Sex

Go to The Main Page Add Sex to favorite!

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship 

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.


v • d • e
Requests for adminship sections
Administrators
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Bureaucrats
Nominate
Nominate (to nominate an editor) · Nomination data · User rights log
Current admin count: 1,589 (list all)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts the WP:RFB forum, where new bureaucrats (administrators with heightened access) are elected.

Contents


About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 18:35:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

SchfiftyThree

Voice your opinion (talk page) (34/11/10); Scheduled to end 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SchfiftyThree (talk · contribs) - I am pleased and honored to bring user SchfiftyThree for your consideration. A real diamond in the rough, SchfiftyThree should in my opinion have been made an admin a long time ago. He's not only a very efficient and dedicated vandalfighter, as he has also plenty of experience with other areas requiring admin intervention, such as page protection and inappropriate usernames. Clearly the tools would be in very good hands. On top of all this, SchfiftyThree is polite, friendly, communicative and responsible. In all the time I've been monitoring him, I've never found a single misstep or wrongdoing that would make me doubt the slightest of his full and unequivocal suitability for adminship. I ask and expect my fellow Wikipedians to carefully evaluate this trustworthy user and, like me, provide him with all the support he needs and deserves.Húsönd 01:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by J.delanoy - Vandal-fighting is, for the most part, a solitary job, and as that is my area par excellance, my interactions with SchfiftyThree have largely been confined to growling at my computer as he beats me to that revert on Huggle. In the six or so weeks that SchfiftyThree has used Huggle, I have never seen him revert an edit that I would not have reverted. His talk page has been on my watchlist for quite a while, and I have looked at many of his conversations. By watching his interactions with other users, as well as through my own experience dealing with him, I have found SchfiftyThree to be a very level-headed person. I believe whole-heartedly that he has the necessary level of clue to be an administrator, and I would encourage you to give him your support, as making him an administrator will be a huge net positive for this project. J.delanoygabsadds 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and owe gratitude to the nominators. SchfiftyThree 02:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I believe I would take part in blocking users who are making disruptive edits, or violating Wikipedia policies, because I have been looking forward to this task if I were an administrator. Other tasks I may take part in would be giving users rollback rights. I would take part in this task because I have interacted with other users on their talk pages, complimenting about their vandalism reversions, and then telling them about rollback, providing a link to the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback page (now inactive). I would also like to protect articles from disruptive editing when articles are being dominated by vandals, or when users are abusing the {{unblock}} template on their talk page, whether IP or registered. Another task I'm interested in participating in is deleting pages that meet CSD criteria, as this is one of the administrator performances I favour in.
These are among the chores I would like to take part in as an administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: To me, I would say my best contributions to Wikipedia are my vandalism reversions and the articles I've created about actors and actresses, especially the Todd Field article, which I sometimes recall as my best article creation on Wikipedia. With reverting vandalism, it has become one of my hobbies on Wikipedia, and I have been looking forward to reverting vandalism ever since August 2007. Since then, I have gained over 10,000 edits for my vandalism reverting, and it has made me probably most well-known for on 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: This would probably have to be when I was reverting vandalism. Back when I started reverting vandalism in January 2008, when I got rollback by User:Acalamari, I did not use any software to revert vandalism. In that time, I was bummed by ClueBot for being fast. Well after I got Huggle in July, I've began to go with the flow, and start to not worry about it too much. If I were an administrator, reverting vandalism would not be the only simple thing I would be doing on Wikipedia; sometimes I work on the articles I created when I don't revert vandalism. So, I would say that since the time I was annoyed by vandalism-reverting bots, I haven't had any conflicts or troublesome encounters with other users too much on Wikipedia.

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

4. Hi SchfiftyThree! I noticed that you stated you are interested in volunteering over at WP:RFPP of granted the admin bit, so would you please explain when you feel it would be appropriate to protect an article? Also, what is your take on using protection during a edit war, what if it was an article you were involved with? How do you feel about indef protections and when do you feel they should be used, if at all?
A: To me, I would find it appropriate to protect an article if it has been vandalised for a long period time, or if certain situations are taking place, like when users are close to violating 3RR on an article. If edit wars happened on an article I was involved with, I'd discuss the situation on its talk page about the constant edit warring, and if the users have been warned for edit warring, I'd probably direct them to the discussion on the talk page according to the edit war. About indef protections, I feel that they would happen if, on an article, has become a constant target for vandalism for a long time, on a user's talk page, if they have been blocked indefinitely and are abusing the unblock template at least twice, and, on a template, if they are high-risk and largely used.

Question from Stifle

5. What's your opinion of the three-revert rule?
A: My opinion is that users should not revert an edit more than three times on an article without discussing the situation on the talk page. In the past, I believed that the 3RR happened if a vandal vandalised an article more than three times, but then I realised that the policy is more complicated than I thought, and now I understand what it is. I have never been warned for violating the three revert rule before.

Optional question from Gazimoff

6. There are a large number of policies, guidelines, processes and essays that document various aspects of Wikipedia. Out of the veritable Smörgåsbord available to you, which do you feel are the most important? Please include any argument or reasoning behind your choice. Many thanks!
A: The policies and guidelines that I believe are most important would include a large number of them. Some of them that I think are tremendously important is including reliable sources inside articles and having proper citations to those sources, I think ownership of articles is kind of important to me, because some articles about notable subjects will be viewed by other people, and they might try to fix the article multiple times to bring lots of attention to the encyclopedia. Another policy I believe is very important is to not attack editors. This policy has brought me to my attention, as I've warned users about making personal attacks several times, and that they should comment on content and not on the contributor. I have never liked personal attacks for a long time as a Wikipedian.

Optional question from Cyclonenim (talk · contribs)

7. Can you point me to one or more AfD that you have participated in? Were you proud of your contribution to that AfD? If so, why?
A: I've made a debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Fozzie, explaining that an outside Wiki has a better version; User:Icewedge pointed this out to me later on my editor review in late June, and said that it doesn't matter whether an outside Wiki has a better article or not. I've then found that AfD debates should focus on the content of the article on the main Wikipedia, and not if another Wiki's version is better. I've also made one to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClueNet, with the article being deleted shortly after as it looked like advertising. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd say that my proudness of my deletion discussions would be about 7, and I may need to improve that a little by debating in other AfDs.

Optional question from xenocidic

8. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: Gah, I knew this would be coming! Well, by taking a look at your RFAQ page, I'd probably review the "good" edit that the IP user made, and if it was an unsourced statement, I tell the IP that they'll have to wait a while to overcome their edits; if the person using the IP was not the vandal, I would amend them that they should get an account, so that other administrators won't get confused about the IP's edits.
Followup: Could you clarify what you meant by "they'll have to wait a while to overcome their edits"? Also, for the purposes of this question you can assume that it is a single-household (i.e. cable) IP address, rather than a shared IP.
A: I actually should have thought harder instead of saying that "waiting a while" message, so I might as well leave that out. As for me clarifying that the user is a single household IP, I'd take a look at the contributions of the IP. When I look at shared IP contributions, I notice that they happen at different months and times of the year, comparing to household-based IPs, whose contributions seem to happen numerous times in a month. So, as said, I would inform them that the statement they added was unsourced. And, if that was the only option I'd choose, I'd let another sysop explain whether to unblock or not, as when being asked to be unblocked, it sometimes will be a tough decision.
In a nutshell: would you or would you not unblock the IP? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
A: I probably wouldn't unblock the IP because I feel that after the IP user is blocked (or requesting to be unblocked) will get a decline reason from another administrator for the user's vandalism and trolling.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: My answer to the nutshell question would be consensus, as the sources that have been deemed unverifiable would preferably be on the talk page. As for the user who is doing the right thing, my answer is the new contributor, because if they didn't notice that the source was against the consensus, I would let them know in a kind manner on their talk page that the trivia (with the reliable source) was removed and that it was against consensus like I had said.
10. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: Some users have came to me for a few advice before. For example, in February a new user, SuperROFLMASTER, asked me if I should remove the warning that an established user warned them about. I explained to that person that new and inexperienced users could be warned if they have made unconstructive, and that I usually do not remove warnings myself from IPs or newly registered users. To me, I believed I successfully got through it; that user stopped editing about 10 days after I left that user my note.
11. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: IF I were an administrator, I'd perform the usual task that an administrator does. I may continue to revert vandalism, but it might be shortened, because I will have other situations to handle on other articles, or with other users. As a matter of possible fact, some of the contributions (eg. reverting vandalism, reporting to UAA, warning users) have made me admire this Wikipedia song.
Optional questions from Protonk (talk)

You mentioned that you are interested in doing CSD work. I'm going to pose a few questions about CSD tags, when you feel they should be applied and how you think you would process deletions.

12 In your own words, explain what sort of pages would meet CSD-A1, CSD-A7 and CSD-A3. This isn't a "gotcha" question. Look up the criteria and the relevant policy pages and let us know what you think each tag means. An answer like "I would never use A1, instead I would tag a page with G1 or G2" would be ok.
13 You are watching Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and you see a page tagged for speedy deletion. Let's say it is a page about The Funky Underwear Monkeys, a Myspace band, and a CSD-A7 tag is applied. If the author places a {{holdon}} tag on the article but doesn't make a comment on the talk page, how long will you wait to delete the page? If the editor instead changes the page to make an implausible (but still good faith) assertion of notability, what will you do with the page?
14 Why does Wikipedia have a speedy deletion mechanism for articles which are not vandalism, attack pages or copyright violations? By this I mean why in the motivation sense, not "how did wikipedia come to have a speedy deletion mechanism". In other words, tell me in your own words why we have A7, A1, G1, and G2. This question is entirely optional.


Optional questions from Hiding T

You mentioned your article work, and I want to focus on that because for me that's a strong part of Wikipedia; understanding our core content policies.

15 Cast an impartial eye over Todd Field. Can you spot any potential issues with our content policies?
16 When writing about people, how do we maintain a neutral point of view? What are the major concerns?

General comments

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

Discussion

  • Please note: If you give me optional questions in my RfA, I may not respond to the questions until the afternoon, because I have class. SchfiftyThree 02:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Just of note, I find it very disappointing that the nominator withdrew their support. Before nominating a candidate, a thorough contributions check should be preformed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. At last I get away without being beaten to the punch! Húsönd 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to hard-to-swallow Moral Nominator Support. I am deeply sorry, SchfiftyThree, but I must be consistent with myself, and thereby withdraw my full support. You are trustworthy, but the answers you've been providing to the questions above clearly show that you are not ready yet. And my conscience prevents me from turning a blind eye to them, although I feel terrible for betraying you and your expectations. After all, I was one of the nominators, and it was I who suggested that it was time for you to launch an RfA. Again, I'm very sorry. I'll contact you later about my decision. Húsönd 12:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    Strong Support Nominators' nominations and a cursory look of the talk page tell me that this user will make a great admin. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong support I trust Husond and JD's nominations and I like the look of his talk page archives. "No missteps" sounds good to me, and he obviously has experience in the area he seeks to work in. This is the kind of user I like to think is watching the 'pedia while I sleep! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 04:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support All of my interactions with him have been positive. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 04:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Per Husond (talk · contribs) and J.delanoy (talk · contribs) and the user's positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. bibliomaniac15 05:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Support From what I can see from the contributions, this user should be an asset if granted the bit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Abstaining due to waning confidence. Nominator has stricken and changed to moral S. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - Nothing wrong here. Xclamation point 05:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Weak Support I paged through this users contribs a while back wondering if I might want to nom him sometime myself and I found a few things that are less than ideal for an admin so I decided not to make the offer myself but none of the thinks I found are severe enough to warrant an oppose. - Icewedge (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Seems ok. Unlikely to fly off the handle or anything. Why not? Incidentally, I don't believe "getting annoyed by bots reverting faster than me" is what the question is really asking for. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 06:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Why not? I do not mind admins that only work in one area. I will never understand opposes based on "Not enough experience" because he does have experience - just in a certain field of experience that is. I rather have a great admin in one field than no admin. For example, if I may, I noticed yesterday a case of an user running an automatic script, destroying hundreds of wikilinks. It was reported to AN/I at 11am but it took an hour until an admin finally read it and acted upon it. My point is, I think we need more admins who do such housekeeping because it is vital for this project and this user has proven, that he is more than willing and capable to do those things. SoWhy not? (if you allow me this pun on my user name ;-) SoWhy 08:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - plenty of good things here, no sign of naughtiness.--Santa (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Great Contribs. He is ready to be an admin!! America69 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Changed to oppose. Typical no-brainer. user:Everyme 10:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Changing to weak support for now due to concerns of weak or little consensus building. user:Everyme 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support -- Loved answer 3, hehehe. Good luck! :) --Cameron* 11:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support No reason to oppose, candidate seems well qualified for the position. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Have seen him around a lot, will make a great admin. LittleMountain5 review! 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  16. His experience on the vandal front is commendable, but close inspection reveals he knows his stuff in various other areas too. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support as co-nom. Finally got this in, didn't I? J.delanoygabsadds 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Candidate appears unlikely to abuse/misuse the tools in areas requested. A pleasant and friendly user who interacts well with others. Has been recognized for his efforts with a number of Barnstars that appear well earned. Found no reversions I could quibble with and appropriate reports to AIV. Dlohcierekim 14:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support - looks great, give him the mop! Bearian (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Level-headed guy, great vandal fighter. He's not going to do anything stupid. Give him the mop. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  21. Weak Support would like to see more article building/consensus building, but trust the noms.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  22. Weak Support Per nom's and I recognise the tough vandal efforts this user has done over a large period of time and he deserves to be rewarded, although I would like to see more responses to some of the questions posed. Lympathy Talk 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    The reason why I "needed more responses" was because I was in class, and I don't get done until the afternoon, so be sure to check my status. SchfiftyThree 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  23. Weak support - WTHN?  Asenine  17:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support →Christian.И 17:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  25. When I'm doing RC patrol (not often), I'm either beaten by SF or J.delanoy. You're too fast! —Sunday Scribe 19:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Same here. LittleMountain5 review! 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    MUAHAHAAAA!!! *gasp* Did I say that out loud? :P J.delanoygabsadds 02:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support He may be using automated tools but if he uses them to make this sort of nuanced call then I'm happy. ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Slipping, sorry; but sticking at Weak Support as I think his answer to Q4 Q9 might merely indicate confusion between trivial and trivia rather than putting consensus before verifiability. ϢereSpielChequers 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  27. I don't see why not. naerii 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  28. Strongly support — I certainly notice the candidate's contributions at least once every day. ~ Troy (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Though, I would like to see more consensus building and more work on articles, I trust SchfiftyThree will do just fine, especially with AIV and vandalism work. -- RyRy (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support I see nothing alarming about this candidate. AniMate 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support: Net Positive ! No alarming concerns ... Btw let Bots do what they are meant for. They make our life in WP easier. Then you have plenty of more meaningful things to work on. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 06:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Nice guy and will help improve the wikipedia. Ease into the tools and you'll be OK. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support A good editor, won't abuse the tools, WTHN. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support Good editor, will do wonders with the tools, vandals beware!spider1224 18:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose Not enough experience. Lajolla2009 (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    The candidate has 17 consecutive months activity and over 12,000 edits (more edits than the last two successful RFAs combined), may I ask what you would consider an appropriate minimum experience for an RFA candidate? ϢereSpielChequers 09:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC).
    If I may hazard a guess, I think Lajolla2009 means that this candidate has amassed this many edits only by Huggling and has not shown any other skills he/she (=Lajolla2009) thinks are important to have for an admin. SoWhy 09:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Even if you take out the three top months (June - August 2008), that's still over 5,000 edits. If you take out every rollback (see this link), there are still over 7,000 edits. Candidate is already well up on "the list" and would remain there even removing every rollback edit.  Frank  |  talk  12:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Bear in mind however that Huggle simultaneously leaves user warnings/reports vandals to AIV when a revert is carried out. That brings the 5800+ rollbacks to over 11600 automated edits; adding Twinkle edits (195) leaves little change out of SchfiftyThree's 13,000 total edits for gaining experience in other areas of the wiki. EJF (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose No recent XfD experience outside of this pile-on. Doesn't mesh well with candidate's stated desire to be a CSD'ing admin. Townlake (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    One does not need to participate in XfD's to prove knowledge of the deletion policy. In this case, I believe CSD tagging might be a more apt activity to assess. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    1) I respectfully disagree. 2) Even if I agreed, I didn't notice much recent CSD tagging either. Did I overlook it? Townlake (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Expanding above - I went back and looked again, saw some good speedy tags in late July / early August, but nothing since. Looks like candidate stopped doing it for some reason. Oppose stands. Townlake (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Ah ok, fair enough, Townlake. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I haven't completely stopped tagging pages for CSD. I might have not done it for a while, but I would still take part in doing that. (If this RfA fails). SchfiftyThree 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    The power to speedily delete articles is what makes adminship "a big deal" in my mind. Since you want to do it, I'd personally like to see more of how you'd navigate the project's deletion structure prior to supporting you... but I may well be in the minority with that concern. Do wish you the best regardless, it's obvious your contributions to the project are numerous and valuable. Townlake (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Weak article building/consensus building. — Realist2 19:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Do you actually mean weak consensus building, or rather little consensus building? The former could be backed up with diffs, the latter I'd have to look into myself but still consider a valid argument. user:Everyme 20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - The answer to question four is a bit concerning, and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to the protection policy. First off protection is not the end all know all when it comes to edit wars and often it is a select group of editors that are being disruptive opposed to everyone envolved, and that can often be resolved with blocking those who are causing the disruption. Second, SchfiftyThree stated above: "If edit wars happened on an article I was involved with, I'd discuss the situation on its talk page about the constant edit warring, and if the users have been warned for edit warring, I'd probably direct them to the discussion on the talk page according to the edit war, and if I protected the article until the situation clears out, I'd let them know.". He could not be more wrong, admin tool should never be used when the admin performing the action is involved in the dispute, and simply notifying the involved parties that you are taking admin action X does not make it ok. I feel like SchfiftyThree's answer to this question is one from a user who has a whole lot of anti-vandalism experience, (judging by him mostly wanting to protect for vandalism reasons) and not a whole lot of dispute resolution or article related experience, and IMO that is needed to be a successful admin. Tiptoety talk 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Well, please don't mind my comment here, but I'm pretty sure that regarding the issue of just blocking specifically disruptive 3rr violaters, wouldn't SchfiftyThree (talk · contribs) already be aware that a set block would be enough to at least help in resolving the issue? ~ Troy (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    And by that, I mean giving fair warning as the candidate just said in response to Tiptoety's question (ie: warnings like this). I'm quite confident that SchfiftyThree understands at least the principles of page protection in addition to his anti-vandalism efforts. ~ Troy (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    Note Just a note that SchfiftyThree modified the answer to question 4 after Tiptoety's oppose. I don't know what the protocol is for this but it's somewhat misleading. If that type of modification is allowed so later people don't immediately see/understand what uhh tipped Tiptoety off without going into the page history, I sure wish I had known that for my RfA. Heh. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    I forgot. I should put a link. [1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    There is nothing better than learning from mistakes and moving on. May be it is a right attitude. I have seen people needlessly arguing altough knowing it is wrong but defending just because they have told something else earlier. Just my thoughts ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    This is actually a kinda big deal, and amplifies my concerns over lack of participation in discussions at the XfDs. Strikethru protocol is a fairly simple concept, but WP discussions are less fruitful when some participants don't follow basic conventions. Townlake (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose As per the answer to the first question. If your main reason for seeking adminship is to block people -- as opposed to helping other editors or enriching the depth and scope of the project's contents -- then you appear to have your priorities out of whack. Points raised by Townlake and Realist also deserve consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    That's not at all what the user said. You're essentially opposing/penalizing them because they will likely use the block button. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    No, the candidate's comments are very clear -- the first thing he cited as the reason for seeking adminship is the ability to block people. The candidate's over-eagerness for the block button isn't an encouraging sign. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    And you wouldn't oppose this candidate if he indicates that he's willing to help at WP:AIV, will you? AIV is essentially blocking-based. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. The candidates reasons for not unblocking the IP in Q8, as well as the very limited view he has on 3RR in Q5, together made me pause. The answer to Q4 concerned me as well, and I share all of Tiptoey's concerns. I therefore cannot support as I think the candidate needs to gain more experience in the relevant areas. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Sorry, but oppose. I think I've seen the candidate around, and initially I thought WTHN, but the wrong answer in Q4 plus the failure to follow WP:TALK#Own comments concern me. WODUP 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Looking forward to blocking users is the wrong attitude. --Stephen 11:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The answers do little to convince me that this user has the necessary grasp of the finer points of policy to be an effective admin at this juncture. Valuing consensus over verifiability is the absolute deal-breaker for me, but the answers to q5 and q8 aren't great either. I will be happy to reconsider my opposition in a future RfA if Schfifty demonstrates an improved understanding of the workings of policy. I would add that Schfifty's vandal-fighting has been excellent. Rje (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. Rereading the reply to Asenine's fair and important Q9, it strikes me as a real deal-breaker. The main issue is that local (i.e. article talk) consensus cannot possibly trump the spirit of verifiability or accuracy. More importantly however, I'm afraid the candidate didn't even understand the question, which is actually far worse than if he merely held a different viewpoint (which might still be sufficient reason not to support). His focus, in contrast to the phrasing of the question, appears not to be on who displayed the objectively better behaviour (yes, the newbie with the source), but who did something wrong. The consensus-bunch did, but not in not notifying the newbie about the removal, but in the removal of verifiable content itself (barring other potentially more valid concerns not expressly contained in the scenario, like undue weight etc). The candidate's reply gives the impression that he thinks the newbie in the scenario is "more right" than the other editors because they were wrong in not notifying the newbie about it. Sorry, but no. Wikipedia is far more complicated than that and I cannot risk supporting you at this time if you don't get the very basic points in that scenario. user:Everyme 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: Although lengthy oppose reasons often make me groan, this one has substantial merit, IMO. The candidate might do well to read WP:CCC and WP:PRACTICAL (policy, i.e., parts of WP:CON) and WP:CLUE (brief essay). Consensus is not set in stone, and any consensus to fly directly in the face of WP:V or other policies, should it arise, would be moot. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Can't possibly support if the nominator has withdrawn his own. Keepscases (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I have three concerns: the initial answer to question 8 sounds suspiciously like a cool-down block, not a lot of XFD or general discussion experience (as highlighted by EJF), and the nominator's own withdrawal of full support. Axl (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. Anti-vandalism work seems to be very good, To support what is a request for a full set of tools, I'd need to see more experience related to other areas of administrative or project work and more actual encyclopedia building. I've gone through some of the articles listed as 'worked on' and find many completely unsourced apart from IMDB. The answer to question 3 also doesn't reassure me, but rather reinforces the idea of having worked so far effectivley in one particular field.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. I don't like Huggle-bots. However, I cannot oppose for this. --I'm an Editorofthewikicitation needed 20:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Oh, no. I trust J.delanoy and Husond a lot, and this user looks like a good editor. However, I cannot support because of answer to Xeno's question and valuing of consensus over verifiability. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: I'm on the fence on this one. You would make a great administrator, and you would like to help out at CSD where it often piles up. But you have limited experience with XfD's, and I believe the two are interconnected. I'd like to see more involvement with the XFD's; otherwise, I'd give a hearty support. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral from Strong Support Per Erik. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - like others I'm on the fence on this one. While the nom and co-nom are from people I trust, I'm concerned about the responses to some of the questions. In particular, the question on policies etc worries me. You didn't mention WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP or even WP:IAR. More than that though, there wasn't a mention of howthe policies work together like cogs, each supporting the others around it to create a harmonious editing environment. I think that this perspective probably comes from a lack of in-depth consensus building work, either through the XfD environment or through article development. Then again, you seem like a reasonable person and you do solid work looking after articles. So, both positives and negatives, hence the neutral. Gazimoff 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral, a lot of fence-sitting in the answers to questions. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral — You have exemplary anti-vandalism work here, and I encourage that, but the points raised by the opposers have convinced me enough not to support. I'd also like to encourage you to get involved in a little more article work. This isn't to say you're not going to be a good administrator in the future, I'm almost certain you will, but first you need to expand your areas a little. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. Neutral: I have no doubts about this user's ability, but I share Stephen's and Ecoleetage's concerns about attitude. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. Neutral per lack of broad experience, & points raised above. I looked at Todd Field, where his contributions are fine, but not much to put up as his best article-building work. Only 6 articles have edits into double figures per the talk page stats. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Danielfolsom

Voice your opinion (talk page) (25/23/16); Scheduled to end 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Danielfolsom (talk · contribs) - People probably want to know why I’m nominating myself when, since my last RFA, I’ve only really been active on Wikipedia for a month. The reason is that that time and because of my last RFA, along with the new experiences I’ve gathered within a month: I believe that I now have views that are more mature than the one’s I held in my previous RFA; I realize I can't prove this through text, so I encourage all who have doubts to ask questions - because I am confident that I can answer more than adequately. I believe that I can greatly improve this encyclopedia as an administrator, and while most of my answers to the questions brought up will concern actions in the one month I have been really active, if asked for I am perfectly ready to answer all question about any edit I have made, because those edits are part of my history, and they still count. If I made a lot of edits to templates - those count. If I vandalized a few pages - that counts (I never did that - but you get my meaning).

I encourage users to try my knowledge of policy with their questions. I realize that said knowledge is a concern since I’ve taken time off. But I’ve read through the policies, and I surprised myself because I forgot little (I wish I could say I forgot nothing, but there were one or two things that just completely escaped my mind; the biggest thing was a MOS thing; I thought that the references section came before the See also section). I know I am ready, and I’m prepared to see if the community thinks I am or not. danielfolsom 21:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to !voters. I would request you to evaluate the candidate on his experience and knowledge of wiki policy, not his wiki activity levels. Do ask pertinent questions to decide his knowledge instead of checking for activity levels. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would probably be most active in the speedy deletion candidates - I'm well versed with the policies concerning deletion, and I know what is and what isn't an acceptable page. I have edited quite a few templates, a few of which are now protected, and on with something like Template:Articleissues, where users ask for changes, I think I’ll be able to help there. As most can probably tell, a lot of my time has been spent reverting vandalism quickly, so I hope to be able to keep up the quality of some of Wikipedia's lesser known pages, as I'll have time to browse Special:Unwatchedpages. I'm also going to say what I'll do on a limited basis, because while I'm sure I know the policy regardless of the situation (with maybe one exception: Images, for me, are a little tough), I think it's important to clearly define limitations - which I do have. I have been in a few conflicts. However, I do not believe I have been enough conflicts to actually search for conflicts and protect pages based on them. That being said, I do know when a conflict is bad, and if I arrive on a conflict, I will be able to tell if the page should be protected. I will never touch images. I have uploaded on image before, and the reason it is only one is because images are just too difficult for me. Finding the right attribution, finding the copyright stuff, ect., is all just over my head. I will not seriously edit the main page. I don't have experience with wikinews or featured content, so that is not my place. I say seriously because if there is a typo or a format error on the main page, I know enough about templates and wiki-syntax that I will fix that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm going to use what I have on my userpage here, because I've actually logged some of, what I think is, my best stuff. I've worked with WP:Spotlight. There are two articles that I've edited under that that I am very proud of - both of which came after I returned from my wikibreak:
On John Jay I was the main writer (as of this revision) on the During the American Revolution section (not including the Minister to Spain sub-section, but including the Treaty of Paris sub-section), the The Jay Court, 1789-1795 section (which is probably the one I'm most proud of, it was something like 11 sources for 3 paragraphs–I know that doesn't seem like a lot, but the Court opinions were very dense), and parts of the Jay Treaty section.
On Biafra (as of this revision) I was the main writer on the History section and the Economy section. This was a hard article to write; there really wasn't that much information out there, so I'm pretty proud of what i managed to get.
As I said in my last RFA, I'm also proud of 2004 NBA Finals (a few diffs from that: 1, 2, 3, and a recent one: 4).
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: Well, to warn everyone this is going to start a long story that will actually take up the entirety of my answer - so know that end of the first paragraph isn’t the end of the incident brought up in the first paragraph.
Since a long wikibreak, I have been in one controversy, where a user was drastically changing the tone of a page I didn’t have much familiarity with. I saw that the same user had been reverted in his or her previous edits, so I reverted, and suggested that, in order to avoid conflict, the user simply bring up the proposed edits on the talk page. I was reverted, and then quickly found myself in a mini-edit war ( I believe I made 2 revisions, including the one previously mentioned, and I also toned down the user’s edit just a bit).
Now before the wikibreak - I got into at least two arguments over pages I had no familiarity with. I have reviewed a GA nominee once - Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. It did not go well. I suggested changes to the article, and there was a mini-dispute over those suggestions, but ultimately it worked out. Then the article got into an edit war over a different subject. I hadn’t given it a second review, and after a few days, with the edit war continuing, I felt guilty for not giving a review for so long, so I explained on the nominator’s user page the reason for the delay - I said I was waiting to see if the edit war was serious, or whether it would die out soon. I eventually failed the article because of the edit war, but my comments to the nominee were brought up on my RFA - I would say it bringing brought up was the dispute I’m taking about. I mean that dispute was never completely resolved, but it was a dispute nonetheless.
The other controversy before my wikibreak was over Negroid - another page I knew nothing about. I was trying to resolve a dispute over pictures - I think it was questionable which pictures accurately represented the subject. One of my first edits was this:

Ok, I'd like to ask just a few things:

  1. First of all, a question - can we confirm that each of the three proposed pictures (including the one on the page) accurately represent the topic.
  2. Secondly, is there any chance that we could get a labeled drawing of a "negroid" skull? This would be less personal and thus more ideal - especially since we refer to the term as offensive.
Unless we have confirmation of the first, and unless we can assure ourselves that the second is not possible, then this debate is going to become extremely monotonous.--danielfolsom 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem started when I tried to keep civility (that’s a pretty big lesson I learned: mentioning that users should remain civil can do more harm than good), and eventually everything just blew up. After a winded discussion there were many different thoughts (one person wanted to just delete), but luckily eventually the problem was solved. I think my biggest gaffe in that situation was trying to keep the peace by bringing up policy; a simple different choice of words might have let us resolve that situation sooner and more smoothly, but luckily, again, it it was resolved in one or two days. For this article I went to User:tjstrf for help. I regret this. It’s not that tjstrf isn’t a great editor; it’s just, in hindsight, it was very unfair for me to put this on his shoulders. So, me knowing that guided my actions in the debate I first mentioned (and to conclude this long-winded story):
I posted many comments to the questionable user’s talk page. None were responded to, so I went to WP:AIV. The page was protected, and the conflict was over.

Optional question from Autumn Fall

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: I, sadly, would not unblock the user. I understand that as we are on Wikipedia, we should not be afraid of vandals. This is the encyclopedia that everyone is allowed to edit. If we become afraid of those who vandalize pages, then we will block too harshly and too quickly, and perhaps lose what would have been a reformed, quality editor. However, in this instance the user was initially blocked for a very brief amounts of time; this block was really this user's second chance. The user failed to take advantage of the chance (s)he was given, and despite making one quality edit, the user's irresponsible vandalism before and after that one solid edit show that he ultimately is a source of harm. As administrators, when it becomes clear that a user has become a source of harm, it is our duty to protect Wikipedia from this harm; we do this through blocks. The blocks are not used to punish the user, but rather to simply make clear that we are serious about Wikipedia's quality. I feel like removing the one week block would both put Wikipedia at risk and let the user know we aren't really serious about blocking. Instead, I would explain essentially what I have said above on the user's talk page, and I would point to the blocking policy, because the user seems to think I am blocking him or her as punishment, as (s)he says "i hereby give you permission to block me for life in the event that i vandalize again", and obviously that's not how the block policy works. Lastly, I would offer myself as a source of guidance should the user need help upon the blocks expiration, because if the user is genuine, obviously I want to make sure that the user doesn't think the community now looks down upon him or her, and I would let him know that he still has all the same rights as other IP users (and I might plug the idea of getting a user account so the user can create pages).
Optional questions snagged from jc37 by Synergy
You've said that you think you have a better understanding with respect to policies so: In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: If the editor has displayed a consistent pattern of disrupting the encyclopedia, and if that editor has ignored warnings, then it is appropriate to block.
To specify: if the editor is, on an article in the mainspace, consistently vandalizing pages, amending the pages to include copyrighted information, posting information to a biography of a living person that violates WP:BLP or violating WP:3RR, and if that user ignores the warnings given to him or her, a block is required.
On the talkspace (including user talk space), if the user is making personal attacks, legal threats or harassing other users in any other way (i.e. perhaps being very uncivil, and if the user is ignoring all warnings, then a block is warranted.
Finally, and just generally, if the user has been found to use multiple active accounts (violating WP:SOCK) or is found to be evading a block, then blocks can be warranted.
  • A: If there is a WP:Dispute that has resulted in edit warring, if there has been frequent vandalism, if a page has been deleted and is continuously recreated or if a template is on a massive number of pages and has become a potential target, then protection can be necessary.
  • A: The most common reason for a speedy deletion is probably the a7 criteria, the article has not established significance. The g1 (nonsense), g11 (advertising) and g3 (pure vandalism) are also occasional, as are user request (in the userspace). G12 - copyright violation - is also a big one to look out for.
  • A: Frankly I can not think of a situation where policy should not be followed, but that’s the point. If we had thought of such a scenario then the rules would be adjusted by now. But that is absolutely not to say that no such scenario exist. The rules are not perfect, and WP:IAR is a perfect response to that creed. If a rule prevents a user from bettering the encyclopedia, then it should be ignored.
  • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus is the general agreement of the users involved in a discussion. On a talk page, consensus is almost always formed by compromise, a solution that makes almost everyone happy. On a XFD discussion, consensus is determined on the quality of arguments. For example, if everyone says "The subject of the article is awesome - we should keep it" - that's not a valid reason to keep. On a DRV discussion, consensus is formed by discussion of how the closing administrator acted.
  • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: First of all I would examine the situation. If the editors are simply edit warring then I would warn each editor, and if that fails, should the editors violate WP:3RR, they would be temporarily blocked, or, should they stay within WP:3RR but still edit war, I would protect the page and try and work with the editors on the talk page to form compromise. If compromise can not be failed, I would probably ask for a third opinion and then perhaps, if necessary, suggest applying for formal mediation.
  • 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: I realize that this is probably a little short for an answer: but I can't think of any other way to put it – this is what most strongly compels me: I believe that as an administrator I can serve this encyclopedia better.

Optional questions from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A: I would like to say WP:V, but who am I to say that? Whether I am a typical user or an admin, I can not override consensus; in this situation, I can only hope to create it. Consensus on article talk pages is achieved by compromise, and surely the editors and myself can find a solution that is well sourced, but also satisfies both parties.
10. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?
A: I can not think of a time where a very annoyed user has come to me, but would I be able to help? Of course. Really there's no difference between coming across a dispute on a talk page by chance and having another user bring a dispute to your attention via a talk page. I can suggest that the editor requests for a comment, or, if the editor is looking for advice (assuming I'm not familiar with what they're asking) - I can direct them to the village pump or WP:HELP or WP:Help desk.
11. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?
A: My primary activities are watching the recent changes log, which I might do slightly less simply because I would also watch the unwatched pages; editing Spotlight – which I plan to continue to do just as actively; and going through the backlogs and seeing how I can help out there, which I'll actually be able to do more efficiently, especially since even now I spend some time in the contested candidates for speedy deletion category.

Optional questions from - Jameson L. Tai

12. Please summarize your experiences on Wikipedia since your last RfA. Could you tell me something you've done that was special, something above and beyond that could show us that you are ready for the admin position?
A: First of all even in a month I've been a lot more active on articles - the John Jay and Biafra edits above were both in this month, and I attribute that to my work with WP:SPOTLIGHT, which is a collaboration effort that I've been much more active in since my last RFA. I also believed the RFA let me learn what I needed to improve on; it seemed like my knowledge of policy was only average - so I've really worked on trudging through policy pages, and now I'm confident that on the rare instance that I can't recall policy, I can at the very least find it. This isn't a result of the RFA as much as something I've learned over my time at Wikipedia, but I've learned not to simply take a side and argue for that side in hopes of persuading the other user - because that's not consensus. Another big thing I've learned as far as disputes go: bringing up WP:CIVIL can sometimes do more harm than good, and no comment can be made too lightly, because disputes are usually heated enough that you can't risk the chance of someone misunderstanding you.
Oh, and I created a bot, but that's not too much to do with admin related tools. I realize that this is a strange admin request, simply because I haven't been active that long since my last one, but I'm asking the community to judge me on my overall experience and my answers to the questions and not the outcome of my last RFA; I mean I'm not asking for a redo of my last RFA by any means; I believe that I have a much better comprehension of policy than my last RFA, and I've done a lot more work for a collaboration effort than my last RFA - as evidenced by my Jay and Biafra edits. That's not to say that my Jay and Biafra edits or my bot or my answers make me "deserving" of adminship, because it's not that I think I deserve this; it's just I look back on my last RFA, and I see that then, obviously (as proved by the outcome) I wasn't ready, and I look at myself now and I do see massive improvement, and I believe that I am now ready to serve the community better with admin tools.

Optional question from DragonflySixtyseven:

13: why have you not done any newpage patrol?
A: It's simply not a project that I've been active in, I try to help protect wikipedia by primarily watching the recent changes log, placing messages on user's pages if they vandalize, and then alerting an administrator if the vandalism continues after the user has used up his or her warnings.--danielfolsom 22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Tiptoety talk

14: Sorry for adding another question to the already large pile. Yo