Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix

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

Red Phoenix

(13/7/2); ~~Scheduled to end 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by candidate. –xenocidic (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) - The original nomination is visible here. It's ridiculous and has been removed. See discussion below.

Red Phoenix is a hard working user whom I've interacted with at the video games WikiProject. He's done some great article work; a few GAs, some FLs, and some general work in improving the project. In all my interactions with him he's been civil, helpful, constructive, and shown a good knowledge of policy and process around here. He made ~~a stuff up~~ mistake in this RfA in accepting a clearly bogus nomination, and we all make mistakes sometimes, but I think that as demonstrated below he knows what he did wrong and will learn from the mistake. We need better admins, and I think Red Phoenix would make a good one. —Giggy 02:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

~~I accept. Thanks for the nomination. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - It just looks like my nomination has been completely screwed up by User:JeanLatore, leading people to call me naive, hasty, and thinking that being a sysop is some type of honor. In return, such actions have scarred my RFA and possibly my entire reputation on Wikipedia to several of these editors, even though I am none of these things that have been listed. When I first accepted the nom, I assumed good faith and asked if JeanLatore had seen my user contributions, to be on the safe side. It's true that I had been considering a self-nom RFA for a while. Unfortunately, it looks as if this whole RFA is botched and I fell for a trick I should have seen coming. As for the "honor" remark, all I wanted was access to tools to help me maintain Wikipedia, and I'm well aware that it's not particularly "honorable" to be an admin. As in the words of Jimbo Wales, being an admin is "no big deal". At this point, I think it's best to just scratch this one and start again later. Whether that's in a couple of days or a few months, I don't know, but the dust needs to settle first. Even though I could self-nom myself when I think I'm ready, I would like to wait and see if anyone else thinks I am ready first. I want to thank Giggy for all of his help with this and his renomination. Maybe in the future, whether it's in a couple days or a couple of months, you can set another one up yourself. But until then, I think the best option for me at this point is to walk away, go on a short wikibreak to regain my focus, and keep working on the encyclopedia. Thanks to all of you who commented, even those who opposed. You all are helping me to become an even better editor and are reassuring me that I can be a great sysop when the time comes for renomination. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 17:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate opening statement

To all of the Wikipedians who wish to comment on this RFA, I would like you to know when you search my edit history that I used to be known as User:Redphoenix526, but I had it changed by a usurpation request. I want to thank Giggy for his help and everyone who comments on this RFA, even those who oppose, in advance for their comments. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I think I would like to work in a little bit of everything eventually, but I'd like to start at WP:XFD managing deletions. I've done quite a bit of discussion at WP:AFD and I would like to help with the backlog there. Eventually, after I have learned how to use all of the admin functions and the appropriate times to use them, I want to work in all areas of admin work and help out all across Wikipedia, but for now, I have plans to work at WP:XFD.

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

A: My best contributions, in my opinion, are comprised of three articles and a WikiProject. The first is the article that actually brought me to Wikipedia, Crush 40. Because of my help at the AFD for the article and my further work, the article came from the edge of deletion to GA status. The second one is Sega Mega Drive, which, after helping to push and work with other users, also made it to GA status. I often think of it as my best work that I've done as part of a team. The third article is a list, List of Sega 32X games, which is my first featured content. Also, I take pride in WikiProject Sega, which I have helped to develop.

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 can't say I've been in any actual "edit wars", which I consider myself lucky for. I've had some debates with User:TTN (though that was a while ago, nothing recent) and a few other light disputes, but nothing major. In these cases, I kept a clear head, did not edit war with anybody, and made my points on the respective talk page and talked with the users making the edits I disagreed with. I will deal with it in the same way in the future.

Optional question from User:Darkspots

4. What, in your view, is the role of administrators?

A. In my opinion, the role of administrators is to help out the encyclopedia wherever they can and if they have the capacity and will to do so. The tools provided to administrators are exactly that, tools to help administrators do this role.

Additional questions from JeanLatore

5. Could you please explain a bit more in detail your thoughts on AFD? And as an admin would you unilaterally put those theories in practice about only closing AFDs when there is clear consensus? What if that meant keeping an AFD open for weeks at a time?

A. Articles for deletion is where discussions are conducted on whether an article should be deleted or not, and consensus should be reached to appropriately close an AFD. However, should it come to the end of the discussion period, one of two things should happen if no clear consensus has been reached: the article should either be relisted or closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. AFD's with fewer comments are preferred to be relisted, and ones with more comments are preferred to be closed as no consensus. However, this does not serve as a direct rule, and such AFDs should be examined on a case-by-case basis.

6. Do you agree with the current RFA process? If you could, how would you reform RFA?

A. I think the current RFA process works well. It certainly seems to sort out who deserves to have access to the tools and who does not through the use of these questions, a discussion area, and the providing of certain details, such as my edit counts, on the talk page for the particular RFA. I believe the consensus system is the most fair way of determining who should have access to the sysop tools. If I had powers to reform RFA, though, I probably wouldn't change the actual process.

7. What are your views on the current debate over ArbCom re: the RFC on Arbcom?

A.

8. How would you explain the difference between a block and a ban?

A. A ban is a consensus-based decision to revoke editing privileges of Wikipedia, whether it be for part or all of the Wikipedia. Blocks are the technical powers that administrators have to prevent an editor from editing Wikipedia in order to protect the pages of Wikipedia from edits such as vandalism, libel, etc. A block is not necessarily a ban, and vice versa.

9. Do you think WP:IAR should apply to all situations? What about all situations other than the five core policies of Wikipedia?

A. If someone is using IAR, it should apply to any situation where the encyclopedia is being improved in good faith. Ignoring all rules to disrupt Wikipedia is not an acceptable use of IAR and should not be applied in these situations.

10. If so, how could you justify blocking or warning anyone?

A. Warnings should be given to those who are intentionally disrupting Wikipedia and using IAR as a reason. If there's a history of such acts, then a block should be considered. However, for an edit in good faith that does not help the encyclopedia using IAR, it would be best to leave the user a message about it and let them know about it. An actual warning should probably wait until such an act is repeated if the message is ignored.

11. How would you explain "Notability" in your OWN words? Do you feel it should be a policy?

A. Notability is a subject's worthiness to be noted somewhere; in the case of Wikipedia, it is a subject's worthiness to have some kind of mention on Wikipedia, whether it is a sentence in an article, a paragraph, a full article, or even a topic. It should most definitely be a policy, since not every little minor subject is appropriate for Wikipedia—example:the former Pokémon stub articles before they were merged. Fortunately, WP:N is already a guideline, and forms of its implementation, such as verifiability, are core policies, so I believe that, in terms of notability, the policies and guidelines are pretty well set.

Optional question from User:Davidwr

12. Do you really want to be an administrator, or are you just accepting the honor because you view it as an honor? But for the fact that you got this sudden nomination, had you given any thought to it? If not, think this through carefully, it's not too late to withdraw your nomination and self-nominate later when you are sure you want the job. If you did give it thought before this nomination, were you planning on pursuing it in the very near future, in the not-so-near-future, or not at all? If "not at all," what changed your mind? If "in the not-so-near-future" what was the reason for waiting, and what changed your mind so you no longer thing these reasons are important? He answered this in the Discussion below, "I would just like to clarify a couple of things....".

A.

Optional questions from RyRy

13. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?

A: First of all, warnings should be issued to each IP address about the vandalism. After the warnings have been issued, if the vandalism continues, then semi-protection should be added to the page in order to prevent more vandalism. This semi-protection should start off on a short-term basis, and if vandalism continues after the semi-protection has been removed, then the page should be semi-protected for a longer duration.

14. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?

A: The first thing I would do is send a message to the admin asking about his or her activities and warning that such acts are seen as vandalism. Afterward, should the vandalism continue, the admin should receive the same warnings and undergo the same actions that are performed for regular users who vandalize: multiple warnings, and should they all be violated, consideration for a block. Now, should an admin misuse their tools for the purpose of vandalism, different considerations should be made. If such is the case, I would ask for second opinions from other admins about this particular one, with the possibility of reporting the admin to ArbCom in mind.

15 If an IP address is very disruptive, would you go to the point and block such an IP indefinitely? If not, why would you not block an IP indefinitely? Explain your reasoning.

A: When working with IPs, I think it is a very poor idea to block an IP indefinitely. For example, such an IP may be a public one, such as at a library or school, and could be used by later editors who want to make good faith edits. Also, even if the IP is one user, suppose the IP user wanted to return to Wikipedia in good faith to make good faith edits? When they're blocked, IP addresses are unable to appeal because they are unable to leave messages to an admin due to their block. I believe that blocks should be used against IPs, but only ones that have defined time lengths.

Anti fence-setting question from Kmweber

16. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?

A. In my opinion, cool-down blocks should only be used in very rare, extreme circumstances. For example, I would use a short, and I emphasize the short length, on a user who has violated Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks and after multiple warnings continues to attack. In any situation, the user should be warned several times first. Also, such a block should only be for a couple of hours, if it even occurs at all. Cool-down blocks should be a last resort for dealing with an angry user, and in my opinion they're not really justified unless a policy such as WP:NPA is violated and the editor continues to be very uncivil despite multiple warnings.

General comments

See Red Phoenix's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Links for Red Phoenix: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

Discussion

I'm, um, not sure what to make of this, since the nomination is blatantly untrue. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we ought judge the candidate on the candidate and not the nominator. –xenocidic (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True - I was just going to add that I had missed the candidate statement and also how odd the whole thing was. By the way, Giano hasn't written the most current FAs - far from it. Hurricanehink has the most current, I think, and Mike Christie, Worldtraveller, and Cla68 are also somewhere near the top of the list. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink then Awadewit/Mike Christie/Worldtraveller (retired) then Cla68. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red Phoenix, could you expand a bit on your intentions for the tools? It would be nice if you could give us some specific activities for us to judge you on. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to agree with Cremepuff. Question 1 does not explain what you want to do with the tools. America69 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GIve me a few minutes, I guess I'll clarify a little bit. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. :-) Please take your time. --cremepuff222 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix, I suggest you remove the original nomination and either put up a self nom, or get someone else to nominate (I'd be happy to as I've worked with you around WP:VG). (Or withdraw, obviously.) —Giggy 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Giggy. America69 (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to leave shortly, Giggy, so can you do it for me? Thank you so much. Now that I see all the comments up, it's become rather apparent what the case is. I thought this was a little fishy to start, but I've been considering an RFA lately and I thought, "might as well give it a try", so I let JL do it. I don't know if that's supposed to be a mistake or not, but hey, I guess we live and learn. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we have more than 5 questions from Jean??? I must protest question8, as it is uncivil to another user. America69 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it - I agree - it's inappropriate. –xenocidic (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red Phoenix, if you haven't already I suggest you take a look at the RFA cheatsheet. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that ought to help with any further questions. As for the question on the RFC, I need a little more time to read over the RFC since I have not read the whole thing yet, so I will answer that question as soon as I finish reading it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 04:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to clarify a couple of things. First of all, I did think the nomination offer was a little odd, but I tracked down where Jean had found me (at a Village Pump discussion) and I assumed good faith in the nomination, considering that I had even asked if he had scanned my user contributions. I've been considering putting up an RFA for myself, so I accepted the nom. What I did not see, though, was the previous RFAs Jean has nominated, and had I seen that, I likely would have turned it down and put one up myself. So I made a mistake, and I'm willing to acknowledge that. I should have looked into it closer. I'm well aware this probably won't change anyone's opinion of me, with some of you even calling me naive, hasty and vain. But that's fine, if you have these opinions, I welcome your comments anyway. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 04:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His overall editing is well-mannered, no red or even yellow flags that I could spot. His edit history is a bit short, as he only started editing in 2008, his edits tend to be focused on only one area of Wikipedia, and he only had a couple thousand edits under his belt. They are well-balanced between different name-spaces but not between different topics. His involvement in WikiProjects is good. If this nomination fails, or for that matter, if it succeeds, I recommend he spend some time in the various patrols, spend some time with random articles, and spend some time watching WP:AN/I to see how other administrators handle situations requiring intervention. I don't think there is any risk of him abusing the admin tools, but I am worried that he will either spend too much time administrating and not enough time growing as an editor, or an adequate amount of time growing as an editor and won't have time to use the administrative tools much. I wish there was a way to explicitly vote "not now but soon, this guy has great potential." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was the comments on the original nominator's talk page that pointed me here. My initial thought was "oh dear, he's nominated some new editor he just happens to like" and I was fully prepared to encourage you to withdraw your nomination. After looking at your edit history and, more importantly, the fact you were already leaning toward a self-RfA, I changed my mind. I still wish you'd waited a bit longer so you could grow more as an editor, but I'm giving you a weak nod. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the oppose by User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles at 11:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC), I recommend you not do any administration that requires a judgment call in any article remotely related to gaming or any other subject you have an interest in, at least not until you have a few months of administration under your belt and at least a few dozen judgment-call-required blocks or deletes under your belt. The last thing you want to do is get off on the wrong foot as an administrator. This means not acting on non-trivial block/unblock requests based on edits of those articles, not closing non-obvious AfDs, etc. Now, if someone is repeatedly vandalizing Sonic the Hedgehog by all means, block them. Likewise, if an AfD related to a game is running 20-1 in favor of keep or delete, then by all means don't be shy about closing it. The judgment calls I'm talking about are AfDs where it's less than 4-1 or where there are only a few comments, or disruptive behavior that boils down to a legitimate editing dispute + heated emotions. Let someone who has no interest in the affected article and no interest in related articles OR leave it to a seasoned administrator who has an established track record of ignoring his personal bias and using good judgment as an administrator handle those issues. To put it simpler: For the first few months of your adminiship, extend the rule that administrators shouldn't administer in articles they edit to include all related to any subject you care about on a personal level, including the overall topic of electronic games. Doing so will save you some potential embarrassment: You will make occasional mistakes, and it's a lot less embarrassing to learn from those mistakes if there is no perceived conflict of interest. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I skimmed some of those AfDs. They ones I saw looked like good and proper AfDs. However, the fact that someone else thought otherwise is reason enough to avoid making administrative judgments in articles and broad subject areas you care about, or people will think you are biased. Prove to the world you aren't before using your administrative powers to make controversial judgments where allegations of bias are possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sonic the Hedgehog cruft as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_46#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_Cruft, I think you will find that my decisions in more than half of these AFDs is part of a coordinated effort of WikiProject Video games, one that Le Grand Roi has been very much opposed to. While he is certainly entitiled to his own opinion, I question if he is not biased himself in this opinion. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 13:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not close such discussions myself. Anyone with any potential bias should not close AfDs that they are likely to feel even subconscious bias toward. My concern though is not just about the Sonic articles, but about practically if not never arguing to keep at all in XfDs. We need to see some examples of XfDs where you changed your mind based on the discussion and switched to keep or that you argued to keep in to show in what instances you would close as something other than delete. Sure, I argue to keep a lot, but even my last three AfDs were to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Patrick Star Show, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes One To Know One. Of course, then again, I have declined offers at adminship. Some balance is however necessary for admins to decrease the likelihood of deletion reviews. There are Sonic articles that I agree should be deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog), but again, the important thing is not only and always arguing to delete them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think that I feel such bias and that I do what I think is logically correct in such situations. Personally, I don't even consider myself a deletionist. However, if it makes you feel better, I can hold off on the video game articles for a while. Oh, and by the way, Le Grand Roi, if you're looking for one where I would have kept, here's an AFD I participated in a while ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crush 40 (note, that was when I was still User:Redphoenix526. Hope that helps, Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us do not think of ourselves as biased and believe that what we are doing is logically correct. With the video game ones, I just urge a greater open-mindedness to at least merging and redirecting (few things that are not hoaxes cannot be redirected somewhere and if there is a concern about edit-warring over a redirect, they can be protected) or when it is not a snowball delete situation and multiple editors in the discussion are arguing to keep to either help in the efforts or at least argue to give them more time, because while I cannot speak for everyone else, some like myself do in fact continue to work on articles we argued to keep after the discussion closed (see User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Slappy the Dummy; see also [1]). The example of a keep you posted is encouraging. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that people work on articles after voting to keep because I did it myself with the AFD I mentioned above. That article is a GA now, one of my prouder accomplishments. As for some of these AFDs, Le Grand Roi, do you consider a transwiki an appropriate measure? It has started to become one thing that I am working more toward, preserving information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia on an appropriate Wikia. If you'll read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog), you'll see that even though I am the one who placed the AFD nomination for that article, I made a guide for transwiki - ing the content. Of course, it is your opinion whether some of my recent transwiki votes meet your satisfaction or not. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about transwiking is that a lot of readers and editors come here for these articles and there is an element of convenience just navigating around one main wiki rather than googling for other specialized wikis and I believe that Wikipedia attracts a lot more editors than these other wikis, which augments the likelihood of us covering some of these articles even better than the other wikis do. Now, granted our articles when transwikied thus carry that work over to the other wikis, but then editors and readers who had worked on or used the articles here are oftentimes baffled when it's all of a sudden no longer here. An idea could be something like having internal links that can allow for easier navigation among the wikis. Or having deleted pages that are transwikied somehow redirected to the transwikied page (that has to somehow be technologically possble). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to propose it, I would support that. I believe it is possible through the use of a soft redirect, similar to redirects to Meta. But such discussion about doing this is not appropriate for an RFA, it is more appropriate for the Village Pump. Let me know if you do decide to do that; until then, let us focus on the actual RFA for the moment. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that discussion can continue at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Redirecting deleted pages to other wikis to which the deleted pages were transwikied. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. If you wish to contact me more about the village pump discussion, contact me at my talk page, not here. And although I can tell that I have not swayed your opinion, I respect it and want to thank you for your comments, Le Grand Roi. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, i.e at least somewhat swayed. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see that by the time I posted the above comment. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I support this user, though I oppose the blatant mistruths in the nomination and condem Jean for the harm (s)he's doing to the candidate. I suggest withdrawl/wiping that nom and starting fresh. —Giggy 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping to fix this. I'm proud to be nominated by you, Giggy. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd like to echo what giggy has said above. Jean, your unique brand of humour is probably best left out of the RFA-nomination arena. Oh, and because we need moar admins who (almost exclusively) edit video game articles. Deleted contribs look spot-on as well. –xenocidic (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Red Phoenix, you're a fine editor and I'm sure you'll make a great admin. Accepting Jean's nomination was probably not the wisest decision, but we won't hold it against you as you may not be familiar with the editor. Keep up the great work in article-building, and try to gain some experience in admin-related areas. BradV 02:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support With a new nominator, I am ready to support. I am sorry to oppose, but this just seemed like a bogus RFA nomination. But with an editor I can trust as the nom, I am proud to support!! Good luck. America69 (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per the new nomination by Giggy. I'm a little disappointed that you would accept such a deceitful nomination, but other than that, you appear to have enough clue to be a decent adiministrator, and I believe you've learnt (more-or-less) your lesson. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 03:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To his credit, he did dispel the hyperbole in his acceptance statement. –xenocidic (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While it looks like you just don't have enough experience, I looked through your contributions and saw that they were high quality. Your WProject work is good, as is your article work. Also, you have good experience at WP:AFD. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Not the first one, but the other one. Y'know, the wet one.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 04:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support with the hope that he spreads his editorial wings throughout Wikipedia rather than concentrating on administrative issues, at least for the next few months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep Naerii 12:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree, not everyone on here needs to know how to be sophisticated at Wikipedia just have enough trust... and taking nominations from other editors should not reflect on their status. No need to sterotype other people. You have my support buddy. --Eric (mailbox) 13:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Excellent article work, but accepting such a nomination questions your judgement and decision making skills. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your article work is rather mediocre, so I originally wasn't going to support, but I've decided to due to the significant opposition. This isn't one of those hypocritical "support per opposes" votes, by the way - it's just that if it's already obviously passing, my opinion is pretty much worthless, but since it's controversial in this case, I'll go ahead and tentatively support - I can't find anything warranting otherwise. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support RP is a good editor and has done very good on writing articles. The position of administrator would certainly be a big help with his edits.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per not having sufficient judgement to refuse this nomination. Friday (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Friday's vote moved to top to preserve numbering. The nomination Friday references is the original one from JL. –xenocidic (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Oppose I would like to tell you about JeanLatore nomination. I looked through her talk page and found several issues. This user has asked several users if they want to be nominated for adminship, and all have declined. [2] [3] and [4]. Red Phoenix has even admitted that this nomination was "unexpected".in this link, Red Phoenix says "Pleasure to meet you" suggesting there was no interaction before. With the nominator randolely going around and asking saying he or she will nominate them for adminship makes me wonder. I am sorry I am opposing on this condition, but I honestly can't support in this position. Sorry. I also have noticed a lack of mainspace contributions, and at the beginning of your joining us at Wikipedia, a lack of edit summary. Also the noms account of this user has been distorted, as User:Nousernamesleft pointed out above in the disscussion column. America69 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Changing to support.[reply]

As I suggested above, we really ought judge the candidate on their merits. As to JL nominating people they don't know... while they might not be the ideal person to have as a nominator, there's nothing wrong in theory with the practice of seeking out potential candidates for RFA. (preceding was written before your addition, ec's x2) As far as lack of edit summaries in fledgling edits... didn't we all? –xenocidic (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xenocidic. Two GAs (I don't really count lists as article writing) is actually above mediocrity, I would think, though I personally couldn't support someone with only two. The lack of edit summaries some four months ago is a bit of a silly reason to oppose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xenocidic and Nousernamesleft, both of you do have a point, but I feel something is not right with this whole RFA discussion. I honestly can't support. America69 (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can give another reason. I really feel like question 1 is not great. The opening sentence to Q1 does not make me feel right. America69 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As long as you are opposing the candidate and not the nominator. –xenocidic (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the dude nomming doesn't feel the need to really review the candidate in depth, that doesn't mean we shouldn't.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 02:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the strike-through (and I was writing this as it happened), I cannot trust someone who allowed ~~a pissant troll like JeanLatore~~ to lead them over here within a wiki-blink of soliciting their talkpage. Judgment has to be much better than that. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could still oppose, and Plutonium raises a strong point. America69 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not everyone is an RFA regular - perhaps he simply assumed good faith. –xenocidic (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you opposing this RfA because they didn't know that JeanLatore was a "pissant troll"? BradV 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonium, please refactor your oppose to remove the personal attacks. Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There we are, naughty name all struck through. No, Bradv, my opposition was to the fact that RedPhoenix accepted JL's nom without any indication of a basic check as to the who or the why. His userboxes indicated a desire to become an admin and that desire appears to me to have precluded all caution or common sense: the talkpage exchanges being confined to the "Oooh, me? Why thanks!" Lo, half an hour later, an RfA is born. I don't want to see this kind of naivete/hastiness/vanity wielding a mop handle what has buttons on it. Give it a while, with some well-thought-out contributions in the usual places to demonstrate a lesson learned . Plutonium27 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Friday. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - User does not meet my criteria. --Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 07:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Pandas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Acorn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Robotnik (other media), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic weaponry in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knuckles the Echidna (comic character), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Saharan Republic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roboticizer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super transformation (other media), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie-Su, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Next Gen Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep on keeping me, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gens (emulator), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VI Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Sonic the Hedgehog Cruft, i.e. far too much desire to delete and for some reason specifically articles associated with Sonic the Hedgehog as well as use of the distatesful "cruft". In the last month or two I did not really see any arguments to keep and yes, some of those were legitimate reasons (particularly the hoaxes), but while I know I usually argue to keep, even I have at least forty arguments to delete in XfDs (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas). Thus, it is important that admins demonstrate balance with regards to their approach to AfDs. It is hard to gauge what and when they might close as keep or no consensus if they only argue to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 11:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we have discussed above, I also happen to favor transwiki in some cases. Just noting that here in case someone is skimming the discussion and reading the comments. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, I am really sorry about the mess JL caused for your RFA, there really should be some kind of punishment for pulling stunts like that. Second, for your nomination itself, sorry, but I think it is too early for you. You have only been an active editor since January 2008 and I can't really support anyone with less than a year of active editing on Wikipedia, except for some kind of truly extraordinary cases. Your edit history is a bit too short and you need to be given a bit more time to grow as a Wikipedian (accepting a bogus nomination is a judgement error that is indicative of having insufficient experience as well). You have a fine contribution record already and if you come back in 6 months or so, even as a self-nom, I don't think there will be any problems then. Nsk92 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've probably already realised that you shouldn't have accepted the initial nomination by JeanLatore, but I must clarify this was, by my judgement and review of contributions, only one event in this user's history. However, regardless there are some problems with your standing (example, fairly weak distribution of edits across the namespaces). You're not that involved in the main processes of Wikipedia (which in itself, an administrator candidate should do) but you are, however, on the right track and I would be willing to nominate you in 4-5, possibly 6 months time. Rudget (logs) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, leaning towards support - Despite spending a fair amount of time looking at contributions and the rest of the RfA, I just can't make up my mind. You've made some great article contributions, you seem to definitely have the good of the encyclopedia in mind, and I liked your answers to the questions. On the other hand, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' points about you being extremely deletion-focused in AfD caused me to pause. And, while I hate to blame you for someone else's actions, accepting that ludicrous RfA nomination from JeanLatore just, to me, smacks a bit of "not looking before you leap", which is something to be avoided with admin tools. I'll keep thinking, and might well change my vote as the RfA progresses - thanks for providing me with something to contemplate! ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, suggest considering withdrawal Candidate obviously has a high degree of policy knowledge and likely would use the tools responsibly. The key issues here seem to be experience and the unfortunate procedural circumstances of this nomination. It might be wise to withdraw this request - continuing this one is a roll of the dice, and will build an opposition record in the event it doesn't pass - and coming back in a few months under an untainted nom and with added experience to address doubters in that area. (This is no offense to Giggy, by the way; stepping up to recalibrate the nomination was admirable.) Best wishes either way. Townlake (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been considering withdrawal since this RFA started off disastrous. But I'm glad people are considering me for who I am and not the original nomination (again, thanks to Giggy for helping me fix this). I've also explained it a little more in the discussion section, and I've learned something about not letting assuming good faith lure you into something. So far, it looks like I've got basic support though, so I'll let it stand for now, but should things start changing for the worse, then I'll start considering withdrawal again. I thank you for your comment. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 16:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

$Insertformulahere$

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.