Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pr3st0n

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Pr3st0n

Final: 14/26/8 at 01:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn by candidate, closed by Soap at 01:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Pr3st0n (talk · contribs) – I've been a member of Wikipedia for just over a year now. And although at first my contributions were few and far between, I was slowly going through the learning process, taking time to read guidelines and helpful hints along the way. All this has now given me confidence to step things up a level. Already I've worked hard on a few articles and projects, one of which was about the local village I live in, to which I re-done the entire article. It is now up for GA nomination. Also, I've taken liberty to help out new members of Wikipedia along the way. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as if in a court of law, or in front of a panel of experts at a job interview; I am willing to answer any questions or comments, whether they be questions posted in the "question" section below; or answering to comments of those who may have doubts on my abilities in the "Oppose" section - each and every one of us is entitled to have doubts and opinions; to which I am delightful to answer all queries in a full and honest manner. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The time is now, whatever time it says in my signature. I have been here for too many hours now, and in desperate need of rest. Swine flu living up to its porkiness. I'm going to take a wiki-nap, and will resume answering questions, and opinions on my return to awaken state. Night-night folks! Pr3st0n (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I hereby suspend my nomination for the time being, based upon the negativity (albeit, some useful). My goal was to be as friendly, supportive, and helpful in any aspect of Wikipedia - I feel that this has been a success. Although the "lack" of edits IMO seems to be a little unfair, I won't let that deter me, of become any part of my decision to suspend. As a unit, some of you have rightfully identified the main aspect that I possess, the good qualities, the kind of positive and polite communication that I have used towards some. I am grateful for those words of praise in regards to my "impressive exchanges", and my solid interaction with others. In no way, was any form of malice intended (that is for those who may feel there was malice underneath). I promise to continue to converse in the manner I have done during this nomination process. And I hope that despite some of the unintended, irrational comments that I may have come out with, that friendships can be built. I look forward to the many, many conversations in the near future with each and every one of you. And I'm sure that with the help from you all, together you would see it within your hearts, to teach me, mentor me, show me the important things that need to be shown. And in return, I promise that I will continue to work hard, embrace the skills and experiences you teach me, and put them to good use, so that some day, I can become just as good as all of you. For now, I suspend - but the next nomination will be when you all share that confidence that I am ready to be a part of... "The Wikipedian Elite". Thank you guys and gals! P.S, my talk room is always open if every you need that extra sensitive person to talk to. Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reconsider my suspension - looks like things are 50-50. With 14 support, 8 neutral, and 24 oppose - it is still too close to call. There is still chance here I feel, especially if the 8 neutral were to switch to support. I now stick with my original choice of letting this run its course. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this immediately - users are now resorting to posting derogatory comment now, some of which are extremely hurtful, and of a vicious manner. I do not respect anyone who calls people liars without thinking of the consequences of their actions beforehand. I would never call anyone a liar, unless I had proof to back up my allegations. To be kind to others is one things, but to be hatred is pure and utter disgust and shows just how low a person can stoop. Thank you to those (even the opposer's) who left reasonable and positive feedback, you people show the true meaning of respecting others feelings. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm willing to work on any aspect that requires assistance.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I work hard on Eurovision related articles, as well as local geography. As a resident in the village of Lostock Hall, I was curious to see what information there was about the village on Wikipedia. To my sadness, there were hardly any information whatsoever. So I took it upon myself to start work on this article, writing it all from scratch (with some help and advice from other wikipedians along the way). Lostock Hall is now a full article, giving insight into the village. Many locals have read the article and have praised its accuracy. This article is currently up for GA nomination now - and with fingers-crossed, I hope I've made my village proud if the nomination for GA is successful.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had a few conflicts in the past, and during the early stages (first couple of months of being a member), I did tend to get a little hurt by some responses. However, now, I step back and seek advice from other wikipedians - in some cases invite them into the dispute to help mediate where necessary. I do have a bipolar disorder, but even with this condition, I step away from situations and reflect, before replying to any user. The method of seeking further advice from fellow wikipedians whenever conflicts arise is something I will continue to do in the future.
Questions from FASTILY
4. You wish to become a sysop but I see very little evidence of recent work in the Wikipedia namespace. (see here). How do you justify this?
A: In the past, I had internet access problems, which justifies why very few edits were made. I also worked full-time as a bar tender, which took up a lot of my personal time, working all hours God sent. After all, we all have personal work schedules to fulfil also. Neither one of use are able to spend 24/7 compiling work cases on Wikipedia. However, we do try to find time within our personal schedules to help with cases and articles on wikipedia, whenever time allows this. I can fully understand all the reasons people have given for their opposing of this request, and I respect that. However, I have done administration work both in the real working environment, and on work groups via other internet websites. I have 14 years experience as an administrator, working with the British government, which lead up to myself gaining promotion as a "team leader". Dealing with all aspects, from complaints to compliance; stress and anger issues to dealing with members of staff who were going through difficult periods in their lives. All these aspects, and knowledge learnt over the years, would prove advantageous for someone willing to become an administrator for any internet group.
5. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is a prohibition; "to a decree that prohibits something". A block is to obstruct; "to hinder or prevent the progress or accomplishment of an action".
6. Is there an instance where you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?
A: Tricky question, however justifications would need to be considered first. It would all depend on the seriousness of the case. Similar to the disciplinary rules that any employer would have set within their company. Although via the internet this can be a lot more difficult to set out, as you can't issue a verbal warning to a user, whereas issuing a written and final warning is possible. If a user has done something which would constitute as breaking a law; i.e uploading pornographic material, or hacking into another users account illegally, then this would justify an immediate block without notification to the user. If the incident requires further investigation, then contact or "unofficial" tribunal-like inquest between all parties involved would be a better solution - thus prevent any discouragement from a user wishing to participate on future wikipedia articles and projects.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
7. How do you gain cooperation from a large number of people on Wikipedia? What does it mean when they largely agree?
A: You would need to obtain a consensus using a diplomatic approach. Similar to that of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table. A person with the main query at hand would need to build a case and present his/her case it to others within the council. Then each member within the group would offer their opinions to the case, with positive and negative sides, outlining the pros and cons. Once a majority consensus has been agreed, then the action decided should be carried out.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
8. What sort of copyright licenses are acceptable for material on Wikipedia, and why is this the case?
A: Copyright legislations are very fine-lines throughout the different countries of the world. I've been writing music other the last few years (46 lyrical pieces written so far since 2006), and all of these have been got copyright via The UK Copyright Services. All of the work I have registered under copyright law, including some personal images, are covered for 70 years from the end of the calender year in which I were to die. Any person who were to use any work which is registered to myself without permission would be in breach of the Copyright Act 1911, and also the current Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This rule applies to any other person. If a piece of work as been uploaded to wikipedia unlawfully then that piece needs to be removed swiftly, and informing the uploader why deletion has taken place, and what actions they should consider taking in future to prevent them making this mistake again.
Additional optional comment from Pr3st0n
Although I can fully understand the comments and reason behind those who have opposed, I would like to further add that since leaving school, I have undertaken several administration job with employers, all of them to a high standard of input/output. I worked with the Department for Work and Pensions between September 1999 to December 2006, starting off as an Admin Assistant, which comprised of basic junior work, filing, and registration of new claims to social benefits. By May 2000, I was promoted to Admin Officer, which had more difficult responsibilities, including handling with complaints, and following the compliance procedures. My promotion to this grade was granted with an overwhelming consensus from the governing board. They could see that I worked to a high standard, and always putting opinions of other people first, and instead of discouraging their opinions, I welcomed them in an opportunist manner. Finding ways of resolution before making drastic decisions to decline first. A full and fairly run operation was a main priority to me, making sure that every aspect and angle was looked at first.

By June 2004, I was again promoted to Executive Officer (better known as 'Team Leader') looking after a team of 14 staff, and dealing with important cases which where submitted at Ministerial level. Each and every aspect of work I carried out was handled with the up-most sensitivity, to enable that all parties involved had their say in matters, and fully understood what was going on, and the reasons behind the final decisions made. I would even explain to customers with benefit claims, the details behind procedures, in "simple-man" terms, so that they too fully comprehended what was going on, and why such decision had to be made. All these aspects and skills I would continue to use, even if my RfA request was granted or not. I believe that all users, old and new, need to be treated in a sensitive manner, and even if they don't understand the reasons behind administration actions, then to gently "sit them down" in an internet environment kind of way, and explain simply and without mumbo-jumbo jargon, why such actions took place.

There are many responsibilities for any administrator to take on-board. However, the more complexed cases, such as handling with complaints and compliance, require someone with strong decision making skills. Making sure that everything is looked at, and no nook or cranny has been missed, and thus to enable a fair and justified decision to take place. I sincerely hope this adds, or better still, gives further insight into my reasons for nominating myself to RfA, and justifies why i could become an asset to such a strong and determined admin-community such as this.
Optional question from Keepscases
9. A user's userpage appears to contain every picture of naked people available from Wikipedia Commons. What, if anything, do you do about it as an administrator?
A: Some admins would consider an all-out removal/ban of the user based upon the images used. However, I would use a 2-tier approach in this case. 1] I would approach the user in a diplomatic manner, and point out the offences caused having these images inserted into their user page, explaining the legalities, and consequences; aiming more emphasis on the fact that users of a young age that should not be able to view these images, would been deemed as an illegal activity. I would then give them a 24-hour deadline in which to remove these images. 2] If the images haven't been removed, then appropriate action, i.e. self-removal, would take place - and a further period of 48 hours given, to allow the user time to explain their reason to ignore admin instructions, (the user may not have had internet access, which would explain why their removal of these images hasn't taken place), I would also put forward additional questions behind our decision/actions. 3] If after this time, the user become some what aggressive, and re-posts the images, then an out-right ban would be put in force against the user, along with notifying the local authorities in the area to which the user has residency - this user could have broken a law in their country, and thus local authorities would need to be informed.
Additional optional comment from Pr3st0n
I'm fully aware that there is a lack of contribution edits on my behalf; although I fail to comprehend how little or how much edits can determine whether a person is compatible or capable of maintaining a high standard of admin responsibilities. Albeit, my lack of edits does seem to deter people, they don't necessary show that a person lacks any reasonable admin qualities. There are many users who have made numerous amounts of edits, yet they may fail on admin duties, and could take a bullying approach on issues, instead of dealing with situations in a diplomatic and sensitive nature. I personally feel that the number of edits is irrelevant to whether a user would be good enough to undertake admin duties at a high standard, without causing harm, or negligence to others.

Not sure how the amount of edits made can justify whether or not a person would make a good admin member or not. The number of edits only shows that a person has a wide interest in subject, and is willing to participate in contributions. A person may lack in edits, but could just be as strong in general admin duties, someone who shows a good level-headedness on difficult issues, and can deal with situations in a diplomatic manner would deem advantageous in any organisation, a quality that seems to be fading away amongst people in this modern era.
Optional questions from Frank

I've already expressed an opinion below in the oppose section, but given your apparently strong desire to continue this discussion, I'm interested in the answers to two additional questions:

10. You've expressed a particular keenness to adhere to copyright rules on your user page, as an author of intellectual content, going so far as to claim it gives you "an advantage to the copyright regulations". I am particularly concerned with copyright issues on Wikipedia, which is why I brought it up below in my oppose. Can you reconcile your "advantage to the copyright regulations" with your posting of material to Lostock Hall that I described below?
A: In reply to this, I can clarify that a previous exercise relating to a published book by a local author was complied compiled a few years ago on the history of Lostock Hall. Can't remember of the top of my head the name of the publication, however the author is "Jackie Stewart", a very dear friend to the family. Both her and myself did endless research for her work, and consent was given to use specific extracts from the website www.british-history.ac.uk, to which a letter is addressed to both myself and Ms. Stewart (the author of the historical book on Lostock Hall). the same extracts used in her publication is what has been used in the main article you speak of, and no breach of copyright has been done here. I had informed this to another member of the WikiProject team for which this article is linked to, and they informed me that at this time it would be ok to use. I am however, obtaining the ISBN details for the book written by Jackie Stewart, so that I can include that as a link-ref.
11. Following up on your answer to question 9 above, have you searched for the phrase "Prince Albert" on Google recently? Do you have an opinion on the first hit that comes up in such a search? (For me, and somewhat infamously, for many others, it is Prince Albert piercing.) To go along with it, how about the picture at the top of Anal–oral sex? Simply put, what (if anything) should be done about the pictures in those two articles?
A: I have no reason to search on Google for Prince Albert (although with what you have pointed out - it may be worth a gander). But to the question at hand - if a photo of a "Prince Albert piercing" was to be used on an article relating to this subject, then it would be deemed as appropriate, the same would go to an article relating to Anal-oral sex; as this has more relation to the article itself. However, if a user was to publish such photos of this nature on their own user page, then it would be deemed as inappropriate, as the user page itself has no relation to an article connected to photos of this nature.
Does this discussion from April 2009 regarding this user page (which remains unchanged as far as the image subject of the discussion) change your answer to either Q11 or possibly more importantly, Q9?  Frank  |  talk  02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is a good questionable task to throw at me, and one that I eagerly took with much enthusiasm. As the image is of a mild nature, some viewers would not oppose to its presence. However, the main thing which may seem to have been overlooked is the reference to "Bush". It is clear as the skies are blue, that this reference is being aimed at the former U.S. President, George W. Bush. It also backs up with the additional userboxes on the page, which proves that this person has a very "far-right" opinion against them. The term of "No more Bush", in respect to the President, is used in a negative and vulgar way. Therefore, the use of this image is backing this negative attack towards a President of the U.S.A, and should therefore be removed, as it is clear that the image and slogan are meant to be connected with each other. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And if you were an administrator, would you remove the image from the user page?  Frank  |  talk  03:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image could be removed from Commons, which as a result would make it no longer appear on the user's page, thus preventing an admin having to edit a users personal page. Only under very serious cases (any cases which could bring Wikipedia itself to a court of law, or where the police authorities have issued us with a notice to remove the image) should an admin personally remove anything from a user's page without their prior consent. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional comment from Pr3st0n
I have managed to find a full contribution list of edits made, for the periods when I forgot my log-in password (and some edits which where made prior to me registering as a Wikipedia user). This can be viewed via 212.219.220.116. Hopefully the total of edits in that added to the ones under my user name should prove that I have made more edits than anticipated. I just regret now forgetting my password, otherwise these stats would have shown on my profile account too :-( Pr3st0n (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Jujutacular
12. Part of an administrator's job is to close AFD discussions. How would you close this discussion? Please discuss your reasoning. For reference, the article at time of nomination: [1]
A: Now that is a tough one to bite through... very cautious ground here is required about the article to which you have kindly supplied. The article itself is basically "naming and shaming" all those involved in bombing attacks on Russian buildings. This article would be deemed as insensitive to those involved, and to the family and friends of those who were either injured or died as a result of the attacks. Something of this nature would be too insensitive, and should be removed as a matter of urgency to prevent causing injustice and upset to all parties involved in the atrocities. When an article of this matter is nominated for deletion, I would take into account all sides of the case, whether they be good or bad. Offer my opinions in the AfD discussion area, with reasons behind my decisions. However, the article you supplied would be seen as a rapid deletion without cause or justice, purely to the fact it could cause distress to the families of the victims involved. After an AfD discussion draws to a conclusion, the discussion is moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and either an admin member who was not interested in this discussion or a good standing editor should then assess the discussions and make their decision to 'keep, delete, merge, or redirect' the article based upon the majority consensus. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) After reading that article, I have been physically sick. Pr3st0n (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal comment from Pr3st0n
Considering a huge consensus are stating the lack of edits is reasoning for someone not to have adequate knowledge of general administration duties, I am thinking of a reasonable proposal of resolution, that could hopefully bring everyone who has voted so far to a mutual agreement. As some have pointed out that I operate in a sensible, mature, and reasoning manner - I would like to propose the idea of becoming some sort of "Wikipedia AdHoc/Councillor" person; someone who you could rely on to do those tedious tasks, without any qualms from myself. A person who you could ask questions to knowing that you're going to get a polite and sympathetic response, in a very sensitive manner. Not sure what kind of job title you would give to a person like that - but as a mediated solution, I am willing to look into this option if all parties are willing. Thus in doing this role, I am able to "learn" more along the way, gain "experience" too, and also help to contribute to even more "edits" which I seem to be in lack of at this present time. I value opinions on this proposal - Regards, Pr3st0n (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think you need an official job title, but as long as you're not pretending to be an actual administrator or anything, as far as I know you can just call yourself whatever you like. Keepscases (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such "titles" do not exist on Wikipedia. — neuro(talk) 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not officially, but I don't see any harm in him referring to himself as "Wikipedia AdHoc/Councillor" if he likes. Keepscases (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It seems to imply some authority or position where none exists. — neuro(talk) 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a Duke, so I do not see a problem with a "Councillor" :) decltype (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean for it to imply that I have some sort of authority. I clearly understand that there may be some areas that are in need of improvement, and I do intend to seek advice, coaching, from a mentor in the short-term. As some you do seem to have noticed that the way I converse is to a good standard (unless narked off that is, and then bipolar kicks in - to which I apologise in advance). I would never pretend to be an administrator when I'm not one - I respect the job you do as a team. Personally, I would feel that doing this kind of "counselling" side would in the slightest be some sort of use to everyone, until I have gained the required level of experience to help me become an administrator at a later date. All I would be is that person you voice off at, someone who would take an impartial view, a confidante so to speak! All I'm doing is thinking of something to resolute all sides, which in turn will help all sides in the long-run. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final statement from Pr3st0n
In recognition that at the current time, this RfA nomination is running at a loss, I will adhere to all of the advice given. As it has been noted, some of the qualities and skills I use will be put to good use. To gain better experience over the next few months will be of an advantage, not only to myself, but to the entire team in the long-term. For those of you who would like to remain in contact, you may add your name to my contacts list via User:Pr3st0n/Wiki-Friends. Hopefully, out of all this, we can build a solid future together as a team, and with the help of the people on that list, provide the training and support to enable a future RfA submission to be put forward. If all is agreed on this, then I wholeheartedly will agree to suspend this nomination of mine at this present time. A big thank you to those who have given support in this nomination. My deepest apologies to those you I may have reacted too hastily towards, there was no malice intended - I fully take on-board your helpful words of advice and wisdom. The tools need to be gained through trust, and not just sought after. I would like to still contribute as part of a team, until the day comes when I become welcomed into the fold with open-arms. With the most sincere gratitude, I sign out for now on here! Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special request from Pr3st0n
I would appreciate it if someone could look into the 26th vote/comment from the 'oppose' section - the strong hatred words used are unnecessary, and hurtful. To be called a liar by anyone is disgraceful. Either an apology, or that comment be removed would be the most gracious and noble act that anyone could do. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pr3st0n before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - A genuine support from someone who originally closed this RfA -- we need more admins that interact with people in the way that I was just approached with regards to reopening this RfA. — neuro(talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting disagreement with Q7/8. — neuro(talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And Q9/11. — neuro(talk) 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - per Neuro. That's a kind of communication we need. I had been leaning oppose, but I feel you deserve some support for that. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. This isn't going to pass, but honestly I wouldn't have a problem at all if it did. While Pr3st0n does fall below our usual standards for admin experience, most of what I've seen suggests a very sensible user who learns fast and has generally got the hang of how most things work here. He cooperates and interacts well with others, and most of the question answers suggest someone with sensible and mature ideas - though some of the answers do reveal a forgivable unfamiliarity with some aspects. I very much hope to see another RfA in the not-too-distant future once some of the opposers' concerns have been dealt with - I think we have the real potential for a good admin here. ~ mazca talk 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral Support. Exactly why we have NOTNOW as opposed to WP:SNOW. Good editor, very impressive exchange with Neuro as noted above, but simply not enough quantity of edits to get get above a moral support. I appreciate editcount is a horror but adminship requires, for me at least, a greater level of consistent editing as well as individual quality edits.Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral Support Your heart is in the right place, even if you don't have the experience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support: cooperates and interacts well with others... Needs more constructive edits... hope to see another RfA in the "not-too-distant future" - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Wikipedia needs more people who can interact in this way. Not at all concerned about trust at the moment in that if there is an issue with which you are unfamiliar I would be confident that you would at the very worst request assistance or avoid doing anything to damage. --candle•wicke 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if an incident was to happen to which I would feel uncomfortable with, I would seek additional help, to avoid doing any damage. After all, to work as part of a team, is better than to work as part of an individual. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I really, really liked this answer! - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Agreed, I haven't seen many responses to a comment better than this. AtheWeatherman 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support agree with above. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I think we need more admins like this, who are awesome communicators (particuarly with neuro above), even with the lack of contributions. However, 900 is enough to assess the candidate IMO, and barring a few minor mistakes, I see no reason to oppose at all. Good luck, and if this doesn't pass, please come back in the futue. AtheWeatherman 14:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support I loathe editcountitits but we need more edits in order to assess your suitability for being an admin  Francium12  16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obviously not passing, but don't let it get you down. Also, don't reply to every non-support comment. iMatthew talk at 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I like your answers. RMHED. 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I greatly support the fact that one's edit count should not reflect the user's knowledge itself. Good luck. --A3RO (mailbox) 23:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support, and not just a moral support. I haven't been on-wiki for a while, but I did happen to see this RfA, and thought I should weigh in. You seem level-headed and competent, and I believe those who think thousands of edits are needed to judge this are mistaken. Though it seems that you won't pass now, I strongly encourage you to re-request at a later date. Also, this quote "Indeed, if an incident was to happen to which I would feel uncomfortable with, I would seek additional help, to avoid doing any damage. After all, to work as part of a team, is better than to work as part of an individual. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)" strengthens my support further. I ask those who have opposed to re-consider their action, as it is plain as day that this user would make a fine admin. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose I welcome your desire to contribute to Wikipedia.You have only 900 edits.Please try again after a few months .It is only WP:NOTNOW.Wish you all the best for the future.Very Sorry.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion Pharaoh of the Wizards, much appreciated. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I do not think you could be a administrator for a long while. You have gone months in the past with not a single edit. Also 900 edits is not to much. Irunongames • play 10:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There where times in the past when I had forgotten my log-in password, and made many edits just with my IP alone. As I was with Tiscali at that time, I'm not to sure what my IP address was, I would estimate at least another 300 - 500 edits during this period alone. I also went without internet for 4 weeks, while I waited for Virgin Media to install the new modem. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I know several productive, long-time editors who self-identify as bipolar, so that's not a problem, but be careful, because we tend to be very sparse with feedback around here (except at RFA, where we sometimes give too much :). So a lot of self-regulation and self-assessment is required to have a pleasant experience here. You aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia at this time, and I don't believe you're qualified yet for any of the busy-work that admins do, but best of luck in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't marked up as "opposed", not sure what this users outcome vote is. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bolding the "support" or "oppose" isn't a requirement at RFA as it's not meant to be a vote so people can just write a statement without bolded support/oppose. If you read Dan's last sentence, I think it's pretty clear that he's posted this in the right column and opposing, but trying to offer a little encouragement at the same time. Sarah 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I'm not thrilled with what appears to be lack of familiarity with WP:CRYSTAL shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar in the Eurovision Song Contest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine in the Eurovision Song Contest, but as they were in May, I could be convinced to overlook them. However, in looking at Lostock Hall, I see this addition of what appears to be copyrighted material from here. It is cited, but it is a long-ish paragraph and the wording is nearly identical - too much so for my taste and, I think, generally accepted standards. If permission to use the text exists, I don't see it. As this edit happened just last week, I'm inclined to think more experience is required. If I had run across that edit in the routine course of events, I would alert the author and we'd work on removing it and get on with the business of building an encyclopedia. I hope that same result occurs here, but in the meantime, I don't think it shows sufficient familiarity with policy for adminship at this time.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion, much appreciated. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Snowball not now. Most people want at least 3000 edits, and, so do I.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There where times in the past when I had forgotten my log-in password, and made many edits just with my IP alone. As I was with Tiscali at that time, I'm not to sure what my IP address was, I would estimate at least another 300 - 500 edits during this period alone. I also went without internet for 4 weeks, while I waited for Virgin Media to install the new modem. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Sorry, try again later when you have more knowledge and experience. Esowteric+Talk 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more information above, to outline the experience I have. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Under 3k edits requires exceptional circumstances, and I don't see that applying here. --SPhilbrickT 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There where times in the past when I had forgotten my log-in password, and made many edits just with my IP alone. As I was with Tiscali at that time, I'm not to sure what my IP address was, I would estimate at least another 300 - 500 edits during this period alone. I also went without internet for 4 weeks, while I waited for Virgin Media to install the new modem. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally don't consider edits as an IP, as there is no way to make sure who really made those edits, and the "merit" of the edits. ƒ(Δ)² 08:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. I can't help but agree with the others that you will need more experience than you presently have in order to be ready for adminship. You might want to pick up a mentor, but otherwise I would advise that you take your editing career slowly and don't actively seek adminship; instead, simply try to undertake some solid contributions to the article space (featured credits in particular would improve your candidacy). Bipolar disorder certainly isn't a problem, but publicising it on your userpage can work against you as well as in your favour. I would also add that bipolar disorder isn't an excuse for incivility or poor communication. For now, though, I don't think you are at all ready. Thanks for volunteering, though, and if I can provide you with any advice or assistance, my talk page and e-mail are open. AGK 16:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more information above, to outline the experience I have. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, would like to see a bit more experience. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more information above, to outline the experience I have. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weak Oppose I've dithered about this a bit, 900 edits is IMHO enough to assess a candidate. But Frank's example seems to indicate that a bit more experience is needed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I could've sworn this was closed earlier? But in any case, I can't support due to im my view a lack of experience. Under 1000 edits, really not enough. America69 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it was closed and then re-opened. It should have stayed closed because it doesn't appear it's going to pass. America69 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It was closed down, but re-opened (please see no.1 of support section. Pr3st0n (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, didn't see that. Thank you for responding. America69 (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are most welcome America69 - Not sure though how the amount of edits made can justify whether or not a person would make a good admin member or not. The number of edits only shows that a person has a wide interest in subjects, and is willing to participate in contributions. A person may lack in edits, but could just be as strong in general admin duties, someone who shows a good level-headedness on difficult issues, and can deal with situations in a diplomatic manner would deem advantageous in any organisation, a quality that seems to be fading away amongst people in this modern era. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell you what, I re-review this evening. America69 (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose The reason why edit counts are often referred to in an RfA is that the adminship request is a request for people to trust your judgment. This is judgment based partially on an understanding of the ways of Wikipedia. It takes a lot of experience to figure out this arcane place, and that experience comes from your presence in various areas of the project. If people don't see that it's difficult to determine that your judgment has been demonstrated. Also, I personally feel that empathy should be a requirement for an administrator and that empathy comes from making similar contributions and facing similar challenges and setbacks of other editors. Atama頭 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I've added more information above, to outline the experience I have. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you've mentioned being an adviser of sorts. You know that anyone can do that without being an administrator. In fact, I would say that I do that somewhat, at the conflict of interest noticeboard and more lately at informal mediation. You might try looking around at various Wikiprojects to see where you might be able to lend a hand. Requesting to be an administrator just means having a few more tools, and while it does show that you have gained the community's trust, it doesn't really elevate you above other editors in a meaningful way. Your contributions in the encyclopedia (in article space or otherwise) will do that. -- Atama頭 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 'Oppose per above. Sorry. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more information above, to outline the experience I have. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose WP:NOTNOW I seriously suggest you close this RFA early.--LAAFansign review 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Following a discussion with User:Neurolysis it was decided that this run its full 7-day course. I can clearly see why some people wish to have it closed early, but if you were to consider reading the discussion, would will appreciate and understand why this has not been the case to date. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do make an interesting point to let more questions be asked, but maybe close two or three days before seven days? If you're aiming to receive as many questions possible, the question section does slow down some after the first couple of days, so you could close it then. I really would not advise you to let it run a full seven days though. When I had an RFA a year ago I thought that I would let it run its full course, but was advised that not closing in a WP:SNOW case would not be looked at very kindly by some editors. I did however, change to regular oppose because I admire your boldness in wanting to get the most questions possible. Cheers.--LAAFansign review 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Sorry, but not enough experience here, and how much experience you have in that other world doesn't really apply. I don't see much evidence here of the kind of practical knowledge (about copyright matters, about consensus building) that is necessary to be a good admin. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken part in many consensus debates via various projects and user:talk pages. And my knowledge of the copyright laws are very strong. I adhere to them as I write lyrics, all of which have gone through The UK Copyrights Service. So my awareness of the Copyrights Act 1911, and the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 are as accurate as the acts themselves. (I would like to sincerely point out, that at the age of 30, I'm not that "too young" as you worded it in the edit summary. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking about copyright laws; I'm talking about WP guidelines and policies. Copyrighting your lyrics won't help you decide on copyvio issues here. As for the edit summary, it was a lame reference to a song by The Specials--that the power of an admin would be too much for someone with relatively little experience. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted in regards to the edit summary comment, its an easy error for anyone to make. You did point out in the oppose message about how you don't see much evidence of the kind or practical knowledge (about copyright matters, about consensus building), isn't that not questioning a persons knowledge on Copyright issues? As a songwriter, I comply to copyright laws. The same laws I would abide to when either I or anyone else was to upload material to a website, such as photos to Wiki-Commons. I and other users would be breaching the copyright act, if any material that was already protected by copyright laws, was uploaded onto Commons without consent of its original owner. In such cases, I would cautiously inform the person(s) who have uploaded the material, giving a clear point to the laws to which they are breaking, and include a full explanation into reason of deletion, including policies set out not only by wikipedia, but those covered by copyright laws around the world. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Just a curiosity I have but you refer to "power of an admin". What do you mean by this if it isn't too rude to ask? I was struck by a previous oppose which advised the candidate not to think they would have any special powers (#12—"it doesn't really elevate you above other editors in a meaningful way"—Atama) so I wonder if your statement could be clarified? --candle•wicke 01:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weakest Oppose Ever I'm blown away by edits such as this. You seem to be extremely level-headed and thoughtful. A few more months of consistent editing, along with showing a bit more knowledge of policy (most of your answers don't show a very wide knowledge of guidelines), and I would whole-heartedly support.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind words. Anyone who studies law, will remember the legislations and policies at the time of studying. Yet, once they have passed studies, and move onto a job in law, even they have to rely on re-checking policies to familiarise themselves. Not everyone is able to remember word-for-word each and every policy there is in the world (apart from a computer or book that is, to which would readily have that information stored). How many times, has anyone of the admin team had to re-check a policy to make sure they are following correct guidelines? I bet at some point or another everyone has done this. I would be the same, to double-check a policy (even if you feel confident in its knowledge) would be the more wise option to take, to help back-up any decision you're about to take against a user. Pr3st0n (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the difference between "knowledge of guidelines" and being "familiar with guidelines". I should've been more specific. Your answer to question 5 leads me to believe you aren't familiar with the Wikipedia policies of WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. I have full trust that you would act cautiously, double-checking any policy you were unsure of, but you must be at least know where to look in that case.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I would know where to start looking - on my main user page, I have got a drop-down menu for Key Wikipedia policies and guideline to which I am always checking if I have any doubt about a situation. Pr3st0n (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will stick to my oppose, primarily because of your answers. True, an administrator needs to be sensible and reasoning like you are, but an administrator is more than that. Without the knowledge of policies, clarity of thought can prove useless in practice. I strongly urge you to accept that you are not ready. I'm not speaking hypocritically by the way. You've actually been an active editor longer than I have (I created my account July 2009). I know I am not ready for the job, and I don't think you are either. As for your proposal to be "some sort of Wikipedia AdHoc/Councillor", you don't need to be an admin to do that. You can review editors, provide third-party opinions, or offer your thoughts at WP:ANI. There is a plethora of areas here that could use your assistance and where being an administrator is not a requirement. Good luck with everything.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I, with deepest sincerity, agree with your statement. As some have rightfully noted, I speak with common sense, and maturity at the best of times, something which could of greater use throughout. I offer my services to anyone who needs that shoulder to cry on, or confidante to voice off at. All this will enable me to then gain the required experience to make it to the elite team (hopefully). I'm won't let this discourage me in any shape or form from submitting another request to RfA in the not-to-distant future (if permitted of course). Hopefully from the end of this, solid wiki-friendships can be formed all-round, to help bring together a strong and united wiki-community. Agreed? Pr3st0n (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose The last month of september your contributions are rolling ahead but they repreasent almost half of your total contributions. Id like to be clear on this though, this is not about quantity of edits in my thoughts my concern is about time editing and trust earned. BUT, dont be discouraged by that. You have some potential here and may be able to put things together soon, happy editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that Ottawa4ever. I have noticed that my edits for September 2009 have been steaming ahead, although that has something to do with the fact I've been ill with that God damn swine flu. I'm sure I had a life outside these 4 walls I call home. (chuckling to myself). But that aside, like I said previously, there are periods in my edit stats which show blank, and these are the times when I have forgotten my log-in password, and have had to resort to making edits using my IP address only. I made hundreds upon hundreds of edits between the months of February - April 2009 using my old Tiscali IP address, because I forgotten my log-in details. I informed User:Grk1011 aware of this situation when I was making edits on the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 article, and he made point of it, and understood. If only I knew what my IP address was with Tiscali, then I would be able to provide it, and thus you would also see the other additional edits I had made. If I can find a way of providing this IP address, would it help to clarify my total number of edits (combined with my user name, and that IP address)? Pr3st0n (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would certiantly take a look at them if you provided them. I would consider them and re evaluate my decision. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I don't feel anyone with only 2 years or less experience is really qualified. Good luck running in due time, though! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At my soonest possible opportunity, I'll be giving you a second look. It has been pointed out to me that my reasoning here was irrational. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 17:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, per others citing lack of experience. I speak as someone in your boat; I've been here two years and am closing in on 1000 edits myself, and I wouldn't dream I could be an admin. Strongly suggest you fold now, work hard, and if you really want to be an admin, try again in 12-18 months. Jusdafax 09:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again however, this is giving judgement based on quantity rather than quality. A person should be showing the factors of quality, which is a bonus for admin duties. Someone who rushes through jobs is only looking to boost their popularity status, and quantity doesn't necessarily prove that they are just a good candidate as those who show strong qualities. This is horrifically proving to be come a one-sided argument, and I can clearly see why not so many people are wanting to nominate themselves for the role, if everything is being based on quantity over quality. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose the editor knows that copyright is important, but does not appear to have any knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Knowledge of English copyright law is no much use, because there are some big differences between English and American laws. And wp editors leave the legal stuff to mgodwin anyway, we just follow the policies and guidelines. Th answer to q9 is just wrong and shows this well meaning editor could cause havoc with the tools. I don't care about the edit count. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to my answer in Q9 being wrong - did you care to read the follow up question/answer in Q11? It was also on a similar nature. Besides, its obvious that this is going one-sided, and becoming very discouraging to myself ever wanting to submit, or even recommend anyone to submit any future RfA request - again I would like to further add, that those who did leave kind, positive feedback, I am truly grateful towards. There is no need for the negativity - that is what puts people off wanting to become admins! And yes, right now I am starting to get a little narky, which is understandable, considering the amount of negative feedback that has just been thrown. I would offer one piece of advice for future reference, be more courteous towards nominees, and avert from using negative criticism. You want to get more members, not scare them off! Pr3st0n (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was mild. You really are not suitable for admin if you're upset by the comment I left. You clearly demonstrate ignorance of WP copyright policies. Saying that isn't unduly negative. I didn't say, for example, "this editor does not understand WP copyright and will never understand it and should never ever be an admin". You say this process is demoralising. You were warned by other editors that it would be, and you were offered the chance to close this RfA early. (An option still available to you.) You specifically asked for it to be kept open so that you could put your case. It seems odd to me that you ask for extra time for more feedback and then get upset when people give you feedback. About the number of edits thing - people are NOT asking for quantity over quality. If you've edited here for some time you'll have had more chance to come into contact with many other types of editor, and more chance to be involved in discussions in areas where you want to use the admin tools. An editor with less than 3000 (seems to be most mentioned number) could make admin if they showed great contribs. As others have said - close this RfA, get more experience around WP, come back in a year when you need the tools. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In overview of my previous comment above, to which I have now crossed out. I offer my humble apologies, for what may be deemed as an unnecessary outburst. I have no excuse to use such mild terms of phrase, to which in crossing them out, I am now retracting the statement. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Given answers to the questions and the overall level of experience, it's not difficult to predict that accidental misuse of the tools would be frequent with this editor. And it's all right that the nominee asked to have the RfA reopened after the snow close, but I'm uncomfortable with how he has proceeded to question the one-sidedness of the result. Surprise at the results here and reliance on posited real-world experience in this request indicate that the nominee is not familiar enough at this time with the Wikipedian bureaucracy to act effectively as a part of it–which can be taken as either a good thing or a bad thing, but in any event is not indicative of a match for the position. Dekimasuよ! 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per lack of experience in accordance with Atama's statement above. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, novery few edits to admin related areas, and the fact the self-nom wasn't properly completed per the instructions. ArcAngel (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - No experience or cannot demonstrate experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose based on this Good Article review yesterday. Pr3st0n's obviously a bright guy who has the ambition and potential to do the work, but I don't think he has enough experience with policy yet to be an effective admin. In that discussion he purported that a profane word needed to be removed from an article because we don't want to offend young viewers' parents, that an uncontested page move qualified as an edit war, that a GA nomination was void and would have to return to the bottom of the list and "wait even longer for a review" if a page move actually occurred, that I was unable to correct him on procedure because I'm not an admin, and that that admins cannot "ignore all rules". I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect, but these particular areas (censorship, bureaucracy, edit wars, the role of admins) are pretty important, and I think the guy could use more experience. —Noisalt (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. With no offence here, that last vote for oppose was wasted in retrospective. I have already posted a final statement in the questions section, and in my opening nomination speech above. I'm already looking into having this nomination suspended for the time being - but have requested for someone to read my final comment before it is closed, and have asked for them to close it down, as it was they, who reopened it for me. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I wasn't planning to join this pile on, but you've said you want to invite more comments; so Not-now-not-ever, unless you clarify the situation regarding your comments to Frank. You say "consent was given to use specific extracts from the website www.british-history.ac.uk, to which a letter is addressed to both myself and Ms. Stewart", in relation to this addition of this copyrighted material. But www.british-history.ac.uk is not the copyright holder, it's a hosting service run by the University of London & History of Parliament Trust, and has no authority to give copyright clearance on behalf of the copyright holder (in this case Victoria County History). The material was first published in 1911, so it's possible the author died before 1939 and it's now out of copyright—but in that case it's not a case of them "giving you permission". Or, the material is still in copyright, you either never wrote to www.british-history.ac.uk; you did and are lying about what they told you; you did and you're misunderstanding what they told you. If it's the latter, then get them to email WP:OTRS with consent to use copyright material; otherwise, I don't trust you to judge. – iridescent 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that is irrational, to call me a liar - I have no reason to lie. I have been honest throughout - that is a very shameful and hurtful comment to use. I helped Ms Jackie Stewart, the author of the local history book on Lostock Hall, a few years ago, and contact was made to the website mentioned. It was they who gave consent to use specific extracts to use in her publication. The same extracts that have been used in the article itself... as I have swine flu at the moment, I have not been able to get out to obtain the ISBN details for the book, to show proof of this. The website for all I know could have contacted the university, and forwarded the details onto both Ms Stewart and myself, that is something that would not be able to clarify. But I can assure you that no false copyright has been breached, and the allegation to call me a liar is utterly, utterly outrageous. That has got to be the most rude comment I have ever known any person from the admin team to use. You should be ashamed of yourself. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the article as it is now, the history section isn't even worded in that way. A fellow user helped to retype it a few days ago. So an accusation is being made on something written on 15 September 2009, which is no longer worded in that context... its been entirely changed. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still puzzled, though, as to why you would think that permission given to use the material in a local history book would extend without further ado to reusing the material on Wikipedia. Oh, and Iridescent is not "from the admin team", whatever that's meant to mean, although he is a former administrator in good standing. BencherliteTalk 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless to that, the whole thing is revolving around a section written on 15 September 2009... if you take a look at the version as it stand, it doesn't even resemble the previous version, it has been re-written to avoid the similarities. The letter of consent gave permission to use specific paragraphs only for use on any project to do with local history. And as the article on wikipedia, to which I extended (as my OWN project) comes under this, then nothing has been broken. Besides, like I said, it has been re-worded anyway, as I didn't like the layout of the original version written on 15 September 2009. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral as I have no reason to believe you would misuse this and would AGF that you would be fine. I'm in this section because I remain not fully convinced by the opposition at this moment and am not inclined to simply follow the herd with the "per X" argument right now. I think there is definitely the possibility for future success for you if not now. --candle•wicke 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. --candle•wicke 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, no need to pile on. You are a very promising candidate, and I will support you once you get more experience. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Per above.Abce2|This isnot a test 21:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral To avoid pile on.--Giants27(c|s) 23:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not going to oppose as the outcome is apparent but cannot support due to the obvious reasons discussed above. Sarah 06:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to the Neutrals. No matter what decision you decide to make in the end, I respect your honesty, and value the opinions given. It is only fair that I get the opportunity to answer to everybody's doubts before a final decision is made - and I appreciate that that is being allowed at this present time. Pr3st0n (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Well, to elaborate, I think you have good intentions and want to help the project, but I just don't think you have enough experience yet to be an administrator. You have about 900 edits, with about 150 to your userspace, so about 750 edits outside your userspace. Of those, you have 240 to articles, 49 to Wikipedia and 29 to Wikipedia talk. That's just not sufficient experience for adminship. You also have very limited experience in admin-related areas - 15 to ANI and a handful of edits to a small number of AFDs. If you wish to become an administrator, you really need to get much wider and broader experience, not just learning policy but showing us that you know how to apply it properly by joining in discussions and sharing your opinions about issues. You also need to work on articles a lot more as ultimately that is what we are all here for and if you become an administrator we want to be sure that you understand content policies and guidelines because admin tools can have a very critical impact on articles if the tools are not used appropriately. If you don't like writing articles, you could join the recent and new page patrollers, help find sources, review articles in the maintenance categories, etc. There's an awful lot of thing you can do here without actually needing the tools and I would like to see you get a lot more experience before I felt able to support your candidacy. Sarah 07:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been times when I was unable to log-in to my account, and made edits using my IP, to which I mentioned above. I have searched for those IP details, and attached a link to those IP edit contributions in the questions section above. I can understand that there is no way to include those stats into my official user count - the only way is to manually add them together, which can be a tedious task. Those stats shows I have helped with numerous edits in articles. I know I make a lot of edits on my own user page, but if you take a look at the page itself, you will see it is basically a "working" article in itself - if it could operate itself in real time, then that would be simpler. I'm a well organised person, and reflect that in my user page, always keeping it up to date with every single action I make - jokingly, I would even add a box to show how many times I've farted per day - but I don't think people would want to know that information in all honesty. My user page, is like my personal journal, keeping track of my every movement on Wikipedia. I hope you are able to understand that, and justify why there are so many edits on my page alone. As for taking part in discussions, I have frequently visited many talk pages, and only participate in a discussion if I feel that my opinion is required. If I have no means to participate, then I won't. If I did, then there would be tonnes and tonnes of talk pages with things from me saying "passed by, read what people have to say - but no comment". I think doing that I would get complaints. I share my opinions when necessary. Thank you for taking time out to post a reply Sarah, God blessed the! Pr3st0n (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. From comments made in this RfA, and elsewhere, such as this, I can't help but think that you are misconstruing the role of an administrator. While administrators are expected to possess an excellent knowledge of our core policies, they do not have any special authority in disputes such as the one I linked. Indeed, some of the most knowledgeable editors when it comes to processes such as GA, are non-administrators. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am by no means misconstruing the role of an administrator whatsoever. My responses to questions and comments in the RfA above are reasonable, and within my democratic rights to answer any doubts that people may have against my nomination - after all, it is only fair that a nominee be given the chance to put these doubters at ease, and argue their side of the case. As per link you included, that was dealt with in a polite and reasonable manner. A review was carried out, and areas that deemed as a fail, were pointed out to the people running the article, giving expressed detail to what to look out for; in this case is exactly what I did. A person argued a case and even posted a comment saying they were an admin, before removing it after I posted a reply; which proved that they were in fact NOT an admin, as stated in my comment that I did a check to see if they were stating the truth. That case has now closed respectfully between all parties involved, in an amicable manner; so I cannot see how that is being looked at in a negative way - it proves the point that I have dealt with a situation in a reasonable manner, and without qualms in the long run. Pr3st0n (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that? I see no evidence in the page's history that anyone claimed to be an admin. You seem to have replied to User:Noisalt's comment that a name change doesn't affect the article's stability. Whether Noisalt was an admin or not would be inconsequential, so your remark, "you reply as though you are an admin member", seems misplaced. decltype (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dealt with a situation amicably, I see no justifications as to why this has major impact in my RfA application. User:Noisalt was not disheartened by what was said. He/she took the comment with reasonable acknowledgement. And in the end, it has cooperated into the article being granted its GA status. I would fully understand this being taken into consideration, if it had turned into a dispute between myself and User:Noisalt - however, in the long run, it didn't. It goes to show that I am capable to deal with situations of this nature, and handled that one pretty well. The comments I used where in of a positive construction, and not a negative discouragement. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. My comment was not intended to discourage you, and I apologize if it did. I did not expect or intend it to have any impact whatsoever on the outcome of your RfA. After all, that's why I placed it in the "Neutral" section. I am surprised and a bit disappointed that you refuse to acknowledge that it may not have been the best idea to make that comment, even if the situation eventually was resolved. decltype (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Apology accepted... I neither refused nor accepted to acknowledge that what I may have said was the wise choice. Under the situation at the time the comment was made, I chose carefully my words to use, in a reply to User:Noisalt. My choice had paid off, as that user was not disheartened by what I wrote. And it did in the end resolve itself into the article being awarded GA. Where at most times caution needs to be adhered to, there are the very rare times when a swift nudge, or cyber-boot up the ass does help matters. In this case, the small cyber-boot up the users ass did work. They took on-board the review comments, and actioned them accordingly. The right action was given at the appropriate time - regardless. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then I believe nothing more needs to be said. I have expressed my opinion, and you have responded. Best of luck in your future endeavours on (and off) Wikipedia. If I can assist you with anything, be it admin-related or otherwise, do not hesitate to ask. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Responding to "[I am] within my democratic rights to answer any doubts that people may have against my nomination" -- you might want to read WP:DEMOCRACY. — neuro(talk) 15:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree that the candidate brings valuable skills to Wikipedia. However, it would be appropriate for more experience to be developed in certain areas, as indicated by somewhat incomplete responses to the optional questions. —Matheuler * * * 16:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I cannot support you at this point as the answers you gave did not really answer my questions, largely leaving out the Wikipedia aspect. The kind of copyright license granted for Wikipedia when you press that save page or upload button is very important to know. The purpose of Wikipedia needs to be examined. And on the topic of consensus building you did not seem to know about the venues on Wikipedia where this happens, or how it is decided. But at some future point, after having read the policies and practiced using the various options open to a user (including moving, uploading, requesting deletes, discussion) you could try again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Your contributions and attitude show great potential, but you still haven't quite participated enough to earn the amount of trust needed. Try again in a few months of continued activity. hmwith☮ 23:40, 23 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pr3st0n&oldid=1147981961"