Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan 2

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

TheAustinMan

Final (28/26/2); Closed by Sportsguy17 as withdrawn at 01:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC) (non-bureaucrat closure)

Nomination

TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) – Hello, I'm TheAustinMan. I created my account on June 4, 2009. During that time I was admittedly an intermittent and userspace editor, and spent a majority of my Wikipedia time maintaining the well-being of my userpage. After a few months I began to shift towards working in the article mainspace instead, and attained by first good article in April 2010, and first featured list about a year later. Despite those accomplishments, I was still a rather inexperienced editor, and lacked a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In 2012, I decided to undergo the request for adminship process, which in retrospect was an immature albeit learnable move. I ended up snowballing that RfA, primarily due to concerns of my rather young age and lack of editing experience. However, following mid-2012, I began to become more involved with Wikipedia and joined WikiProject Tropical cyclones since the topic was of interest to me and as such I could improve my editing experience there. During that time I became much more proficient in editing and understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. This has continued up until today.

I currently only have 5,930 live edits, though many of these have primarily large edits; one example of such can be found here. In that time and to my knowledge I have not made a single vandalism edit. For full disclosure 69 (1.18%) of my edits are automated, though these were all made on two separate days only. I am primarily a high work-per-article contributor, and despite making 38 articles during my time here on Wikipedia I have taken 26 articles to GA status and two to FL status, with one co-FA. My edit summary usage currently stands at 98/97% in my last 150 major and minor edits, respectively. Lastly I am currently an reviewer, rollbacker, and autoreviewed user. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:21, 23 November 2013 (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: Though I wish to participate a broad range of administrative work, I feel like moving pages, blocking and preventing vandalism, protecting pages from such vandalism, and closing deletion requests would probably suit my Wikipedia-editing and work style. That being said, these are only my preferences and I hope to not be restricted to these fields and instead work in a broader range of administrative activities.

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

A: As I am currently an active member of the Tropical cyclone WikiProject, a lot of my quality work can be found there. I feel that Hurricane Janet exemplifies my work here on Wikipedia, as a result of my efforts that I put into that article. List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present) and Typhoon Kujira (2003) are two other articles that I feel are good examples of my contributions. I am currently working on another sandbox

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: Up until this point I have never been stressed on Wikipedia as a result of a conflict in editing. I'm a strong believer in the cooler heads prevail philosophy, so I don't let my stress control my editing patterns and ability to resolve conflicts. In the future, if I do come to a point where I do become stressed, I think it would probably be best for me to take a short break from editing; I feel that such a break would help me cool down and prevent me from engaging in acts of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia.

Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius

4. You have expressed an interest in closing deletion discussions, but from the AfD counter it seems you have only ever participated in four discussions at AfD. I'd like to see how you would handle closing AfDs, so I have gone through and picked three of the more difficult deletion discussions from the November 19 log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaka Paranormal Society (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Jey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hollow Men in popular culture. These AfDs are due to be closed after November 26, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are ready to be closed now. How would you deal with them?

A: Thank you for question. I'll go through these in the order they were presented. Dhaka Paranormal Society (2) – Currently the case for a delete appears to be much more stronger than keeping. Currently, the argument for keeping stems from WP:ORG and WP:N in general. While the article does have two sources from two rather large media agencies, one is a 'club review' and the other is an interview. However, WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly states that these kinds of sources are trivial (I'd consider 'restaurant review' to be on par with 'club review'). There are also two keeps coming from editors who have made no edits outside of the paranormal society, and may be WP:COI. While I wouldn't really mind if they provided a strong argument, these two editors pretty much reflect the sentiment of the other keeps. Clarence Jay – No consensus. There is WP:GNG against WP:COMPOSER. The strength of argument seems to be slightly towards oppose. There is a sustainable amount of information in the article, but the references are rather weak and there are only pinpoint single events that greatly establish notability. As such, NC, but due to the small amount of reliable sources I would follow the option prescribed by COMPOSER and merge with ARK Music Factory. The Hollow Men in popular culture – This one also appears to be no consensus. Delete arguments are trivia, indiscriminate, and probably some OR. Keep arguments are significant items and not indiscriminite. I'm surprised no one as brought up WP:IPC bar the nominator. IPC indicates that passing mentions should not be included unless verified, and as of this edit it appears that the references are only on a few selections. One user has indicated a very selective merge – this appears to satisfy IPC, though this option would occur after AfD closing as no consensus.

Additional questions from Leaky Caldron

5. Which 2 of these best describe your attitude towards becoming an Admin.: Elevation, Selection, Promotion, Recognition, Deserve, Entrust. Explain your choices.

A: Out of these choices, my attitude would probably be entrust, followed by selection. When one becomes and admin, they are given certain tools because they have proven to be a very trustworthy, cooperative user. That comes first and foremost. I chose selection because, though it does not resonate as high as entrust, the RfA process is very selective and meticulous. It is said on pretty much every RfA page. I didn't choose elevation, promotion, and recognition, because that attitude is from someone who seeks RfA only to get barnstars galore and a day for themselves, etc. The sense of elevation, promotion, and recognition comes after one has come to do successful work as an admin and is commended by other users. I didn't choose deserve, because becoming RfA is a personal choice as well. A lot of people could 'deserve' RfA, but choose not to. That's their choice, not RfA's, to make.

Additional questions from Stfg

(I have now decided how to !vote, and it's independent of the answers to these questions. To save you the trouble, I'm striking them. Please feel free either to un-strike them and reply, or to ignore them, as you prefer.)

6. When dealing with editors with a track record of content creation and content improvement, under what circumstances, if any, would you exercise the functions of user supervision? I mean such things as blocking and unblocking, admonishing, advising, and the like. I'm not interested in VOAs, just in how you would act as admin with regard to established editors. Thanks.

A: I think an established user would be blocked if they were to create malicious sock puppets, break out of their pattern of content improvement and begin to vandalize for a long period of time, and for more meticulous things like WP:3RR, though I would give a slight leeway for 3RR, particularly if they have shown the capacity to discuss the issue on a talk page, etc. I would also block for making consistent personal attacks, becoming highly incivil, and breaching WP:LEGAL. I would admonish experienced users if they were to vandalize a few pages or if in a civil discussion they were to make a slight breach of civility. I would unblock users only if they were blocked for weak reasons such as a misinterpretation of their edits. Otherwise, I think unblocking of experienced users will come to down to a community-based, civil discussion probably on WP:AN to review the block and decide as a whole – I think that would work best. As for advising, I would be happy to advise experienced users, and users of all kinds, at any time.

7. Are there any admin areas you plan to stay away from?

A: I'll give the straight and simple answer for this one: no.

Additional question from 2Awwsome

8. Have you ever been involved in edit wars or talk page arguments and how did you respond? Provide evidence of the resolution, whether you 'won' or 'lost'.

A: Very recently there was an IP editor on 2013 Atlantic hurricane season who was rather insistent on changing an image file to point to an image that didn't exist. Initially, I reverted these edits, as they broke the image template and also added unsourced, trivial information. However, on the second instance I reverted and left a message on his talk page in regards to these edits. Prior to that there was back and forth editing in regards to the presentation of designations of Western Pacific storms. (Some examples here, here, here, and here, there's more than that though) I took the initiative to bring this to WikiProject Tropical Cyclone's talk page for community discussion. In September, and then running into October, there was a large RfC on Hurricane Sandy's talkpage in regards to the presentation of the moniker Superstorm Sandy in the lead. It generated a large debate, and my arguments used cases, guidelines, and links. I usually don't like to consider resolution a 'win' or 'loss' kind of thing, but to answer your question I think it ended as a 'win', as the closing user determined that consensus was for 'Option B', which I was most favorable with, though I also chose two other options as reasonable compromises.

Additional question from 78.26

9. You seem to be highly involved in content creation, and quality work at that. Your edit history indicates you might intentionally stay away from administrative areas. Why do you seek the administrative tools, and why will wikipedia a better place because you have them? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A: Thanks for your question. I seek the administrative tools primarily to more quickly and efficiently respond to vandalism, within the Tropical Cyclone project and the English Wikipedia as a whole, as well as add efficiency in closing deletion requests. Despite the world's increasing usage of the internet, Wikipedia has always held rather steadily very near the top in terms of most viewed websites. With these tools, my contributions to Wikipedia would be greatly enhanced. Though Wikipedia's content and workings are the sum of all parts, I, as one of those parts, and with these tools, would help further the growth of the project.

Additional question from Inks.LWC

10. I'll preface this question by saying that I hesitated asking it here, rather than on your talk page (while I usually participate in RFAs, I tend to take the Justice Thomas approach and let others ask the questions), but I think it is probably best that the RFA participants see it, as it may quell some fears. What was the rationale for removing the userboxes that reveal your age—were they outdated, you just didn't want that to be an issue of the RFA, or some other reason?

A: I'm not exactly sure how a removal of an age-related userbox would be of concern, but I'll answer this one. I removed it primarily because I don't want to keep that information out there. See WP:GFYA - which explicitly says, "the most useful piece of advice is never give out any personally identifiable information (name, age, location, school) on Wikipedia." After my first RfA, some of my age related details on my userpage were oversighted, and I don't recall whether they missed the education-related userbox or I added it later. With this RfA, a user has already explicitly stated my age after gathering that information from one of my userboxes - their edit was oversighted. I see no reason to maintain that userbox. That userbox was also on my userpage for a while, unedited, so it's likely outdated, though that was not my main reason for removal.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan
• Requests for adminship/TheAustinMan 2

• Links for TheAustinMan: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for TheAustinMan can be found here.
• Edit stats are on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

After careful consideration I have decided to withdraw from this request for adminship. That said, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this RfA and provided me with plenty of suggestions on how to focus self-improvement. I have read and considered each comment, and intend to use your criticism and feedback to my advantage. I leave my options open for reapplying at a later time, but for now I plan to simply work on contributing to an encyclopedia that we've all worked hard to build from the ground up as a community.

With the warmest of regards, TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Although I respect TParis very much and understand where he's coming from, I'll have to disagree with him here. TheAustinMan is definitely younger than the average Wikipedian, but he seems very mature for his age, and that's the important part. ~6000 edits is a little on the light side, but so what? He's experienced and a very decent editor. The GA example cited below shows a substantial series of copyedits on his part; it's not as if he made a couple of completely inconsequential changes here and there. I think he'll do just fine as an administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Haha, I'm not offended you disagree with me :). But edit count is very much a minor point of my oppose, I did support you when you only had ~4000.--v/r - TP 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   I remember that. :-) My interpretation of your oppose rationale is that it is largely based on maturity, rather than experience. I personally think he's a sensible enough editor to do well. And if not, we can always flip the switch back off (although, that might involve some drama — but I have a good feeling here). Kurtis ^(talk) 20:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Woak, Kurtis! I forgot you were Master&Expert. You opposed me when I ran, remember? ;) Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

   Eh... I wouldn't refer to that as an "oppose" so much as a "support in the not-too-distant future". Don't worry, you're not the only one who initially didn't make the connection between my current and former username. ;-) Kurtis ^(talk) 02:30, 26 November 2013

2. Support -- Despite what TParis brought up, I think this user could end up being a fine admin. Indeed, they appear to be a good content contributor and they seem to have clue, so that satisfies me. Sportsguy17 (Chat with me!) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Support The user seems to be a competent content builder who knows enough about Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines. I don't see the harm in granting this user the tools. The age doesn't bother me as the user appears to be fully coherent. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - I see no problem in giving young users the bit as long as they are mature; I also see no reason to believe this user is not. His small edit count shouldn't count against him, as most of them are of high quality, as shown by his rather large collection of recognized content. This also shows that he knows how the site works. Also, he has a clean block log, which is definitely another plus. TCN7JM 01:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   A clean block log should be the default for any candidate rather than a particularly meritorious qualification. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   No, it should not. It is not uncommon at all for RfA candidates to have been blocked in a past dispute. TCN7JM 06:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

5. Support. Ageism is evil. User appears clueful even by adult standards. We should embrace this user's participation in the encyclopedia and gain a lifelong contributor. Andrevan@ 01:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Support. Content creator, and a consistent one at that. Wikipedia needs more content creators as admins, and less drama queens and MMORPG contestants. The answer to Q3 is telling - the candidate is uninterested in drama and squabbles. God knows, we need more admins like this. (Full disclosure: I have a vague idea of how old the candidate might be - within a year or so - and I couldn't care less. Maturity and constructive edits count. The candidate has a great deal of both.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
7. Support, loath as I am to endorse the appointment of young administrators! I've worked with the candidate a bit in the realm of meteorology articles, and he has proven to be among the most efficient and enthusiastic content creators I've "met". I would have probably told him to postpone this RfA a few months to smooth off any rough edges, but it wouldn't have been for the sake of the project. Highly unlikely to do anything untoward with the tools. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Support - Like Juliancolton, I have also had an opportunity to work with TheAustinMan. His intentions from these opportunities have been clear -- he means nothing but the best for the encyclopedia and has shown a definitive understanding of Wikipedia policies. Good luck, TAM. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
9. Support As a fellow hurricane editor, I highly respect TAM. He just will not cause any major problems. We as a site could use more admins like him. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
10. Support I normally see a few +1000 bytes edits in articles, mind you very few. But the example given by him has 2000+'s galore! Let alone other aspects he has won my vote in content creation alone. Age is no bar, I believe for exceptional few and this editor to my surprise and joy is among those few. So a green signal for you mate, be nice with the mop! Sohambanerjee1998 06:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
11. Support. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 06:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
12. A good editor. Wincent77 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
13. Clean block log, been around since 09 at least to some extent and really active for a while. Seems civil and sensible, and I found nothing to worry me in the deleted contributions. If his 6,000 edits were all tool based then I could see the concern that maybe this wasn't sufficient experience to evaluate a potential admin candidate. But 6,000 manual edits and a string of GAs is far more than we need to decide whether someone is ready to be an admin here. ϢereSpielChequers 12:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
14. Support good faith Wikipedian who won't abuse the tools. In my chats with him on IRC, he really does care about this project, a rare quality nowadays and is extremely eager to learn. If this somehow passes I'm willing to mentor him on handling the tools. If this fails, listen to the opposes at heart and come back in six to 12 months and it would be much easier next time. Secret ^account 13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
15. Support – You seem a good guy and technically competent and if you still lack experience I'm sure you'll grow in that. I encourage you to come back again if you don't get through this time. Spicemix (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
16. Support, despite concerns about maturity and one-time (I hope) rollback use in a content dispute. Q4 answer very good, as is support from fellow content collaborators. Net positive overall. Miniapolis 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
17. Support despite some concerns about lack of RFPP participation. Not one of us protected a page before we had the protect button, though, and his answers to Q4 show a measured, thoughtful approach to AFD. I think he'll do just fine. KrakatoaKatie 21:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
18. Support. In my view the candidate could handle the duties of adminship—one of the most important of which, for any new administrator, is figuring out which administrator tasks he or she is ready to take on right away, and which require a bit more experience and time around the wiki first. That being said, the numbers so far make it clear that this RfA is not going to be successful, so it might be best for the candidate to withdraw at this stage and spend a bit more time gaining experience is some of the areas identified by the opposers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
19. I'm not sure how opposes like this are justified, when nobody seems to have actually said what kind of age we are talking about here. According to the candidate's userpage, they have connections with NASA so I'm hardly thinking teenage. I'm sure we have a few good admins in their early 20s, and age should not be a point on which to entirely base one's vote. However, while the candidate admittedly is low on administrative experience, the solid content writing is always a vote winner for me. Plus that $30 iTunes voucher. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    Comment not stating any exact ages but... look at his userbox under the education tab for an idea --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    It got removed but I take your point. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 23:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

20. Support You have given well thought out answers in reply that shows you know the policy's and the responsibilities that is required of an administrator. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
21. Support. At first I was expecting to oppose this RfA due to the candidate's low amount of experience in administrative areas. However, his content work is very good and he seems trustworthy, plus I was impressed with his answer to my q4 and also with the answer to q8. I think that the candidate knows where to walk before he can run, and that he will learn the admin ropes quickly. All of this leads me to support, and Secret's offer of admin coaching is also a bonus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
22. Support. No evidence that he'll break the wiki, but good evidence of him being a solid editor. It would help if people would start heeding WP:DEAL; we have too few admins and need more. The mop really should go to anyone who doesn't demonstrate a likelihood of making a mess, especially since we now have bureaucrats to perform emergency desysops on the occasional people who get through and shouldn't. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
23. Support. In a way, this really reminds me of my own RFA several years back. TAM is a great content builder, and I am absolutely confident he wouldn't misuse the tools. Some might question how much he'll use the tools, but I counter that by saying I've seen nothing in the years of working with him that would indicate he would do anything wrong as an admin. FWIW, I was an admin when I was in my early 20s. I'm not sure what too young is, but TAM doesn't seem "too young" as far as an administrator goes. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
24. Support Like Hurricanehink, TheAustinMan reminds me of my own candidacy. Quite a bit of content work, but not quite as much experience in admin-related areas. However, the candidate seems very trustworthy and mature, and for me his thoughtful demeanor translates well to working in admin-related areas, even though he hasn't racked up huge edit counts on those pages. I have little credence in the belief that a candidate's age is a drawback; I was 14 when the community originally entrusted me with the tools, and I see no reason to withhold them either for this candidate for that reason alone. Immaturity is not limited to those of a young age. Spencer^T♦C 06:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
25. Support. No conduct here that indicates that TheAustinMan will abuse or be reckless with the tools. <6000 edits seems to me an awfully weak argument (in the past, we have promoted candidates with <1000 edits), and xFD is not a part of the admin curriculum. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
26. Support per Secret. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 15:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
27. Support. Kurtis makes a great point. buffbills7701 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
28. Moral support. After almost 200K log actions between here and Commons, I can tell you that being an admin isn't all that special (or even enjoyable a lot of the time), so keep up the article work and don't worry about this too much. INeverCry 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As this is a second RFA, I think the candidate got their one free gentle WP:NOTNOW RFA already so I'll lay it out. I don't like seeing a 2nd RFA with < 6000 edits still. The candidate appears to be trying to reach a "status" rather than accept "responsibilities" and I'm not sure the candidate views adminship as janitorial duty. The candidate's age isn't a confidence builder either. I also took a look at a random one of the candidate's many "GA"s and I'm not impressed. I see very little content building on Tropical Storm Colin (2010) and rather did a number of copyedits that someone else pointed out. I don't see what exactly gives the candidate a claim to have done the hard work to make a GA. I'll hold the rest of my thoughts on that since they get to be a bit mean after this point. But I'm sternly opposed.--v/r - TP 00:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   TP, I don't mean to "badger" you or whatever the kids these days call it, but the candidate has written many pages of new prose from scratch (take a look at Hurricane Janet, for instance). His content-building abilities are solid. That said, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with taking credit for GAs we played a minor role in promoting, if it helps keep ourselves motivated. I like to think I've contributed to enough FAs and such to know a writer from a bauble collector, and I firmly believe the candidate is in the former camp. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   How dare you badger me! I'll report you! But seriously, I took a look at that article since you highlighted it. I randomly selected ~10 edits and they were all gnomish grammar fixes or adding sources. The first one that added content was this one, so I took a look at the source and I think that the candidate misunderstood the source. The candidate says "The United States initiated the largest relief campaign ever staged in Mexico at the time" but the source says that it was the largest American relief effort in Mexico. That's not the same thing as the largest relief effort ever staged in Mexico. He did get it right in the lead I suppose.--v/r - TP 04:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose - due to age --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Reasonable self-nom covers past RfA. Weak Q1; statement on vandalism not matched with WP:AIV reports. Q2 looks OK, but see TP's comments. I need a stronger Q3 for an admin who wants to step into it. User page states on break. Glrx (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose The candidate has said that they want to work in AIV and RFPP (by extension) however as of three weeks ago they have had no edits to either page. They also want to do counter-vandalism work but haven't used rollback very much [1] and undo isn't used much more [2]. The candidate has also expressed an interest in closing deletion discussions but has only voted 4 times in AFDs. I wouldn't have as much of a concern about this if the candidate had more edits showing that they are further integrated into the community's norms. The thing I'm most concerned about is this use of rollback, which is not appropriate at all, the edit being reverted is not in any way vandalism and is a dispute about the use of the image. I can't find any evidence that TheAustinMan explained his use of rollback (apart from the edit summary before) nor tried to discuss it with User:Yellow Evan on a talk page. Whilst I generally don't have an objection to young users (disclosure: I'm fairly sure I know the candidate's age) having the bit, all of these concerns strongly suggest to me that the candidate doesn't fully understand what is required of an admin nor how an admin should conduct themselves and their use of the tools and I'm concerned that this may be related to their age (even if it isn't they are concerns I'd raise with any candidate). Overall I think TheAustinMan could be a good admin, they just need a lot more experience in areas not just related to cyclones (maybe try good article review, AFD (commenting/voting and closing) and/or requested moves). This is one of my very few opposes so if others think something is missing or lacking please let me know, I'm happy to discuss and change my mind. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   The answer to Q7 also has me a bit concerned. Given that opposers are saying that the candidate doesn't have experience in certain admin areas I would have expected some justification as to why the candidate is planning to be involved in all admin areas. In fact the answer to that question suggests to me that the they aren't aware of the huge range of areas an admin can work in. For example, the candidate has 4 edits to the file namespace (all edits to file talk are adding a WikiProject banner) so I would have expected at least an answer mentioning their inexperience in this areas and perhaps suggesting ways they could learn. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Your rollback query is inadequate; it matches Twinkle rollbacks. The candidate has rollbacker rights; the comment associated with exercising these rights doesn't seem to appear to be searchable by the tool you linked. Josh Parris 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Since the candidate started editing regularly in May 2012 there has been an average of 233 edits per month, of which 71.85% are to articles. I don't think there can be any doubts that he has sufficiently contributed to content and satisfied the community's requirements in this respect. However, in that period there were 208 edits to Wikipedia space, or 10.9% per month and participation in only 4 AfD in almost four years. The remaining participation in maintenance areas where candidates are expected to have demonstrated their future admin judgement is negligible and nowhere near checks my boxes with which I am generally quite flexible. Echoing Boing! said Zebedee's thoughts from the candidate's first RfA: "...although age itself is not specifically a barrier, I think it will be a few years yet before a candidate of this age would have sufficient maturity", on age and maturity I do not see anything other than average good behaviour for a person of his age, but I see no evidence that this is exceptional and that it equates to that of an adult; the interaction with others is too low for me to apply any real metrics and the first part of Q3 is not addressed also leaving me rather in the dark as to how he would (re)act in contentious situations. That said, to balance the equation, if he would apply his his editing to maintenance areas over the next year or so, I'm sure that we are looking at a potential admin in the not too distant future. PS: Callanecc made his comments while I was researching and writing this so they were not taken into consideration. That said, I think he makes some very valid observations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I really came here hoping to support, but you intend to close deletion requests and protect pages as an admin, but you have 8 edits to XFDs and none to WP:RFPP. I am, however, impressed with your content work and would be happy to support next year if you make some more contributions to the "admin areas". --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
7. Very impressive candidate, but ... the lack of experience in key areas you want to work in leads me to oppose for the time being. It isn't ageism to think that young people are unready for some responsibilities -- that's why we don't allow them driving licenses, to vote in government elections, to be bound by contracts they've signed, to leave school early, and so on. Normally I would oppose a candidate so young from having access to tools that can be used to manage adults (hence my now-struck questions). But the answer to Q4 is outstanding for a particular reason: most RFA candidates answer such questions by showing off their knowledge of policy (which really only shows that their !votes would be OK). TheAustinMan actually bothered to discuss the !votes and how they influence consensus. I'm impresssed by this and other things, and expect to support you one day. Please don't be discouraged by this "not yet" vote. --Stfg (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Only participated in 4 AfDs, but one thing he is saying he will focus on is closing deletion discussions. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Also says "I have never been stressed on Wikipedia as a result of a conflict in editing". The answer just says conflicts have never made him stressed, which seems like an an attempt to avoid the question. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.} _{See where I screwed up.} 15:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

   Or maybe perhaps he indeed has never been in a conflict, considering all of the content he's created. We need admins that don't just sit around in the WikiDrama. IMHO, we have far too many admins hanging around there and too few around articles these days. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose - Great content work, however user has lack of participating in Wikipedia noticeboards especially his/her admin work goals are moving pages, blocking and preventing vandalism, protecting pages from such vandalism, and closing deletion, having more experience in the Wikipedia namespace especially noticeboards such as WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA and etc. will show you have a good understanding of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and will show you will be a good admin. One other point is low participation in XfD's, when looking for candidates many look for user's votes! on XfD, however with 4 total votes! I can't see your experience & knowledge towards the deletion policy especially another admin work you intend to do is closing deletion request. ///EuroCarGT 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose due to a lack of participation on the Noticeboards (ANI, AIV & AFD}. Good luck for the future tho. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Excellent content building skills, but I'd like to see strength in areas where administrative attention is needed, such as WP:AfD WP:AIV WP:RFPP – areas where this user apparently has had little if any participation, yet states they will be his areas of focus? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    Perhaps we need more admins who are content creators. TheAustinMan is more likely to catch article vandals and edit wars since he's a content creator. Just saying. Sportsguy17 :) (click to talk • contributions) 19:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    Content creation can surely help with identifying the more subtle vandalism, but I need more evidence that this is the case with the candidate, especially if he is to pursue this area. Most vandalism and edit warring is regularly picked up by RCPs and does not require administrative knowledge or tools, responding to such does. It's very clear the candidate is an honest user who wants to improve project, but without shown experience in applicable areas it's difficult to say if he can be trusted to use such tools wisely. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

12. Oppose – The user has been doing good content work since their first RFA, but I agree with many of the opposers above that more experience is needed. With continued experience in areas suggested above, I can see enthusiastically supporting this user at some point in the future.I am One of Many (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose per TParis and Kudpung, with the additional advice that more counter-vandalism experience is needed, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
14. Oppose - Insufficient tenure and experience. The rush to get tools the first time around is an additional red flag for me. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Good content work but not enough experience in administrative areas that users without tools can participate in to show whether he can handle them both responsibly and calmly yet. I think that this candidate has administrative potential and I would encourage him both to keep up the content creation and to do some more work in other areas. I can see supporting him at a future date, but this is a "not now" for me. Donner60 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose per User:Josh Parris/RfA criteria trips failure criteria sub 100% for last 150 edits, only four AfD votes, zero CSDs, editing without previewing, recent edit summaries like "re", "+" and "cmt". Trips success criteria: Content creation, High edit count, Long history of service. Basically, because of the lack of data on judgement (which an admin needs; note however, thoughtful and appropriate answers to RfA questions) and indicators of poor communication (which is the opposite of what an admin needs; note, however, the lack of wiki drama - the candidate is not abrasive, just fails to habitually summarise their actions creating a burden for those who follow), I can't support at this time because I'm trying to stop Bad Things from happening. BTW: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; I don't care about the age, gender or species of an editor - all I care about is actions, their demonstrated behaviour. I see no reason why a future RfA can't succeed, and I commend TheAustinMan's valuable contributions the the encyclopaedia. Josh Parris 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    You know, a couple of those links don't link to the candidate's contributions. -- Trevj (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

17. Oppose per currently insufficient experience in stated admin areas of interest. I also question the appropriateness of the recent article space edit summary "I deserve a cookie." However, the candidate is making a wealth of great contributions within his chosen topic areas, and there seems no good reason why he shouldn't become an admin in the future, after broadening his editing experience. -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose - the fact that 25 people (as of now) have supported a candidate who wants to use the tools for deletion with next to no activity in that area speaks volumes for the RfA process. Adminship is not awarded for content building - it's a set of tools given to those who have shown sufficient aptitude for the skillset required in the intended area of use. This candidate has limited exposure to those areas identified in Q1. The picture here is of a candidate who would try to learn on the job, make mistakes and likely end up in drama. I fundamentally disagree with support #1 comments: - “we can always flip the switch back off (although, that might involve some drama…” That, in my opinion, is silly beyond belief and not reflective of our real world position vis ineffective Admins.

    My understanding of the recently deleted 6th grade infobox suggests that the candidate was 12 years old when that box was added, sometime within the last couple of years. Little wonder then that some editors have quite justifiably raised age concerns. I detect no particular signs of juvenile behaviour (unusual for one so young). Indeed, some of the answers indicate maturity beyond their years, almost as if written by an adult. However, despite the answer to Q5, an examination of recent self-entries to their user page sets my bauble collector meter going. Edit summaries: “some more accolade”, “another award”, “makes me look better”, “Another GA to add to my stable of GAs)”, “Mo' awards and goodies” etc. indicate that the modest, self-effacing quality I prefer in an Admin. is absent.

    However, back to the main theme of my oppose, a candidate with so few contributions to AfD should not be getting involved with admin-level AfD closing. In summary, because I feel the above could be construed as unnecessarily harsh, I would like to make clear that the candidate does have an admirable content-building skill - but Admin. requires additional attributes which I am far from convinced this candidate currently possesses. Leaky Caldron 12:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

19. Oppose - not nearly experienced enough, sorry. GiantSnowman 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
20. Strong oppose great article work, however terrible low engagement in Wikipedia (community) related areas. Edit count shows twice as more edits in user space than in Wikipedia name space, only few contributions in discussion processes per month, and other Wikipedia edits are mostly GA/FA related, where is very narrow space to show real policy understanding... The user still can give an outstanding content contribution without any admin tools. Alex ^{discussion ★} 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose -- It's not quite time yet. I commend you on your content work and your perseverance in your repeated application for Admin. However, I think you need more experience with AfD, NPP, vandal patrol, noticeboards etc. to round out your experience and judgement. Don't feel discouraged and keep up the good work! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
22. Regretfully Oppose - I've gone back and forth on this one, and it's definitely not a strong oppose. I considered !voting Neutral, but I'm personally not a fan of doing that (not that it's wrong for others to do, I just generally don't see the purpose of doing it myself). I have concerns about the user's wish to participate in closing AFDs when he has little experience there. I am also concerned with the answer to Q7. That being said, the user has been a tremendous help in WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, and I think he's generally a good editor. In another year or so, with some more admin-area experience, I could definitely see myself supporting his candidacy for admin. I don't think the user would do anything malicious with the tools, but given that he is of a somewhat young age, and the fact that this is a self nomination, I have concerns that he does not fully comprehend what being an admin would entail. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the user and sincerely hope that he would be willing to be renominated in the future. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose This is a tough one for me because the candidate obviously cares about Wikipedia and has done some great content work. In all I would say this person is an ideal content creator. That said, this is a request for adminship and I really do not see any experience or adventure into those areas. I am surprised at the number of support !votes considering getting a mop and bucket is not a reward for content creation. I will be more than happy to support this candidate in the future if they apply themselves as greatly to administrative areas as they do articles. I would also like to point out that I do not hold this editors age against them as I have met some astonishingly mature teenagers. Mkdw^talk 03:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose per the others. By the way, the 6th grade box was added not "within the last couple of years" but in July last year and it has been deleted by the nominee during this RfA.--Razionale (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
25. Regretful oppose I hate that this will sound patronizing, but it is very hard for me to believe that someone of the user's age could resolve disputes between adults optimally. I would not be against voting for them in the future before they reach the age of majority, but I would want to see very convincing evidence that they had the makeup and understanding required. Given the user's experience in admin-related areas so far, I don't think that threshold is met. RfA is an extraordinarily demanding process, so the user should not feel discouraged about his time and contributions here. Perhaps it will be right in the future. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose Age is an issue as is the sudden removal of that information just before this second RFA. Not sure if that is exactly the reason the information was removed, but I tend to think long standing transparency that is suddenly hidden with such important information is not a good thing for an Admin candidate.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

    Hang on a minute @Mark Miller: TheAustinMan did not remove, any important information from his user page "just before this RFA" started. He removed an infobox that stated which grade he was in a few months ago on November 24, after this RFA started and a user was over sighted for revealing his age and subsequently directed other users towards the box. He also stated why he removed in in question 7 above. Jason Rees (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, you are correct. He removed it the day after this RFA started. I stand corrected...on that. But his reason for removing the box was because he no longer wanted that information out there. I see that as being transparent one moment and then panicking when one does simple math. Not admin qualities.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per age. I oppose granting the tools to any user who has not reached the age of 21 at a minimum, if known. There is too much potential to damage and harm to real people to entrust the bit to youth. GregJackP Boomer! 5:12 pm, Today (UTC−6)

1. Comment added after the candidate withdrew, but before the closing templates were placed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As a fellow hurricane editor Im not sure if becoming an administrator would be good TheAustinMan or the project.Jason Rees (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral leaning towards oppose at this time. I think you've made great strides since your last attempt and will become a fine administrator at some point if this doesn't pass now. I could care less about your age or gender or quite frankly, your edit count or size of edit. Not knowing all of the policies or how to create edit technical things like templates or modules are "meh, so what" to me. What I do care about is that you've demonstrated COMPETENCE and some level of CLUE, have the ability and willingness to ask questions or refer an issue to another administrator when you don't know, and finally -- most importantly -- that you pay your weekly dues to me in cookies (okay, last one's just to be funny :p). At this time (and after spending 35-40 minutes looking through your contributions, of which some are truly impressive), I can't say that I'm convinced that you know enough of the policies and have a wide enough concept of all of what the tools are for and what you should (not can) do with them. I also am not convinced at this time that you don't. If you could give me some more good examples of knowing how to deal with tough decisions/difficult other users, asking for help, and contributions to administrator areas (such as XfD, noticeboards (AN, AIV, DRN even), then you may be able to say me to support. Thanks and good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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