Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 3: Difference between revisions

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

Rcsprinter123

Final (8/20/13); ended 10:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Worm^TT(talk) 10:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination

Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) – After a year and four months since my last candidacy, I have decided to put myself in for administrator again. I've managed not to get blocked, warned or argued with again in that time, and I've been being productive, instead. What I have done - become author of the Signpost 's WikiProject Report, gained a bunch of DYKs, been lead coordinator of WikiProject Transport, performed administrative tasks around Articles for Creation, fought vandalism, closed some AfDs, become an OTRS agent and been running RscprinterBot. I also came second in the HWY Cup this summer and reviewed a few Good article nominations. In addition, I create maps of American counties for use in infoboxes. To be clear, I don't write that many articles, but I certainly help to maintain them. I made quite a few mistakes in the past and had admins angry, but that doesn't happen any more.

But why should I become an administrator? Well, I like to think that I'm trustworthy, and can complete any task I need to within a reasonable period of time. I don't make many big mistakes or screw up so that someone else needs to clear up my mess. I communicate clearly and am helpful and engaging to new users. I also have knowledge of technical procedures and assisted editing tools. In short, I won't delete the main page.

If there's a chance that this is realistic now, then I'm certainly happy. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confess) 10:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Some people are forming the opinion that I am requesting the tools as a hat collector. This is not the case; I just want them to assist and further my work that I do already. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 12:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

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'd like to do it for the main reason the role exists: blocking vandals, speedily deleting, and protecting pages. Mainly, I would close uncontroversial AfDs, block vandals, answer protected edit requests, change user permissions, and respond to others' questions. I do not intend to become involved in large debates or hotly-contested topics.

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

A: This has always been a tricky question as, as I've said, I'm not really a content creator in terms of articles. You can see my full list here, but I guess my "best" will be my county maps, and maybe Dinting Viaduct.

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: Many in the past, but not really this year. However, I think that is simply part of editing if you're going to be on Wikipedia and it sets you up for the inevitable disputes of adminship. To answer the other part of the question, what I do is just let the discussion run its course, comment or take action when I see it needs it and let it finish as it progresses.

Additional question from Begoon

4. At your last RFA, it was suggested more than once that, rather than self-nominate again for a third time, it might be a good idea to wait until someone offered to nominate you. Did you consider that advice, and, if so, what made you decide to self-nominate? Note that I'm not implying that self-nomination, per se, is, or should be, a disqualifier, I'm more interested in the flow of your thinking regarding that advice.

A: I can see that having others nominate one would show that they have some faith that I might succeed the request, but there have been plenty of successful self-nom RfAs so having nominations I don't see as essential. Additionally, I don't repeatedly interact with very many individual editors these days that might have got to know me well enough to nominate me. Having considered this, I decided that a self-nomination was the way to do it this time.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123
• Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 2
• Requests for adminship/Rcsprinter123 3

• Links for Rcsprinter123: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Rcsprinter123 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Preliminary support. Good contributions at first glance. No glaring issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 11:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Support First glance, i see a very decent editor for the position. Yes i consider it slightly weird to nominate yourself, but that's mostly a biased opinion, that i don't wish to include in this. Good luck! Lor^Chat 11:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Support - No issues at first glance. I see a lot of activity at articles for creation, which is good. However, I'm going to keep an open mind on this. Regardless, good luck, and I hope you are successful. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 11:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support Fine enough. I wish a lot more people would nominate themselves.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Sure - some concerns with the candidate, most of which can be found in the nomination statement. Strikes me as the type that just wants to become an admin for the "status" of it. That said, maybe he is just less able to mask his intentions than others, and I can't find any indication that he would perform poorly as an admin, so sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Moral support, but moral support only, I'm afraid. You seem a nice chap from the interactions we've had, I like your content work, and I have no doubt you're well-intentioned. Sixteen months is a long time on Wikipedia, and you certainly seem much improved since your last RfA. I think you need a longer track record, though, to show the community that you're not the same person that got into trouble back in your early days on Wikipedia and to demonstrate good judgement. Because judgement is what adminship is all about; the mashing of the buttons takes no particular skill, but admin have to be able to quickly evaluate a situation, decide not just what action might be justified but what action (or indeed inaction) is likely to produce the best result for all concerned. Then they need to be able to clearly articulate their reasons to those concerned, to other editors reviewing the situation, and to other admins, even in the face of strident or even extremely rude criticism. Trust me, it's not as much fun as it looks, and whatever power trip you do get when you're a baby admin you quickly get over when you realise that adminship is 90% routine button-mashing and 10% difficult judgement calls where somebody will criticise you no matter what you do! I wouldn't say you should never be an admin, but you need more time and more experience; my advice would be to wait until somebody (preferably an experienced admin) comes to you and offers to nominate you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support I never see adminship as a hat. For me, the Wikipedia is a like living in a group house where the dishes are piled up on the sink and the laundry on the floor. The major difference being that you need permission from your housemates before you're allowed to clean anything up. Goal oriented behavior, picking a small part of the whole and fixing it up, is a common way of staying sane around here. So I agree with Anne Delong: Having a goal and working openly and positively toward it is proper behaviour. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Support -- I find the general sentiment of "he has wanted to be an administrator for a long time so no way are we giving him the tools" from some of the oppose section rather ludicrous, and while some of the votes have merit (e.g., that of Kudpung), others are, in my opinion, wholly ridiculous. Pivoting back to the candidate, I have long found Rcsprinter123 to be a trustworthy editor -- he was my adopter way back when, after all -- and think that his contributions over the last few months speak for themselves in terms of quality and dedication to the project. Certainly, regardless of the ridiculous argument on power-hungriness (although I will stipulate redacting the comment was a mistake), if one objectively analyzes his contributions, he or she will find him to be a conscientious editor, which for me, is good enough as a net positive addition to the admin corps. Go Phightins! 03:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I have just read over some of your last Rfa, and examined your block log. Yes, it appears you have learned from your mistakes. But you say in your self nomination (which I am taken aback by, for a third try) that it has been your goal for years to become a Wikipedia admin. Years, that concerns me. I have a deep distrust of anyone who wants power in any walk of life, and currently, I have issues with the amount of power admins have here. This is a lifetime post, essentially, and you appear to me to want this with a fervency that I find unseemly. I think it best to oppose at this juncture until I know more about you. If everything you have done has been merely to get extra buttons, you may well be the type of person who should not be handed them. So for now, thanks, but no thanks. Jusdafax 11:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose - this change to your self nomination statement following O#1 is a serious lack of judgement. Leaky Caldron 11:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   The original sentence made it look like this was a strong aim whereas it was actually just more of a nice something I might look forward to in the future, but is not a priority. I want to get that across clearly in the statement. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interact) @ 11:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   I also noticed the abrupt change in your nomination statement with grave concern. Jusdafax 12:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   You should have followed this simple guideline for such circumstances WP:REDACT to avoid any suggestion that you were altering your statement to remove a statement that would not look so good. Leaky Caldron 12:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose - per the lack of maturity, and over eagerness for a "hat" which I commented on in your last RFA. I don't see sufficient improvement there, and the lapse in judgement Leaky points out in the panicky alteration to your submitted self-nom (which you are now attempting to backtrack on) after criticism in an oppose does nothing to change my mind. Sorry, but you seem far too eager and lacking in good judgement. Of course, waiting for someone to nominate you would again have been a good idea, for many reasons, including the fact that it would have avoided a nomination you subsequently felt the need to alter. Please do consider that advice next time. Begoon ^talk 12:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I get the feeling that you want adminship as a 'hat', rather than anything else. You don't have to be an administrator to be a valuable contributor and remember that the mop is not a big deal. Arfæst Ealdwrítere – talk! 12:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose - An AfD record with less than 50% of !votes agreeing with the final result makes me very uncomfortable with handing somebody the mop. --Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose mainly based on the issue raised by Leaky above. Lacking an effective way to remove admins, seeking a nom is a good start if you've had a self-nom that has failed before. Sorry...can't support at this time. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose. This diff although edited out, is still in the history and hence still part of the project. It clearly demonstrates your line of thinking. The work you have put in since your previous RfA reinforces that statement, and while not particulary hat collecting, is indicative to me at least, of still being over-eager to get the mop and that for the last 16 months you have been fervently working towards that goal. My neutral vote on the first RfA listed my many deep concerns, while in my comments on the 2nd RfA the "perhaps" is unfortunately still "perhaps". 'Managing' not to get blocked, warned or argued with again probably means that you have had to try hard to avert things that most of us avoid subconsciously without any effort. Along with your AfD results still being sub par, that Freudian slip today was the deal breaker on my maturity barometer. I still don't believe you have that certain je ne sais quoi to be an admin and I would not feel comfortable just yet with you having the tools and making the kind of judgements that are entrusted to admins. A solid nomination next time round from a well established user would help restore my confidence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose - If I'm being completely honest it looks like you want the mop as a "hat" & nothing more (Despite the now added statement above), Also It's his third nomination and yet he makes statements like this (although now amended) which doesn't feel me with any confidence at all, So I'll have to oppose for now (As some friendly advice perhaps It's a good idea to wait to be nominated as opposed to doing it yourself). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
9. (Personal attack removed). Cloudchased (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   We don't need more proof that NPA doesn't apply at RFA. →Σσς. (Sigma) 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   When it comes to RfAs, there should be actual sources for comments and whatnot rather than an unjustified hate comment. Most of the above opposes gave reasoning, but this one does nothing to help. I've seen all sorts of these, although I don't usually comment. Dustin (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   If this RFA gets into the 70% range, I am sure that the closing 'crat will accurately weigh this !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   I'm going to be bold and redact the remark. There's absolutely no need for attacks like that, an that people feel it's appropriate to make them (and that nobody removes them) exemplifies the problems with RfA in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Good move, HJ. Comments like that are what gives RfA a bad appearance. --Biblioworm 21:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

10. Third time wasn't the charm. I have seen enough of this user around and what I see doesn't feel like an admin in waiting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose I was rather hoping to be able to support this one, but his public logs reveal some serious concerns. Although now rather historic, some of the entries there are highly indicative of someone who, frankly, I'll don't believe I'll ever be able to trust as an administrator: Significant past copyright concerns, abuse of reviewer flag and impersonating a foundation staff member do not simply strike me as 'inexperience', or momentary lapses of judgement. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose Per Jusdafax, Begoon, and others; adminship should never be a trophy in your accomplishment case. It's a critical position that requires a reluctant leader, not a hat collector. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

    I don't want to seem as if I'm "badgering the opposers" here, but I have said already that adminship would not be merely a status thing for me to gain: I want to help with the areas of the wiki that happen to require the tools. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 23:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

    I really hope that's true, and I sincerely sympathize if "hat collecting" is not your intention here, but your statement sounded that way to me, and I later found affirmation when reading the opposes. There's also the issue of a couple of judgment calls that appear questionable, and admins must have impeccable judgment. Maybe you can come back in a few months with an improved focus and present your intentions more clearly and accurately. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

    Everyone makes a few mistakes here and there. In reality, it would be a choice between not doing anything, and making some mistakes. It isn't as if current admins never make mistakes. My impression is that a lot of admins are getting overworked, and are making mistakes because there are too many issues to deal with and too few admins available, forcing them to make decisions without investigating as thoroughly as they might want to. Moreover, admin shortage means that mistakes are not pointed out. In this situation, I think there is no reason to seek perfection in new admins. More admins means admins will be able to devote more time and energy to individual decisions, leading to a better understanding of the situations, and better decisions. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

13. Oppose Based on block history alone. What was this about[1]?? There are other reasons, but the block history is enough. Chillum 23:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

    Maybe take a look at the unblock message too 18:58, 6 November 2011 Philippe (talk | contribs) unblocked Rcsprinter123 (talk | contribs) (Situation resolved. This one should be considered administrative and not held against him for the purpose of this block log.) IIRC, all of initial entries in block logs are from an admin who is no longer in good standing because of administrative lapses etc. The block log is not quite as long or bad as might appear at first glance.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    First off DP being desysoped does not make every block done by him bad. Secondly I have asked this prospective admin what was up with that edit, I am waiting for a response. Chillum 07:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    I wasn't talking about DP, some confusion on my part. Sorry. I have striked out that part. But DP desysopped should mean that their blocks should be viewed suspiciously IMO. And your failure to point out the unblock message does not look too good to me. I would not have said this, but it is leading to a pile-on...OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    My failure does not look good to you? You pointed it out, I noticed. Despite the block being reversed I am still asking this user what was up with that external survey link from "Mediawiki surveys". Chillum 08:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    He has done the explaining once, and found innocent. Still holding onto it, or asking for explanation again is probably undue.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

14. Oppose This is problematic not because you modified your statement but because of the original intention with which you started this RfA. You have to give the right impression on people and things like that don't cut it. Your block log's severity is a bit too much for me to trust you, especially since I see no mention of them in your answer to question 3. I'm sorry but this one seems likely to fail, so I suggest withdrawing it. However, it goes without saying that while RfA comments are by definition on an editor rather than content, they should be civil.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 30 D ecember 2014 (UTC)
15. Very strong oppose. Focusing on user rights is one sign that a user is not here to build an encyclopedia, and this shows that you want administrator privileges as a status (or maybe to have more power), not mainly to help assist in the management of the encyclopedia. I am very pessimistic about candidates that want admin privileges as a symbol. Also, you stated that you don't want it merely as a status, but I would say mostly. Maybe a change in mentality, and I (and probably other opposers) won't be pessimistic or even optimistic in giving administrative privileges. HelloThereMinions ^{user, talk} 01:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose based on the block history.--TMD Talk Page. 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose doing it wrong right here on this RFA: [2][3][4][5]. Hipocrite (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    He was reverting personal attacks, and by an IP no less (IPs aren't allowed to !vote). Can you explain what is wrong with that? ekips39 02:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    So you've opposed RC because he (and 4 other editors) have reverted someone who's called him an asshole and thus disrupting the RFA ? ... Please tell me I'm missing something here?. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Never remove votes on your own RFA, period, full stop. Hipocrite (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    RC had every right to remove it (and he wasn't the only one to do so!), You should re-read WP:RFA and the process of !voting before making a ridiculous oppose based on perfectly acceptable actions. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Everyone else that did it who was not a Bureaucrat was acting questionably. The candidate was acting inappropriately. You can now have the last word, but I'm glad to have watchlisted yet another RFA! Hipocrite (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    There was nothing improper about it, It's not about having the last word - You made an absurd !vote and I'm questioning you on it ... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

18. Numerous red flags, as already detailed above by other opposers. Townlake (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose Sorry, but no.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose -based on previous attempts, self-nom, timing (very slow right now), and block log (not the number of blocks, but the reasons - impersonating someone from the WMF!, that's got immaturity and irresponsibility written all over it). BMK (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Nope. Not really. Please review my response to Chillum. It seems we are having a pile-on for wrong reasons.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Doesn't matter, the other factors are still sufficient for me to oppose. I am particularly unimpressed with elf-nomination for one's thrid try, that reeks of desperateness -- was there no one in all of Wikipedia this editor felt he could ask to sponsor him? That's weak, as the kids say. BMK (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    particularly unimpressed with elf-nomination? For shame. Elf-nomination would be particularly appropriate at this time of year. Begoon ^talk 09:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. As far as I can tell, CSD tagging is generally good. However I am a little concerned that a CSD tag was placed here less than one minute after the article was created. Although the article did indeed have no content at that time (the creating editor should ideally have put some content into at least a single sentence at article creation), Rcsprinter123 could have waited to see if content was forthcoming. Few AfD !votes—only 17 so far, and all since August 2014. Most of these !votes are "Me too" !votes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Actually, I have been !voting in AfDs for years, not just since August. Your source must be faulty. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 12:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Hmm, the toolbox link only indicates 17 !votes. Although the tool states "The remaining 483 pages had no discernible vote by this user." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   That is strange, although I have to say, Rcsprinter, you tell us above that you have good technical skills. Do you not feel it might be more helpful to point this editor to a place where your AfD record might be better evaluated, than to reply "I have been !voting in AfDs for years, not just since August. Your source must be faulty."?

   Anyway, the confusion might stem from this: [6] The tool finds 1216 pages where you have commented, but no discernible votes. Maybe the tool is broken, or maybe there is something unusual about the way you vote, or sign your votes? It works for me: [7] Begoon ^talk 13:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   I think the tool only analyzes 500 at a time, so only 17 of the last 500 of Rcsprinter123's edits to AfDs have been !votes (primarily relisting if you look at the actual contributions) - if you press the next 500 button twice, you get another 232 !votes more dating back to March 2011... Worm^TT(talk) 13:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Ah, relisting. That would probably explain it. Commenting without a discernible vote. If that's what he predominantly does, then that may be why the tool returns those results. Begoon ^talk 13:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Judging from the recent edit history, many AfD-related edits are delsort edits. Looking at the next 500 as Worm recommends gives a not-very-good record, I must say. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you for the explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

   The poor success ratio for votes seems to be skewed by the number of bus/railway station/route articles where the vote does not match consensus. That seems to be an area of particular interest. To improve the stats in future they might want to reassess community norms on notability of these articles before voting. That said, as it's an area of interest, they might equally want to work to change those norms. Or find a balance. I'd hope they wouldn't be closing discussions in that area as an admin anyway, so that may mitigate the numbers a little. Begoon ^talk 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

2. I need some more time to review here, so I'll park in the neutral camp for the time being. I'll say that this comment indicates to me a difficulty in communicating in a way that will encourage productive discussion while reducing conflict to come to a peaceful resolutions in disputes. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 14:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral, stuck here for right now, awaiting further comments. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Neutral While not ready to support at this time, I find it admirable that the candidate has made changes in interaction style and taken time to improve his/her editing and knowledge of Wikipedia policies. If this was done with the long term goal of becoming an administrator, I see nothing wrong with that. After three self-nominations, it would be a little silly for the candidate to pretend otherwise. Having a goal and working openly and positively toward it is proper behaviour in my opinion, not something to be criticized.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
5. Neutral I'm really on the fence on this one. I must recognize all the hard work this editor has done since their last RFA, but usually I feel somewhat anxious supporting candidates with a history of failed RFA's and more than one block over a period of years. I'll be reviewing over the next few days. Mkdw^talk 19:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Gunning for adminship is a weird thing. Nobody ever volunteers for the position without wanting to be an admin; the oft-rehearsed spiel about how "I'm just applying because I'm a selfless automaton whose only goal is to benefit mankind", while noble, is but a platitude. Still, it would be farcical to oppose somebody on the grounds that they're not very good at hiding their lust for the tools. Some idle desire for adminship is a catalyst for heightened awareness of policies and perhaps more a broader editing experience, which benefits everybody. However, I'd expect that a formidable candidate for adminship would have sense enough to at least pretend that passing RfA isn't their foremost goal on the site. Enthusiasm is good; of concern is failing to understand that adminship is hardly worth years of longing (as the candidate implied in an earlier revision of his nomination statement). All that said, I have no evidence to suggest that the candidate is likely to abuse or greatly misuse the tools, so I won't oppose him. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Neutral. When I was a new user, I had the common misconception that adminship was a "trophy" or "award" for good work. However, I quickly realized that is not the case, and I now see adminship as being an extra responsibility that you voluntarily take on for the purpose of helping out with grunt work. I'm a bit concerned that Rcsprinter wants to be an admin "just for the heck of it", and it is typically power-thirsty admins who go around making overdone and ill-considered blocks, thus driving away good contributors. Like some others, I'm also concerned about the sudden change to your nom statement and your use of the word "managed", as it gives the impression that you're trying to put on a show so that you'll look decent when you submit your RfA. While I feel that it would be extreme to oppose for this, I'm not really comfortable supporting, either. --Biblioworm 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Neutral, with moral support per HJ Mitchell above. While (believe it or not) adminship is no big deal, in reality its greatest requirements are judgement and interpersonal skills. When you answered Q4 with "I don't repeatedly interact with very many individual editors these days ... ", it brought me up short because the ability to interact with individual editors is a big part of the administrator skill set (if only as an antidote to the block-happy-admin stereotype). I really appreciate your zeal, and we need to replace departing admins; I suggest that you consult an admin for an evaluation of your work and—hopefully—a nomination. We're not the best judges of ourselves :-). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 00:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Neutral Haven't formed a strong opinion and don't intend to; I seem to recall having mistaken Rcsprinter for an admin on at least one occasion, but that doesn't mean much coming from me. I did however notice this rollback of an edit I had already judged not to be vandalism (hadn't taken action on it myself because I couldn't decide whether it was a redirect request or an attempt at creating an article). Not that I'm the world's leading expert on rollback, but something about that just didn't seem right and I know misuse of rollback can lead to desysopping. I'm sorry for picking a nit, and I also remain unconvinced that your strong desire for adminship is indicative that you'd misuse the tools--but I think Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination might prove useful. ekips39 02:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
10. (edit conflict) Neutral Bit hard for me to make a decision. Looking through your recent contributions there's no doubt you are indeed a prolific editor, and you're very busy in the AfD field. However, there are concerns that you're currently wanting adminship "for the lovely hat, or at least, the lovely mop". Others have suggested that you wait for someone to nominate you, and usually that means that another editor has seen you and thinks that you might be a suitable candidate for the mop. You can go to WP:DOIHAVEASHOT and see if someone's willing to nominate you there. Whether or not your RfA passes though, I wish you the best of luck. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
11. Neutral - I see a lot of good work that has been done by the candidate, but there isn't much in particular that makes me want to definitively support or oppose. Nonetheless, I wish you the best of luck, sprinter. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
12. Juliancolton basically said everything I was going to say. Being openly eager to be an administrator is not grounds for an oppose in itself, but it does suggest that your view of adminship is a bit... "romanticized", for lack of a better word. That may not in fact be the case, which is why I'm not quite swayed into the oppose camp. I've seen you around for a couple of years now, and although I have observed questionable judgement in the past (a few things from 2012 that you probably remember well, and I won't belabor them), you seem to have matured quite a bit since then. Just a word of advice: try to avoid making alterations to your RfA statement ex post facto. A good idea is to get someone to proofread your self-nom and give you a few pointers about how to present yourself in the best possible light. They may also advise you on strategies for maximizing your chances of success, such as holding off for a little while longer or even having someone else nominate you instead. I don't think you meant to come across as evasive in your subsequent revision, but it just doesn't look good – does that make sense?

    In any case, you are still a valuable contributor to this site, and don't let anyone convince you otherwise. I hope to see you around for years to come. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

13. Neutral because i cannot support and am not willing to add an oppose which would be simply a pile-on right now. Despite the assurances that it's not, this does seem to be a hat-collecting exercise; the poor judgement shown in the self-nomination (which is not per se bad, but is foolish after being advised not to, by several users in at least one if not both of the previous RfAs) is then reflected and amplified by the subsequent editing of the statement; while i have seen the candidate around WP, i fear that their good work is not sufficient for me to overcome my opposition. I nevertheless, along with Kurtis above, wish the candidate well, and hope to see him still working here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 09:14, 30 December 2014 (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.