we all make mistakes. If a pattern of paraphrasing/plagiarism etc is discovered though, I'd be more inclined to agree this is worth opposing over. AD 15:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have responded in detail on the talkpage, but I would just point out that there are BLP considerations here. Given the serious nature of the accusations made by the ABC, I was particularly concious of fidelity to the source when writing this section. As I say, I have made further comments on the talkpage.  -- Lear's Fool 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose 58.39% of all his edits are automated, which is too many for me. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I wouldn't really consider twinkle automated, because the only difference is you are clicking buttons on Twinkle instead of pasting templates, etc. Many admins use that, Huggle, however, is different. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   And as I have pointed out in the past, I hold to the concept that outside of bot accounts, there's no such thing as an "automated" edit, because each and every edit committed by users of Huggle, Twinkle, etc. must be manually selected. Yes, all that's required in most cases is clicking one button, but the decision to click that button rests with the editor...and, therefore, the responsibility for the generated edit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree, why should we manually post warnings/nominate AfDs/Add speedy deletion tags, etc, when Twinkle breezes though it for us. Is that the only reason for the oppose? CTJF83 chat 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose Minimal content creation with well over 50% of edits being automated makes this a candidate I cannot support. Malleus and Bali also raise valid objections. AniMate 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose, automated edits, not even 30 edits to any one article, very limited content creation experience, close paraphrasing, convoluted writing; sorry, I can't convince myself that you know enough about Wiki not to become the kind of admin who makes life miserable for content creators by not understanding the core policies of the project from having dealt with real conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. I suppose all I can say is that I am confident I am not such an editor, and that if given the chance, I look forward to proving it.  -- Lear's Fool 01:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose i would like to see more content creation, Vandal Fighting shows alot of gusto for the project. Lack of content creation shows low amount of collaborative activity. As this a collaborative project I cannot support at this time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose His pushing the block button on Question 8 did it for me. He should engage with the admin in question, and probably go to AN/I if he can't resolve it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify (I perhaps wasn't entirely clear in my answer to 8), the use of a block was reserved for the contingency where the experienced user (in this case an administrator) had a history of biting newbies and had been warned about it. Communicating with the administrator is certainly the preferred response, and a block should not be made where such efforts had not previously been taken. However, for serial offenders who have been asked to reform their behaviour, there must come a point where firmer action has to be taken to prevent further damage being done.  -- Lear's Fool 15:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose Admins need to have a thorough understanding of the time and effort required to produce quality content. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose per exceptionally low article edit count - after my first failed RFA I was informed I'd need roughly 8 to 10k article edits and a wider use of Wikipedia talk and contributions to areas other than mainspace. I see barely 2500 edits in article space, not even close to the guides I was given. More contrib, more articles, less time worrying about getting to have the buttons :) BarkingFish 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The large majority of your !vote seems based on the user's edit count. I assume that you have looked through the user's contribs, but 2500 article space edits, if they are of sufficiently high quality, could be enough to prove that someone has the ability to be a good admin. Would it be possible to comment on the quality, rather than quantity, of the edits? Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Oppose. Insufficiently well-rounded experience. As with Black Kite, this is a "not yet", not a "not ever". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose - Not enough rounded experience as those above have said. Pushing (or not pushing) delete buttons requires more experience than I'm seeing here. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. While I can't oppose on grammar errors, which I think it's a bogus excuse, (I'm awful with grammar) lack of real content contributions is a problem Secret ^account 15:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose, lack of significant content creation experience necessary to understand issues admins have to deal with. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose not enough experience in general. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong oppose, moving from neutral. In my comments under neutral, I note that there was a lot to like about Lear's Fool, but I expressed concern at lack of detailed work on content and questioned Lear's involvement in efforts to form consensus about content. Lear's answer to my question 11 makes it clear that he has no intention of making significant contributions to content, and that alone rules him out in my book: unless administrators are well-grounded in the hard work of content creation and consensus-building, they are ill-equipped to understand the issues faced by editors who do create content (without whom Wikipedia is pointless). However, even without that content-aversion, the three discussions listed would have been enough to switch me to oppose: in Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Recent_Polls, Lear fails to understand WP:SYN; in Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image he tries to settle the issue on a headcount despite the strength of argument against the leading option, which still has only minority support; and in Talk:Isobel Redmond#Evans_Family Lear raised a WP:V issue which was already covered in one of the refs [6]. The BLP concerns were laudable, but misplaced.
    Lear, your conduct is consistently civil and thoughtful, and oozes good faith, but what I have seen here persuades me that you have far too little knowledge of policy and experience of content-creation to make a suitable admin at this point. I fear that could easily lead you to make well-intentioned but unpleasant errors in the use of the tools; for example I really don't like the idea of you closing an XfD based on the principles you applied to the Rudd's photo discussion. So while your character is just what I like to see as an admin, I would hate to see you get the tools unless and until you have learnt more about policy and content-creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BHG, I'm afraid I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree with your analysis of each of these situations. I mentioned in my answer to 11 that I was incorrect to support the inclusion of the poll on the Mike Rann page, but this was due to reliability and weight concerns, not synthesis. As I stated a number of times in that discussion, putting the poll numbers in the context of the affair allegations did not constitute a synthesis because the source itself drew the connection. At Talk:Isobel Redmond#Evans_Family, I'm afraid you must have misread the discussion. The article by the Australian (to which you have linked) connects Redmond to Iain Evans, but not the Evans family to the conservative factional grouping, which was the point of contention. This was only verified by the offline source discovered later. I also do not believe it is fair to describe my actions at Talk:Kevin Rudd as settling the dispute by headcount. Having precipitated a discussion that had formed a very solid consensus against the image at the time, I was bold and changed it to the one with the most support. When this was contested, I continued the discussion until a consensus was formed about a new image. The headcount I tallied was to clarify the conversation (which had become a little convoluted), and I noted when I posted the headcount that the tally was not the grounds for my bold edit.  -- Lear's Fool _sock 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for the moment. I wish to support this nomination but am troubled by the careless answer to Q3:

I observe a one-revert rule, which is something I have found extremely useful, and am always keep to precipitate conversations on talkpages (particularly as a third party, when edit warring starts on my watched pages, see for example Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia) and Talk:Kevin Rudd#Image).

I hope that the candidate's communication skills are better than this. Majoreditor (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the answer to that question here. I am confident that a perusal of my talkpage (and its archives) will show that my communications skills are adequate.  -- Lear's Fool

Thanks. Moving to Weak Support Majoreditor (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not sure yet. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Hm, I don't think this user will be a bad administrator, but I really don't feel ready to support. I'm not sure how to explain it, but this is a neutral, anyway. I don't think the issues with Q3 are that big of a deal, but meh. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Pending Q5. Nakon 01:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral per Nakon. I would like to see an answer to Q5 before supporting or opposing. Now waiting for a response to the follow-up question. Moved to support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral Back to neutral, pending response to Q8. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral I have yet to have a chance to look over this candidate, but at this time, I have to go on the record and say that there are a ton of opposes with no rationales at all, or exceedingly weak rationales. (harsher wording redacted) If you're going to oppose, please do right by the community and the candidate and provide a decent rationale (which, by definition, means that you have to put at least one substantive reason down, and saying "I have an internal list and might share it later" doesn't meet that definition.) Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't understand what you're so worked up about. Personally, I'm baffled that we might give adminship to someone who doesn't understand why we use strikethroughs on collaboration pages, but people are entitled to their opinions. Townlake (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I would not be so sure that this one incident alone could quantify an oppose. But, as you said, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Looked him over. I sort of want to support, but can't bring myself to do so. I think that there are some valid concerns raised here. And then there is the guy who is complaining about the automated edit percentage, which if I were a 'crat, would be an oppose I'd discount entirely. That being said, "voting to cancel out opposes I disagree with" is would be a rationale I'd very much hope 'crats would ignore. I have a few more days to think, and I think that I'll take them. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral pending further review. I can see positives and negatives, and need to determine which outweighs the other. Content creation alone does not make for a strong RfA candidate, but neither does a strong countervandalism record. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Move to Support. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. Moving here from oppose since my oppose seems a bit harsh in retrospect (and because there's been a bit of a pile on). I stand by my rationale, but no longer believe it's a reason to oppose on its own, so here I am. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong arguments from both sides, though a promotion IMO won't be a detriment to the project. Connormah (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Has potential. Admitted faults do not warrant the getting-on-for-piling-on situation in the Opps and there goes my grammar and that and all. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral The lack of article work is concerning, but not enough to outright oppose. Some more mainspace work would be nice. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand (although I disagree with) concerns that my article work is insufficient to be an administrator, but I don't feel "lack of article work" is a fair way to describe my contributions (see here).  -- Lear's Fool 03:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I didn't mean for that to come off as disparaging. I meant that it just seems to be that as an administrator, you need to have both a wider breadth (topic-wise) and a wider depth of article work (more edits on individual articles) than you currently have. I've looked through your articles sub-page, and while it is good work, they are all limited in geographic scope, and half of them are about clergy. Also you only seem to only have made two minor edits to James Gleeson, which you've included in that list. I'm leaning towards support, and will re-examine this stance if I have time later on, especially since your polite response to my !vote is becoming of an administrator. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the clarification. By the way, I meant James Gleeson (bishop), the wikilink on my subpage is incorrect.  -- Lear's Fool 04:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral - I don't feel I know this user well enough, but the thing that really stands out, for me, is the self-imposed block. Okay, it's history now, but I can't quite get my head around it. Deb (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The self-requested block was in order to enforce a wikibreak during a period of quite large study commitments, if that helps.  -- Lear's Fool 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. There is a lot to like here: good edit summaries, no sign of major breaches of policy, and some useful work on articles, particularly in referencing. I share some of the concerns about more minor issues such as close paraphrasing (which may just be due to inexperience), failure to use strikeout, but none of those are enough to stop me supporting. However, I am holding back because my main concern is that I just don't enough sign of detailed work on content: six C-class articles created without major flaws, but most of the rest is fairly small minor tweakingy stuff, without any sign of difficult NPOV disputes or any of the other content-related areas which can cause strife. I may switch to support, but for now my take is: come back in a few months after more article-creation and more evidence of productive participation in content disputes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   moving to oppose in view of the candidate's answer to my question 11. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Neutral BHG makes a good point. You have many good qualities but the issues cited above, including automated edits, lack of content creation and your reply to Q8 make me hesitant to hand the tools over to you. Don't take this as a source of discouragement though. I'm not opposed to you becoming an admin in the future. Just work on the areas that others mentioned and come back in 6-12 months and you'll stand a better chance :) All the best,--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 04:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral, leaning oppose. I looked carefully at the links you provided to some of the pages where you were involved in disputes, and I'm actually quite impressed with how you interacted with some temperamental editors. I'm afraid that this is a textbook case of what would have been an AGF support if only we had a viable system of administrator recall. But we don't. On the other hand, had you not committed to voluntary recall, I would have outright opposed. Others have noted the following: your initial carelessness in not proofreading your own RfA, your willingness to block that obnoxious administrator instead of taking the matter to ANI or RfC/U, and your need for a self-imposed block instead of just will-power in order to study. None of these things is anywhere near to a hanging offense. But, taken together with your relatively brief and limited editing experience, they leave open the question of how well you can be trusted with the tools. As I said, I think I see early indications that you would do just fine, so, like others here, this is more "not now" than "not ever". But I cannot offer support based on what is available now; maybe otherwise in a few more months. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Positives include dispute resolution: negatives include lack of real content coupled with a few irritating factors mentioned by Tryptofish. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]