Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 3: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 64: Line 64:


;Additional optional question from [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]]
;Additional optional question from [[User:Dlohcierekim|Dlohcierekim]]
:'''13.'' Thank you for submitting. Please critique the following statement, "I am but a humble servant of the Wiki, implementing [[WP:Concensus|consensus]] where I find it and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I go about my tasks."
:'''13.''' Thank you for submitting. Please critique the following statement, "I am but a humble servant of the Wiki, implementing [[WP:Concensus|consensus]] where I find it and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I go about my tasks."
::'''A:'''
::'''A:'''
:::<small>When critiquing it, the first thing I noticed was that it doesn't have a closing quotation mark. :) [[User:67.136.117.132|'''67.136.117.132''']]<sup>[[User Talk:174.52.141.138|Also 174.52.141.138]]</sup>16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)</small>
:::<small>When critiquing it, the first thing I noticed was that it doesn't have a closing quotation mark. :) [[User:67.136.117.132|'''67.136.117.132''']]<sup>[[User Talk:174.52.141.138|Also 174.52.141.138]]</sup>16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 01:08, 27 August 2010

Connormah

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (50/10/8); Scheduled to end 05:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Connormah (talk · contribs) – I'm stepping up to nominate an editor who missed narrowly, fairly recently, but who I think deserves another shot, Connormah. He's one of our go to guys on images, including signatures, and has uploaded over a thousand to Wiki. Now, some concerns were expressed at the last RfA about content contributions. Connormah has ignored the recent debate on that subject and spent his time working on content areas, and has racked up a nice brace of GAs and a few DYKs. No matter how you slice it, he's a useful all around guy in these parts and would make an excellent administrator. Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, thanks for the kind words. Connormah 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Late Co-nom

I hope nobody minds if I just squeeze myself in here a little late. Now, in general, I wouldn't support a candidate a mere six weeks after their last RfA. However, never in all my time at RfA have I seen somebody respond so well to constructive criticism as Connormah. Several issues were raised at his last RfA and many opposers raised valid concerns, leading to a closure of no consensus, with a final percentage of approximately 76%. In the last 6 weeks, however, Connormah has worked tirelessly to address those concerns not to give himself a better chance of "winning", but to make himself a better editor. The biggest concern that was raised was the lack of content work. Well, since then, he has taken himself off to the library and produced 2 outstanding GAs on 19th century Canadian politicians—Herbert Charles Wilson and William Egbert and even got himself an ITN as well as 2 DYKs that will have appeared on the Main Page by the time this RfA concludes. He has also made a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you can find it in you to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part and reduce backlogs in the two places I occasionally dip into every now and then, AIV and RFPP. Many times I've been vandal fighting, and I'll encounter a vandal who just keeps going that's reported at AIV that takes a couple minutes to block - I'd like to be able to perform the action myself. Of course I'll take things slow at the beginning, but I'd like to be of help. I also intend to use delete function to perform non-controversial moves that require deleting a redirect once in a while, but I am not really interested in CSD or XfD, in terms of deletion.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Recently, I've performed some expansion work on Herbert Charles Wilson and William Egbert, which have been listed as GAs. I've also done some work on expanding William Kneass, Christian Gobrecht and Bryan Hall. I also am quite proud at negotiating releases of images from Flickr users to replace low-quality images currently in articles, namely (off the top of my head) File:Larry O'Brien by James Maclennan.jpg, File:David Swann - April 12, 2010.jpg and File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman less noise.jpg (now an FP). Also, (as some may recall from previous RfAs), I've uploaded various signatures of various people in vector format.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been in a conflict before (as some may recall from my previous RfA), though I won't state it again (for redundancy's sake), in any future conflicts I will remain calm and engage in a constructive discussion over the dispute. Though I don't intend to invoke drama as an admin (should this pass), the dispute resolution process would be no different than my process stated above.
Additional questions from Connormah
4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?
A: Sockpuppets of banned/blocked users, users, gross username violations, making legal threats, open proxies and single purpose disruption accounts may be blocked without warning. Most of the time I will warn (or warnings will be present for SPAs, but a block is in order if they're out solely to disrupt). In case anyone was wondering, I still stand by an answer for my opinion on the warning system from my previous RfA, though I'm a bit more lenient on IPs now, I will escalate warnings, though for them.
Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum
5. Have you ever been in a conflict with me? If not then why not?
A: Not that I can remember - we don't really hang around in the same areas, but gveb my more recent involvement with content writing, it's possible, but I typically avoid conflicts. I remember only once where I disagreed with you on an oppose rationale, but I backed down in your respect and to avoid such a conflict :)
Could I possibly impose on you to rewrite that in English? Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what particulary unclear? Connormah 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A typo is not unclear. Back off Malleus. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep out of it Shadowjams. What is unclear to me is what "but I backed down in your respect and to avoid such a conflict" means. Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing - I meant that I didn't continue to badger your opinion - I respected it and left you alone. Connormah 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that some people see badgering Malleus as grounds for strong support. (Sorry Malleus, but it's true.) ;) Dlohcierekim 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that. No doubt Shadowjams was trying to make himself look big and tough in preparation for his own RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from King of Hearts
6. You see an article tagged for speedy deletion (A7). The article itself does not assert the subject's significance, but it contains an external link to an article from a national newspaper about him. What would you do?
A:
7. Under what circumstances would you begin by giving a level 2 warning to an IP, rather than a level 1 warning?
A: If an IP has a past history of blocks and warnings in preceding months, or vandalizes in an extreme manner, I usually won't hesitate to jump to a level 2.
Additional optional question from Shadowjams
8. Let's cut to the chase. Your last RfA failed largely because of some BLP creations and opinions. Could you speak to those concerns, your reaction to your last RfA, and what's changed since then.
A: Since my last RfA, I've taken some time to work on some of my creations - I have since redirected many that I couldn't find enough coverage of, and have sourced a couple, namely Bryan Hall, which was on the DYK template a couple days ago. I recognize the importance of sourcing BLPs, and will continue to do so in the future.
Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano
9. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?
A:
Note: He asked himself this. Tommy! [message] 12:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Idiotically enough, I hadn't noticed... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. When, if ever, would you indef an IP editor?
A: IPs shouldn't be indeffed, as some are dynamic and change owners frequently, though I wouldn't normally hesitate to block a long term vandalizing IP (e.g. a school) for a long duration of time.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
11. Six weeks is not a long time, so I'm also judging you on the thoroughness of these questions. What do you make of WP:IAR? How would you use it to say, protect a page that has not been vandalized or block a user who has not been warned with 4 warnings?
A: IAR, in my view does not state "Do whatever you want" - if you invoke IAR, you should be prepared to justify your use of it, and do it with common sense. If a user is here to deliberately damage the project by vandalizing, they should be blocked ASAP as we shouldn't waste time by giving 4 chances. Page protection is a bit harder, but I think common sense is essential - high risk templates, controversial news topics, and move protection for highly visible pages could be protected under the spirit of IAR, but it would certainly need justification, and involve common sense, as I stated above.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
12. What have you, in your own words, learned from the previous RFA, specifically regarding WP:BLP?
A: BLPs are sensitive subjects, so it is essential that they must be sourced with reliable sources and written in a neutral manner. I now take particular care with adding any info to BLPs, sourcing majority of the info I add, and will enforce the policy by reverting any unsourced edits to BLPs.
Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim
13. Thank you for submitting. Please critique the following statement, "I am but a humble servant of the Wiki, implementing consensus where I find it and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I go about my tasks."
A:
When critiquing it, the first thing I noticed was that it doesn't have a closing quotation mark. :) 67.136.117.132Also 174.52.141.13816:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional question from BigDom
14. Wikipedia claims that its goal is to collate all human knowledge into one encyclopaedia. However, through guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, its editors have decided that the majority of human knowledge is not "notable" enough for inclusion. What is your view on this apparent hypocrisy?
A:
Additional question from Connormah
15. Why have you decided to run only after a mere six weeks?
A. I feel that I've adequately addressed all concerns raised in my last RfA, and I feel that I can be of use in places, as I mentioned above that I notice backlogs occasionally, like AIV and RFPP, especially with vandalism levels likely on the rise, as school is started/has started.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Beat-the-nom support—I opposed weakly last time based on the answers to some of the questions and concerns over his content contributions. Connormah has definitely addressed those issues (see the nomination and question 4, for instance), so I'm more than happy to support. Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Like people who work images---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good nom - yes the last RfA failed but it was very borderline. As I supported then I will obviously support now for the same reasons.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I supported you last time and I'm happy to do so again. Work in images is excellent. Opposers last time were unconvincing, even overly fussy. Best wishes, Jusdafax 05:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Was going to oppose or go neutral based on the fact it was so recent. Then I thought how stupid that would be. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as I did last time. Solid candidate who deserved to pass last month. Pichpich (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support for the third time in a row per my reason in the first RfA, but also the concern has been released as Wehwalt mentioned. Minimac (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've only interacted with this user once, but does seem friendly. I see a net positive with this user. wiooiw (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Absolutely. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Longterm user, clean block log and his last RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Yes the last RFA was relatively recent, but it was also unusually close. So if he has since addressed the concerns raised by the Oppose !voters I see no reason for him not to run again after a shorter wait than would have been appropriate for someone who'd failed clearly or for reasons that take longer to fix. ϢereSpielChequers 10:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support supported last time and my rationale still stands. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sleepy nom support Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Yes. Supported last time, very much respect this editor and belive them to be a net benefitOttawa4ever (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I like that he said in his answer to 4 that he'd block anyone falling under the category "users" without warning. Takes chutzpah. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Lots of progress since last time round, especially on the content front, which was my main area of concern. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I supported last time, and I'm happy to support again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. As co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This editor has more than enough article work to alleviate apparent fears they may misuse admin tools. Getting an article up to GA standard isn't easy, and FA is even harder. With regards to the single oppose so far, I think it's off the mark. I also think that counting article creations is inappropriate on RFA. The candidate could have created over 9,000 articles but they might have all been unsourced BLP stubs. It's quality over quantity on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Looks good to me. Derild4921☼ 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Same as last time - don't see anything that would change my mind. AlexiusHoratius 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 6 weeks is generally a bit low to try again at RFA, but Connormah seems to be on the right path. Although I opposed last time, I shall support this time in recognition of the work you have done to improve your editing. NW (Talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, per the two nominators who summed things up rather well. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support as a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - good track record of positive contributions, a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools. Thparkth (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - though I agree that this is perhaps a bit too soon, I believe that the candidate has learned and improved since his last attempt. I would, however, gently suggest that he consider re-reading WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Won't abuse the tools Secret account 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support – In spite of only 6 weeks between this RFA and the previous one, I am supporting based on your improvements. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support – congratulations on raising your content game so quickly (e.g. improving Herbert Charles Wilson). - Pointillist (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Looks fine to me. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I supported the last time and I'm supporting again. It would have looked better to wait a bit longer after the last RfA, but I do not blame the nominee for having accepted the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - almost 20,000 edits, sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. P.S. I did not take part in the last RfA. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - No concerns and frankly, someone opposing an editor with a GA and DYK because they aren't a content contributor is being ridiculous. -- Atama頭 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Satisfactory answers. Tommy! [message] 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support Absolutely. Great, trustworthy editor. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I supported last time, I see no reason not to now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support if only because the opposes make so little sense. I'm all for admins being content creators, but article creation is a poor metric for that, and this user has actually done good content work. Then there are those who say he is hasty, or something, but I don't see why we should care how long ago the previous RFA of a good admin candidate was. Contrary to DGG, I find his answers concise and to the point (though a few are indeed a bit vaguely worded). I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a great admin; good luck! Ucucha 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Fastily. --John (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Yeah, it's been six weeks. So what. Connormah's sensible, civil, and professional. I don't see why anyone wouldn't trust him with the tools, even if he doesn't do a lot of content work. ceranthor 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong Support - Worked with this user on an FAC. User is knowledgeable, knows the systems and policies in place. Will make a good admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Supportsure. Inka 888 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Taking a chance here, but I think you have grown. Good luck...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Great editor, no problems here. Access Denied talk contribs editor review 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support Yes yes yes yes yes. Great editor, i see no reason to oppose. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose: I'm sorry to be the one starting this list. The user seems well intent to fight vandalism, and that's good. However in my opinion a great content provider is the best qualified person to have admin tools. In my experience in Wikipedia the most time consuming issues are content related. Per his userpage this user has a DYK, and some help in one FA and one GA under his belt [1]. This is way too little: The user also has only 7 started articles [2]. I continuously incite users with incredibly high contributions to become admins. We should have more admins of that nature: academic scholarship and content related qualities is what I value the most and, unfortunately, this user is not part of the strongest people in those areas. I am aware I might stir up controversy with my vote, but in my time in Wikipedia, the only problems that I've had with admins relate to their poor knowledge of content or inability or unwillingness to read well the articles and the epic wars related to it. --Sulmues (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's two GAs. And I've got 26 FAs and am an admin (though that and three bucks buys a cup of coffee at Starbucks) and I not only support him, I nommed him. Doesn't that count for anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your nomination and sponsorship, without mentioning your own scholarship surely counts. However, although I don't know very well neither of you, because I contribute in unrelated areas, I look at the numbers as offered by the user himself or the soxred93 tools, and I am not happy with what I see. In general I vote oppose for all those who aspire to admin positions, and who, in my opinion, are not qualified to give enough content to the project. --Sulmues (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't mean to blow my own horn too much, which is why I put in the self-deprecatory comment! While I respect your oppose, I think the editor has sufficient work in the content area to be sensitive to concerns of content-contributing editors. You are of course entitled to your own views, but I think he'll be a net positive as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per Sulmues. 7 new articles doesn't cut the mustard sorry. Not enough of a real content contributor. Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we admins are primarily there to create articles...? I understand not supporting someone because they have little-to-no work with content, but opposing on an arbitrary number of created articles doesn't seem very rational. Oppose for whatever reason you want, but I doubt your oppose is going to hold much weight. -- Atama頭 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose No o serious attempt to answer the questions, just like last time. fortunately, he doesn't have any real need for the tools, so he can continue the good work he's been doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per DGG and because this RFA is too soon, in my opinion. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I supported last time, but this is too soon subsequent to the July failed RFA... and of more concern to me, it's obviously leveraging the Chicken Little path to adminship. Townlake (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? It means we have a qualified admin for that much longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The bureaucrats just declared him unqualified last month. If this one passes, it is for the wrong reasons. Townlake (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. A mere six weeks between RfAs displays an unseemly haste. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. NO NO NO Failed last month, Coming back a month later pushes me awful close to a no never.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In all due respect, this seems unnecessarily harsh - I have addressed concerns from my last RfA, which was borderline, and I wished to try again - I'd really like to help out with admin tasks in the areas I've specified. Connormah 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Harsh but apparently necessarily so.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember a time in which a month was acceptable for a candidate to retry RFA, we have to look for if the user improved since the last RFA, and he clearly did. Six weeks in perfectcally acceptable to retry, that's coming from an editor who been in the project since 2005. Secret account 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last 2005 admin I dealt with didn't know the difference between an IP and an account. Pardon me if I don't equate longevity with wisdom.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. The short time period between this and the last rfa doesn't sit right for me. That this one was started the day after the two GAs were promoted also doesn't feel right. I personally don't particularly care about the whole content creator thing, but I do care about adminship appearing to be "levelling up" in the game of wikipedia. I just get wary when someone seems to want it too much. Quantpole (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did request reviews for my GAs, to clarify - I wanted an assessment of my writing skills for both of those GAs, just to see how I was doing. I'm fine without the tools - don't get me wrong, but I feel I can be of more use with them. Connormah 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - I agree with DGG, address the issues in your last RfA and come back after a dignified effluxion of time. MtD (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Agree with MtD --Gian (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral - I'll be overly fussy again, but a bit less severe: I !voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of the need for his own recent unreferenceed BLP stubs to set an example to others, and the fact that he promises to do everything right if he is promoted. I still say that admins should be a role model and a breezy six weeks down the line isn't enough to convince me of a change. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, and assume he is in the process of improving, and I move from oppose from last time to neutral this time. And please note that neutral is neutral - it's not a weak oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concerns, but I asked the question above. I sure[think] we all sleep at some point, and I eagerly await Connormah's response. I'd suggest we hold off until we get an answer. There's plenty of time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Shad, I most certainly have not ignored your question, which is probably one of the most intelligent, pertinent, and poignant of the ones on this RfA. However, if simply deleting and redirecting unsourced articles is 'a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time' it does little to assuage my concerns: fantastic: imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality - Oxford American Dictionary. --Kudpung (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While not 'fantastic', I do believe I've done a good job at cleaning up my articles created - most were created during the time where I had limited knowledge of certain guidelines, and I've cleaned that up. Connormah 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I voted oppose the first time and neutral the second. I don't appreciate another RfA occuring so soon (the last one ending less than 6 weeks ago) so I am not inclined to spend time reviewing this user's contributions. That said I will not oppose on this. Polargeo (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Leaning oppose I supported last time. That is the only reason that I'm starting off neutral. A ridiculously short time has elapsed since the last nomination, and I see that as bad judgement on the nom's part. Equally I consider accepting it to suggest either bad judgement on the candidate's part, an attempt to benefit from the current RfA honeymoon without having had enough time to demonstrate improvement in the previous areas of concern, or a combination of these two things. --WFC-- 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, would not normally post a Neural, I really would like to see the answer to Q6 before making my mind up (hope that Connormah reads this and answers it) but want an opportunity to comment on the concerns about the "six weeks", normally I would agree that six weeks is not long enough, except in this case as the last one was so close I do think it is fine to ask again so soon. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Six weeks is a short time. I'm not convinced that accepting a nomination so early after the last one was the best decision. Almost over-eager, to me, but I suppose that's up to opinion. I'm not trying to bash the nominator's judgment either, but I think that six weeks can't possibly mean everything has been fixed, and lessons fully learned. —fetch·comms 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I voted neutral less than six weeks ago; I'm voting neutral again. Six weeks is simply not enough time for any meaningful improvements to occur.--Hokeman (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, will support if Q6 is answered satisfactorily. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - In my opinion, six weeks is too short of a time span to determine if the issues from the last RfA have been addressed. Also, one of the issues in the last RfA was a possible lack of understanding of some core policies. CSD for example. You didn't answer the (admittedly optional) question 6a. That does not help your case in my opinion.--Rockfang (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this intended for the neutral section? Airplaneman ✈ 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Connormah_3&oldid=381225312"