Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Theopolisme 2

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

Theopolisme

Final (80/27/10); ended 16:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC) - no consensus - Maxim_(talk) 16:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It was difficult to come to a decision on this RfA. There were excellent arguments on both sides, and of course, the numbers were very close.

The main argument to not promote Theopolisme was a combination of a lack of maturity, too much hastiness, too few quality articles, and overeagerness; in other words, overall inexperience. However, Theopolisme does have a track record of learning from mistakes, which does indeed complicate a decision, as good adminship is something that—for better or for worse—is learned much more with the tools than without. In the end, there is a certain level of experience that admins need, which judging especially from the Opposes and Neutrals, Theopolisme has not yet reached. This level of inexperience remains a barrier to becoming an effective administrator.

Thus, with some regret, I have closed this RfA as no consensus. Maxim_(talk) 16:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Theopolisme (talk · contribs)

I'm pleased to present Theopolisme for your adminship consideration. This is his second RfA and I'm confident that the community will like what they see. At his last RfA, I was in the neutral column solely because I thought he needed more time with steady contribs but liked what I saw otherwise. Looking at the large number of neutral votes in the last RfA, this was a common theme. He now has most of a year of steady and dedicated contribs, totaling well over 24k edits. All the basics are there, over 44% contribs to articles, no blocks, variety of experience in admin areas, exceptional CSD ratio, and enough experience to not delete the front page. His current bits include accountcreator, eponline, reviewer, and rollbacker. He has clearly demonstrated he can be trusted and he is known for going out of his way to be helpful, a trait that will serve him well as admin. He will clearly be a net positive with the admin bit, as a measured and highly active contributor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much for your kind words. I accept the nomination. —Theopolisme (talk) 15:26, 23 February 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: I intend to participate mainly in administrative areas related to New Pages Patrol, namely CSD, PROD, and some AfD. Basically, I’ll try to help out where I’m needed most...and if that’s somewhere I’m not 100% comfortable, I’ll of course read the instructions, lurk a bit, and not hesitate to ask for help. Additionally: earlier in my Wikicareer I was active in anti-vandalism, and as such would not be averse to assisting at AIV and UAA (UAA especially, due to my experience with usernames as an account creator at ACC).

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

A: I’ve created an assortment of articles, but I will be the first to admit that article creation is not my fortissimo. I’m much more proud of some of my other contributions. These include WP 1.0 bot, of which I am the current co-operator and maintainer, the Education Program, where I serve as an online ambassador, Today’s articles for improvement, a WikiProject which I helped develop, as well as the Teahouse and other projects of that sort. I deeply enjoy interacting with and helping other Wikipedians, and love being able to help spread my admiration of the project to others.

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: My time on Wikipedia has been [knock on wood] relatively devoid of conflict. I've been involved in a few minor kerfuffles; the old advice to simply "ignore the trolls," though, worked like a charm. I am an occasional volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and as such "see" a fair amount of conflict: when attempting to resolve it, I of course try to speak clearly and rationally, as well as understand the concerns of the other editors...and climb inside of his [or her] skin and walk around in it.

Additional question from Leaky

4. List the learning points from your last RfA 6 months ago and for each, specifically what actions you have taken to address those developmental issues.

A: One of the main points made in my first RfA had to deal with my tenure and general experience level, which I believe time itself has rectified. To delve more into specifics, one of the main concerns had to deal with the CVUA, a group of editors whose goal was to help instruct new Wikipedians in proper counter vandalism. The project had become unnecessarily bloated, and frankly, quite a mess, resulting in myself being cast in a negative light. After my RfA, a group of editors (including myself) worked to "reform" the project, making it much more streamlined and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy. Another concern had to do with a lack of complete understanding of the CSD criteria. After my first RfA, I studied the criteria carefully and learned from my mistakes and have since then maintained a 99% accuracy rate. General policy knowledge was another oft-cited issue in the opposes--like I said previously, time generally helps resolve issues like these...in my case, a strong willingness to ask questions also played a big part in my quickly grasping more detailed Wikipedia policies, like the intricacies of the notability guide and the shenanigans that surround copyright. —Theopolisme (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from TParis

5. You respond to an edit war on WP:ANEW. User A alledges that User B continues to revert sourced material about a secret affairs that software giant and well known philanthropist William Doors had in Peru last week and is sourced to the well known site E!. What action do you take?

A: While I don't plan to do much work at WP:ANEW, at least not initially, I'll still attempt to answer this to the best of my abilities. E! is, by definition, a gossip website and is not in and of itself an "all-facts-all-the-time reliable source". However, E! is still a major source and, assuming other major news organizations picked up the story as well, the content belongs in the article (see WP:WELLKNOWN, second bullet for a similar example)...but only with the "alleged" caveat. If User B continued to remove the content (after I had added the "alleged"), I would have no choice but to block them per WP:EW. Additionally, assuming User B represented the subject in question, I would advise them to use this page to contact OTRS about the possible BLP issue if they so desired. BLPs are always a touchy business, and care and discretion are required. —Theopolisme (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Below, it was claimed that I answered this question incorrectly due to not mentioning the converse (that is, if E! was the only mention). I apologize for not clarifying that, and would like to make it clear that I wouldn't have left the content in the article if E! was the sole source. Additionally, I indicated that I would act upon only one editor: this was due to the fact that no information was given as to what the other editor(s) had been doing. (A bit of revision history goes a long way.) —Theopolisme (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional questions from Gwickwire

6. If you were to come across an article that had high levels of vandalism from barely autoconfirmed editors, but great IP edits almost every day, as well as good edits from other autoconfirmed users, what would you do?

A: This is what pending changes level 2 is made for, although it is currently not implemented on the English Wikipedia (for a variety of reasons). In this case, however, I'd be curious as to how said vandalistic editors became "autoconfirmed"...it sounds like there might be some other sort of foul play going on here. If the editors already have ten edits over four days...either all of their previous edits were great and they recently shifted over to vandalism (WP:COMPROMISED?), or all of their previous 10+ edits were vandalistic in nature, in which case it sounds like they would have already been appropriately dealt with. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

7. What is your opinion on the usage of {{db-reason}}? Should it be allowed to be used as a catch-all for any non CSD criteria, or only to further explain something that is in the CSD criteria? If it can be used as a catch-all in your opinion, would you provide a scenario in which it would be appropriate to speedily delete the page, but not under a specific criterion?

A: {{db-reason}} has a very specific purpose, which is to clarify how an article unquestionably meets the speedy deletion crtieria. "...when the reason for deletion requires further details than those provided by the criterion-specific templates." I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel, or in making it possible to "speedy delete" any article that doesn't seem right for Wikipedia...that's what AfD is for. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Thine Antique Pen

8. Describe what action you would take if you came across a file with a CC-BY-ND or -NC licence.

A: Like I said to TParis above, I do not plan to do much work in the File: namespace. Regardless, if, for whatever reason, I was forced to determine what procedures to undertake, my thought process would be the following: CC-BY-ND and -NC are both unacceptable licenses for Wikipedia content (see here), so my next step would be to contact the uploader. If it was a self-created work, there's always the possibility that the user would be up for "re-licensing" it, which is always preferable to deletion. During this contact, I would also ask the creator to consider reuploading the image to Wikimedia Commons. If there was no response and the image was not/could not be covered by a non-free use rationale,^{(I would, obviously, check this before contacting the uploader.)} I would delete it under {{db-f3}}. I'd like to reiterate, however, that this sort of work is not in my sights and if I were to engage in administrative activities like this, I would first spend some quality time with media-related policy pages and, of course, not hesitate to ask questions. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Mabdul

9. Although this is very uncommon, especially if you don't want work in the File namespace, but it can happen: What do you do with a text which is licensed under GPL, GFDL, BSD, SISSL, WTFPL, of course, totally rhetorical...

A: My reply was delayed due to the fact that I needed to ask Mabdul for clarification as to whether he was talking about a multi-licensed text or about five separate texts. As he has now replied, I'll answer the question:

• GPL, GFDL (assuming is dual-licensed with CC-BY-SA), BSD, and WTFPL are all Wikipedia-compatible licenses, and no action would need to be taken.
• SISSL is a now-defunct free and open-source license used typically solely for software source code. As such, I'd recommend that the creator relicense the content (Sun says so too) under a more recognized license. Regardless, it seems very unlikely that content would be licensed under it, given its limited adoption. —Theopolisme (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Demiurge1000

10. Who actually wrote the script that caused the problem discussed at User talk:Theopolisme/Archive 8#STOP?

A: The script was created by Riley Huntley, although I (of course) take responsibility for the errors it induced while running on my account.

I was the one who wrote that faulty script and sent it to Theo asking him to trial it to see if it works properly. I would like to take full responsibility for this as it was my script and I sent it to him when he was just trying to help.

— Riley Huntley, 22:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Via IRC, he asked me to try it out, which I did. The script appeared to be functioning correctly (in looking at its initial edits vs. what was displayed in the terminal window), and as such I did not examine the source code in detail, which was my error. I no longer have access to the script itself, but if I recall correctly, the issue was caused by a weird multi-threaddish PyWikipedia "freakout" due to some sort of minor syntax error (an open loop or something like that?). I didn't catch it; he didn't catch it; and the moral of the story is to always know exactly what you're running (and the -s/sandbox mode doesn't hurt, either). In any case, lesson learned. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional question from Demiurge1000

11. Thank you. Once you became aware of the huge problems caused by the script, do you think in retrospect that it would have been a better idea to admit that it was authored by someone else and offered to you via IRC, rather than leaving the numerous people involved in the cleanup unaware of that for nearly nine hours after you first participated in the discussion of it on your talkpage (nearly fourteen hours after it was first brought up on your talkpage)?

A: As I was capable of debugging and resolving the issue on my own, I saw no point in immediately trying to 'pass the buck,' as that would likely have only added to the confusion. I notified Riley via email when I first saw the thread; he replied at his discretion. This, I believe, was a much more effective way of solving the problem: pain- [and blame-] free. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Theopolisme
• Requests for adminship/Theopolisme 2

• Links for Theopolisme: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Theopolisme can be found here.
• Stats on talk page. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support Theopolisme is a great contributor who would definitely be a positive to the project. No issues here, and a great amount of experience. Vacation9 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2. no issues Inka⁸⁸⁸ 16:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - I see no problems here. Deb (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - Friendly, helpful user who will be a net positive to the project. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
5. Support - Is this even a serious question? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Support I had this RfA watchlisted and I don't remember why. I'm going to assume it was to support the candidate unless I remember something bad. Went through the interactions I had with the user and they don't seem negative. Gigs (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Support He is ready. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Support Q5 was mostly right. The user implies the correct answer. By saying "assuming other major news organizations picked up the story" that it should be includes infers the opposite: that if not sourced better it should be removed. I'll accept the answer. He correctly identified E! as a gossip site and not reputable enough for such a negative claim and identified the BLP concern. The answer lacks an explanation to User A about why E! can't support the material and it lacks the BLP exemption under WP:EW but I'm not looking for perfection. I'm looking for someone who is aware of the facets of a situation and will seek additional guidance in policy. Theopolisme did identify the appropriate issues and that means he knows which policies to reference. Support.--v/r - TP 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Implying the right answer is good enough for you on a RfA? You're an easy grader. ;) ...but IMO blocking only one person in a two-person edit war is almost always the wrong action to take. Also, the answer as written is very close to the line of violating WP:INVOLVED: taking position in content dispute, then blocking opposing side. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   No, I'm sorry that's wrong. There is a BLP exemption to WP:EW so it is allowable to only block one editor. Also, WP:BLP requires administrators to enforce policy if you read the attached Arbcom threads. Enforcing BLP does not make an administrator involved.--v/r - TP 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   There is a BLP exception. Tn the answer to Q5 T said he would block User B if xe reverted after T had inserted the word "allegedly" before the alleged whathaveyou. The answer stats that User B is removing the content. It is T that re-inserting the alleged BLP violation. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   Oh snap, you're right. I've misread. I'll have to think on this.--v/r - TP 14:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

9. Strong support - There are few times when I don't even bother to look through recent contributions for an editor because I've seen them do excellent work and they've already gained my trust. TP and DB stamping their seal of approval doesn't hurt either. --Go Phightins! 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Support he served as a temporary admin on Wikidata before he resigned the tools due to inactivity, and is the WP 1.0 bot operator. So far nothing's broken so I have no concerns. --Rschen7754 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - I like what I see in him. No concerns at all. ZappaOMati 18:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Obvious Support as very busy nominator who is gladly taking a little time off to present this excellent candidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
13. I've gone through your previous RFA, where the most prominent concern was the general haste of your first nomination and your general lack of experience then, but the !voters there largely were impressed by your experience up to that point (notwithstanding the fact that you had too little of it). Having looked through your last several hundred contribs, I'm confident you are now experienced and well-seasoned. A look through your talk page archives since your first RFA reveals an editor who's willing to learn from mistakes, is cordial in his interactions with others, and overall has the right mindset and temperament to be a productive administrator. You'll be a net positive and I think you'll do just fine. I'm happy to offer my support. Best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
14. I do not find the script issue very troubling at all, especially given the time that has passed, and have found Theo to be pretty amicable in genera.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
15. Support: You responded to the questions well and you have good experience in certain areas of Wikipedia. You have my support. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
16. Support already does admin tasks, won't abuse the tools. Secret ^account 19:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. INeverCry 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
18. Support. I was neutral last time, for the reason Dennis outlines in his nomination statement - I was impressed by Theopolisme, but just didn't see a long enough tenure. Six months on, and having had a look at Theopolisme's recent work here and examined the questions and answers above, I'm confident we have good admin material here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
19. Support I see no evidence that he'll break the wiki with admin tools, and everyone trustworthy should have the tools if they want them. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
20. Support Don't know why I didn't !vote last time - I've seen this candidate around a lot and liked what I've seen. Willing to admit mistakes - and most things are fixable anyway. Willing to learn, too. I'm not so sure about all those raspberries, though. I'm a strawberry man myself... Peridon (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
21. Strong Support Superb timing, thanks for making me look like a genius! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
22. Glad to see Theopolisme is back for another round on the chopping block. I personally thought he was ready last time, and he's only improved since then. He has my full support. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
23. Looks good. Ray^Talk 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
24. Support I already thought you were one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
25. Support a simple support for a simple contributor. Mediran (t • c) 03:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
26. Strongly support, unless it draws opposes from people who don't like me, in which case strongly oppose, unless that draws opposes from people who do like me, in which case I'll be hiding under a box for the rest of the week. That seems to cover everything. Ironholds (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - I appreciate the work he does re-listing and NAC'ing AFDs and I've never had a concern about his judgement in either regard. I'd be happy to see him do either of those things as an admin. Stalwart111 06:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
28. Support. I trust Theo, and six months is more than enough time to run again after a previous RfA. He does very good work in new page patrol and AfD, and he will be a very welcome addition to the admin corps in these areas. He doesn't plan to work at ANEW initially, so I don't think we should put too much weight on his experience there when we make a decision about whether to give him the tools or not. As long as he has experience in the areas that he does intend to contribute to, and he knows his limitations enough that he won't jump in to areas that he isn't experienced in, I don't see a problem. Also, the issues regarding the CVUA and scripts happened six months ago, and Theo has developed a lot since then. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

    About the mistagging mentioned in the opposes - yes, it was an error, but it was Theopolisme's only tagging error in February that I could find. I don't consider one error to be grounds enough to deny him the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

29. Support: Congenial; calm; puts himself out to help people; answered questions based on the book. The italic titles incident was a bit of a traffic accident, but he owned up straight away. I trust him. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
30. Support Seems to have learned a lot from their last RfA; will be a good addition to the admin ranks. Miniapolis 16:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
31. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
32. Support. Concerns about maturity have not convinced me. It looks like you have plenty of experience here anyway. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
33. Support Experienced editor, seen their fine work at articles for deletion, articles for creation, etc., happy to support. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
34. Support - Copyright lesson was successfully learned. :-) mabdul 20:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
35. Support - I believe he will a good admin. Torreslfchero (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
36. Support - I have watched and worked with this user since he first became active and I see no maturity issues. There may have been some months and months ago when he was starting out but weren't we all that way at first? He may not have been ready six months ago but he definitely is now. -- Cheers, Riley 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
37. Support no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
38. Support per Mr. Stradivarius. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
39. Support per Dennis Brown, Mr. Stradivarius and others. I think he will make a good admin. Guðsþegn (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
40. Support - I'm familiar with some of Theopolisme's contributions in the antivandalism, new page patrol and AfD areas. In my estimation, they exhibit excellent judgement and knowledge of our policies and guidelines. Most of the opposes seem to to focus on maturity and judgement, and I simply don't see nearly enough evidence to convince me that Theopolisme would not make a good admin. Given some of the admin backlogs that I've seen recently, we seem to need all the help we can get. - MrX 20:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
41. Support Theo's activity as a Teahouse Host was enough to earn my support. After reviewing his overall contributions, I was more convinced. "I’ll try to help out where I’m needed most" adds another reason to support; egad, a sysop who checks the admin's backlog and helps where an admin is most needed! Yep, support. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 22:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
42. Support Why not??!!--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 03:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
43. Support (moving from neutral.) After reading many of the supports and opposes I think I agree more with support. I still have concerns about the answer to 5, but that is something that can be improved with experience. The candidate has expressed that they will be taking some of this slow which seems good enough to me. PaleAqua (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
44. Support per Ironholds. Also, more seriously, for the excellent answers many of which I could not have answered at my own RfA and some I still couldn't. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
45. Support Last time around - not so much. But in the last six months, Theo's impressed me with his continued enthusiasm and increased competence; he's got the makings of a capable admin. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
46. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools--rogerd (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
47. Support. Any time I see the concept of "maturity" brought up in RfA discussions I tend to become immediately a bit hesitant. (one bad apple and all that). So, I went back and reviewed much of their January 2013 and December 2012 conribs. Then looked through their Oct. and Nov. 2012 talk page archives. While I get the impression of an editor who is quick to go about "fixing" things, I also see an editor that is (very) quick to revisit their own edits and admit to mistakes when called on. The only real concern I noticed was a few discussions with Kudpung, and even there I perceived a "due respect" and willingness to listen. While Theopolisme may not have the circumspection of a NYB (few do, myself included), they do remain calm and discuss things when asked. In the end, while I may often want oppose due to "maturity" issues, I simply can't see this editor breaking anything that he wouldn't be immediately willing to fix if it was pointed out to him/her. I see some good template work, consistent notification to other users when applying any editing that may concern them, and a lot of attention to minor fixes and improvements to references. Mistakes and trouts perhaps - but I don't see any drama magnetism, egotism, or confrontational concerns. — Ched :  ?  20:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
48. Support —stay (sic)! 20:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
49. Support - And very happy to do so.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
50. Support - per the opposes below, which I strongly disagree with. Kraxler (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
51. Support I understand some of the reluctance below but overall Theopolisme is a capable candidate and sysoping him is very likely to be a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
52. Support - in all my past interactions with him Theopolisme has shown himself knowledgeable and helpful. Huon (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
53. Support - I see an experienced user with a level head. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
54. Support -Would be happy to see Theopolisme as syspo.He is experienced,committed and always be on positive note.---zeeyanketu ^discutez 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
55. Support Trustworthy and competent. When this editor makes a mistake (and we all do) he will cheerfully fix it. This is a much better quality than being perfect (examples of which are thin on the ground). Jschnur (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
56. Support Clear net positive — nerdfighter^(academy) 01:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
57. Support. I was neutral but encouraging last time, and I'm comfortable supporting now. I've read all the oppose and neutral comments, and I don't see anything that I would consider to be disqualifying. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
58. Support - I had opposed your first RfA citing experience issues; six months later, here you are again - with a more longer, constructive, experienced history on the project. All the best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
59. Support §haun 9∞76 ^༆ 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
60. Support Will be a net positive to the project; seems friendly and has clue. Spencer^T♦C 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
61. Support I trust Theo to make the right administrative calls, and can't think of anything he'd be likely to break. Read up on the concept of "gaming autoconfirmed", though (re Gwick's question). :-P — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
62. Support The thoughtfulness of the opposes have really picked up over the past several RfAs, and these in particular warranted careful reading and rereading. Having done so, I'm of the opinion that the bit will be a net positive here. Garamond Lethet
    c 07:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
63. Support This is clear evidence that a bit more time and hardwork can pay off. A good example of a candidate and deserves the mop! iComputerSaysNo 14:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
64. Support Looks like the candidate has seriously taken on board past concerns. Yes, a couple of the answers could be better, but Wikipedia's the world's largest open-book test. Seems to have sufficient clue, and that's what I'm looking for rather than never blotting the copybook or perfect RfA answers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
65. Support. An excellent candidate who has deserved the mop for quite some time. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 16:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
66. Opposes aren't really convincing, though I did give the maturity issues some thought before deciding to support. Wizardman 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
67. Support Good candidate for admin and deserves to be one. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
68. Support My interactions with him have been very positive, and his work is excellent. I see a good grasp of policy. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
69. Support -- haven't interacted with him, but great answers above. -- User:Mscuthbert (Talk) 07:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support Seen him around, seems clueful. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support. Content creation could be better, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support. --Rzuwig^► 12:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
73. Support. I've seen good work from this editor, and look forward to their work as an admin. Good luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
74. Support per Ched (#47). Be careful with deletions and don't take on anything you're unsure about, even if it makes you look like you're avoiding tough decisions. —Soap— 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
75. Support Seems to be well suited to becoming an admin. Edison (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support And repeating Soap, just dont do anything your unsure of :) If you are unsure ask someone or read a page first! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 02:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
77. Support Seen a lot of his work around, he will make a great admin. FrigidNinja 02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support — -dainomite   04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
79. Support The opposes make good points but, as Ched above says, nobody's perfect and Theopolisme seems willing to listen and rethink. Can't ask for much more than that. --regentspark (comment) 12:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
80. Support per Ched.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm simply not convinced that things have changed significantly since the last attempt, barely 6 months ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not contesting this oppose but you write "barely 6 months" as if it is unthinkable that someone would have the gall to reapply for adminship after that amount of time. Weren't you sysoped 6 months after your first edit? Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   Yep. Sorry to point out the irony, Andrew... but I still respect your opinion and am not looking to contest it or anything (especially as it is a valid viewpoint). Kurtis ^(talk) 22:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   If you seriously don't think Wikipedia 8 years ago was a totally different beast than Wikipedia today, with a substantially different set of standards, problems, and expectations... well, I really don't know what to say to you. But I hope you make it safely back to this universe someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

   Not to be argumentative, but it's rather difficult to respect the opinion of anyone who suggests that opinons disagreeing with his own are somehow outside the "universe". It's this holier-than-thou attitude on the part of the few that makes administering the wiki more difficult and drives people away and why I believe that all admins should have to stand for re-authorization on a periodic basis. But, whatever... you guys keep on keeping on and I'll go back on wiki-break because it just makes me sick to read stuff like that. Have fun and bye for now. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 11:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Maturity. Wait 3 years or until you are 18, whichever is longer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   [1] I guess 3 years then? Legoktm (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Q2. Maturity issues. Q5 is wrong too. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose per above and User talk:Theopolisme/Archive 8#STOP - I believe that Theopolisme was the one who wrote that specific script. Forget that, I just don't think that he's ready for the extra tools right now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

   The first comment from him in that archive was essentially "I'm sorry, not sure what happened but I will fix it" to which the admin/editors involved accepted and were even joking with him aftewards. We all make mistakes, I rather like the fact that he instantly owned up and corrected it. If anything, that diff reassures me that he won't duck responsibility for his mistakes AND will listen to the advice of others. Of course, if that one mistake is enough to land you here, you are certainly within your rights. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Weak Oppose - I say weak oppose because in the spirt of "no big deal", I have a hard time opposing someone who has a generally good and prolific editing record. The candidate, however, is among the most bland and unimpressive admin hopefuls I have seen in a while. He spends too much time devoting himself to bureaucratic tasks that have no benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. He does decent CSD and PROD works and a very good job of AfD clerking, but I notice that I have not seen him make a single contribution to a deletion discussion that has anything even resembling an original thought behind it. In CSD, policy discussion, whatever... he unfailingly sides with the majority opinion and avoids any contentious discussion. I'm sorry, but I look for admin candidates that have some degree of backbone, and not ones that avoid any kind of action which might get them criticized later. I want to see admin candidates that say "this is what I think, and I will stand by my convictions" rather than candidates that keep their heads down and just agree with the majority opinion in the hopes it will keep them politically palatable with the majority of users. I would be willing to seriously reconsider this a year or so from now, but his age combined with the "I wanna be an admin!" smell that seems to cling to every action and edit he makes prevents me from being able to support him at this time. Trusilver 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
6. Maturity concerns. (1) 6 months is awful fast to come back to RFA especially given maturity was the concern before. More time is needed to grow up and a year from now would be good (and do some outside Wiki things and grow up as well). (2)Seems like there is an interest in leveling up rather than ecyclopedia improvement (building Britanica quality at Wiki scale). (3)The vandal-fighter acadamy is first sort of just questionable on its own and then that it was made a hash of. (4)The recent project on article improvement is extremely new and does not show any signs of traction yet...if he really wants that to go somewhere push it hard for a while and make it succeed (or do enough to say a good try was given). The project page does not show any evidence of article improvement though and I think it is naive (and just not understanding content work) to think that single day flash mobs on important articles are going to be how to improve substantive topics. (5)While the fellow has a large "orange" (article) section of his pie chart...his EPP is very low (1.54) so that it is extremely likely that his edits are not substantial content contributions. (6)Also the articles he has contributed to most (Sandy Hook shooting and Amanda Todd suicide) give me pause. Seems a little too much moth to flame. (7) Quite a few declined speedy tags. And the emphasis on that as his first area to contribute is concerning. On the good side, he seems very upbeat and the user page is very fun. (although what up with the protection?) I would be glad to re-look in a year as this would put more distance behind things (the CV academy, the bad speedies, the new project taking off). But please not one of those "to the day" years...that sends a bad message.TCO (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
7. Reluctant oppose - Though I'm sure that this applicant may succeed, I've always found a maturity issue with Theopolisme, especially with in The borderline-defunct WP:CVUA. I say reluctant because I get on well with Theo, but I can't see him using the mop just yet.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 20:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose Seems to equate the real world of business and commerce with vandalism and Wikipedia with a shooting gallery. For example, he wanted to speedy delete an article about one of the oldest architectural practices in the world. The article still doesn't amount to much and this guy ain't helping. Warden (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   While I cannot see the exact text because of the revision deletion, the article was marked for deletion per G11 and G12, not for something like notability issues that would show the candidate just tagged the article and walked away. Brierley Groom being one of the oldest architectural practices in the world has nothing to do with it because for all you and I know, the original text might not have even stated that. Yes, Theo could have removed the copyvio & promotionalism like DGG did but saying "and this guy ain't helping" shows no good-faith. Especially when Theo went back to the article after his CSD was declined to move the article to the proper name and make a minor edit. :) -- Cheers, Riley 23:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

   The copyvio tag was added by a bot, and Theopolisme merely left it in. The tag seems to be slightly off, as the page it most closely resembles is [2], and that wasn't what was tagged. Perhaps the search bot got something different than what we see because the web server serves a different page to browsers that don't use Javascript. Or perhaps the webpage has changed in the past few weeks. Either way it was the bot that added the G12 tag, not Theopolisme. The G11 tag was added by him, however. —Soap— 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Still on the fence-- it's hard to promote a subject that's 300 years old. That said, there were phone numbers in the text, so it would be easy to apply a G11 tag. That said, it looks like the version as seen Theopolisme has been deleted. The first live version is that of DGG. Dlohcierekim 07:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   That tagging was 4 months ago. Dlohcierekim 07:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Theopolisme tagged this page for speedy deletion twice on the same day, 25 October. The history is a bit confusing - both the articles were created at the uncapitalised Brierley groom, and the first one was deleted at that title, so the deleted history is still there (here is the link - admins only). The second one was renamed to the capitalised title of Brierley Groom, along with its history. The second version (admins only) doesn't look eligible for speedy deletion, as Soap has already mentioned, but the first one definitely was. Some highlights: "As architects, they try to make each and every project an inspired piece of design" and "they pride ourselves on providing innovative buildings, which satisfy briefs on time and within budget to ensure that clients return to us with the confidence to start the whole process all over again" (sic). I'm not completely sure about the copyright violation, but it looks like it was probably correct given that the first two paragraphs of the deleted version are only superficially different from the first two paragraphs of the blurb at brierlygroom.co.uk. The second G11 tag was a slip-up by Theopolisme, but perhaps an understandable one given the context. And as Dlohcierekim says, it was four months ago. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Deletion is a crude and unhelpful way of resolving such a situation. I'm fine with the candidate continuing to patrol and flag such issues but would prefer a wiser person like DGG to be the one making the final call. Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   I certainly have my reservations about the candidate, but EVERYONE makes mistakes from time to time. I found enough refs to suggest notability in about 45 seconds of searching for them. Do I think that Theo was careless and didn't do enough searching before dropping the CSD bomb? Yes. Do I think that Theo treats the project as an MMORPG and is more interested in his "score" than he is in taking the extra time to do the right thing? Absolutely. Do I think that one questionable CSD tag is an acceptable reason to oppose someone who has about a 97% correct CSD-tagging history? No... I really think that is beyond reasonable. Trusilver 16:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Warden opposed me for one AFD he didn't like as well. You and I might not agree with this, but anyone can oppose for any reason they want. It is up to the closing Crat to weight the strength of the argument. That said, if I felt Theo only looked at CSD as a number "game", I wouldn't have nominated him. Once we get the bit, most admin mellow and get a little more conservative anyway. I respect the opposing concerns but having looked at the case, my faith isn't shaken in the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   I oppose on the basis of my overall impression. My provision of a single example is for the sake of brevity and I don't see the support !voters being hassled when they fail to provide any evidence to back up their statements. Please don't suppose that I can't provide more examples; it's just a matter of looking. For instance, see User_talk:Edgar_lawton from the same period. I can't see the topic now because it was deleted but it seems to have been about the use of whole cottonseed as a foodstuff for dairy cattle. That's a notable topic and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have much content about it. The new editor who tried to start a page about it was greeted with a false smile and then sent packing with a hostile template. My impression remains that this editor has no interest in the information which we compile; he's here to score points. This attitude is fine in a vandal-fighter but admins should have wider view because they may be called on to resolve disputes about complex matters of content and policy. It's the difference between an officer and a soldier; it's not enough to be a good fighter. Warden (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Actually, I think Colonel Warden's rationale is the strongest offered. I think RfA should be a discussion, with arguments presented so that those who are undecided (like me right now) can better understand the matter. Dlohcierekim 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   The second example provided by Colonel Warden (Whole cottonseed feeding milk) was a complaint and a question suitable for WP:HELPDESK rather than an attempt to create an article. However, it is true that nobody bothered to point the user to the right direction or to help. The article was prodded (!) by Theopolisme and deleted 18 minutes (!) after that as an {{db-a1}} by User:Acroterion. It was the only edit by the creator. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

   Reading the deleted article, I can see why the PROD was put there. I would have PRODed it as well since it was signed by editor on the article page, so obviously wasn't an article. Theo did put a welcome template (thus pointing him is some direction) on the editor's page [3]. Most people would have just slapped a speedy tag on it (demonstrated by how the admin A1 speedy deleted it 20 minutes later), so the PROD and a welcome template was the more gentle way of handling it, to be frank. Note that the real Edgar Lawton [4] isn't anti-cottonseed, so the attempted article was a political statement, not a desire to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

   The NCPA is only 115 years old so I suppose that's a bit better than the architects' brush-off. For a third example of a different type, see David Segal (reporter) — an article which the candidate created during the same period. For a BLP, this seems quite weak and promotional in tone — I wouldn't be surprised to see it at AFD. What particularly bothers me is the lead, "Segal has received praise for his writing and reporting skills." The first source is ok but the second isn't. Putting a source like this into an article indicates that the candidate is still quite green and so should not be judging the work of others. Warden (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

9. Oppose Clearly, improved over last time. Friendly, courteous, receptive to feedback. Good with people. Will make a really good admin, but not ready yet. I do not believe one should tag as A3 articles that are about ten minutes or less old. It would be better to slow down, and give articles a chance. It is always better to spend a few moments, as Colonel Warden recommends, searching for ways to source/expand the article. Dlohcierekim 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Various maturity concerns per above, and I am also not inclined to hand a lifetime adminship to someone who seems to want it too much. In this case, I get a strong sense that the candidate's edits are largely motivated by a desire for extra buttons, reinforced by the too-fast first Rfa and this too-soon followup Rfa. I do thank this candidate for their service, whatever the motivation, but I'd like to see this nomination sometime next year, not now. Jusdafax 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose - not yet. Should revist this again in a year. Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose I would not oppose on the basis of errors made 4 months ago, but the most recent AfD he proposed was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Abdullah Ahmed. Moving the article at Product tour to the users sandbox was a good idea, but redirecting to marketing was not, when it isn't currently mentioned in the article.However, I see the advice the candidate is giving to users, and it's good advice. Another few months should do it. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose. I do not believe that the deletion tool can be entrusted to an editor who just last week placed this speedy deletion tag, with its totally unfounded suggestion of hoaxing, on an article that contained such strong indications of importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

    Good catch. That doesn't look like a hoax at all, just a badly written article. Notability was asserted. Chutznik (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

14. Oppose - Theopolisme is a great editor and a valuable asset to the project; however, I'm concerned that he has a tendency to act a little too hastily (there are examples above). I think more experience would allow him to make better decisions, slow down a little, and develop a bit more self-awareness. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose - I spent a long time on the fence on this one. I've run into Theopolisme a few times and had a general positive impression that was enforced by Dennis Brown's strong nomination statement. The user is an asset to the project as a vandalism fighter and would become more of an asset with access to the sysop tools. He is consistently pleasant in his communications with other users. Delving into his contributions, I formed an overall impression of an earnest and sincere young man who has put a lot of effort into building his Wikipedia resume in order to qualify for adminship. Therein lies a concern -- in his article creations and his participation on nomination discussions for his DYKs, he shows a very limited acquaintance with content-related policies/guidelines and the principles behind them. While an administrator can elect to stay away from matters they don't understand very well -- and I fully expect that he would elect to stay away from most matters related to topics like notability, verifiability, etc., there's a general expectation that administrators understand policy and can make good judgements about policies they aren't thoroughly familiar with. Due to this user's apparent youth -- and lack of life experience -- he falls short of that general expectation. Still, I was in the neutral column but leaning toward support until seeing relatively recent instances of what I consider to be too-hasty and/or ill-conceived new-page patroller taggings: this prod notice added one minute after the article was created, this speedy-delete-as-hoax tag cited earlier in this discussion. If this user intends to specialize in areas like new-page patrol support, he needs to be less eager to tag new pages and should do a better job in judging new content like that page he called a hoax. I'm disappointed to have come to this "oppose" decision, but there it is. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose I have concerns about maturity issues, and I think more time should have been given in between RfAs (at least a year). Furthermore, this CSD tag concerns me: [5] - article tagged as A7/possible hoax when there was no evidence of a hoax, and the subject was clearly alleged to be important. I'd say give it another year before trying an RfA, and then maybe I'll change my mind, but there are still too many concerns for me to support the user at this time. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose. Lack of maturity, lack of precision, poor accuracy of judgment, and over eagerness to become an admin. That all sounds harsh, I know, but I have followed Theo's work since his participation on the ill fated counter vandalism academy which had to be completely restructured due to its having become little more than a social gathering of over enthusiastic high schoolers, and his first run for adminship. Rightly or wrongly I conclude that this a case of a user who has joined Wikipedia with the determination to become an admin - he may well make a good admin one of the days but he still needs to be pulled up regularly, and while he may feel that I've been stalking him, it is nothing more than the fact that he keeps turning up in thet places that I have on my watchlist, such at those that are basically strictly admin areas. Sorry Theo, but like much advice I have offered you on various things, IMHO, you are definitely not ready for the bit yet and as I said when you asked me offline recently for advice, this application comes too hard on the heels of your previous attempt. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

    I'll just add in Theo's favour, that now that I have since read all the other votes (I rarely do before casting my own vote), that Theo has always been receptive to advice even if he doesn't always follow it, and is always of cheerful and polite demeanour. It seems as if I have echoed the thoughts of Orlady and Zippy, and of HJ's neutral. It's a shame that this has to be what is probably my first ever 'strong' oppose in around 200 RfAs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

    What do you make of his entirely voluntary resignation as a Wikidata admin about a month ago, then? --Rschen7754 10:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

    What he did - or didn't - do on another Foundation project is of no concern of mine; I may be an admin here, but I cannot reasonably be expected to be abreast of all that happens on 101 Foundation sites. That said, I have an exceptionally close overview of this particular candidate's activity on en.Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

18. Oppose Answer for Q5, speedy deletion tagging case mentioned by Phil Badger, overall maturity concerns.--Staberinde (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Oppose Kudpung sums it up perfectly. Tough love. Widr (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose Well summed up by #17 Kudpung. Give it another 12 months. Leaky Caldron 10:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Kudpung. I disagree with the rationales behind other opposes (including the Q5 complaint), and would not use the word "maturity" in the way that other editors including Kudpung have done, but I oppose based on most of what Kudpung is saying. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose Essentially per TCO and Phil Bridger. Its a bit of a heartsink to see Theo take the routine "give it six months' or so" salve so literally but it's not surprising. I took a rather harsh view of his 1st RfA and whilst there has been an admirable amount of laudable work and effort since, I don't see that he's acquired the necessary to be safe and effective with the tools. Which is not surprising. Maturity (for want for a better term) doesn't obtain in proportion to wiki-activity; whilst it is an idiosyncratic process that develops according to many factors and experiences and influences, the understanding of how those relate and effect one's judgment and understanding and attitudes always takes a goodly while, and can't be rushed. There's no short-cut, and no substitute either. I'm sure that when Theo IS ready he'll look back on these two RfA's and understand that he wasn't then. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Limited content contributions and several recent mistakes regarding deletions pointed out by previous participants. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Whilst there's a lot to commend this candidate for, the deletion errors listed above leave me uncomfortable with the idea of theopolisme having the deletion button. Happy to see you here again in a few months, provided you improve your CSD tagging. ϢereSpielChequers 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
25. No trust to users whose contributions to the main space, essentially, are limited to pushing buttons of various scripts. The recent attempt to exterminate a Kurd is a solid reason to deny extra privileges to this user. Maybe, these privileges will be granted in the future when they became more tidy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose I opposed last time because of concerns about making hasty decisions, but unfortunately, per the opposes stated above, even after over 6 months, I haven't seen any improvements in terms of the candidate's attitude. I'm impressed that you've managed to co-ordinate the Wikipedia:United States Education Program though, so keep up the good work. Minima© (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose. I've looked over the candidates contributions to mainspace to see what there is in terms of addition of actual sourced content. There's very, very little, and what there is gives me pause for thought. The candidate's edits to his most-edited article are almost entirely formatting changes and similar tweaks. Of what he lists as his article creations, the highest "rated" is David Segal (reporter). Apart from its creation 241 words long and just exactly long enough for DYK, the candidate's other major edits to it are things like this edit where he adds a typepad.com blog and a piece by tabloid the Daily Mail as the sole sources for claims that a named living person "bullied and threatened his customers" and was convicted of fraud and jailed. (Those claims are still in the article now, the only additional source being one written by Segal himself.) These claims may well be true, but this is not how WP:BLP tells us to write about living persons. Aside from that, there may occasionally be times where a candidate lacking in content contributions clearly still has the thoughtful approach to content (and respect for others' contributions to the encyclopedia) that we expect serious long-term content contribution to develop. However, this is not one of those times, as the examples of careless and hasty tagging cited by others above have indicated. Someone with these issues should not be wielding the delete button. Finally, the script incident, from only around six months ago, still causes me serious concern. De-escalating the situation, Kudpung jokingly said to Theopolisme and Riley that running scripts against mainspace should be left to "geniuses". The candidate's response here - after plenty of time to consider the situation - is not that he's going to avoid running scripts, not that he's going to stop accepting scripts from other people over IRC to run himself in order to be "helpful", not that he won't run scripts with his admin account. Instead, all he says is that in future he's going to always know "exactly" what he's running. I'm sure that's more cautious than the approach he's taken before, but I'm really not sure it's enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I have much respect for Dennis' nominations and opposing such candidates is always a tough task. In this case, my neutrality comes because the answer to Question 5 is critically wrong. Theo writes, If User B continued to remove the content (after I had added the "alleged"), I would have no choice but to block them per WP:EW. Unfortunately, although TParis is being quite lenient, this answer and orientation is not acceptable at all. The first and foremost step is to engage the user in discussions. If a 3RR has been breached, even then extreme care has to be taken to engage the editor first or to confirm whether the editor has been substantially warned. Additionally, if Theo himself has initiated editing the said article and has started reverting deleted content, there is no definite guarantee that Theo is not seen as being involved by outside parties. In other words; consequently, his act of blocking the editor might be seen as being an involved act. Despite my strong wordings here, the fact is that I am neutral and not at all negative to his adminship, with due respect to Theo for standing up to the RfA again. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
2. Neutral While I believe this editor is more than qualified for using the tools in a patrolling capacity, I am concerned that many of the articles this editor has created may not satisfy the notability criteria and this would not make involvement in the deletion process desirable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
3. Neutral I share some of the oppose concerns about being a career Wikipedian (the candidate references his Wikicareer even), if meant in the context of FAs and creating great content it's not an objectionable mindset but it becomes slightly moreso if instead an editor is just looking to pass an RfA. Additionally the script situation is cause for concern, you shouldn't be editing via scripts you don't understand and of course this could be a lot more damaging with extra permissions. Having said this, a lot of boxes have been ticked by the candidate which prevent me from opposing Jebus989^✰ 00:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Neutral - this recent tagging of an article for BLPPROD, despite there bieng plenty of sources from a quick Google search, shows a lack of WP:BEFORE and is slightly troubling - but I need to dig deeper before deciding properly. I shall return. GiantSnowman 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Comment: I have not !voted yet (I'm still actively considering my !vote), but I feel the need to rush to the candidate's defense on that BLPPROD. Placement of that tag on that newly created page, was entirely appropriate, IMO. The article was not only unsourced, but it consisted of only one sentence that did not contain a clear assertion of the subject's notability and that lacked wikilinks, categories, and other context that might help in ascertaining notability or finding sources. Moreover, the {{prod blp}} template that Theopolisme placed on the article is, in its effect, an extra-emphatic cleanup template -- it alerts the article creator (and others who may be watching) to a serious issue and gives them 10 days to resolve the issue. Under the circumstances, placing that template was an appropriate action to help Wikipedia address problems with unsourced BLPs. WP:BEFORE doesn't require patrollers to thoroughly investigate every near-incoherent page that gets created. --Orlady (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

   Comment: I have voted and I don't like to appear to be harassing people who disagree with me, but in this case I agree with User:Orlady. Deb (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral(Moving to support). Would be in support except for the answer to question 5. PaleAqua (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

5. Neutral - I was about to add my support but Phil Bridger pointed out this speedy nomination which is way too recent for my tastes. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
6. See oppose number 14; not opposing because it might be an isolated mistake. Chutznik (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
7. I wish you'd waited a few months. I also wish you'd spent some more time writing the encyclopaedia; not because featured content starts are pretty, but because writing a serious article requires patience and dedication (if I were being harsh I would say it shows you can do something other than mash buttons). What I see in the oppose section is a pattern of zeal and haste where you should have taken things a bit slower and used your judgement. Adminship is much more about judgement than it is about mashing buttons (I think I went into more detail on this on your last RfA so I won't repeat myself). However, I think you have generally good judgement. I think you would be better prepared for adminship in another six months or a year, but this request is probably going to pass and I can live with that. You'll have a steep learning curve, but your your obvious enthusiasm will help you there and your heart's in the right place. As long as you remember to take your time, think things through, and do your due diligence, you'll probably turn out to be a bloody good admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
8. Neutral - Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Six months ago I sat in Neutral and suggested another try after a year. Now I suggest waiting another six months. Still has not been an active Wikipedian for a full year; it does take time to absorb the culture. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Neutral: Why rush to become an admin? I expect he will keep improving. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
10. Neutral I expected this RFA to come in about 6 months because I felt that the editr would likely be ready then. The opposes above show I was right. I do hope you have not shot yourself in the foot my running too soon - this one was really mistimed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:16, 2 March 2013 (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.