Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3

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

Until It Sleeps

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) Final (60/48/10); ended 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs) – I am hereby nominating myself for adminship. I have been registered since August 2007, and actively editing since August 2008. Most of my contributions consist of vandal-fighting, and frankly this is why I am running, seeing as I could be able to take care of blocking a persistent vandal instead of reporting them to AIV, and reverting and reverting over and over again.

My edits have not all been exclusively vandal-fighting. I have done NewPages patrolling as well, with a considerable chunk of that patrolling being under my alternate account. I have also commented at AN/ANI, and made a some threads there as well. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 19:05, 20 August 2009 (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 intend to, for the most part, do vandal-fighting work as an administrator. I may expand out into other areas, such as speedy deletions, but I do not intend to do so until I get accustomed to using the tools.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I consider my efforts in Recent Changes patrol to be my best contributions, since I have done that for a little over a year straight, and have become accustomed to a rather large variety of ways to watch for unconstructive edits.

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: Other than the rare complaint that I reverted something good, and the conflicts that aren't unusual for a vandal-fighter to encounter (Vandals attacking my talk page, personal attacks, insults, whatnot), I really haven't been in very many conflicts. Even in those cases, I never lose my cool, and they almost never cause me stress. I do listen to any complaints that I receive, and see what I can do to resolve them, and will continue to do so in the future.

Question from User:Ironholds

4. Have you made any significant content contributions or work outside semi-automated vandalfighting?

A: I remember saving an article from CSD back last year. [1] Also, like I've said, I have done work outside of vandal-fighting, such as NewPages patrolling. [2] I have used AWB on occasion as well, although that still is semi-automatic...

Optional questions from User:KillerChihuahua

5. When is it appropriate for an administrator to edit a fully protected page?

A: I believe it is appropriate when the edit is uncontroversial, such as a typo fix or a formatting error. It is also appropriate to edit the page if the consensus of the community supports a certain change in the article.

6. An article is on Afd, nominated as a violation of BLP1E. The subject is a one-off from another, notable, article subject. The views are more or less evenly divided between "Keep" and "Merge or delete". When pressed for rationale, the Keeps respond that the subject is not attempting to remain private, and has been on Letterman, although they concede he has only done the One thing (Two if you count being on Letterman talking about the One thing, and many of the Keep views DO count Letterman.) How will you close this Afd?

A: I would close as a merge. The consensus does not seem to support deletion. But, the article should be merged into the event that it's subject coincides with.

Optional questions from User:JamieS93 (partially stolen from others)

I'm interested in your responses to the following questions, because it's possible that I may change my opinion. I'd be glad to support if I can be otherwise proven wrong about your judgement ability. While you don't have to be tl;dr, try to answer these questions as thoroughly as you can. Thanks.

7. Under what circumstance should a person notable for only one thing have their article deleted and under what circumstance should it be kept? That is under what circumstance would an AfD split between "keep - subject passes WP:N" and "delete - subject fails WP:BLP1E" type votes end in keep/delete? How would you go about deciding?

A. If the person did not have much of an influence on the event, having an article on the person solely because of that event would give the person undue weight, and would violate NPOV. On the other hand, if the person had a large influence on said event, an article could be warranted for the person in question. As for deciding, I would have to research on the event quite extensively personally, in order to come to a conclusion as to how much influence the person had.

8. You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?

A. Not exactly. I would remove the offending sentence, as otherwise the person is notable. I would also add the sources I found in my search as well...

9. There are five examples listed at User:JamieS93/CSD. Answer here what you would exactly do with each of those cases, bearing in mind all "background info". Where applicable, mention what you would do with the page authors, too, or what messages you might leave on their talk pages.

A. Example 1. I wouldn't tag it, because it's in his userspace. I would discuss the page with the user, to attempt to make it neutral and not like a blatant advertisement.

Example 2. Tough one, I'll have to think about that one while after I answer the others. This seems like a borderline case. I would like to see more sources for it, but if that's not possible, I would prod it.

Example 3. I would search for the town (If I could spell it correctly anyways), to find something. If there isn't anything, I would most likely PROD it.

Example 4. I would personally Google him before deciding, to see if I can source the claims that he is a "World renowned author". If I find anything, I would source it, and remove the irrelevant parts about his dog and such...

Example 5. I would CSD it as A7, because the person is non-notable. Just noticed that it was in the userspace... I would help the person change it from the resume-like format that it's in...

FYI, Jamie apparently fixed an error after I had answered the question. It's now doubtful that this is nothing more than a userpage. If he ever decides that he wants to put that in the mainspace however, it needs almost a total rewrite, and that's only if he meets the criteria for WP:BIO in the first place...

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

10. Please provide diffs showing your experience of, and attitude to, collaborative or discussion-based parts of Wikipedia, such as AfD, GAN, or dispute resolution.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A: I can get you an answer for this, but it's going to take some time. My contribs page for the Wikipedia namespace is loading slowly for some reason. I'll get an answer as soon as I can. Alright... Linking to each end every diff would be quite a pain, so here is the link to the search that I did for AFD: [3]

As for FAC, I will link the diff for that one: [4]. I will post more as I find it.

Found a TFD, which I had voted on under my old username(which was Vandalism destroyer btw). I also found another AFD, also under my old username. There is also an MFD(old username again), although I consider my argument in that to be rather weak... Oh, let's see... that's all I can find for now...

Optional question from Gordonrox24

11. What is your opinion on opposing a RFA because the editor is not mainly a content builder? In my support I said that I thought vandal fighters have tough skin as they are always being attacked by the vandals, and then need to know the inner workings of AIV and such. While I find that content builders don't have this. I am interested in what you think. Thanks!

A: For the first question here, well, Soap, in my opinion, said it better than I ever could. Also, yes I do agree that vandal-fighters tend to have "tough skin", as they wade through masses of things that, a lot of the time, sure aren't family friendly. And vandal-fighters have to put up with the attacks against them as well. I don't let any sort of attack hamper me, even if it's things like this, this, or even this...(from the edit summary, you can probably assume that the image he replaced my page with is epic NSFW...) So, personally, I wouldn't fly off the handle at someone attacking me. I would try to calm down the situation first before taking any sort of action.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 2
• Requests for adminship/Until It Sleeps 3

• Links for Until It Sleeps: Until It Sleeps (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Until It Sleeps can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. →javért ^chat 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• It doesn't appear anyone has mentioned it, but he's done WP:ACC work as well.--Rockfang (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question for someone not the candidate Someone struck their vote over the answer to question 8. Am I missing something? That answer doesn't look wrong to me. Protonk (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, it was shorter before... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  That was me and there's a discussion about it here, if you're interested. Best, →javért ^breakaway 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  Ah. I disagree with your interpretation of BLP then. I don't think the answer to 8 is wrong. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed - q8 looks spot-on to me.  7  03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, I've been waiting for this for ages. Until It Sleeps is an incredibly good vandalism fighter. Which is right where we need users with the tools. He is also good at CSD. As always, working in these areas means a few mistakes, but in general Until It Sleeps manages to avoid these (these days anyhow). They are also very civil and helpful. While it's a shame that Until It Sleeps does very little content work, I don't think this will prevent him from continuing his excellent work in other areas, should he get the extra bit. Just because he uses Huggle doesn't mean that the work is easy, or that it requires no judgement. I fully trust this user. Hence the support - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support The oppose !votes so far seem to be based on the rationale of adminship being a reward handed out after a candidate has fulfilled a checklist of duties, whereas I see it as a confirmation that a candidate is so dedicated to Wikipedia and so trustworthy that they could not possibly cause damage to Wikipedia if given full access to administrative privileges. And I believe that UIS passes the test. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I don't see why to oppose someone for being a specialist in a certain area. Great vandal fighting work, would be even better with a few extra buttons to push.--Res2216firestar 20:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Candidate has also provided me various insight and personal reviews of various articles of mine. Such collaboration has helped with various DYKs, GAs, and FAs that I have processed. User also served as a valuable person to turn to for a second opinion on various content related issues. Even though their direct edits may seem weighted towards automated edits, my experience with the user directly has shown a key insight into content related processes as a secondary aid. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong support. I am very disappointed by the early trend on this RfA. I will amplify my views later when I have a bit more time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Returning to this !vote to add to my comment, as promised—but most of what I meant to say has now been written by others, so I won't be repetitious. The main point I wanted to emphasize was that I don't see much merit to opposing a candidate who would, by general agreement, do a good job at a critical task (here, vandalism-fighting) on the ground that there are other tasks at which he or she lacks experience and might not do a good job—but in which he or she has disclaimed any intention of getting involved. The basket of administrator tools, it is true, is conferred on an all-or-nothing basis; but that doesn't mean that every administrator knows how to use every tool, or habitually does so, and in fact I doubt there are any administrators who perform all the administrator tasks on the list or use all of the attachments to our mops. Frankly, I might think that the candidate's wiki-experience might be enhanced by doing more of a variety of things around the project—but our volunteers are just that, volunteers, and we shouldn't expect to be able to order them around as to what their interests are to be. The bottom line is that if Until It Sleeps wants to be an administrator for the primary purpose of watchlisting AIV and blocking reported vandals, then that is fine with me; after all, I am perfectly content to block a vandal who crosses my path, but I have responsibilities both elected and self-appointed in other venues, so it is good to know that someone else is watching out for that one. The key to a good administrator candidate is partly experience but partly judgment, and that includes the judgment not to engage in areas to which the candidate is ill-suited whether by status (admins who are chronological minors should not deal with serious legal threats), by inexperience (I who have never uploaded an image am not going to start closing featured picture discussions), or by temperament. I trust Until It Sleeps on this most important of measures and therefore support him. (And yes, I would rather have written a poem.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

6. Support (maybe leaning to moral ~ because I can see the way this will go) per Tan in the opposes below. I know that's probably weird, but he's hit the nail on the head – marvellous vandal skills are an asset to the project. – B.hotep •talk• 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Strong Support Trusted user and good track.User has been around since August 2007 and has used rollback well.I do not see any scope for misuse of tools.The user plans to use his/her tools only in the area of expertise Vandal fighting.Now Wikipedia is an Elephant and if the user plans to use his tools the project will only gain with the user getting tools.Further the user has a good track in Vandal fighting and CSD.Now article is only facet of the elephant and arguing that any single area is mandotary to be admin is wrong.It would like the Elephant and the Blind Men saying the elephant was rope,tree or wall.Actually these are only parts of it as Wikipedia content writing is an important part of Wikipedia but not the only area of just as Tusk or the Tail is not the Elephant.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Support More vandal fighting admins = good for the project. →javért ^chat 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)I'm sorry but I have to strike my support vote per your answer to question eight. →javért ^breakaway 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Support. The candidate may not have extensive experience in all areas of Wikipedia. However, he can use his admin tools primarily for the areas that he does have experience in, while working towards gaining experience in other areas. Per my Adminship philosophy, there is no reason not to support. Matheuler 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - Agree with Matheuler. He can use the tools in the areas he has experience in, like blocking vandals, CSD, and page protection. Giving him the tools would certainly be net positive. --[midnight comet] [talk] 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Strong support. Will work well as an AIV watcher/blocker. Been active for a year so has intelligence enough for a step up in the anti vandalism work he does now. In my experience, I have found that blocking editors at AIV requires an administrator to merely be careful and familiar with policy/procedure, and I think that UIS has quite enough experience in this area to work well in it. Looking through his last 500 contributions on his alternate account (where he does most of his CSD work), I see only successfully tagged speedies, so I assume that his CSD work is excellent. The opposes over lack of content contribution do not convince me because if UIS became an administrator, the tools will merely add on to what he already does, not force him to act in another area that requires his participation in the namespace. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. One of the best vandal fighters I have ever seen. It seems he never sleeps, as whenever I am on Huggle, he's beating me to the punch. I have nothing but respect for his efforts and have no reason to think he would abuse the tools, which he could certainly use for blocks and page protection. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
12. (edit conflict) Two words to describe this RfA - absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe people in this day and age would look at the contributions, see "(HG)" or whatever the appendage may be, and run off screaming to the oppose section. This user is a very polite, diligent one with a good head on his shoulders and has article experience (if not a lot in comparison with the immense amount of vandalism he actively reverts). I don't think that someone should be opposed purely because they use tools to protect this Wikipedia from vandals (which, let's face it, are something we really could do without). In fact, I think they should be applauded for it - it's just as important. (For instance, would you rather read a very good article with "FUCK YOU" at the bottom or a small one in pristine condition?)  GARDEN  20:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    That was mature, thanks. Tan | 39 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Em, was that sarcasm? If so, I'm not seeing the immaturity.  GARDEN  20:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Support Personally I am not concerned by a lack of content creation. Good vandal fighting Francium12 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
14. Support. I support on the basis of how candidate intends to use the tools: to aid in vandal-blocking. I am confident that this will benefit the project a lot! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
15. (edit conflict)Support I agree with Garden, however, I would like to see some more article contributions. Out of all your 64000 edits, there's only about 3500 that are non-automated. This probably isn't going to pass, but if you come back in 3-6 months with some good article contributions, I bet you will pass. Good luck! LittleMountain5 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Support, essentially per Garden. More rounded experience would be nice, but I've seen nothing to imply this user is anything but competent and experienced. If he wants to focus on anti-vandalism, I'd be happy to offer him the tools to do it more effectively. ~ mazca ^talk 21:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter who would use the extra buttons responsibly. PhilKnight (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Excellent editor who will definitely benefit from the tools. Also, per Soap. Good luck :). Airplaneman ^talk 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
19. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support A great editor, ˙ɐɟɹ sıɥ ssɐd pןnoɥs ǝɥ ǝɯıʇ uɯɐp ʇnoqɐ s,ʇı ˙sǝssɐ s,ןɐpuɐʌ ǝɥʇ sʞɔıʞ ǝɥ --Mixwell!^Talk 22:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Will do fine. He can put the tools to good use in his area of expertise and I see no reason to expect that he'll abuse them outside of it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support Good vandal fighters can use the mop and bucket to great effect. I don't think we should demand extreme well-roundedness from every single admin. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Switched to oppose, see below. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Support - another case of "He's not an admin already?"--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to Neutral - opposers make a convincing point.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

21. Support. make that STRONG SUPPORT. I operate in almost the same fashion as this editor. We take the mop symbol of the admin to the extreme. I am a terrible writer. I am not creative, yet I am willing to help. In this editor I see this and more. Mature, and very helpful. I can respect these assets. I have pretty much no interest in writing. I like technical deletions and discussions. I see this editor is similar. I can respect that more than an editor that just spends their time writing articles. While writing articles I feel you don't learn the mechanics of WP.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
22. A dedicated vandal-fighter who seems to be trustworthy enough for the mop. I've never bought into the "admins should be well-rounded" argument, anyways; if somebody shows that they have enough clue to be thorough and ask for help when they need it, I'll support them. I personally believe that adminship is no big deal (my own opinion... and I stick to it). Master&Expert (Talk) 02:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Clean block log, good record at protecting the wiki, I'll take Ottava's word about your work on building the wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 02:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Support the promotion of this user has a clear benefit and he is reasonably clueful. Icewedge (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. I discovered this user's work just a week after I started actively anti-vandalizing Wiki around 3 months ago, and just a few days ago I was going through their contribs and wondering why they weren't an administrator already. I trust UIS with the adminastrative tools and the project could always do with an extra helping hand removing the backlog from AIV. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Support The opposition camp does not sound convincing to me at all. Although I like/prefer content admins who have enough experienced core content policies, admins specializing in specific areas such as vandal fighting, DYK, image areas are acceptable and encouraging. I don't see why admin candidates should be versatile in all areas. What I do not appreciate is however, admins/editors who never write articles is intervening content disputes, uncivil admins/editors are commenting on civility issues as if they has been civil ever before. As far as I've observed the candidate, he is civil and clueful. So well, even if this Adminship is not going well, come back in next 4 or 5 months, then let's how things going.--Caspian blue 03:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Support I don't have any concerns about this user, everyone needs to take a step back and chillout rathor than grabbing the pitchforks over one measily answer. Furthermore I find people's "no article building" or "content builders first" excuses to be lame, surely we want article builders to stay right where they are (building articles) rathor then getting caught up in the wikidrama that is commonly associated with adminship? Im sure I dont need a citation to say that once an artical builder becomes an admin their article contributions to wikipedia (both quality and quantity) decreases due to the associated expectations of "you must do this and you must do that" Again, I dont see any real concern worthy of an oppose. I could understand unwillingness to support but we must remember that not-supporting and opposing are two diffferent things, the latter should be reserved for users who have done something wrong or who blatantly do not meet community expectations so to speak.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Obviously I rarely support n editor with so little article work but I'll make an exception for the above reasons. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Content creation is not a required function of sysops. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Support Great user defending the work of others and protecting our readers experience, which he’ll be able to do even better with the tools. Also per Ottava and Stifle. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Strong support I'm not convinced by opposers and think that this user deserves the mop. Pmlineditor  Talk 11:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
32. Support--—SpaceFlight89 13:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Soap said it better than I ever could have. I trust UIS. hmwitht 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Yes, the candidate’s focus is heavily in vandalism fighting – and it is something that is accomplished with dedication, determination and excellence. I am more comfortable with a specialist who does one thing well than a generalist who does multiple tasks poorly. Furthermore, I have to echo Stifle’s earlier comment in that content creation is not a prerequisite for acquiring administrative duties. And it is difficult not to notice that the concept of practicing what one preaches has eluded some in the opposition side, who decry the candidate's lack of content offerings when their own gifts of original editorial contribution are slim-to-nil. Pastor Theo (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Even Stronger Support - I was considering not saying support, due to lack of article content. But then when I read the above reason, I realised I was being an idiot. Vandal-fighting these days is almost, almost (that's two "almost"s) as important as content, and this user excels in the former (that sounded intelligent didn't it). Having an admin who excels almost exclusively in vandal-fighting isn't going to hurt the project, is it? Hm? Elephant? The user has proved s/he can be trusted 99.9999 percent. Or do you expect this good behaviour to have been a ploy, for an evil-hearted person to gain admin powers so they can horribly damage Wikipedia? I doubt this will pass, but I hope it does, Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    I think at this point in Wikipedia's life, anti-vandalism work is as important as content building. As I've said countless times in the past, if no-one ever wrote another article, Wikipedia would remain a useful and fairly comprehensive resource for many years to come. If no-one ever reverted vandalism again, the project would be useless in a matter of days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

36. Support No evidence of collaboration. No evidence of communication. No evidence of article building. Hell, this guy has shown zero inclination for drama or disruption. I can't even find evidence that his primary drive here is to delete the main page. What am I supposed to do with that?! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support Per Ottava, actually. I want to reiterate my point from past RfAs that the "requirement" for content contributions is not a checkbox, necessarily. If a candidate has audited content under their belt we have an easy place to check to see how they work with other or work on issues which are not immediately tractable. Unless someone picks the perfect subject, writes brilliant prose and knows an en-dash from an em-dash, they will have to collaborate, argue and compromise in order to get an FA/FL. Reading the talk page offers a much clearer picture of how the candidate will respond to problems than do a dozen questions on the RfA. I say weak support only because many of the opposes offer convincing arguments. As for ottava, upon whom many supports rest, "I'm taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work." :) Protonk (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, has account creator rights, and has been editing since 2007. We have only commented in one of the same AfDs and I am somewhat mixed about the editor's edit there: [5]. Yes, the candidate's stance was in-line with the close, but please remember to use edit summaries, but anyway, it was a couple years ago and was not entirely unreasonable in terms of content, and well, I have been playing Guitar Hero: Metallica on my Playstation 3 and have had much fun in the process, so... what the heck, might as well give the candidate the benefit of the doubt. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
39. Support: You could have done more edits not dealing with recent pages patrolling, but your intentions on Huggle and Twinkle or expectionally great. Chevy Impala 2009 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
40. Support, I have no reason believing Until having the tools won't be an asset to the project. -- Luk ^talk 11:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Nothing at all wrong with having an editor that only edits become an admin. The ability and inclination to write reams of prose isn't critical to the task of being an admin.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
42. He may rely on the tools, but he uses these tools well and it would be a service to augment his tools. It is not like he is running for content administrator or something like that. He has made it clear he is a recent changes kinda guy, after all. @harej 17:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Per Newyorkbrad and many others. UnitAnode 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Weak Support — I'd normally not support someone with little content contribs, but I have not seen any diffs of incivility provided by opposers. Hence I think that UIS is on the balance of evidence likely to be a net positive. Problematic admin conduct can always be referred to us at the arbitration committee (not that we're looking for more work that is...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    If ArbCom were actually effective at removing poor admins then I'd completely agree. However, I've experienced firsthand that they aren't. Majorly talk 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    It seems to me that you can both be right; Arbcom can be good at dealing with "problematic" behavior but not "poor" behavior. Evidence that a candidate didn't respond to feedback at a previous RFA or that the candidate lacks experience is probably a good thing to look at at RFA rather than as the basis for an Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

45. Strong Support - Good user, good with policies, knows his stuff...give this guy a mop! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Strongest Support Ever!!1one - We need a few more rogue admins^{[joke], and, not only do we need another vandal fighter with the hammer, there's no obvious reason to oppose. Is he good at what he does? Absolutely. I don't need FA counts or edit counts to tell me that. Besides, I was shocked to see this RfA. I thought he was an admin already. O_O Glacier Wolf 15:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)}
47. Support - I would have liked to see some more evidence of experience in areas other than vandal-fighting, such as dispute resolution, which admins are likely to be involved in. However, I supported last time on the strength of the vandal-fighting alone, and feel compelled to do so again. Robofish (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - I mostly just read the opposes, but if you're going to fight a bunch of vandals, then do it with the bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong support - Anybody who's been on huggle patrol knows this name. His contributions are enormously important. That's why, among the opposes, Tan's oppose is the most persuasive. But even with that, I think there's a predictable underestimation of UIS's significance. There are a lot of opposes that I respect, but that I hope would reconsider. Shadowjams (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - I've run into this user a few times while vandal fighting, and I would trust him/her with buttons. Though I do have to wonder why he/she felt the need to link that pic... I almost hurled when it loaded. - Drew Smith What I've done 12:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    I linked to the history page, not the diff itself... simply to show the edit summary, so that someone could figure out what it was without actually looking. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

    Also, even if I had linked the diff, you would not have been able to see it, because it's on the Bad image list. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

51. Support I think using tools is smarter than not using them. Although it is not true, it has even been proposed that the use of tools is what separates humans from other animals. Somebody has to continuously fight vandals because Wikipedia is set up to be especially vandal-friendly and if this person is willing to do it let's make it as easy as possible for him. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - strong vandal fighter, net positive contribution. Anyone who feels that WP doesn't need more "vandal-fighter-only" admins must not notice the frequent multi-hour admin backlogs we still see.  7  03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - very responsible user. I see numerous complaints regarding his lack of 'collaboration' and 'content-building'; but every admin is different. And, as an admin, this user would focus on vandal-fighting and do a great job at it. With time, the user may move on to other administrative tasks. And if he does, I trust that he will do so responsibly and aware of the learning curve involved, and for me that is enough. 2help (message me) 04:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong Support. I am baffled by the oppose voters who seem to think the mop ought only to be given to Booker Prize winning writers. While editing skills are nice and dandy, at the end of the day there needs to be someone to pick up the technical slack. This user has shown a willingness to do so even before becoming a sysop, think how helpful he could be with the wiz bit. +Hexagon1 10:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
55. Support The oppose votes don't convince me enough to be neutral. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
56. Support This won't pass, but I trust the candidate with the tools. (I'll support next time too) Aditya (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
57. Support I think this editor would make a fine administrator. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
58. Support on balance. Mostly I'm swayed by Newyorkbrad's argument; not every admin needs to be a generalist. At the same time, I recognize valid concerns raised by Tan and Juliancolton. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Does good and useful work on the wikipedia - can't see any reason why he/she would do harm as an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
60. support looks good. I have no doubt the user will use the tools to benefit the project and I have no reason to believe that he will abuse them or create problems. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - Same rationale as last time around - User is completely reliant on tools and scripts - robotic and mechanical. I realize the user wishes to work at AIV, but huggling tens of thousand of edits just isn't that impressive. In fact, it's a large turn off. No evidence of collaboration. No evidence of communication. No evidence of article building. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - User relies entirely on tools to do his work, which consists of semi-automated vandalism reversion and almost nothing else. I see no work in many areas of the wiki, and no content contributions whatsoever. Not only is this a problem prima facie - it demonstrates a lack of experience in many areas - the fact that these concerns were all brought up in his last RfA over six months ago and he has chosen not to address any of them shows a problem of temperament. Either he's unable to take criticism or unwilling - either way he's not somebody I'd like to see with the tools. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Please see my statement above. I know that others have also worked with UIS in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose, regretfully. Candidate's contribution to the project is huge in terms of keeping vandalism off the site. Huge. I want to formally give major props to UIS for this; he has committed a huge amount of time to this and I, for one, greatly appreciate it. People tend to see vandalism fighting as the "newbie task" of Wikipedia, but as it is, it's still a very, very important part of encyclopedia maintenance. All that said, that's really all the experience he has. A smattering of AN/I experience, some RfA voting (and it looks like some of those RfA votes aren't very well researched). While I don't think an admin has to be an expert in all arenas (see ongoing RfA with copyright opposition), I do think you need a nice rounded resume in terms of various areas - AIV, RFPP, AfD, ANI, UAA, etc. Also, I personally need to see some article building work - understanding of collaborative processes comes naturally from experience with building a well-referenced article. If I were to support you in the future, I would have to see you take time off from your huggling vandalism work (which would admittedly be detrimental to the project) and delve into other facets of the project. Tan | 39 20:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose, essentially per Tan above. Great anti-vandal work, but very thin experience in other areas. Sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Sorry. If this is your most significant content contribution as you say, I'm forced to oppose. I don't expect everyone to write FAs but I do expect some article writing experience from an admin candidate. I do appreciate the work you do in counter-vandalism, but I'd like to see some proof of understanding content policies before I can support. Jafeluv (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
6. No real work outside of vandal fighting, needs a lot more experience with content or anything that doesn't take hitting a few buttons.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose - I'm generally sympathetic toward those who are not prolific content-contributors, but as per the above all I am seeing here is a long list of highly automated sort of contributing. Button-pushing, as it were. Having the bit would most undoubtedly allow the candidate to deal with vandalism in a more efficient manner, and I have no real reason to suspect handing over the mop would do the project harm (therefore this is only a weak oppose). That said, it is also true that many functions of admin work are much more nuanced than button-pushing and there is nothing in this contributor's history to show they have either the temperment or the judgement to fill these functions. Regardless of the candidate's stated intention to stick to vandal fighting for the time being, I cannot support handing the mop to a candidate who has no demonstrated capacity to handle the rest of its functions. Shereth 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   I hope you can accept my word as a prolific content editor that I have gone to UIS many times, via email, messenger, etc, for direct reviews of articles, second opinions, and the rest, before I have submitted various pages. This is something that would not come out in checking contributions, but he has demonstrated to me a keen eye in not only grammar and language, but formatting and potential Wikipedia problems. I have also used him as a second eye before I have made various accusations of plagiarism or original research in order to confirm any suspicions. In one instance, related to a controversial matter on a non-BLP biography, he helped confirm if my compromises were fair or if my edits were neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   I am willing to take your word for it, but all I can really glean from this information is that UIS has been adept at collaborating with you. I would really prefer to see more evidence of being able to collaborate with multiple users/community in general, however, to truly ease my reticence here. I appreciate your input, however, and will give it some thought. Shereth 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well, perhaps my reputation as a mean curmudgeon would show how remarkable someone willing to collaborate with me truly is? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   What was it that led you to collaborate specifically with the candidate? Keepscases (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe Ottava's standards are changing. Tan | 39 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Tan, unlike Mikaey I have had external interactions and collaborations with UIS. I can measure, from that, things that may not have been measurable by him doing the same things directly on Wiki. Everyone knows that I tend to work on a lot of things at once, and that I use four different messenger systems plus IRC in order to handle such collaborations. UIS has made himself available quite often when I need him as a second opinion, advice, or the such. I have no relationship like that with Mikaey. Do I wish he had more direct interaction? Sure, but it is hard for everyone to be a direct contributor, especially when it is a topic they don't have primary access to. Yeah, I would like him to be involved in more processes and reviewing more things on Wiki. But what I see is that he is at least knowledgeable about the processes, which is the most important to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Noted. FWIW, despite our history, I wasn't trying to be a dick by posting that. Tan | 39 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   I didn't think you were - I was mostly using your point to elaborate on my rationale for Keepscases. Addressing two issues with one comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Keepscases, I think I answered you in the response to Tan. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose - We have enough "anti-vandalism only" administrators. I feel that Until It Sleeps has proven his ability to recognize vandalism, and deal with it in a appropriate manner. Now it is time for him to spread his wings and wander into some other areas of Wikipedia. Tiptoety ^talk 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree with the second point but let me ask an honest question about the first. Do we really have enough "anti-vandalism only" administrators? I'm tempted to agree but I'm not sure how that could be established with any degree of certainty. Of course AIV is basically never backlogged but is that really a sound indicator? More fundamentally, the term "enough" in this context seems as murky as the term "notable". :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well, sure. There is really no sure way to say we have "enough", it is more a matter of opinion. In this case, I think we can base it off of where the backlogs are. As for the second, are you disagreeing that he does not need to spread his wings, or that he does not identify and handle vandalism appropriately? Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   In short, I fully agree with Newyorkbrad's position above. We can't really force someone to get into multiple areas and if we trust that a user can handle admin tools responsibly and productively even for a small subset of admin tasks, we should not be hesitant to give the bit. If one considers past instances of "bad" admins, the problem has never really been a lack of familiarity with a given process. Similarly a significant number of admins are now doing stuff that they knew nothing about at first. I never intended to work on images and new squat about them when I got the bit. But for some reason that I can't quite recall, I eventually spent some time deleting commons dupes. Thought experiment: what if UIS completely sucks at content writing? (I'm of course not suggesting that this is the case.) Essentially, he'll never be an admin and I don't see this as a reasonable outcome. There's a common argument that desysoping is so difficult that we need to see some sample of a candidate's work in almost all potential admin-related areas. To a certain extent, this implicitly supposes that a sysop that screws up in some area he was unfamiliar with, will continue screwing up until ArbCom takes the bit away. I don't see much evidence that this is the case and in fact, many people were desysoped for their abuse of the tools in areas they were most familiar with. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   I would normally agree with you re:specialist admins--it's good to have admins who specialise in certain areas, whatever those areas may be. But there are two issues here: first is that admins, while they may specialise, should at least have a baseline in multiple other areas (which UIS does not have); second, that there are significant concerns regarding maturity, had-collecting, and general leveling-up mentality. Also I believe he is still a minor in the USA, which is for me automatic grounds for opposition for a wide variety of reasons, mostly due to legal consequences of viewing and potentially redistributing slanderous or libelous deleted material. → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that I am not a minor. I am 18 years of age. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, my information is out of date. → ROUX ₪ 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I wanna support, but prior behavior seen by me on and off-wiki seems to not hint to me that the user is ready for adminship. I really don't feel a reliance on scripts, tools and bots, is all you need for adminship and is more of a token for ultimate disaster. Really should wait another 3-5 months working on contributions outside of those areas (including well article expansions (not looking for perfect) and more input in more areas). I'd like to see a little better on the behavior too, but its not a major issue. Not trying to down your luck, UIS, but you're are like 85% ready, just need the other 15%, and we'll see what happens.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
10. I find many of the above opposes regarding your reliance on Huggle unconvincing. However, Tan put it well; we always need more vandal fighters, but you have little or no experience in other areas of the project. That said, my main concern is your sometimes immature demeanor. I don't have any diffs to back that up, but as your former admin coach, I just get the feeling that you don't have the maturity necessary to make the difficult, divisive, and important decisions that come with adminship. The fact that you retired immediately upon hearing that the developers were discussing the implementation of flagged revisions, only to return a couple days later, doesn't give me much confidence. If I recall correctly, you also semi-retired a few weeks ago. Instability in that regard is not a favorable trait in admin hopefuls. And as much as I hate to make unsupported claims, you occasionally come across as just a bit desperate for adminship, particularly on off-wiki communication systems. You're certainly an asset to the community with your anti-vandalism work, and I encourage you to keep that up, but at this time, I do not feel I can fully trust you with adminship. Sorry, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    I semi retired earlier because I had some personal issues that needed attending to... You can either go through the history of my userpage, or simply view the edit box of my userpage. (the message is commented out.) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    True, but your semi-retirement lasted about a week. There are wikibreak templates that you could have instead used. Again, it's not just this one incident, but the overall feeling that I get. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

11. Sorry UIS, I expected to be more on the supportive side of this request, but I must agree with Juliancolton and Tan; they put it very well. Note that this oppose is pretty weak, but I'm just not comfortable yet, either. Vandal-fighting admins are great (J.delanoy is a perfect example) and I have nothing against them, but the overall thin experience (in other areas) and general demeanor doesn't assure me that you have this thing called "mature judgement", at least right now. Even if you can't have the mop yet, do keep up the good work. :) Feel free to discuss this oppose if you have comments. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    FYI, I'm remaining pretty firm with my oppose here, primarily from the overall feeling I get. UIS, while some of the deletion-related answers were accurate, others are iffy. I'll expound: From Q9, example 4 was fine, E2 is okay, and E3 is more "inclusionist" than I would be (that was a candidate for speedy deletion, the criterion is up to you), although if you prefer to be safe and research the page, that's okay. However, E1 was just inaccurate: self-promotional company spam in the userspace is a big issue on Wikipedia, and that page was only meant to promote the company, and thus qualifying for G11. Also, did you notice the username? Since this was the user's only edit, and the name was clearly associated with the company, it was unfortunately a WP:U violation and needed a block. I like to be gentle about indef spamublocks, so I would leave the {{uw-softerblock}} notification on their talk page. As for E5, it's a similar issue: while that was not exactly blatant advertising, it generally violates rules about Wikipedia not being a place to post your resume, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, etc. So the userpage could be either pared down or simply deleted with an explanatory deletion summary. The username tells us that it was written by the person themself, obviously, so I'd leave them a nice message about Wikipedia not being a personal webhost ({{uw-resume}} may be helpful). Anyway, the responses were just not up to snuff, and in general I found a lack of thoughtful explanation in your answers, which I explicitly asked for. As an admin, you need to look at a situation carefully, and be able to discuss your decisions with some kind of background reasoning behind them. Sorry, but you don't seem to have a grasp on how to apply deletion guidelines (within the userspace, too) and explain yourself. Not to push it on others, but those who are supporting "per good CSD knowledge" should take a moment and make sure they actually stand by their opinion. Regards, JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

12. It's easier to say "per all off the above." My main concerns are that you lack experience in other areas, immaturity (on and off wiki), and the semi-retirement thing. I agree with every one of Juliancolton's points. iMatthew ^talk at 21:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Also, I opposed your last RfA. In my comment, I said "I also remember a few weeks back, you retired from Wikipedia while upset at the decision of Flagged Revisions being passed for a test. I believe you were convinced off-wiki to stay, but what happens when the trial starts?." I remember this, and now that we're getting closer and closer to Flagged Revs being approved, how should we know you're not going to retire again? (Feel free to answer this question if you wish.) iMatthew ^talk at 23:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    About flaggedrevs, I'm neutral about that now... I don't care whether or not they implement them(If they do that while I'm still young anyways...), I'll adapt just fine. I personally don't have a problem with it anymore. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 23:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose I have grave concerns about maturity. Nothing in this users behaviour shows me anything but a lust for the tools and an inability to act with some level of responsibility. I have a feeling the user will simply pin it on like a badge. The user also fails to do anything but obsessively Huggle, and I prefer to see some level of interest in writing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    So, you believe that a picture uploaded almost 1 year ago reflects what you believe I would do with the tools now? Adminship is not a trophy, a badge, or a status symbol. It is being granted tools that help with the maintenance of the Wiki. Also, it would be helpful if you, say, provided a diff of whatever instance of irresponsibility you think has happened recently. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, it does. Pinning on a 'Recent Changes Patroller' badge tells me that you have a deep seeded misunderstanding of how the Wikipedia power system works. Adminship is 'meant' to be nothing special, but in everyone of my interactions with you, which have been mainly off-wiki, you have indicated nothing but a lust for tools simply so that you could keep the title. Quite simply, I haven't seen enough thoughtfulness and rationality to change the opinion that you have the 'Good vs Evil' mentality that is entrenched in many hardcore vandal fighters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, so we aren't allowed to make jokes at all? Damn, I better be a lot more careful! Seriously, this oppose, IMO, is ridiculous. It's basically akin to opposing someone based off their breakfast cereal preference. For the record, mine is Frosted Mini-Wheats. Glacier Wolf 02:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose I do so reluctantly, I'm inclined to support based on your username alone (Metallica rocks). But this isn't "Request for Vandalbotship", I would expect an administrator to have more experience in creating content before he is given tools over other content creators. To me it's like making someone a referee in baseball who has never really played a game. Sure, you don't need to be a skilled player to know the rules but you will be expected to have judgement over close calls and it helps to have experience with the game. The same goes with handling articles, for example, can you empathize with someone who has made dozens of edits to improve an article and is now seeing it deleted or drastically changed? I do appreciate your efforts to curb vandalism however. -- Atama頭 22:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose - The lack of collaboration, the lack of experience in editing without tools and the attitude shown by the user here simply makes it undesireable for this user to be given access to the administrator toolset. Using various buttons and programs to remove vandalism is fine, but it's rare for administrators to do nothing but revert and block vandals, eventually pretty much every administrator will have to deal with a content dispute or some other issue, even if it's only brought to their attention when they're doing vandalism patrol, and without well rounded experience here on Wikipedia, they're either going to get involved and are quite likely to make an error that causes further complications (blocking at the wrong time, not blocking at the right time etc) or they'll ignore what they've seen and carry on their merry way. Ignoring stuff (especially if there's no communication to other admnistrators, and with a lack of evidence of good communication in the case of UIS) is bad, making bad decisions far worse, but both options are undesireable, and on the evidence presented here, I'm worried that either option is a serious possibility. Nick (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose, having a niche area is fine, however one must step out of their comfort zone eventually. We entrust our administrators with a package of tools, not just one or two. Because of this, we must review the candidate's aptitude in a number of areas. If the candidate can not show us examples of their skill, then we can not properly evaluate them. –blurpeace ^(talk) 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose - per Tan, Juliancolton, and the fact that quite literally nothing has changed about your contributions since my oppose in your last RfA. → ROUX ₪ 23:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong Oppose - The answers to question 9's examples are inconsistent. States in example one that they wouldn't tag something because it's user space, but then they /would/ tag user-space in example 5. I can't feel correct supporting someone who can't interpret CSD consistantly. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't notice that the 5th example was in the userspace until after I had saved, and was in the process of correcting it when you switched... imo it would have been nicer to have the page titles as headers... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm afraid I still have to say oppose, and though I understand the mistake and wish you the best in the future, I can't feel comfortable supporting someone who makes an error like that. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose the comments already made in opposition have depth, and I also would like to see you put some more effort into article development before requesting the mop.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per Tan, who said it best. Your anti-vandalism work is invaluable and is commendable but I believe an admin needs to be versatile, experienced in a wider assortment of areas. -- œ^™ 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose. per above. Of your 62,000 edits, a significant portion consists of automated edits. This makes it hard to judge your knowledge of policy and your familiarity with the inner workings of the site. On top of that, I must agree with Roux - Little has changed since your last rfa. You do some great anti-vandal work around the project and I encourage you to keep it up. However, it would be nice to see you do some work in other areas of the project as well. Perhaps in a few months and experience in other areas. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
22. I agree most with Ironholds; you had an RFA, the opposition was more or less unanimous in what they wanted to see (communication, article edits, etc), and other than exchanging emails with Ottava, I'm really not seeing that you even tried to meet them halfway. RfA is the only game in town if you want to be an admin, so if this one should fail, please do at least some of what the opposition is saying and try again in 3 months. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose per lack of non-automated edits (5.88% of your total), answers to questions, and above opposes by Tanthalas39 and Wisdom89. In my opinion, it is not the number of edits that counts for a user, but rather the quality of the edits. If almost all of your edits are automated, it is very difficult for me to assess your policy knowledge, and how you will handle situations as an administrator, and I have to resort to other outlets to find this information. One of the methods is looking at your answers to the questions, some of which are concerning. For example, in Q9.1, you said that you would discuss the situation with the user. Per the username policy, this is clearly the wrong approach to take. The user should be softblocked for having a promotional username (most likely with {{uw-ublock}}), and the page deleted under CSD G11. There is no reason to make this page more neutral, because there is no salvageable content, and there is no reason to discuss this with the user, because their username is a blatant policy violation. Yes, this was a tough decision to make, but I feel that it is justified. You are an excellent user, and I would support without doubt if you focused less on vandalism and more on other processes, but I cannot support at this time. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose - I don't really see any evidence of attempts to address the concerns from the last RFA. Based on a couple comments (the nom statement and [6]) at the time of your last RFA, 5.4% of your edits were non-automated. More than 6 months and 45,000 edits later, its still only 5.8%. Mr.Z-man 04:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose - Per Tan. miranda 06:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. After viewing the last RfA, it appears that nothing much has changed. I would support if you show evidence of participation in other important areas (those mentioned by multiple others here). I recommend working on that, then coming back in a few months. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose - for many reasons mentioned above, though i think self nominations are always worrying. It would be far better to do as much good across wikipedia as possible and wait for someone to notice your efforts and nominate you themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose basically per the above. I think you've received more than enough constructive criticism from the first several opposers. I endorse their views, and if there's improvement, I'll support a future RfA. Timmeh (review me) 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
29. Strong oppose based on lack of article writing and content. It would have just been an oppose, but because you appear to have ignored this concerns from your last RfA, I felt a strong oppose more appropriate. Best of luck anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose - per Tan and Julian, mostly, though the seeming unfamiliarity with spam/username/blocking policies as highlighted by Jamie and others is also a bit troubling. You are doing a great job fighting vandalism, but that is only a tiny slice of that for which admins are responsible. It would be helpful for any future request if you got involved in other areas admin tools are required, such as the various deletion boards, WP:RM, or WP:UAA. Another big thing, as others have mentioned, is content creation. No, you don't have to write an FA in a week, but find an article that interests you, find some sources, and improve it to meet GA criteria. Show us that you understand all that goes into writing a good article, since that is what we're here for afterall. Best of luck in the future. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose User has lack of knowledge in other departments, Wiki is made for more than vandalism, I suggest coming back in 6 months.--Pookeo9 (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
32. 'Weak Oppose per Tan and Julian. I was inclined to support at first, but the issues raised by those users prevent me from doing so. You have done a great job in terms of vandal fighting, in fact, I've seen many of your vandal reverts and that's very important work, but the lack is experience in other areas is something you might need to work on. Please don't be discouraged by this oppose, and come back in 3 or 6 months when you have obtained more (wiki wide)experience under your belt, and sure then, you'll be a shoo-in. Likeminas (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
33. Sorry, but you strike me as rather immature. This isn't a particularly great asset for an admin I'm afraid. Normally I don't care so much about this, but it just seems to be rather obvious here. Majorly talk 21:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose—Would like to see more well-rounded experience as a WPian first. Tony (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
35. Not yet basically per Tony1. This candidate may well have all the qualities required for adminship, but I have not seen sufficient demonstration of this in collaborative areas of Wikipedia. Vandal-fighting and automated edits are a valuable part of the encyclopaedia that I do not wish to denigrate, but adminship is about dealing with people.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose Lacks the maturity. And I'd really not like to see any "look who's talking" or "hypocrite" comments here. Shappy ^talk 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. You don't "lack the maturity", Shappy, but beyond that, I've tried and failed several times to get a conversation started on why comments like "hypocrite" are out of place in RFAs, for the simple reason that only the candidate is being reviewed here (and only because there's no way around it, not because we enjoy being critical). Understood that if a person disagrees with someone's vote, they might want to knock them down a peg, but it's not necessary, crats are very good at keeping up with past comments and coming to their own conclusions of who's being hypocritical. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

37. Weak Oppose, your anti-vandalism work is excellent, however the opposition raises some points that I feel are significant. Your editing however is a great contribution to Wikipedia, so do not see this as disheartening! --Taelus (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose I like UIS, and really appreciate all the good vandal fighting, but, just looking over some recent "RFC" edits by the candidate, I'm not convinced that s/he is able to see the big picture just yet. I think after a little more experience they may make a fine admin, but for now I'd rather hold off on my own "support". Sorry UIS. — Ched :  ?  22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm a he btw, just so you know. ;) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

39. Oppose - Tend to concur with Ched, not sure if he is ready yet. Little advance from #2. — neuro^(talk) 23:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Limited collaboration with other editors. Minimal content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Per Tan. I have high respect for Tan, and reading his comment, I truly agree with it. I would like to say to Until It Sleeps, keep doing the good work you do, and one day, I may support. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Tan and Juliancolton -- Deville (Talk) 22:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose per the second sentence of The Earwig's argument in particular. Daniel (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
44. Regretful oppose per above; %94 of your edits seem to have been automated leaving less than 4000. Lack of experience across multiple areas is discouraging. I suggest trying to write a DYK stub, then take some article to GA status, then at least read through a recent FA review or two. Get a solid sense of building articles. -- Banjeboi 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak oppose My personal experience with responses (or rather the lack of responses) to queries posted on this user's talk page have not been entirely positive. An admin should be more welcoming to IP users. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose for using automatic tools as though they were the way of life here on WP. Sorry, but you don't have the qualities I look for in an admin. I want to see much more than a point-and-clicker. ArcAngel (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    Clearly you wouldn't have enjoyed gaming in the late nineties. +Hexagon1 12:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

47. Oppose I don't like the "I say I'm entitled to the tools and therefore I should have the tools" vibe that I got while reading his nomination. I'm worried that he will take a 'I say this article should be deleted and therefore it shall be deleted" attitude when it comes to using his powers.--*Kat* (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
48. Numerous specific issues cited above, and the reason-that-must-not-be-named. Friday (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Not sure yet. I have to look over some of his edits. Note that my standards aren't harsh or over-analytical or anything like that - I won't oppose over a lack of significant content work or slight inexperience in specific areas if I feel you're trustworthy. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Still can't decide. Seems to be a dedicated vandal-fighter, which would make me regret opposing. But despite what I had said, I feel slightly uncomfortable supporting an editor who has next to no experience anywhere beyond huggling and reporting to AIV. I feel that, if an editor came to you directly and asked you for help in anything other than reverting vandalism, I'm not sure if you'd be able to assist them. I'd support in 3 months (yes, I'm not that strict on time; for me, 3 is plenty) if you at least try UAA, CSD, or RFPP - things like that. Master&Expert (Talk) 20:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I so have experience in UAA and CSD... [7] Unless you happen to object to the CSD nominations that I made under my alt. account. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 20:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh... you know what? What the hell. Changing to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Your statements here are, where they differ at all, more vague versions of what you wrote last time. Aside from "time served", you haven't really explained what has changed since your last RfA, when many users asked you to edit articles more, or simply perform more edits in areas outside of vandalism reversions. Dekimasuよ! 20:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral (moving to weak oppose) I was just wondering recently if this RfA would pop up soon. I came here in the direction of "support" due to overall positive contribs that I've seen. However, I wasn't aware of the experience-related issues that the opposers are mentioning, so I'm neutral for now. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Will he need experience in article contribution if he plans to remain in his specialized areas of vandal fighting and CSD patrol? Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

   Nope, I don't have objections over article contributions in particular. I usually don't oppose or have concerns over lack of article-writing; I believe sufficient knowledge and experience with mainspace-related issues can come from other areas, and actually improving a GA doesn't increase one's ability as an admin. However, I'm not seeing that experience in those other areas, to reasonably prove that UIS has good judgement and knows general common sense in administrative decisions, and thus I'm likely to oppose this RfA. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 21:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Keepscases (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral. I have told UIS on multiple occasions that I think he could make a fine J.delanoy type admin if he would simply grow up. I'm not opposing because it would be in bad faith to do so based on my personal experiences with UIS, which are almost entirely IRC based. However, I think it's telling that the decisive majority of people who have interacted with him off-wiki are opposed to his candidacy on the basis of maturity, and he was blocked from a certain infamous IRC channel multiple times in the past. Whether this is evidence that UIS will make a bad admin or simply that the IRC voting bloc ("cabal" is so cliché) has struck again is open to interpretation. However, I suppose I'm living up to my sobriquet in voting neutral this time. Recognizance (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral for now as I can't decide. I am not bothered by the contributions issue but more by some of the concerns raised by users such as Juliancolton, the general air of desperation that lingers and the fact that a lot of users who I consider fair in these cases are heading for neutral/oppose and giving reasons which I find myself unable to dismiss easily. --candle•wicke 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral - Recommend DR work: helps with mainspace, and immensely helpful in regards to communication. Also learn the intricacies and consequences of protections. Join now! Xavexgoem (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I came to support, but the issues raised by the opposers about not enough non-anti-vandalism work are quite convincing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral - This one will not pass, so there is no point in opposing the candidate. Your anti-vandalism work is pretty good, but you need to concentrate on other parts of en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral - opposers bring up good points, but I really don't want to oppose...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9. Moral Support - but I agree with Tan above - expanding one's horizons is something each of us can benefit from. Would support in the future w/a little more work in those areas. Skier Dude (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral - I am on the fence on this one, I don't consider a diverse editing history a requirement of adminship though it is a good thing. I am overall leaning to towards support and if I am honest I was expecting a bit more of a smoking gun from the opposition given their numbers. However, some concerns from the opposition do make contact with some of my criteria. The response to flagged revisions raises minor concerns with key criterion (KC) 7 and to some extent KC 5. IRC concerns have also come up repeatedly in this RfA, which while I take note of the lack of details/evidence, raises some further concerns with KC 4. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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