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

Hermione1980[edit]

Final (48/12/4) ending 11:55 October 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hermione1980 (talk · contribs) – Hermione1980 should be an admin. She's been here since March, and is a greatly experienced editor. She has done a lot of work on Harry Potter -related articles and even admitted my addition of Hermione/Ginny shipping into her shipping listing. She is also very active on WP:AFD and has even started to close AfD discussions (that result in keep). Kate's tool says she has 911 edits, which isn't a lot, but who needs editcountitis anyway? — JIP | Talk 11:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you very much, JIP! Hermione1980 13:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support as nominator. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Excellent candidate. Shimgray | talk | 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Ya-hoo! gkhan 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Merovingian (t) (c) 15:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. She's been asking all over the place on how to follow procedure properly, which tells me quite a bit about her being suitable for the mop and the flamethrower. You've got my support, just promise that you're going to wander away from Harry Potter every once in a while. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I do already! (Occasionally.)Hermione1980 17:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support - In like her concise and convincing answer to my question. I see no reason to doubt that she'll use her newfound powers well. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support CambridgeBayWeather 19:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. I trust the nominator. →Journalist >>talk<< 20:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. I trust her and the nominator but less than 1000 edits overall is a slight worry though. But Im nice and will vote support :) --JAranda | yeah 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]
10. Full Support. I'm confident in her abilities, and when she didn't know what to do, she would ask. So don't worry about edit count. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. I would point out that being useful and responsive on the Help Desk indicates a good admin temperament and intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. Low edits may mean inexperienced, but not in this case, and it doesn't look like the opposers have done much research if they really want to say that. Dmcdevit·t 02:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Strong support. I have already seen her mediate and defuse a situation between Albus Dumbledore (talk · contribs) Chosen One (talk · contribs) and Draco Malfoy (talk · contribs) vs. Mikkalai (talk · contribs) and handled herself admirably -- she really helped calm things down. I look at her earlier edits and see her asking others before doing things the first time, out of an abundance of caution. Looking at her edits, I see that it is strong on Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk. She engages the community, which is a great sign. I might oppose a candidate with low edit count (especially with low on talk pages) because there may be too little indication of how the person interacts with others. However, I think Hermione1980's editing history gives us ample examples of how she would behave as an admin, and what they show is right on target. --Tabor 04:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. Has well-demonstrated all the qualities needed in an admin. --Aquillion 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. From what I see, Hermione1980 has done plenty of good work and has plenty of experience, and that outweighs any concern about the edit count being fairly low. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
15. I've seen her around, and she's a good editor. Support.-gadfium 07:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strongest possible support. Hermione is a prime example of applying editcount criteria for adminship can lead us to make poor decisions. While the number of her edits is comparatively low, looking through them one can see a few things: (1) the quality of her contributions is uniformly high. This is someone who is careful and deliberate, and takes each submit seriously. Such people are naturally going to have a lower edit count than someone else (like, uh, me) who fires off edits in staccato bursts. (2) She has been here for a long time, and demonstrated her commitment to the project. (3) Her willingness to seek consensus (for example, via article RfCs) rather than just hammering her opinions home mindlessly is great. I think she absolutely shows the temperament and commitment needed to be an admin. I urge those of you who are voting based solely on the number of her edits to go the extra mile and actually examine those edits more closely; I think if you do that, you'll consider changing your vote. Nandesuka 14:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
17. FireFox 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. I do like to see 1000 edits from a candidate, but I won't oppose her for being a few dozen short. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with being a low(er) activity admin. Carbonite | Talk 18:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, this should be no big deal! This user has established her trustworthyness to my satisfaction and never before have editcounts have seemed so utterly frivolous... --Bjarki 02:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Trusted? Yes. Long term experience? Yes. Good at dealing with conflict? Yes. Quality edits? Oh yes. Has an arbitrary number of edits? Who cares! the wub "?!" 11:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22. Alohamora. Quality user, and I find the opposition unconvincing. Radiant_>|< 12:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. Sure, could use a few more edits but it seems churlish to object on those grounds. Looks like a solid reliable contributor. And I hope you don't mind that I ship you with Ginny. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Low edit count is meaningless if someone is committed, literate and willing. This candidate has given creditable, clear and concise answers to the questions posed below and seems, well, Wikipedia-minded. That should do. Redvers 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support I like the answers to the q's. Borisblue 20:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. The "low" edit count doesn't concern me. I like the answers, I like the attitude. I feel she's demonstrated that she's trustworthy. Friday (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support I see no good reason not to. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 01:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support, and damn the editcountitis. Ral315 W_S 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
29. -- (drini's page|☎) 04:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
30. Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Good candidate.[reply]
31. Support. I've had the pleasure of getting to know Hermione1980 over at the Harry Potter WikiProject, but I have nonetheless run into her in a multitude of places across the wiki. She is a mature, thoughtful editor, and I have no doubt in my mind she is completely qualified to be an admin. She has been here for several months, one of my criteria. Personally, I like to see a higher edit count, but in this case, my personal knowledge of the user overrides that, and I can vouch for her that she is an excellent candidate. Wikipedia cannot have too many quality admins, and Hermione1980 would be a wonderful administrator, therefore her low edit count should be overlooked in recognition of the quality work she has been doing for Wikipedia. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 06:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support From what I've seen of her, (mainly working on Harry Potter articles back in July), she definately seems to be admin material. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose Support. Advertising in one's sig strongly suggests that the candidate considers adminship more than "no big deal". Further, such behavior suggests that the candidate does not have a full enough understanding of Wikipedia's culture at this time. Otherwise appears to be a very good candidate. Please remove the reference from your sig and return in a few short months. Unfocused 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    See response to Rogerd above. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses to the comments here (including my own) prove that my initial impressions were very likely wrong, so I've changed my vote. Unfocused 00:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

34. Support. Normally, I would say there is nothing wrong in seeking a little more experience of pressing save and having to live with the consequences than this edit count implies. However, Hermione1980 demonstrates considerably maturity beyond her edit count, and I have been especially impressed at the responses to this RfA. If this RfA succeeds, she might consider branching out a little from Potter, and should be careful never to use the admin buttons to settle any disputes on those articles. -Splash^talk 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. X factor. We require a reasonable edit count to provide the substrate to decide if a User is experienced and suitable. Once that is already clear, a high absolute count matters less. encephalon 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support I have seen some good work done. Good editor. should make a good admin. ∞Who?¿? 08:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Kirill Lokshin 14:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Great editor and contributor in all kinds of subjects. Chosen One 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
39. Yes, please. Lupin|talk|popups 03:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
40. Extreme Wingardium Leviosa Support! Shauri smile! 05:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support, it is the quality of the candidate and their contributions which should matter, not quantity.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Hermoine1980, oppose editcountitis. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 11:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
43. I cannot believe I am going to Support. What is the world coming to? But seriously, Hermione is a great editor and can be trusted with the tools. A little while back, I was thinking of people that would make good admins and she was one of the first people I thought of (although an even lower edit count prevented me from doing so). --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support The edit count may be a little low, but I have found her to be circumspect and reasonable. Xoloz 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. A fine user, dedicated to Wikipedia's betterment. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support! Incidentally, she is now only 19 short of the magic number. I trust those 19 edits will be good ones!  :) Thatdog 22:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support edit count is irrelevent, user has done tons of good work. NSR (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support upgrade from comment to support...school comes first and surely she'll still have some time to be an admin...Good luck!MONGO 10:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Less than 1000 edits suggest lack of experience. Astrotrain 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose Lacking edits, lacking experience. Private Butcher 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose too few edits. freestylefrappe 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose too inexperienced, also the "advertising" in her signature for this RfA I find distasteful. --Rogerd 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Ouch Roger, you cut me. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh THAT signature. I thought you meant the Esperanza one. Anyways, I wouldn't hold it against her if she's excited, even if it is a mistake. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 03:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I really don't consider adminship that big a deal. I had seen some other users put a link to their RfA in their signatures before, so I didn't think that was that big a deal, either. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose: nothing personal, but this is way too low a level of activity for adminship. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose per Fadix. I'll support in a while. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 21:14, 12 October 2005 (CDT)}
7. Oppose. Seems like a very good editor, but not experienced enough in my opinion. I'd like to see more edits to a wider variety of articles, but beyond that I don't see any reason I would oppose in the future. Gamaliel 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose for the time being until this editor gains more experience. Hall Monitor 22:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose too new, not enough edits... cant predict trends yet... sorry maybe later.  ALKIVAR™ 10:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Trends of what? I've noticed she has a trend of making good contributions, and there's no prediction involved there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. As others, this is too early. I also like to see a more regular level activity in admin candidates because the wiki world actually can change pretty fast. (Though I totally understand and respect the need to devote much of one's time to college.) Dragons flight 02:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    What? SHe's made consistently good edits for several months. She's a good editor. We need good admins, regardless of how often they sign on. A good admin that signs on once a month is a good admin, period. Fortunately Hermione manages more time than that, despite being in college. Sure, Wikipedia changes fast, and we have people who watch IRC and the RC logs and keep an eye on that. Wikipedia also moves with slow, careful deliberation, and that side of the wiki will be Hermione's strength. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Evil, it's not RC and the like that I worry about. Its the fact that the policies themselves change over time. Admins are supposed to be knowledgable in policy and a source of information for others. However, things like CSD, deletion policy, image use policy, and others are themselves fluid and evolve with time. An admin that only makes a couple edits a week (which is where Hermione was for several weeks) is likely to miss these changes. I can think of several examples where admins who infrequently participate in Wikipedia have wrongly enforced old or changed policy due to their own ignorance. It is a problem I would like to avoid. If Hermione gains more experience and chooses to participate more often, I would reconsider in the future. Dragons flight 18:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    Check out her answer to question 4. No, she's not here as much as, say, Redwolf24, but she's also conscientous enough to pay attention to policy and policy changes. I understand your concern, but knowing how diligent Hermione1980 is, I don't think that's ever going to be a problem with her. Note that she reads AN/I regularly...she pays attention to whats going on. Sure she has periods of less activity, she's in college, but she is here enough to keep up with what's going on. She's not gonna wander off for three months and then show back up one day and start slashburning mass quantities of CSD's and images without checking out what's been going on. Admin actions are undoable, and in the highly unlikely case that she did make a mistake due to something changing and her not noticing, there's enough other people running around paying attention to what's happening that it's not going to escape notice and not get corrected. But policy doesn't change at a speed that Hermione1980 can't keep up with, I assure you. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 19:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose - too few edits imo -- Francs2000 23:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose, don't really care for edit countitry, but sub 1000 would be a bad precedent Proto t c 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral with comment below. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. I'm sorry, this is editcountitis. I have nothing at all against your record. I am, however, concerned about setting a precedent of having admins with fewer than 1000 edits, which, given the difficulty in removing admins who go on to show questionable judgement, could be a problem.--Scimitar ^parley 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   As a rhetorical, stupid question, would you change your vote if I ran out and got 90 more edits before this RfA was up? Hermione1980 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I actually prefer ~1500 edits for admin candidates, especially ones I'm not overly familiar with. The "hard line" at 1000 is like the legal drinking age- it's an arbitrary line, and although a good many younger than that age are responsible, and a good many older aren't, the line needs to be there.--Scimitar ^parley 19:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Out of curiosity, why does the line need to be there? The system would seem to allow you to decide on a case-by-case basis. I could understand concerns over edit counts if you linked them to some specific problem with the nominee; but rejecting a qualified candidate simply because you're worried about the precedent it will set seems to me to, itself, set an exceptionally poor precedent. --Aquillion 05:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm changing my vote to neutral, because over the course (thus far) of this RfAr, Hermione has attempted to go into administrator areas (closing old afds, reverting, etc.) and maintained a sense of humour ("I swear I'm not trying to build up my edit count" - from an edit summary). I laughed at that comment, and frankly, she couldn't be any worse than some of our current admins (feel free to site me as one of those, if you like). Good luck.--Scimitar ^parley 15:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral — Hermione1980 is a great Wikipedian and has done some valuable work around here, and I have full confidence in her. However, I would like to see more experience. I will gladly support her in the future. And oh, just curious, but what do you do if you ever run across You-Know-Who? :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Ah, him. Mostly feign deference and respect :-) I mustn't get on the Dark Lord's bad side, you know... Hermione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   "Feign"?! Hmm... I see how it's gonna be. :) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Weak oppose. Seems to be a good person, but some of her answers to the concerns raised here, don't satisfy me. Maybe re-applying in a few months. Fadix 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC) I changed my vote, to contrast this one with my other votes, which were all oppose. And since I believe her to be more "Admin able" than the others I opposed, opposing her would be comparing her with those. Fadix 20:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• A chart showing this user's edits along with a total # of edits line and average edits per day line is available here: Image:Hermione1980-edits.png. I offer this not as a more refined version of editcountitis, but as just one tool to help evaluate an admin nominee with a somewhat low edit count on Wikipedia. --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been fascinated with the RFA process ever since I came across it. Too bad an IP doesn't get much of a voice here, but I understand I can comment and speak my mind without fear of getting bitten. I strongly disagree with providing this information like this - it is targeted and selected information. I think it should either be given to all candidates, or not at all, or done on request by the candidate. Simply put, any particular representation of data is POV - it highlights particular information and suppresses others. Why should a particular representation of data be chosen to take priority? Even if a bar graph of edits per day may seem relevant, it does not reveal all information about a candidate. It is only partial information, and it is being used under a thinly veiled guise of "objectivity". And another thing about "editcountitis": Even *if* there was a historical trend of support for candidates after 2000 edits, this result is not independently verified. Using 2000 edits as a cutoff is poor use of statistics. It tells us nothing about the nature of the distributions, nor does it offer any insight as to the extent to which this is valid. And as far as I can tell, the results have not been verified independently, nor have they been officially sanctioned by the project. Simply put, these nice graphs are being presented as an objective measure of a candidates edit behaviour when clearly it is inadequate, incomplete, and biased. Shouldn't we be going through the edits and evaluating the quality of them? Seeing how the user interacts with others? Looking at the intellectual quality of contributions of the user? The graphs are nice, but I think are encouraging laziness on RFAs where Wikipedians aren't really looking at edit content, and only looking at an aggregate. Wikipedians - make sure you really know what you're doing if you are using edit counts like this to evaluate on RFAs. Can candidates really trust that you'll look at more than superficiality, especially when these graphs are floating around? That's all I've got to say, and I think I'm gonna move on to something else more interesting now. --216.191.200.1 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, have a look at User:Durin/Admin_nominee_charts#Frequently_asked_questions and User:Durin/Admin voting measures. I have not and will not create these charts as an attempt to objectively measure a candidate. I have and continue to do these charts in an attempt to get people to not focus in on edit counts as a measure of acceptability of a candidate. I believe my notations regarding edit counts and having the graphs have resulted in more discussion about period of contributions and usage of edit summaries rather than just straight edit counts and time on Wikipedia, which was the metric previously used. For example, a user who signs up in 2004, makes a handful of edits, and then has a large number of edits over a 1 month time span (say, 3,000) could say "I've been here for a year, and have over 3,000 edits". Few RfA voters would check to see how long they've been actively contributing to the project. Having the graphs gives a rapid way in which people can evaluate that. Also, the data that I used for the study is available at User:Durin/RfA results. Lastly, I have never said and never implied that these tools are the best way to evaluate a nominee or should be used in isolation. I have continually encouraged people to use them (quoting myself) "as just one tool". I have not suggested any benchmarks that others should adhere to in considering this data. I provide the data. Others can do with it as they will. I have my own benchmarks regarding the data, but they are not absolutes. Those that are obsessed with edit counting alone are not going to be less obsessed by not having these charts available. Providing them under the basis that I have has encouraged more appropriate (in my opinion) reviews of candidates. I have never believed that we can determine the value of a single edit in any objective way. There is no way to gauge whether a stub-sort edit is worth more than a 30kb contribution to an article or less. There never will be. It's purely subjective and I've always recognized that. I am actively trying to get people to stop using edit counts alone as measure. The shocking reality is that 2,000 edits is the level at which suddenly nominees become (in the eyes of many) as suddenly capable of being an admin. That needs to change, in my opinion. My data and charts are part of my effort to change that. --Durin 16:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Use of edit summaries 90%, 94% over last 300 edits. Average edits per day at 4.4 --Durin 14:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I will make my mind up on hearing your answer of my question below. Thank you. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 15:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Everything looks fine but the low edit count and relatively low amount of recent activity indicates that the admin tools won't be used all that much, so I'm not sure what the point would be of becoming an admin. I'd like to see more contribution to the janitorial stuff and then I will gladly vote support:)--MONGO 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I haven't been quite as active as some of the other really enthusiastic editors is I recently started college. I am more active in the summers. Hermione1980 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much the same as above, I think Hermione is a great editor, but a wee bit more experience would be good. Banes 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the editicountitis, is the problem perhaps one of a patience with nominators? Has a 1000 which is low but they are good edits. Nominator doesn't think edit count all that important but knows that others do. So just wait a month or two, right? Why squeak through at 1000 or possibly be opposed when you can sail through at 2000? I'm neutral per Mongo, BTW. Marskell 13:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added a couple of questions I normally ask of candidates on IRC, but I don't think I've seen this one on IRC, so I'll ask them here instead. Kelly Martin 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone entitled to add questions? My major problem here, is that, I believe most of the RfA I've seen revolved around more administrative anti vandal tasks and measures etc, and few, more important things(in my opinion) like, the quality of articles in Wikipedia. We need also administrators that have worked in various articles beyond one subject in particular, and be able to sense quality, if the article is encyclopedic, and also, somehow being able to act in conflicts where the content of an article is concerned, even though they ignore the subject(sense, it does not take a knowledge of a particular subject, to know if an article in encyclopedic). Right now, the prime concerns seems to be vandalism, and it seems that articles contents involved disuptes(POV, NPOV etc.) are left to be handled by common users. That is why, I believe we also need administrators who have long experiences in this domain too. Fadix 18:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that kind of question might be good to add. However the qualities you describe are great, but they aren't required to be an administrator. Just about anybody with reasonable judgement can be an administrator. The qualities you describe would make for a good mediator, an exceptional editor. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do occasionally participate in AfDs, so I have some idea of what is (un)encyclopedic. The reason I work mostly to Harry Potter-related articles is that is where I feel I can contribute the most. I hope to be slightly better educated after four years of torture, so I will certainly try to contribute to more areas as I gain more knowledge. Hermione1980 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I would close AfDs, for one thing. I have recently begun closing those that had a unanimous or near-unanimous result of keep, but I would like to help close those with a result of delete. I would also like to be able to block vandals instead of having to ask someone else to do so. I would never block someone who I was in a dispute with. I would also like to have the rollback button.

I was also recently granted admin privileges on the Harry Potter Wiki, which has given me a little knowledge of what adminship entails.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I mostly copyedit and revert vandalism, so I don't really have any contribution that I'm particularly proud of.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I and several other users were in a particularly heated dispute over a particular paragraph in the Clay Aiken article. I must admit, I started out far more patient than I got towards the middle of the discussion. I excused myself from the debate for a while to lower my Wikistress, but was able to come back in later and help form a consensus. My policy is to stay cool, but if I can't stay cool, I will back off and let other, cooler heads prevail.

4. Very few editors are promoted at less than 1000 edits. In your eyes, what makes you more qualified for adminship than those other users?

A. I have spent a great deal of time researching what adminship entails. I am familiar with most Wikipedia policies and read the WP:AN/I daily, so that I know what admins deal with and how they deal with it. I do my best to stay cool when the editing gets hot and try to resolve issues rationally, which I think is a very important trait in an admin.

5. Explain your point of view on the meaning of WP:IAR. How you will apply IAR to your activities as an admin (if at all)?

A. WP:IAR — while not necessarily a "last resort" — is a policy to be followed with great caution. Anyone citing IAR as a justification needs to be absolutely, 100% certain they are in the right. I honestly can't predict how I would apply it to my admin activities; most of the time, another policy/rule probably applies.

6. How much time have you spent at MeatBall? What have you learned from MeatBall about being an administrator?

Can I suggest that time spent at meatball can be zero for all most people care? A better question would be "what have you learned from your time on Wikipedia about being an administrator". -Splash^talk 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A. (to original question) I have not spent any time on MeatBall at all. I have seen people linking to specific pages on MeatBall on pages like the admins' noticeboard, but I have never gone there. (to Splash's question) I have seen that being an admin is not always the most pleasant thing to do. I have learned that admins are nowhere near above Wikipedia rules — they are held to higher standards than the rest of us, and that is as it should be. Basically, admins are ordinary users with a few extra tabs at the top of their screens. Admins must be careful about the ways they exercise their powers, and those who aren't careful and judicious with such matters are not worthy of having admin powers.

I have wielded a mop and broom around here for sixteen thousand of your Earth years, and the time I've spent on meatball can be measured in terms of the time it took the last mammoth to breathe its last. Is that a serious question? I mean, why not ask how long they've spent on Usenet or Slashdot while we're at it? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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