Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 3

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

Ktr101 3

Final (11/23/7); Ended 0:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) (withdrawn by candidate User:Ktr101.)

Nomination

Ktr101 (talk · contribs) – K. Rutherford is a well respected and highly intelligence Wikipedia user, editor, and author. I have dealt with him on multiple occasions editing United States Air Force unit pages. As my first couple comments and criticisms came from Ktr101, I took a look at what they've accomplished before I replied. To say I was surprised would be an understatement. Kevin took a model template for the unit pages and expanded the Air National Guard units, encompassing many new pages. Delving further into his edits, I noticed he has kept a good hold on pages dealing with Massachusetts and Cape Cod. One of the areas in which Ktr101 can help immensely as an Admin is throughout the military unit pages - no one seems to have taken charge in this area, and continuity between pages is horrendous. He has the ability, the interest, and since his last RfA, plenty of experience. TDRSS (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination from User:Tdrss.

Over the past 21 months, I have been able to experience all the things that Wikipedia has to offer. I've started my edits by originally creating pages that were simple stubs, and have gone from there to get 102nd Intelligence Wing nominated to Good Article status.

Originally I was one of the many plagarizers of the site, and looking back at it, I never should have plagarized. On the plus side of that action, I have become better at citations. I am also one who backs up all that I write. Because of this, I have never intentionally written in anything that could be taken the wrong way or is false, as I know that that is never looked highly upon here.

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I have a few ideas that I would like to implement should I become an administrator. One of these is maybe having an administrator urgent notice board. I know that there is an adminstrator noticeboard, but there are some situations where urgent attention is needed. For example, if a user is vandalizing a page and some user wants to stop this, they have to either post it on the board or find an active administrator who will swiftly deal with the situation. There is also no guarantee that there will be an active administrator when the probability of them being online is figured out. I believe that if we had a "bells and whistles" urgent notice, like the kind that pops up when there is a new message, then there might be a bit less backup on this site and this could raise the public image of administrators throughout the project. I think that that would be a great addition to the site, and I would enjoy being an active participant in it.

Note:I do also to intend to work on AIV and ANI, as well as the other noticeboards. I was so carried up in writing that that I forgot to address the basics. So here goes. As an administrator, I intend on helping those who have issues with other things. While I don't intend on nesting on the noticeboards, I will occassionally monitor then and address any problems that arise. I also will help with requests to re-create a page, as long as the page wasn't deleted with an overwhelming majority. This allows for the prospective editor to possibly expand a page what was missing a few crucial elements. Also, I plan on helping anyone who needs it in a timely manner, as I don't like waiting a week to hear back from someone. I hope that that answered some questions, and I am sorry that I forgot about this previously. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

A: This is a hard question. Having made many edits on this site, I really cannot decide my best edit. In past RFAs, I had said that I had taken pride in my Air National Guard pages, but the truth is, I really am proud of all of them. This is because I passionately edit the site through good health and bad (try editing with a fever), and I have only regretted the edits that I made within the first few weeks here, when I pretty much plagarized things off the web. As those times are long past, I am looking into the future realizing that I have many more edits to go here. I will always love my work, because otherwise I would've stopped working on this site months ago. In the end, my best work is that with which I have done careful research for, and which has provided the base for many great articles.

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: Edit conflicts are a pain, but they are also a learning experience. I rarely encounter these conflicts, as I edit fairly stable pages. The most recent one that I encountered was when I was trying to add information on Michael Jackson's death, and a combination of the site crashing because of the traffic and the multitude of editors with information made this rather stressful. Because I am normally a laid back person, I was able to just sigh when I learned that all of my edits were erased, and I began to rewrite what was just lost.

About a year ago, I was tinkering around with the Air National Guard by state template when I noticed that there was a dead link to that of New York. When I clicked on the link, I was directed to New York State Air National Guard. Apparently, one editor thought that it would be a great idea to move the state of New York page to New York State. Although I was never part of the discussion on the talk page for the move, I objected to the move and I even notified an administrator about the controversy. The administrator eventually reverted the edit in question, and all became well.

I believe that conflicts can be avoided by good communication between well-meaning users, and this can help to keep the site sane. Otherwise, there is the potential for chaos to be born.

Note:After a user indirectly pointed out that I pulled the same stunt on this Question as on Question 1, I want to set the record straight. Edit conflicts in my view are a sign of immaturity. To keep trying to make your point over the opposition of others shows that you are trying to either get yourself blocked, or you have some serious issues. I believe that there are many ways to go about these conflicts. The first and most calm way to approach it is to talk to the user. From there, you can warn the user if they seem to have ignored your advice. In the end, and only when there is malice shown, is it appropriate to block the user. People who make these problems usually think that they will somehow get away with their actions. Fortunately, they do not, and Wikipedia has a policy for dealing with them. I hope that that clears up some confusion there. Sorry about that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

4. Are there any sections of Wikipedia in which you believe flirtation between users is acceptable? If so, which are they and why?

A:Honestly, I am not one who would flirt over the Wiki. I know that there are probably lovers on this site, and that is perfectly alright with me. I do believe that there is one appropriate place for flirtation. This page is the talk page. As long as it isn't overly graphic, it is alright with me. I am absolutely opposed to people openly displaying their liking for one another on areas such as RFAs, project pages, and other pages. If you like someone, don't let the whole site know about it. In some ways, even writing on a talk page is bad. How embarassing might it be if someone spams your talk with flirts, and you don't even like them. Well I hope that i've answered your question to your liking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow up question from Javert.

5. So two users using their talk pages as some sort of date place would be acceptable to you?

A:No, and only because they aren't furthering the cause of the encyclopedia. If they use the talk page once or twice to note something, that's alright with me. Three or more times, then it is obnoxious. There are also other forms of communication out there, so relying solely on this site shows that the users have minor issues with privacy. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Tanthalas39

6. Can you explain this argument for notability and this argument for "keeping and cleaning" an article? Does the first link, in your opinion, accurately demonstrate your understanding of WP:N, particularly, WP:BIO?

A:To the first question, I believe that there is a kind of notability issue on some search engines. When i've tried searching for military units, I get about 60% spam, with other things being transcluded from this site. I do know that it is hard to find information about a person, place or thing. I do believe that there can sometimes be a lack of information out there on a particular topic. I went under the philanthropy section there because she had done something (I really can't remember what) and had impacted the lives of others. As I have not seen the article in a while, that is the best that I can give you. Sorry about the lack or more information

As for the second one, that was made over a year ago, and I have vastly improved my notability standards since then. If that was to be run in the RFD circuit again, I would support a deletion. In the past 13 months, I have seen a lot of articles, and I have also seen many that are really questionable. This experience has caused me to better decide which articles are good, and which are "bad". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Looie496

7. Your answer to question 1 suggests that you might not be aware of the existence and/or purpose of WP:ANI and WP:AIV. Can you respond to this?

A:I am aware of them. My idea is to have a bot-like entity update a noticeboard that maybe could sit on the screen of the administrator. As we are only human here, there is the potential for people to take a bit of time before responding to an urgent request. I have experienced this before, and it can lead to some tense moments before the incident is resolved. I was thinking of an urgent noticeboard, and when a user posts there, a bot can update the box and an administrator can take action. Although I have never used ANI and AIV, I do recognize their usefulness. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from Tedder

8. Sox's counter indicates you've been semi-active on a few WikiProjects (mostly WT:WikiProject Military history), you've posted to the pump a few times, but otherwise I haven't seen you at WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, WP:EAR, WP:COIN, or elsewhere. Sometimes that's good- it means you are into building an encyclopedia. However, it seems most editors end up involved in something. What's your reasoning for this? There is no right or wrong answer, since there it isn't good or bad to not have been there.

A: Frankly, I haven't had to use those pages because I have had no need to. I really was never involved in investigating sockpuppets or edit warring from the outset. This is because I try to stay away from disputes like that and focus on improving the encyclopedia. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question from ϢereSpielChequers

9 This deleted edit was a few months ago. What would you do now if you came across an article that was not in English?

A: I cannot see that edit, as I am not an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire contents of the page:
{{Delete|This is not the Spanish Wikipedia}} (this was the CSD tag added by User:Ktr101)
Cesar Po (también conocido como C. Rezar Po) se re zarpo.

Fin.
 Frank  |  talk  18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page title? --candle•wicke 19:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cesar Po. --javért ^stargaze 20:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Today, I would notify the editor and explain to them the appropriate placing of their content. I should've done that with that edit, but I jumped the gun, and tagged it as that. Thanks a lot for providing me the informaton guys.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Ktr101
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 2
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 3
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 4
• Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5

• Links for ktr101: Ktr101 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ktr101 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. --javert (stargaze) 01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support wholeheartedly for adminship. TDRSS (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
2. I changed my !vote to support because of the new info you added to his first answer. It shows that you know of WP:AIV and WP:ANI and that you want to participate in them. I think that the answer to the conflicts question shows that you will be able to solve conflicts by being civil. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Support –xeno^talk 03:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I see nothing so far which would suggest I should oppose. The edit conflict seems to be a misunderstanding, the user is referring to conflict so I see no reason to make a mountain out of a molehill. The flirtation question seems a bit unusual (or is that just me?) and the user cannot view a deleted edit... user appears calm, cool and willing to assist. Name seems familiar but in the way of seeing it around Wikipedia (which is good) and not for any purely negative reasons. Good luck! --candle•wicke 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support: Absolutely.. South Bay (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. Craftsman2001 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Moral Support I do not believe you are ready, but you're a far better candidate than the current totals would suggest. Keepscases (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support, the only question I ask myself when I comment on RFA discussions is "Will the user use the tools disruptively?". Despite some poor answers to the questions, I am convinced that the answer in this user's case is "No". I even quite like his responses to Q4 and Q5. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
11. Support I am interested in Mr. Rutherford's full contributions to Wikipedia, not on the clever turns of phrase he puts forth as part of the RfA pageant. I have no problems supporting this RfA. The nitpicking of the Oppose section isn't convincing. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Not debating your Support, Pastor, but "the clever turns of phrase he puts forth" (and not only those here at the RfA) pre-suppose that all editors - especially those for whom English isn't their first language - will always understand his idiosyncratic choice of words. Using "obnoxious" (a favourite, it seems) as a synomym for "inappropriate", for example, is inviting hurt feelings. Expecting that the language used is correctly understood by both author and reader is nitpicking? Plutonium27 (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I really do wish that Pastor Theo had not found it necessary to insult the opposers in the fervour of his support by employing phrases like "nitpicking. I have my own opinion about the common sense of those who have chosen to support this RfA, but I also have the good sense not to mention that in my oppose vote, unlike Pastor Theo and too many others. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially since, unlike actual nitpicking, the vast majority of these opposes are for an overlying lack of basic understanding of Wikipedia terms, policies, etc. Tan | 39 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, but just actions and posts in general that I have seen the candidateu make at various places and discussions on Wikipedia give me doubts as to his suitability as a sysop. I can't think of any particular cases at the moment; it is somewhere in the back of my mind. If I can remember, of course I will post it here for the candidate and everyone else to see. NW (Talk) 01:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Can you provide some examples? I'm really curious for the reason behind the oppose. Maybe I can help address why I said what I said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2. I don't really like the looks of this (undelete link for admins). It says to me that the candidate is unfamiliar with what constitutes disruptive editing, which is exceedingly important for an administrator to be able to recognize. I'd let it slide, but he created it two days ago, which makes me think he needs some more time before he gets sysopped. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'll admit that I worded that template badly. Yes, I think that it could've possible been done a bit better now that I look back at it. I tried to word is so that it would basically say, please don't add 5 citations to a link, as it is really unnecessary, but I couldn't get the correct wording out at the time. I admit that that was a mistake, and I am really sorry that I didn't stop myself from creating it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   I also want you to know that i'm not trying to lessen the creation and subsequent deletion of the template when asking why you think that two days is a recent time when I had a clean record before that? I know that it is recently, but is there this "stain" that is enveloping me right now in your eyes? Also, what is your ideal time period for cleansing myself of this? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Does not display the knowledge required for being an admin. I don't ask you to know policy inside and out, I certainly don't, but you appear to lack some aspects of the basic workings of wikipedia I expect an admin to know (as displayed in the first question). The answer to the first question also doesn't indicate any kind of need or use for the tools. Or any indication of how they would be used should they be gained. Viridae^Talk 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Not opposing, not supporting though. Viridae^Talk 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   moving to neutralVery Strong Oppose per the above and questions #1 and 7. For dealing quickly with Vandals, we have WP:AIV. For more or less urgent notices, the Wikipedia irc can be used. These are two very important aspects of the project. Just by reading question one gives me the impression that the user has no clue either of these exists. I have a bad feeling that this user would be a net negative to the project as an sysop. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   I've done a review of your edits and well, other than some issues with policy knowledge, I think you have the potential to become an excellent sysop. I think my above comments may have been a bit harsh but I'll take that back. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   No harm done. In fact, I wasn't even upset. You just helped remind me that I should answer all of the question. Thanks for the cookie! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Your answer to the first question doesn't say what you would use the tools for. It just says what you would add to the site. An admin can't make such a big change. There is nothing wrong with WP:AIV and WP:ANI. Joe Chill (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm unhappy with a candidate who clearly has little understanding or experience of the administrator's role attempting to solicit support from high-profile editors who (s)he hopes will enhance his/her case. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Just so folks don't have to dig around, this is related to Ktr's seeking Balloonman's advice (and coaching/nom) for RFA [1]. I referred him to the B-man. –xeno^talk 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Users, please see this discussion about what Malleus is talking about.

   I'm not probably not going to !vote on this RfA, but I do think MF's comments here are unfounded as I mentioned on my talk page discussion with him. Seeking the input of others pre-RfA has never been deemed as Canvassing and to attempt to make that connection now would, IMO, be harmful to the project. I should also note that Keith Kevin had inquired with me a month or two ago when I gave him a firm "notnow." I have not reviewed his edits since then and honestly don't remember why I said notnow (although those interested could probably look up that discussion.) But coming back to me now, I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, after my firm "notnow" I would have been surprised if he hadn't.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Keith? I'm assuming that you mean me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - answers to the questions are entirely unsatisfactory, particularly the first one. Ironholds (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Could you please explain to me your criteria? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Criteria for what? Just look at your answer to Q3; you don't even appear to understand what a "conflict" is, so how can you possibly hope to resolve one as an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   I hopefully fixed 3 so that it makes sense for you both. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Edit conflicts != conflicts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Did that change make it look like I wasn't talking about that? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   I don't have set criteria, I take candidates as I find them, but tiny tiny bad things are answering the first question initially as if you're running for Parliament (since when have Administrators' duties included proposing new noticeboards/policy?), suggesting new boards that make it appear you have no idea what ANI is and then replacing it with a suggestion (q.7) that makes it seem like you have no idea what AIV is. It's your third RfA and you can't work out how to answer the default questions first time round - that hardly fills me with confidence. I've got no problem with your contributions as an editor, but I've yet to see any evidence that you fully understand what being an admin is and how RfA works. Ironholds (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Are we here to judge this editor on the scope of his contributions to Wikipedia, or are we to judge him on how well he games the RfA system to secure adminship? Pastor Theo (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Pastor: we are here to assess and decide upon a request for adminship, wherein a candidate believes they have the necessary knowledge, experience and ability to discharge those activities effectively, and editors are invited to assess, discuss and to then agree or otherwise. This RfA process includes questions for the candidate to answer: some asked of all, others posed individually. Editors expressing concerns with the answers given to these questions are not judging the candidate upon "how well he games the RfA system", they are judging the candidate upon his manifest lack of knowledge and poor decision-making. This petulant accusation adds nothing constructive to the discussions. Presumably you have your reasons for white-knighting here but it isn't helping Kevin. Really, I'm surprised at this from you. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose The answers to the questions do nothing to allay concerns about the candidate's conversance with policy and practice (and, most crucially, his ability to know whereof he does not know, lest he should inadvertently misuse the tools) and sense of judgment that one might reasonably have at the outset, and notwithstanding Kevin's evident good faith and apparently acceptable temperament and cordial demeanor, I cannot conclude with any confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive; not regarding the question as a close one, neither can I be a "neutral". I'm no grand fan of admin coaching, but I imagine that it would be appropriate here, and I am glad, I think, to see that it is something the candidate will consider pursuing. Joe (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW I'd be happy to admin coach Ktr101 if they choose that course of action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks Joe. I tried the whole coaching avenue on a few occassions, but there were backups, so I went with an informal one from Balloonman, and that led to this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Even as I have had occasion to disagree with certain of JC's admin actions, he is, I understand, a first-rate admin coach, and I would encourage you to accept his offer should this RfA be unsuccessful. I should be very happy to have cause to reconsider my opposition in a future RfA, and I am sure that most who oppose are similarly inclined. Joe (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Er??? While I did a quick review of your edits a month or two ago and gave you some feedback, I would not call that admin coaching.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose, agree with some of the concerns raised above by Jahiegel (talk · contribs), Ironholds (talk · contribs), and others. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
7. "However, adding citation templates are considered disruptive edits and are disliked by the community." - Indeed. —Dark ^talk 10:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   And I also have to say that I am rather disturbed by the candidate's decision to "patch up" his #1 answer, when it is obvious that the candidate did not know about the existence of AIV, rather than the fact that he "forgot to address the basics." I do not appreciate this decision to mislead. The candidate shows promise, but he is not experienced enough nor show the right mentality at present. —Dark ^talk 10:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Seriously, I do admit that it looks like that. I wrote these answers a month ago with one thing in mind. I do know now that I should've written in more in there, but that's the past and it is behind me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per weak, and sometimes patently wrong, answers to questions. Tan | 39 13:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Question 1 just ruined it for me. The need for an urgent noticeboard seems to miss what ANI is about. Having people receive notices would be very problematic and cause more drama than necessary. I am confused how "edit conflicts" are conflicts in question 3. The question is about disputes on talk pages dealing with content. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Sorry, but per the answer to question 1. America69 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose User still seems unfamiliar with the basic terminology of Wikipedia, demonstrated by his confusion regarding edit conflicts. Admins must know their way around and be able to explain concepts to newer, confused editors. hmwithτ 15:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose The answer to Q1 is confusing and the answer to Q3 is just plain wrong. Edit conflicts have nothing to do with conflicts. Come back in about six months when you have more experience, and I might reconsider. LittleMountain5 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose at this time I believe that more time needs to be spent in the "admin-type" areas in order to expand your understanding. So far, things are generally good - don't be dismayed by this process. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Kevin has misunderstood the meaning of question 3. Although to be fair, now that I think about it, the question is ambiguously worded. "Conflicts over editing" could legitimately be interpreted as "edit conflicts". Unfortunately Kevin appears to have conflated these two separate meanings. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose per answers to question. Hint, on question 9, there's no claim to notability there, no context, and barely any content - if you don't understand Spanish, leave it to someone who does. Deleting it was proper, IMHO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per {{uw-cite}} and other things, but that's more than enough. When I first saw that, I thought it had to be a parody (e.g. one could imagine someone putting such a template on a subpage of their user page for laughs). I don't insist on a candidate knowing every detail of every policy, but not understanding WP:V is problematic. -- Deville (Talk) 15:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Per answers to many of the questions and the {{uw-cite}} thing.--Res2216firestar 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Q1 is bad enough, even with the explanation (imagine if he got so caught up in adding a "resolved" template that he forgot to finish a block with a User Talk notice), but Q3? I don't believe "conflicts in editing" can be legitimately confused with "edit conflicts" for the simple reason that a candidate should have the basic insight required to step back and ask, "wait... why is it asking me about relatively trivial edit conflicts? Why would this be a concern? Hmm... mayhaps there is more to this question than I originally thought". I mean, it's not like there's hundreds of other RfAs where the candidate managed to not completely misinterpret this question. Learn by others' example, if nothing else. Lack of on-the-spot insightfulness and a tendacy to get distracted before adequately finishing the task at hand are not compatible with adminship. The icing on the cake is the {{uw-cite}} issue - we already have enough admins who either can't or won't distinguish their own views from the views of the community, we do not need one more. Badger Drink (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose: "For example, if a user is vandalizing a page and some user wants to stop this, they have to either post it on the board or find an active administrator who will swiftly deal with the situation." This sentence (as well as most of Q1) shows that the candidate isn't yet familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. And to answer what to do in that situation, you bring it to WP:AIV. I don't even look at answers to questions that often, but yeah, my confidence is rather low. Wizardman 01:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose per my criteria --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Badger. Also, certain phrases used in the answers, for example (in Q4 Q5) "(t)hen this is obnoxious" and (Q6) "I went under the philanthropy section", show a somewhat...erm...carefree choice of words. Such a tendency to elaborate and imprecise phrasing would cause all manner of misunderstandings for an admin. Writing clearly and fluently under pressure isn't easy but it is essential. Plutonium27 (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose. A candidate who cannot tell the difference between edit conflict and edit war leaves a lot to be desired. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Q1 is a bit odd. Q3 and Q7 (No use of the two pages, WP:AIV and WP:ANI) are worse. BrianY (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I disagree entirely that it would necessarily be a net negative if you were promoted, but I'm afraid you don't quite have enough experience. For example, your answer to Q #1 suggests to me that you're unaware of WP:AIV's existence. You're generally a good user, however; keep up the good work! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Scratch that—your follow-up answer to Q #1 is good enough for me. Still, I'll remain neutral. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I like the fixes being made to the question answers, but I still think a few months more experience wouldn't hurt. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Your original answer made me say "Bless" out loud. I don't see any harm being done with the tools in your hands, but I don't see any benefit either. Sorry, but you need more experience.  GARDEN  10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

   Should I take that Bless in a bad way? Kevin Rutherford (talk)`

4. Neutral for now. I like your answers, but not your practical use of them.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. A generally good candidate, so normally I would be forgiving of minor errors. The questions are fixed, so I don't have an issue with them. However, the {{uw-cite}} does show a misunderstanding of policy that prevents me from supporting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral because I don't want to pile on. However I have a comment, which is that admins are not just policemen but should also have a general awareness of what is going on around them. You say above you have created stubs and taken them to GA nomination, such as 102nd Intelligence Wing. So I read the article, and noted the embarrassingly poor writing/spelling etc. The lead says "the 102nd was helped patrol the Northeastern United States from foreign attack". Some other examples include...... "these buildings include the hangers that the F-15s formally occupied"...... "it was a participant in"......"guard units without their own aircraft units would need units"......"Otis Field was named in after 1st Lt Frank J. Otis"......"it lost the every unit"....."including the for the Seventh Army"....."The wing also patrolled the skys". There are also inconsistencies, such as as "102nd" and "102d" in the space of eight words! Kevin, I don't say you are responsible, but you must be unaware it is what it is. That is the awareness I think admins should have. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

   In Kevin's defense, the spelling of the last part of United States Air Force numerical unit designations is in constant dispute. While the Air Force Historical Research Agency uses "d" for 2d and 3d (instead of 2nd and 3rd), there is no authoritative regulation (that I have found) which states what is officially correct. I was the one who gave the page the 102d designation, from his original 102nd. I've gone through most pages that state it "incorrectly" - I may have gotten halfway through the 102d Intelligence Wing's page before I got distracted by something else. Until that issue is resolved, either spelling is correct. It looks inconsistent, but it is not wrong. TDRSS (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Style inconsistencies within articles make them look downright amateurish. There is no need for inconsistencies if we follow the style in the article heading, in this case 2nd, not 2d. Also please remember Wiki is an international encyclopedia, not a history book for a branch of the military of any particular country. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

   Agree to a point. The units are identified as they are listed in the official documentation that is provided (i.e. lineage and honors, historical documents). Until I have an 'official' reference to tell Kevin 2nd is not the proper terminology, I've left it as is. Concentration on military units is not just focused on United States units - I've worked on some Russian stuff too. Our (Ktr101 and I) expertise happens to reside in U.S. units. TDRSS (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral for now as there are some concerns, but not enough to be considered a net negative (as Julian said). I would encourage you to come back again in a few months. Plastikspork (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2009 (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.