Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel

In today's world, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel is still a topic of great relevance and debate. From its origins to its impact on contemporary society, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel has generated constant interest and raised mixed opinions. Throughout history, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel has been the object of study, reflection and controversy, influencing different aspects of daily life, culture and politics. Whether due to its relevance in the academic field, its impact on society or its importance in popular culture, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel continues to be a topic of interest for people of all ages and backgrounds. In this article, we will delve into the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel and explore its many facets, from its origin to its influence today.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Ronnotel

Final (42/9/4); Originally scheduled to end 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronnotel (talk · contribs) Ronnotel 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I boldly, but humbly, nominate myself for adminship having, in my opinion, established a reputation among my fellow editors as a responsible, reliable and knowledgeable contributor to this project. I am most proud of my contributions to the financial pages, particularly those having to do with options and volatility trading. I have initiated a number of articles in these areas, and have worked on improving many more. However, I have also spent a good bit of time patrolling for vandalism, mentoring new users, and making non-content edits to articles in both the more active and less active areas of WP. I would like to note that I was once briefly blocked, but this was due to a mis-understanding regarding my attempt to fix page move damage during an extremely busy period of updates on Seung-hui Cho. The block was reverted after I explained my actions and intent to the admin involved.

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I am particularly interested in addressing vandalism not just by blocking users, but by helping to reform vandals into productive editors. In the finance pages, there is a tendency for spammers, promoting some trading package or another, to carpet spam a number of pages with links to their wonder product. It would be useful, at times like these, to be able to rollback changes en mass.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The two pages I feel I made my strongest contributions are Option (finance), which I substantially rewrote, and Virginia Tech massacre, where I was one of the most active contributors and which was singled out by external sources as an example of excellence within Wikipedia.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: With one exception, I have been fortunate to avoid major confrontations. The exception was Option (finance), and had to do with to whom the page was to be targeted - i.e. a general audience vs. a more stylized retail investor interested in options as an investment. Rather than engage in edit warring, my strategy was to simply wait, make gradual, incremental improvements, and then after I had gained consensus, re-incorporated a more encyclopedic tone when the time was right.
4. from Dihydrogen Monoxide
Is there a reason for your minimal use of edit summaries? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that I was surprised by the stats because I feel that I do make an effort to provide good edit comments. Looking over the history, I believe the issue has to do with edits in the intro section of article (when no auto-comment is provided) and I am making merely tweaking a previous edit. Please note that as per the suggestion below, I have now turned on the 'force edit comment' property (of which I was previously unaware).Ronnotel 12:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ronnotel before commenting.

Discussion

  • I think this is a case where people have to really look beyond simple metrics to measure how good a candidate Ronnotel is. Project space edits are not the sole indicator of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and process. Two and a half years of substantial contributions, calm demeanor, willingness to get involved with guaranteed-headache articles like Virginia Tech massacre: he's an excellent editor, with plenty of experience on the project who clearly understands how things get done around here and there's no reason to believe he would, knowingly abuse or unknowingly misuse the tools. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Before this gets closed off, I'd like to add some thoughts on take-aways from this process. Regardless of whether the RfA is successful or not, I think this has been an extremely helpful exercise for me. The feedback has been open and frank - it's not often you have the chance to receive such direct input on how you're doing. Here's what I heard and what I plan to do about it, (this applies whether I get the mop or not):
  1. Edit summaries - I was clearly not up to standard. I have turned on forced edit summaries and will keep in on. My edit summaries from here on will succinctly paraphrase my edit and be useful to admins in their duties.
  2. Edit count - some were concerned about my edit counts. While it's true I have not been very active in traditional admin-type duties, I will make an effort to do so to gain needed experience. I will also make sure not to get in over my head and will ask for help when needed.
  3. Argumentative & badgering - there was a concern raised that I may have been argumentative in some of my interactions here. In all cases, my intent was simply to engage in the act of consensus building. Nonetheless, I will redouble my efforts to maintain a balanced and measured tone when doing so. I will consider the impact of various words when formulating arguments, and strive to use the words that maintain the clearest meaning and minimize the probability of being mis-construed.
  4. Tool use - in the event that this RfA is successful, I promise to be diligent and judicious in the use of the mop. I will respect these new tools and not use them beyond my competence level as I am coming up to speed. It goes without saying that I will never abuse them.
  5. Controversy - some expressed a desire to see me engage in more controversy, in order to judge my performance under stress. I'm a little less clear on what do here, since by nature I avoid controversy and seek consensus. Nonetheless, I will try to spend some more time working on high-visibility articles. However, I can't promise to generate controversy for it's own sake.

Please feel free to leave your own additions to this list. Ronnotel 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Tentative support. Candidate shows a reasonable (though not outstanding) amount of experience in WP-space. Looking through edit history, I found nothing major to complain about. May possibly change my stance if another editor discovers something objectionable that I overlooked. — xDanielx T/C 07:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support mature editor that should do fine as an admin but please turn on the forced edit summary option in your preferences. Pascal.Tesson 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    Do you mean the option 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'? If yes, then I have done so. Ronnotel 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    That's what he means, I have it on as well, it's a nice feature, as it's always good to let others know what you are doing with a particular edit. Phgao 13:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, that's what I meant. After a week of "*** not another **** warning", you'll develop good habits! Pascal.Tesson 02:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Probably the best editor I've seen on Wikipedia, certainly in the technical areas of finance. I've worked with him on the Option (finance) article and found him to be helpful, polite, and patient, but most of all extremely knowledgable (without pushing his technical expertise to the extreme - no patronizing attitude here). He may have referred above to some minor disagreement we had on the technical level of the article (or to the audience that it should be aimed at). But if that was a "conflict" then 99.9% of the edits I've seen on Wikipedia are conflicts; at worst it could be described as a "polite disagreement." I've seen his work on other finance articles and it is just as good as on the option article. By the way, I consider myself to be an expert in the area of finance, and I can judge if somebody else knows what they are writing about. Ronnotel does. I can tell if somebody is pushing a non-standard point of view - Ronnotel does not.
    There is a real problem in finance articles, as he has mentioned above, where companies push their new products, "expertise," trading platforms, etc. And this pushing can easily cost our readers lots of money. Ronnotel does not push a product or a point of view, and I trust that, as an administrator he will use his additional powers to prevent others from doing so. In short A+++. Smallbones 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    FWIW, my disagreement I referred to above was not with Smallbones, but with Retail Investor, regarding a section entitled Risk. Ronnotel 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support While I would like to see you gain a stronger technical grasp of Wikipedia, I think you bring a specific focus, and objectivity that will help you function quite well in the role of sysop. You have certainly been here long enough, and have made more than enough edits to demonstrate you actually know what you are doing, and can be trusted. Hiberniantears 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. —  22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm not familiar with this type of indicator. Does it mean the same as Support.? Ronnotel 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. -Lemonflash(do something) 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed. Here's the diff. I merely signed in the support section (using "support" as my edit summary to avoid any potential confusion) to express my agreement with the nomination. The constant use of "support" or "oppose" on what ostensibly is not a vote but a discussion is a bit unnerving. —  09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Glad to give my support. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Moral Support, despite not reaching the "magic number" of 3,000 edits. He appears to be a longstanding and trustworthy, if sporadic, editor. Needs to be more consistent with the edit summaries, but has contributed to many a good articles and one featured article. Bearian 00:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Bearian 00:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support He needs to use edit summaries, needs experience, and needs technical experience in order to become a better contributor. No reason to oppose. A.Z. 04:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Sorry about the question, I referred to the overwhelming trend here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support, no reason not to. Neil ム 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. The finance pages on Wikipedia are weak, and would benefit from having a dedicated admin who can coordinate efforts among WP:FINANCE contributors and combat linkspam. Finnancier 14:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support per all the points raised above, which imo outweigh any opposing arugments. I might add, I did not arrive lightly at this decision, and I did evaluate your contributions which I found to be quite good.Phgao 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. I looked through his recent contribs and found a great combination of major and minor article edits, vandal-fighting, and XfD participation. Basically, primarily an article-building editor, who nonetheless has enough experience in admin tasks to understand the tools. WaltonOne 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Candidate has been editing since 2005 and has made substantial article contributions, and has some familiarity with deletion process. 120 Wikipedia-space edits is not a lot, but it's enough to show me that he knows the basic principles. Shalom Hello 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Finance is a tough area to write about, and given the amount of spam we have in business-related areas, a set of admin eyes knowledgable in the area could be a valuable asset to the project. Also, Wikipedia namespace does not equal policy knowledge, nor does it equal experience. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. He's made good contributions, he's experienced, and I trust him. That's all it takes to get my support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Strong support a fine hardworking editor; per Orangey's comments below, basically. * Aillema 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. I am unconvinced by editcountitis opposition. Acalamari 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Also unconvinced by the edit-counting oppositions which do not demonstrate any reasonable doubt as to this user's ability to use the tools. --Haemo 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Weak Support. The candidate has made substantial contributions despite low edit count. Majoreditor 22:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Reasonable variety of experience, good on talkpages... Unlikely to run amok with mop. LessHeard vanU 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support. Editcounters should all have their heads examined. Sometimes I imagine a Wikipedia without any edit count scripts. Users could still count the edits by hand, of course, but they'd have to actually look at Special:Contributions (I'll link it in case some of you forgot where it was), instead of some sad computer-generated summary. "Barely contributed to the project" my ass. I'd be pretty hacked about nonsense like that as well. If over two thousand good-faith edits is not a big enough sample for you to determine if you trust someone not to burn the encyclopedia down with admin buttons, then, to paraphrase Jimbo, maybe you should stay away from RFA and just find a new hobby. ➪HiDrNick! 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support I like oj. --Benchat 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    Me too, wonderful drink. Ronnotel 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support Minimally qualified. --Sharkface217 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Basic, no concern with this editor kind of support. CitiCat ♫ 22:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support Very good edits, unlikely to abuse privelages. Crassic(talk) 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Seems like a great candidate.--Chaser - T 08:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks like a good editor and the editcountitis-suffering opposers should evaluate the quality of his contributions and his knowledge about policy rather than an arbitrary number of edits. Melsaran (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Default position should always be to support unless there is a decent reason to oppose. Two and a half years is long enough to form a judgement- in this case, I see nothing at all that suggests to me that Ronnotel will misuse the tools. Admin is no big deal etc etc etc.... Badgerpatrol 17:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Checked his contributions and they look quite good and spread. Answers to the questions are also satisfactory. Edit summary usage could be higher but now that he is forcing it, this should not be a problem any more. --Kudret abiTalk 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Quality over quantity. Large, complex edits requiring research are take more time than drive by punctuation corrections and bot-like edits, or even more significant but less complicated edits not requiring research. Nom should not be penalized for taking the time to do research. I do not find the oppose arguments compelling. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I think there is plenty of good reasons to support. Captain panda 20:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support - contribs show someone sensible and unlikely to misuse the tools. Reasonable policy experience. My only concern (edit summaries) is addressed by the answer to Q.4. WjBscribe 02:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Per above. Dureo 03:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Frankly, some of the oppose votes show the folly of using raw edit counts. User has quite substantive mainspace contributions. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Genuine knowledge of financial topics and very impressed with the statement in the discussion section. If he can figure out stochastic volatility I'm quite sure he has the intellect to comprehend the intricacies of WP:CSD or WP:BP. --JayHenry 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Substantial, high-quality record of contributions. JavaTenor 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support. I'm not particularly concerned by the number of portal talk edits Ronnotel does or doesn't have. There is nothing that I can find, or that any opposer has raised, which concerns me in the least. He seems to be a sensible, experienced, and communicative editor who will be considered in his use of the extra buttons. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support. I spent quite a bit of time combing through this editor's contributions today, since I have not (that I know of) crossed paths with him before. (My initial contributions here are below, under neutral.) There seems to be a very good history of contributions to Wikipedia in general. Although contributions to some of project space are a bit light--and it would be nice to see more interaction with vandals, since vandal fighting is what he wants the tools for--his behavior overall reflects due consideration, diligence and obvious desire to improve Wikipedia. I see no reason to think he will abuse the tools. I remain slightly concerned about the willingness to promote a blog as a source in a WP:BLP here, but I note that the candidate didn't run willy nilly ignoring all rules, and he offered sound reasons, even if I personally disagree with them. :) He proposed and, lacking much vocalized consensus, didn't press forward. That reinforces my belief that he will not abuse the tools. I am also still a little concerned about the conflict-averse behavior demonstrated here, but primarily because I suspect that if the editor uses the mop for dealing with vandals, he's going to be finding it pretty hard to "avoid controversy and seek consensus". That said, it once again encourages me in my belief that he won't abuse the tools. His responses to my questions were reasonable and seemed in line with his typical approach to conversation. He seems generally prudent, and I see no reason for concern. Good luck, and if you don't make it this time, I think you might find it valuable to try out more Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. It'll probably give you all the opportunity you need to demonstrate your ability to deal with conflict. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Upon rethinking things, I think that Ronnotel is more than cabable of adminship, he may not have a large edit summary but what really counts is that when he edits, a radical change is made to a page his demenor also seems perfect for adminship. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support Edit history warrants support. My statements below still apply but I do not see a glaring reason to oppose. (personal note:using ElC method/not effective). --I already forgot 05:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support Even as there remain for me a few (rather trivial, I suppose) unallayed concerns, I am convinced that Ronnotel is possessed of sound judgment, measured disposition, and cordial and civil demeanor the presence of which in a prospective admin is quite auspicious, such that I can conclude with a good deal of confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. (I am further motivated to support by the support of Pascal; although I do not base my RfA conclusions solely on the nominations or expressed views of other editors, I would say that Pascal is amongst our most sensible users and that his conception of adminship is generally consistent with mine, and so his strident support should speak well of a candidate.) Joe 05:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose per lack of overall experience. Jmlk17 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed to neutral. Jmlk17 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In my defense, I'd like to point out that I often compose complex contributions on a sub-page and then post them in a single edit. E.g., I substantially rewrote Employee stock option with a single Main space edit. My point being that my edit count total may somewhat under-represent my true experience level and record of contribution. Ronnotel 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree - looking at the candidate's contribs, he's been active in a variety of different areas and is a good mainspace editor, suggesting that his actual experience is greater than reflected in his modest editcount. WaltonOne 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose - roughly scattered edit count, with very few Wikipedia-space contributions. Not up to standard as of yet. Lradrama 08:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    This "standard" is getting rather ridiculous. 2600 edits over 2 years, including significant researched contributions on difficult topics, is a considerable amount of experience. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose ( changed to support ) - As per above. User needs more experience with basic housekeeping task. I would also like to see few more controversial edits (started by other users) so we know how he/she would handle the issue and expanded use of the edit summaries.--I already forgot 10:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose- Barely over 100 wiki-space edits. AdamBiswanger1 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    Well done Adam, you can count! :) * Aillema 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Sigh. 100 wikipedia namespace edits means a lack of experience with the encyclopedia. That's just an absurdly low number, and, even if it wasn't your intention, I don't think its fair to accuse me of being narrow-minded. It is just my belief that a candidate should have at the very least around 400 wiki-space edits, just like how I won't vote for a presidential candidate who hasn't held a position in government before. AdamBiswanger1 18:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Adam, in defense of my experience, I would like to point out that while I may not have engaged in an overwhelming amount of typical 'Admin' chores such as XfD, nonetheless I have been relatively active in other non-content tasks such as anti-vandalism and spam patrol. Over my length (2+ years) of activity, I have demonstrated more knowledge about WP policies and tools than a statistic like 100 edits might indicate. Perhaps there is some way I can attempt to address your concern? Ronnotel 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I think you just need a bit more experience. Wikipedia-space edits show that you can discuss matters of policy civilly and intelligently with other users. I am certain you can do this; you just need to prove it. AdamBiswanger1 18:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strongest possible oppose I'm going to sound like a broken record, but here I go again. Just someone who wants to be an admin, but has barely contributed to the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    I suppose you and I have different definitions of barely. He's been here for 2 years and a half with a record of solid, substantial edits across the project. Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    While I certainly acknowledge the right of anyone to oppose my candidacy, I believe Orangemarlin's charge that I have "barely contributed to the project" is unfair and demonstrates unwarranted contempt. I have compiled a somewhat lengthy response on a separate page. Ronnotel 13:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Not that it matters to this vote, but I've slightly changed my vote to a strong oppose based on this barely civil post on my user page that probably violates WP:CANVAS. Sometimes individuals show their true colors under a bit of cross-examination. I honestly don't give much credence to violations of WP:CIVIL because it is a matter of interpretation, and a bit of incivility now and again certainly makes a point. But, in this case the applicant failed my subtle test of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    I believe all my comments have been civil, and I apologize if any was taken as otherwise. Is there a particular statement to which you object? Also, I do not understand your comment regarding WP:CANVAS, my comment on your user page was intended as a courtesy notification to you that I had responded to your comment in a non-obvious area, i.e. a sub-page. I believe WP:CANVAS addresses an attempt to unduly and non-transparently influence a user's vote, which was not the case here. Ronnotel 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Uh, just an outside take on it... I saw absolutely nothing wrong with that post, Orangemarlin. You had a concern, Ronnote addressed it with a userspace subpage, and left you a note about it. Not really canvassing (in my opinion). Yes, he could have loaded it up with smilies and pictures of puppies and/or kittens or other happy-fun-silly-dumb things, but he didn't; that doesn't make it uncivil by any stretch of the imagination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    You and I have disagreed on these things in the past. Why am I not allowed my person POV on candidates? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    You are well within your rights to voice your opinion. The flip side to this is that I'm equally within my rights to voice my opinion as well. It's a two-way street. (for what it's worth, I don't even remember what we have disagreed about before this) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Oops. Confused you with someone else whose name is similar (well, ok, you and Durova share a V in your names). Please forgive me.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    No worries. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    That last comment is even more absurd than the original oppose. First, you might want to read the canvassing guideline again if you think that notifying an editor that one has responded to a comment is wrong. Secondly, his response to you is perfectly acceptable and measured in tone. Your original assessment that he had barely contributed to the project was way off-mark and nobody can blame Ronnotel for taking issue with that. And now you're saying he fails your "subtle test of maturity"? You are failing my not-so-subtle test for inability to recognize when you're in the wrong. Pascal.Tesson 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate the comments.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Clearly not Orangey, you're simply wrong and you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with this behaviour. I've often found that users who shout "That was uncivil!" are the most rude and uncivil people themselves. Thank goodness most people bother to look at the candidate before opposing, for what I can only call proposterous reasons. * Aillema 20:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    What hole? Read above. I don't actually care about civility. I am quite rude and uncivil, and fairly proud of it.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. OpposeStrongest Possible Oppose. I think this editor could do with a bit more experience and maturity before attempting to make the move to admin. A total of less than 2600 edits? Less than 1500 edits in mainspace? Seriously active for less than a year, although the account has been around since early 2005? I would suggest humbly that this editor is still a bit wet behind the ears. Addendum: I have now changed my vote from "Oppose" to "Strongest Possible Oppose" based on argumentation and badgering of these editors giving their input here on their talk pages. --Filll 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    This is a case where editcount doesn't give the full info. For starters, 2600 edits and 1500 edits in mainspace are not ridiculously low as you seem to imply. For the most part these are not typos corrected with AWB but substantial edits to complex pages. The account has been active two years and a half which suggests that Ronnotel was at the very least an active reader and he has made substantial contributions for at least two years. As for his maturity as an editor, the editcount doesn't provide any clue. If, on the other hand, you take the time to skim through his contributions, you'll find ample evidence of his competence. Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Wait, so you're making this a "strongest possible oppose" because the candidate notified OrangeMarlin that he had responded to the criticism? Or are you referring to the "badgering of AldeBaer on OrangeMarlin's talk page? In the latter case, a) I don't see what's srong with Aldebaer's comments and b) what does that have to do with Ronnotel? Pascal.Tesson 18:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    What the hell is with you people that you feel the need to contest every damned vote? You stated your support, Filll stated his opposition, just leave it at that. •Jim62sch• 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    First off, please be civil.
    Secondly, Pascal.Tesson is responding because Filll changed from "oppose" to "strongest possible oppose" for reasons that the candidate had nothing to do with, as stated here. As for why people do respond to some opposes in the first place, it is because RfA is technically considered a discussion. Acalamari 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose with no prejudice for future attempts. From the often vague answers here, and the extremely low amount of talk and project space edits, I do not think the candidate has enough experience. Would be a great candidate with some coaching and increased contributing. VanTucky Talk 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    You don't seem to have a similar problem with regard to low talk and project space edits here . —  19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose sorry, but low amount of talk space edits doesn't show sufficient interaction with vandals - especially for an editor with the stated goal of diverting them from vandalism to productive editing. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for now. I didn't find the candidates answers terribly illuminating, but that aside, what I really want to see is some solid wikispace contribs, and a few blazing rows handled with tact, dignity and aplomb. – ornis⚙ 13:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose 2628 edits in 2 and one-half years? Just not enough experience. And, not that I'm the greatest at edit summaries, 69% on major edits is too low. (And please, no rebuttals, I don't check back on these things either.) •Jim62sch• 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    Not a response to Jim, as he notes he will not be back to read this, but to readers in general. It has been noted several times that the level of my contributions are not adequately represented by a number like 2600+ edits. The complexity of my edits, as well as the fact that I tend to post large revisions to complex articles in a single post should be considered as a balancing factor when evaluating my overall contribution to the project. Ronnotel 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - I see two AIV edits in the last 2000 edits, I see blocks within 6 months for major reasons, and I don't see edit summaries. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    I don't wish to be argumentative but I would like to correct the record to avoid mis-interpretation. There was a single block, which was reverted after about an hour, and stemmed from a mis-understanding about my good faith attempt to fix page move damage. Please see my opening statement. Ronnotel 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Ok. I'd still like to see more activity. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose The user seems intelligent but I don't see a great knowlage of Wikipedia policey. A little more experiance is needed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Nothing wrong as such, and your article works is great. But this conversation on your talk page would indicate you were not sure how to even e-mail another user. That's not so much a fault as perhaps revealing a weak(ish) grip of the "technical" aspects of Wikipedia - which is pretty important for an admin. Also you could really do with using edit summaries more - almost all of them are automatic, even when creating new pages. That's minor but admins must leave "quick to see" information summarising their actions. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat  10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    I have not yet looked over the contribs, so I can't make a determination at this time, but I wanted to comment that if he had not enabled his email or needed to use the feature before, he probably didn't even know the option existed. I don't think that should be a determining factor in eligibility for adminship. Of course, I'm just saying. You are entitled to your opinion. :) LaraLove 16:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, I don't know this guy so I can't decide. David Q. Johnson 11:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but this is a very unhelpful neutral. You don't know the editor. I have never been in contact with millions of other editors on wikipedia. Not so much, as having seem them around. It just seems like a unhelpful vote. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    As it's in neutral, it's not harming anyone, although it is pointless. But it is +1 to the Wikipedia namespace edit count!Neil ム 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    It's not surprising he voted nuetral, he has edited over 1 day, and is suspected of being a sockpuppet. This is just to build his posting count.JJJ999 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    At least he's being honest. Plenty of people leave a vote despite knowing very little about the candidate (I admit that I myself am somewhat guilty in this regard). :-) WaltonOne 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Jmlk17 03:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    Comment No offense to you but I don't think it is fair to the nominee or the reviewers if you don't give a reason for your vote. just putting Neutral doesn't help anyone. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, in this case, I think it's an exception; Jmlk17 was originally opposed to this RfA, and was convinced enough to switch to neutral. Acalamari 02:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, (switched to support above) and I hope to have the opportunity to re-evaluate. :) I have two primary concerns relating to the candidate's participation at AfD and to his position on sourcing. First, the contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off and its subsequent discussion on the user's talk page makes me wonder about the editor's philosophies on AfD discussions and his feelings about controversy in general. It puzzles me that the user was willing enough to be swept into the global warming debate to put forth an opinion for keeping the page, but not enough to simply link to the references purportedly found. There's nothing wrong with acting with caution, but I can't see the purpose for stating that reviews exist and then refusing to specify them. "You can google it yourself if you want" does not strike me as the type of response an administrator ought to give and is not really in keeping with the purpose of AfD, which is to discuss the articles, not merely to !vote on them. It also makes me wonder, if controversy is something he seeks to avoid, how he will handle the fall-out that comes with working more extensively with vandals. As far as I can tell, this editor's interactions with vandals have been very few. My second primary concern regards the comment at Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names in support of incorporating information into an article from a blog that is "fairly well documented and supported" (per the candidate's words). This suggests to me that the candidate may not have considered the reason for the stance on blogs and the issue of "editorial oversight". If the information were adequately sourced at the blog, as asserted, it should be possible to trace it back to a reliable source that could be used, rather than incorporating a source that per policy "should only be used in articles about the sources themselves". I'm not sure that was a good case for WP:IAR, and I would like to understand the rationale. --Moonriddengirl 13:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you've done your homework. I'd like to respond to each of the issues you've raised. My contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off, in which I referred to a list of references I found at google was somewhat premature. I found what seemed at first glance like a list of notable reviews in multiple mainstream sources, however when challenged, I reconsidered and found problems with them that made me doubt whether they would stand up to scrutiny. I had somehow tricked myself into believing that what looked at first glance like multiple, independent reviews actually all channeled back to the same review that could possibly be seen as a blog. Perhaps I should have specifically conceded the issue but my action that day was simply to disengage. No, my actions weren't perfect and this is one of the few instances where I'd like to a do over. However, I don't think my behavior was beyond the pale - I made a mistake, and when it was pointed out, I quickly realized it and moved on. Regarding Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names, yes, my thinking was indeed along the lines of WP:IAR. I agree that blogs are to be avoided because they do not have editorial controls. However, in this case I was agreeing with someone else's opinion that this might be an exception because the blog post is essentially a detailed and transparent compilation of publicly available information. Certainly there needs to be latitude to discuss such situations on the Talk page - otherwise how would consensus on exceptions be found? As yet, there hasn't been sufficient consensus (I would set the bar particularly high because this is a WP:BLP page) and no further action has been taken. FWIW, I am very familiar with WP:RS and often cite when deciding whether to use a source or not. Ronnotel 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
hank you for taking the time to respond. :) Everybody makes mistakes (I know I sure do), but I wonder if "moving on" was your best response in that case. If you had discovered you were in error, why tell the editor who came to your talk page seeking clarification that the people in that community "play far too rough" and to "google it" himself? If you could do this over, what would you do differently? As for my other concern, your history on Norman Hsu makes it obvious that you are generally very careful about sources, but I do wonder a bit about your interpretation of the conversation at Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names as you agreeing with another editor about the appropriateness of including that source. That suggestion seems to have originated with you. SEWilco suggested "watching for" the numbers "in other sources." If the data is detailed & transparent, is there a reason to ignore all rules rather than seeking WP:RS? --Moonriddengirl 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe that when I made that particular comment, I hadn't yet discovered my error. However, I do recall spending a bit of time reviewing the discussions on Global warming and starting to regret getting involved in the AfD in the first place. It is a highly controversial topic and an area I would generally try to avoid. After my first comment, I was simply trying to extract myself as quickly as possible. As I said, I didn't cover myself in glory, but at the same time I don't think any lines were crossed. If I were to do it over, I would have admitted my googling error in the first place and retracted my original comment. It wasn't pride that cause me not to do that, just a desire to disengage as quickly as possible. Re: Talk:Norman Hsu#More numbers and names, I guess I mis-read SEWilco's comment, and missed that he was simply suggesting to track them. Ronnotel 18:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia