Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shirt58

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

Shirt58

Final (105/7/4); ended 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC) - Closed as successful. Dweller (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Shirt58 (talk · contribs) – I haven't had nearly as much time as I'd like to look for great candidates for adminship, but one I found towards the end of last year was Shirt58. Shirt58 has been been pottering around the encyclopedia since 2006, though he really picked up speed from 2010 onwards. He's quite a quiet editor, focussing on patrolling - when I last looked, he'd made ~150 WP:CSDs in a period of about 2 months (which I spotchecked and looked good to me), many edits to WP:AfD and numerous edits to WP:UAA. When he's not doing that, he's probably gnoming or starting articles, he's created over 300 to date.

The closest thing I've come to a criticism of Shirt58 is with regards to his welcoming of new users. It seems to be something he enjoys doing and has been known to welcome the odd user who is not the most productive. I can't really fault him for this, as his argument that the welcome note does give a big set of rules to the unproductive editor is certainly a sound one. His temperament is good, as is his sense of humour. I've had a good look and I'd trust him to be an administrator - I hope you will too. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Co-nomination by Mrt3366 - This user is useful to community and the project in so many different ways that I needed a minute to figure out where to begin. Let me just confess that I am not so used to seeing myself laud another editor with this much ardency, but I'll try to be as succinct as possible. Apart from Pete's steady, varied and useful contributions to the project, he has a very nice attitude which, I think, along with his cool, he has managed to maintain in adverse situations also. He is an equitable and reasonable editor who is also au fait with our policies and guidelines. I personally can vouch for his amenability towards criticisms (even those which some of us might find plain silly) and discussions. I, for one, think it's time we added another asset to Wikipedia administrators group. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination. I accept.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 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: In short, things you won't notice.

If I'm given the privilege of the extra buttons, there will be a decrease in "there's a backlog at WP:?" notices at WP:AN and WP:AN/I.

There will be a decrease in the queue at WP:UAA, WP:AIV and WP:RFP and so on.

I would expect that I would also move on to other areas of administrative work, given time.

In summary, I think I'm a trusted user who... finds it difficult to write about himself in glowing terms. In administrative work as my co-noms graciously wrote, I would be:

* "a quiet editor", "temperament is good, as is his sense of humour", "I've had a good look and I'd trust him to be an administrator"

* "Pete's steady, varied and useful contributions to the project, he has a very nice attitude which, I think, along with his cool, he has managed to maintain in adverse situations also. He is an equitable and reasonable editor who is also au fait with with our policies and guidelines"

And I agree with them.

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

A: As WTT points out, I'm a "wikignome". I like tidying up, and helping people out. I just do many little things. There is no single contribution I can indicate as particularly good apart from my ongoing contributions. As examples:

• Bombylius helvus - along with other editors, I helped out, then moved on to other things.
• Ganting Grand Mosque - along with other editors, I helped out, then moved on to other things.

I do WP:NPP because I enjoy finding out new things. I don't have a WP:CSD log; neither do I have a "[[WP:CSDRESCUE]]" log. I've recorded a number of these, and would be happy to add it in my userspace if requested.

Of the 300+ articles I have started, I would ask that you consider them very carefully. You will find the overwhelming majority of them are well-referenced stubs.

If I could write a good article or a featured article alone or with other editors, that would have happened years ago. It is simply beyond my on-wikipedia capabilities. I am aware that this is a prerequisite for a support at WP:RfA for some (very senior and very accomplished) editors. My knowledge and interests are very broad, but with a concomitant lack of any specialist knowledge whatsoever. Tough luck for me.

That said, I think Ethel Scull 36 Times is one of my best contributions. It would be a good starting point for a student of 20th Century Fine Arts to go on to further research.

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: In short: I have been in many situations of conflict, I have dealt with them very well, and will continue to do so in the future. My apologies again: if you look for evidence, it will be, as it should be, very hard to find. Possibly search for "Shirt58" + "We've identified the problem, now lets work on a solution".

I simply don't like some of the valid content here. Tough luck for me, and I will work on improving it. See Towa Chiki.

I don't like talking about conflicts, but I will give as an example a recent AfD. I got some, ahem, robust criticism about this, and responded by acknowledging my mistake and working on improving the article.

Additional questions from User:B

FYI to anyone noticing he has not responded to these questions - he posted this on his talk page - [1]. Feel free to remove this once you get back. --B (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

4. From looking at your contributions, you edited the description page for this photo of the ship from Captain Horatio Hornblower R.N., which was uploaded by another user under a claim of fair use. It is used in two articles. Do you believe that both of these uses are correct and in keeping with our policy? Why or why not? --B (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A:"Fair use" of images subject to copyright is always a difficult issue. Pictures are informative. Wikipedia content is, however, required to be free, and the use of non-free images is an anomaly. The German language Wikipedia doesn't use them at all. My main experience with "fair use" images is book covers, and every time I've added one, there is a part of me that says, "is this really an improvement, or is this just a decoration?"

To answer the question at hand: from memory, this was a file re-name request from the help desk. There would be little doubt that the image from a 1951 US film would be subject to copyright.

To go through the test, step by step:

No free equivalent. This appears to be a significant issue. It could be argued that the image could replaced with a free image of a similar vessel, perhaps this one. (My apologies who know if this is a completely wrong replacement suggestion. It's for the purposes of an example.) A counter-argument would be that, while there may be free images like the fictional HMS Lydia, there is no free image of fictional HMS Lydia available: they would either be from the film, or possibly from the books themselves. There is also a case-specific issue: the image also presents what a ship, sky and ocean in a film in that era would look like in Technicolor, though this is not mentioned in the article. I think the use of image passes this step of the test in the article on the movie, but I think its use in the article about the fictional character is much more tenuous.

Respect for commercial opportunities. There would appear to be no issues here: viewing one still image will not replace viewing an entire film.

Minimal usage. There are already non-free images on both pages (film poster, stills of characters in the film) but none of them are of sailing vessels.

Minimal extent of use. This one image from an entire film. There is the matter of whether it is of a resolution and size to pass this test. It's smaller in size than the original image. There may be an issue with its resolution however: both source and file are at 96 dpi. I'm going to ask about this at the help desk.

Previous publication. It is an still image from a popular mainstream movie.

Content. The image does not appear to me to be part of anything that Wikipedia is not. In my opinion it enhances the article about the film in a small but non-trivial way, perhaps less in the article about the fictional character.

Media-specific policy. The relevant policy in this case is the one for images. My concern in this respect would be the resolution, and also the copyright tag - more below.

One-article minimum. The image is not orphaned: it appear on two pages at present

Contextual significance. The key word in this part section of the test would appear to be to be "significantly". Would appear to me to one of the key issues for retention of the file. There would be a fair case that it it is used simply as a pleasant picture in the article on the film and does not "significantly" enhance it for the reader. An even stronger one could be made about its use in the article about the fictional character: the images is of one of a list of by my count 25 vessels of many types. This gives a number of opportunities to replace a non-free image that does not "significantly" enhance the article with free images that would be required only to be examples of the kinds of watercraft in the books without a requirement that they be ""significant".

Restrictions on location. The image is only used in article space. [[Category:Screenshots of films]] contains __NOGALLERY__ at line 10 in the code.

Image description page. This needs improvement. I am working on this.

Identification of the source of the material. The link given may have pointed to the image itself or the page it was on initially but it does now. A better source for the image might be required - there is a possibility that website might not hold the requisite rights to the image to display it. I will follow up on this.

A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. A tag is given, but it's context could be improved. At present the "Purpose of use" text reads "Fair-use; Encyclopedic. The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic. The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy." The assertion may be correct, but it does not say why it correct.

The name of each article... in which fair use is claimed for the item. That is done, but a further requirement is that "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" be supplied.

In summary: non-free files are supposed to be used only in limited circumstances, as an exception to the general riles. In my opinion there is a fair argument to retain the image on the article about the film, but much less of a case to retain it in the article about the fictional character. Ill take this up on the article's talk pages to see what other editors think.

• Shirt58, how do you do? In the article, "HMS Lydia" has been mentioned only twice, not enough details. The image caption is unclear! Do you think the image adds any value to the article? --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

5. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR based on a report at AN3. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A: To put it as concisely as I can, an administrator shouldn't use their administrative role in a situation where they have also been involved as an editor.

In this particular case I would "assume good faith" on the part of the editor that I had been involved on opposite sides of a previous discussion. (I put "AGF" in quotes because I would be assuming that the editor was correct, plus not wasting time going back over things to see it was in fact correct, plus not digging up things from past that probably aren't relevant.) Replying back, "actually I see we disagreed on a few matters but, in the end , both accepted the revised solution, though I not you have still attempted to subsequently modify it..." isn't working towards a solution to the dispute, it's increasing the problem. Similarly if the the situation was one where where the block was obviously correct, while I might explain the technicalities of policies and so on, I wouldn't leave it there. Unless that editor says that they are happy with the explanation and will leave it there, a dispute still exists, and needs to be solved.

The next thing I would do is go to recent changes and see if there is an active admin I'm familiar with and ask if they would review the block. If there is a possibility that the situation could be resolved there and then, I wouldn't go straight to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. (I favour a low-key approach to solving disputes by training as well as temperament. At this point I would mention that in the process of checking new pages and my watchlist, I have been involved in a number of WP:REVDEL and WP:OVERSIGHT requests. You'll find very little evidence of this, which is how it should be.)

The next step would be to go to the relevant notice board, WP:AN/I being the last resort.

To sum up: disputes are there to be resolved, not escalated. If I was described a being involved in a situation as administrator, I would assume that it is the case, then get on with fixing things up.

6. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is obviously an important policy, for very good reasons. To quote the nutshell version, it is mandatory that information about living persons is "written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." As part of this, there is a presumption in favour of privacy.

The usual consideration would come into place first: is the person known for one event? Do they meet the general and subject specific biography requirements?

If the debate did not result in a consensus outcome either to keep or delete, then I personally would be in favour of deletion then, taking the person's wishes into account. This is something I would not do without discussion further that the deletion discussion. (It would something I would not do myself if I had been any way WP:INVOLVED). The argument I would put is similar but not analogous to provisions about dates of birth of living people: a cautious approach is made, so when exact dates are not known simply a year of birth is recorded.

• A conservative approach to BLPs is mandatory, so the article should be deleted.
• The right to privacy must be respected, so the article should be deleted.
• The BLP policy has legal implications, so the article should be deleted.
• Is the person a figure who has come to attention by choice (a politician, a entertainer who has chosen that particular career)? If this is not the case and their notability is marginal, I would most strongly support deletion.

To sum up: the right to privacy must be respected and biographies of living people must be written conservatively. Wikipedia has policies about inclusion of living people as encyclopedia articles. If it is unclear whether a person meets those guidelines, and they have expressed a wish that it be deleted, it should be deleted.

Additional question from Scottywong

7. Under what circumstances would you apply pending changes level 1 protection and pending changes level 2 protection to an article?

A: To clarify for readers: Wikipedia pages are almost always able to be changed by anyone. There a a numbers of levels of what is known as "protection" that limit which groups of editors can make changes or whether changes will appear immediately or not. For the sake of completeness I will mention all of them.

When pending changes level 1 (generally referred to as simply "pending changes") is applied to a page, changes made by unregistered (or "IP") editors and by "new" editors are not immediately accepted. The change is reviewed and either accepted or declined by an editor with the "reviewer" level of access. I would apply pending changes to an infrequently edited article that is undergoing malicious changes or "vandalism", copyright violations or breaches of biographies of living people policy.

Applying Pending changes level 2 to an article would have resulted in changes made by IP, New, as well as automatically or manually "confirmed" users not being immediately accepted. Pending changes level 2 protection is currently not in use on the English language Wikipedia.

When Semi-protection is applied to pages, IP and New editors cannot make changes to the page. They can request changes on the article's talk page. I would apply semi-protection when articles have been subject to edit-warring|frequent changes and reversions without discussion and vandalism.

Full protection is the highest level of protection. When a page is fully protected, only administrators. This level of protection is appropriate for articles subject to high rates of vandalism from IP, new and confirmed users. It is also used where important templates are suject to vandalism.

Additional question from Leaky

8. There is a guideline about this somewhere relating to Admins and the accessibility of their Talk Pages. Your's hasn't been archived for 2 years and has about 200 items in it. Will you sort this out so that editors approaching you don't need to scroll through 2 years worth of garbage?

A.

General comments

.

• Links for Shirt58: Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Shirt58 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats posted to the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Shirt58 is an exceptionally good editor, who demonstrates all the abilities I'd want in an administrator. One of which has recently been demonstrated is caution, he wanted to make sure he had time to handle this RfA, and that he was ready for it, which is why it's been a little while coming. I'd much rather have an administrator who considers the options before diving in! Worm^TT(talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
2. Support A good attitude, a sizable portion of clue, a nice range of edits and an excellent nominator... Shirt58's got all the things I expect to see in an admin, except for the toolset - we should rectify that. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Strong support Shirt58 has all the right qualities: calm, extremely clueful, lots of experience, independent minded, good common sense, balanced demeanor and he is focused on improving Wikipedia. I prefer those that look before they leap and he has shown to do just that. An excellent candidate that I'm happy to support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
4. Support. Good guy, unique sense of humour, bucketloads of common sense. Will use the tools sensibly. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Support per noms. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 12:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
6. Support Looks fine to me. Widr (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
7. Support Seems eminently qualified. Collect (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
8. Support per answer 1.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
9. Support Sure.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
10. Support. --Rzuwig^► 13:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
11. Support - I trust Worm's judgment...also having Yunshui and Dennis as the first two supports with Dennis even throwing a strong in there is the icing on the cake for me. I have seen him around; he seems "adminential". Sorry, that was supposed to be a spoof off of "seeming presidential", but it fell flat in my face. Oh well. Enough rambling. Support. Go Phightins! 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
12. Support Shirt58 appears to take his time and consider his actions, a good quality in an admin. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
13. Support looks completely qualified and has a very good, helpful attitude. CaSJer (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
14. Support I've seen Shirt58 around the place plenty, always doing good work and always remaining cool and collegial. I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

    Having examined the AfD fears voiced by some, I'm really not concerned - I trust Shirt58 to be able to distinguish between his personal preferences and consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

15. Support. No concerns whatsoever, should make a fine admin. — sparklism ^hey! 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
16. Finally! I've been waiting days for this to go live! Anyways, Shirt58 will do fine as an administrator. Glad to support. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
17. Support Seems to be a Tasmanian and a lawyer but I suppose we shouldn't hold this against him. Warden (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
18. Support - seems OK, and I trust Worm. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
19. Support - More than adequate tenure, heading for 15K edits to mainspace, no indications of assholery. Dennis Brown weighing in strongly in favor is also a very good indicator of a capable candidate. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
20. Support As per Yunshui. Good contributions and is experienced and has over 362 articles and is a Generalist .The Project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
21. Support. Shirt58 is great, a quality editor with intellect and competence. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
22. Support Gnoming generalist article starting lawyers from Tasmania are unlikely to screw up. Lectonar (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
23. Support Trusted and experienced editor. INeverCry 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
24. Support because I see no reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
25. Support, per nominator. Good contributions and is an experienced editor. --Carioca (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
26. I trust him to do a good job. LadyofShalott 20:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
27. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 20:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
28. Support. No red flags - or even yellow flags, for that matter. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
29. Support Highly unlikely to break the encyclopedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
30. Support per: (i) Worm^TT, (ii) Drmies and others above, (iii) Bucket load of clue, (iv) appears to be here for all the right reasons, and has the temperament and demeanor for the tasks at hand. — Ched :  ?  21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
31. Support No concerns Vacation9 22:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
32. Yes! Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
33. Support I see no significant concerns in his past history and he looks to have the right attitude to build an encyclopedia.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
34. Support Good, trustworthy candidate. Spencer^T♦C 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
35. Support per nominators. This user will make a great administrator. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
36. Support per a WTT nomination. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
37. Support as nominator. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
38. No other things to do but to support this user! This user is very good and I have no concerns regarding his edits and I guess even the most of the community have not seen serious concerns to fail this user especially in his adminship. Strong support and congratulations in advance to Shirt58 because it's obvious that this RfA will not fail.. Mediran (t • c) 06:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
39. Support trusted, why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
40. Support. bibliomaniac15 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
41. Support experienced user. No concerns regarding his work here. Torreslfchero (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
42. Support per nom and because the editor has the skills to be an admin, not least of which is the patience to read one of world's longest novels twice. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
43. Support - absolutely. He and I have had some very productive interactions in the past and I've always been impressed by his discussions with other editors (which are usually far more eloquent and succinct than mine). I think he'll make an excellent admin. Stalwart111 09:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 09:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
45. Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
46. Support per above. Graham87 10:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
47. Support Seen around a lot - can't recall any problems. Plenty of clue, polite and cautious. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
48. Support Pretty happy with this nomination - Mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 14:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
49. Support, overall no concerns. I would encourage him to take part in writing some articles on a GA level; experience in content creation is important. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
50. Support. I don't believe I know Shirt, although that may just be a memory lapse. It would be really hard for me not to support a candidate who is supported by all three of my co-nominators (Dennis, Drmies, the Lady). They obviously have excellent judgment and exquisite taste. However, I've also looked at Shirt's contribution history, and I'm struck by his polite, self-effacing, humor-eccentric demeanor. He also owns up whenever he thinks he's wrong, and he does so with grace (and that goes all the way back to 2006 when he first started editing using this account). I'm not troubled by the AfD issue. I trust Shirt to use the tools, including AfD closures, cautiously (particularly at first) and incisively.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
51. Support I'm confident that they will keep a cool head and continue to use common sense in administrative work. I liked the answers to the first 3 questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
52. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
53. Support No concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
54. Wizardman 02:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
55. Support - He's generally struck me as clueful. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
56. would prefer more content experience. but User:Keeper76/Write Right and all... -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
57. Support - everything looks good to me, and the answer to question 1 is satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
58. Longterm editor with a clean block log and some useful edits. I find the opposes that Shirt often argues against consensus at AFD troubling because of the risk that someone who is heavy handed at deletion can do a lot of damage and a pattern of trying to delete stuff that others then decide to keep would normally be a red flag. However in this case the CSD tagging is pretty good, and the most recent AFD's include some which weren't so much keep as redirect, so I'm going to give Shirt the benefit of the doubt. I did notice one mistaken tag a BLPprod that was on a group of people, subsequently deleted as a blatant hoax, presumably because of the strange reasons why they won their many Nobel prizes. Admins only I'm afraid but take a look at it after the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
59. Support - looks good to me too. Deb (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
60. Support —stay (sic)! 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
61. Weak support. I am a little concerned by some of the rationales given in AfD. On the other hand, Shirt58 hasn't declared an intention to close AfDs. Content creation is mediocre. Otherwise, other contributions are good. I am delighted to see that Shirt58 is ignoring the "optional" questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    Do you mean the "additional" questions? Why are you delighted?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, the "additional" questions. If I remember correctly, those additional questions used to be marked optional. Has the consensus about that changed? Are the questions no longer optional? I am delighted because editors should be able to assess a candidate without those answers. Leaving the questions without answers is a good way to discourage these tedious questioners in future RfAs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    I don't know anything about the history of the questions, but here's what the guide says now: "Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer these questions or any other comments raised on their RfA." Frankly, I like the questions, although it's true sometimes they're wacky, but sometimes votes are wacky, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

62. Support - Seems to be clueful, sensible, and civil. A few issues with AfDs, but I'm confident that Shirt will approach these sensibly and with caution. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
63. Support - I do not have a history of interaction with the candidate, but I like what I see in the nomination, the candidate's answers to the standard questions, and my review of the contributions history. Furthermore, I am unimpressed by the reasons given by the opposers. One of the concerns expressed by opposers relates to insufficient content experience. Although the user is a self-identified wikignome, unlike many wikignomes, I see a solid record of contributing personal sweat and intelligent thought to content creation, both by creating new pages and by making substantive improvements to other pages. Another concern expressed by opposers is a record of sometimes !voting "delete" in AfDs that ended as "keep". That should not be a concern -- it's far better, IMHO, for a user to say what they think than to !vote for an expected outcome so as to improve their "AfD score". --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

    That's very well expressed. It is relatively easy for someone to !vote keep or delete on any number of articles that are clear keeps or deletes and, voila, the stats suddenly look great. Other things being equal, I'd rather have a candidate who has a so-so record of agreeing or disagreeing on consensus issues than one with a perfect record. Wikipedia is much better off with a variety of opinions. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

64. Support: No problems here pbp 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
65. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
66. Support I agree to the letter with what Orlady said above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
67. Support I see no reason why I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
68. Support Looks good. Good wishes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Have read the message at his talk page where he has mentioned the reasons of delays in answering questions. Will wait to see answer, else this vote will be moved to !Neutral. --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
69. Support - Reasonable excuse on the delay, hope the damage wasn't too bad. Did my usual spot checks and didn't see anything that stood out, except for the delay to question answers. Answer to Q4 looks detailed, though seems almost too detailed. I've scanned the opposes below, I partially agree with the Question answer ones ( and almost went oppose because of that ). The AfD deletes votes on keep article don't worry me too much, that is something that improves with experience. PaleAqua (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
70. Support I have concerns for what Staberinde has pointed out, but that is an editing issue, not an admin issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
71. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
72. Support When you're a wikignome, you shouldn't be expected to write GAs — they're hard for some of us. You should be able to demonstrate that you've been a helpful and trustworthy contributor in the realms that you enjoy doing, and Shirt58 has done that, as far as I can tell. If we were all power-writers of content, what would happen to the smaller articles that aren't prominent enough to be GA-able? They'd languish as they were ignored, because people like Shirt58 weren't around. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
73. Support I've had alot of interactions with Shirt58 and have no concerns. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
74. Support IMO a very good admin candidate. Best wishes. Jschnur (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
75. Support Great answers, especially Q1. Being a vandal fighter here, I would appreciate his efforts especially on what he mentioned in the answer to Q1. Also, this one and only message that he left on my talk page is very polite. Arctic Kangaroo 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
76. Support Good interaction with this editor. I trust him with the tools, (but would not trust him to drive my car). I think he will do just fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
77. Support No reason not to give him the tools. Best of luck! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 12:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
78. Support looks fine, no red flags. I don't think high-quality contributions are needed for doing the vast majority of admin tasks, and in contrast to oppose 3 I would suggest that requiring all prospective administrators to do GAs would be harmful to the project. Hut 8.5 14:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
79. Support Good (if tardy) answers to additional questions, which I use to gauge a candidate's grasp of policy. Miniapolis 14:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
80. Support. My interactions with Shirt58 have shown him to be exactly what he says he is: someone who's interested in resolving things rather than inflaming them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
81. Support Seems to be a solid editor with the qualities needed in an administrator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
82. Stephen 22:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
83. Support. Concurring with Worm's nomination. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
84. Support - You seem like a nice guy who'd get the job done. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
85. Support Impressive contributions, demonstrates maturity, seems determined to continue improving. No major concerns. -- Scray (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
86. Support - Good contributions, knowledge, judgement and attitude. Though there were some honest concerns in the oppose section below, I believe they pale in comparison to the benefits that the project will realize when we hand Shirt58 a mop. - MrX 05:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
87. Support - My easiest support in quite some time! Shirt is a gem to the Project, very down to earth - knows and understands Wikipedia policies, as if they were written on the back of his hand. Good luck! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
88. Support. I agree with B in the oppose section that the answer to Shirt's questions were slightly off. When asking for review of admin actions, it is better to go to a noticeboard than to ask an admin of your choosing, in order to avoid allegations of favouritism. That's not to say you can't ask an admin of your choosing privately for their opinion, but once things go on-wiki it's best to do everything possible to be fair, and to appear fair. I also concur with B's opinion on question seven, and for question six I would have preferred that Shirt link to the specific policy that applied (WP:BIODEL). Not mentioning the policy gives me the suspicion that he might not have known it, although to be fair he did come to almost the same conclusion in his answer. However, despite my misgivings over the questions, I am well aware of the amount of good work Shirt has done for the project, and I think making him an admin would be a net positive for Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
89. Support Looks good. And I actually like the non-herd behavior :) --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
90. Support...no evidence candidate will abuse the tools or the position.--MONGO 17:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
91. Support, although I'd prefer to see at least a few pages where the candidate has done extensive content work over a period of time (and some of the sense of humor, the "manly man" stuff on the user talk page, seems a bit strange to me). But I trust a lot of the people vouching for him, and I think that arguing against the majority at AfD is a sign of character, not a flaw, so long as one accepts consensus in the end. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
92. Support per nom and no issues --DHeyward (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
93. I've waited most of this one out, because of the questions. I was originally concerned about the delayed response but, upon reading about your RL situation, my concerns have been alleviated. I've skimmed over your talk page and contributions, which illustrate an editor who's level-headed, well-versed in policy, and willing to accept advice. Being a WikiGnome doesn't hurt either. I'm happy to interject here and offer my late support. Best of luck, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
94. Support - Was just waiting for the questions to be answered, happy to see this through. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
95. Support - strong maintenance candidate. dci | TALK 02:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
96. Support I was thinking about it for the past few days, and while Staberinde oppose is rather concerning, I'm a bit surprised with the strong answers to the questions. Secret ^account 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
97. Support - What I see here looks good. Shadowjams (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
98. Support No concerns about his editing, will probably make a good admin. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
99. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 21:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
100. Support per nom and as a responsible maintenance editor. I hope the user sees the oppose !votes as a challenge to promote an article to GA -- a challenge that will eventually be accepted. - ʈucoxn\^talk 21:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
101. Support - I don't know this editor, but appears clueful and competent. By the way, grats on making WP:100. Jusdafax 04:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
102. I find the oppose rationales unconvincing. Monty₈₄₅ 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
103. Support Good candidate and reasonable editing history. John F. Lewis (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
104. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
105. Support Good candidate, no concerns.--В и к и T 12:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - at 60% of the AfDs they've participated in where the result was keep, they've argued for deletion (including several nominations). I think it's inevitable they'd misuse the delete tool due to such poor judgement. WilyD 15:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   While it is good to see an oppose (it is very hard to judge a candidate without a few oppose !votes), I must admit that your !vote leaves me puzzled. Are you suggesting that a person whose own deletion criteria appear to differ from those of the community would, by definition, be unable to separate his or her own view on a particular AfD from the consensus view or are you suggesting that Shirt58 would deliberately implement his or her own opinions rather than the consensus decision? --regentspark (comment) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   Wily, help me out here, where are you getting your numbers from? This report shows that Shirt's vote matched the result 76.7% of the time. Is there something else on this report I'm not seeing, or is there another report you're getting your numbers from. (As an aside, I agree with regentsPark. There's a difference between an editor nominating and voting and an admin determining consensus, although I understand you may be more concerned with an alleged lack of understanding of the underlying guidelines, but I would need a more in-depth analysis before believing that.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   If you look at the "K" and "SK" columns you can see that he !voted for deletion a majority of the time even on AfD's where the result was to keep the article. The one Speedy Keep close can be thrown out as it was a mistake, in my opinion, but that still leaves a 75% delete record for AfD's that closed as keep (not 60%, unless I'm reading it wrong.) To put it another way, Shirt58 has voted "delete" 93% of the time, so naturally his vote his always matched the outcome for AfD's that close as delete, but for AfD's that close as keep, it usually doesnt match. —Soap— 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, but that's not a good reason to !vote oppose (not for me anyway). We don't really expect herd behavior from our editors, or do we? Of course, if there is a reason to believe that Shirt58 would misuse the tools, that's another matter but it would be good to see evidence of that. --regentspark (comment) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   Acutally I think the tool might not be working properly. I ran it on WilyD and myself, and it did show the votes correctly, but seemed not to get all of them. e.g. on myself even though it said it was analyzing the last 50 votes, and that I had a total of 136, it only showed me 21. So perhaps the original 60% figure was correct and the 75% it's showing now is wrong. In either case I myself won't be opposing the RfA, but opposes based on that type of rationale have been common in the past, if not so much lately, so I would take it seriously. —Soap— 17:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   The inference I draw from the numbers is that Shirt, as an editor, participates more often in AfDs where he thinks the article should be deleted, not that he's "wrong" a large percentage of the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   I would agree with this; it's misleading to look at that. I'll also highlight that some of his deletes which closed keep were for dubious reasons; like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_Degree_College where no one made an actual concrete argument but it was NACed, and some where borderline cases like these: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Jepson, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosnian_Movement_of_National_Pride_(Bosnia_and_Herzegovina), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/April_the_tapir, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gepida or where good discretion was shown by withdrawing the Nom: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Una_Guðmundsdóttir. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   Yes, as noted above, only the keep numbers. A user who sees an article that should be deleted and says "Hey, this should be deleted" could be a good admin - but not if they also see an article that should be kept and say "Hey, this should be deleted." I don't expect potential admins to invariably agree with the overall consensus. But people who're way out in left field can't reasonably to discern consensus from a discussion. It's simply too alien to them. WilyD 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   A user can vote delete against consensus but would still be able to close an AfD without factoring in his/her judgment. You have no evidence that the user would go against consensus to close an article as delete. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   Considering that about 55% of all AfD's result in delete, I'd say the stats are about right. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 14:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose Looking through the list, he seems to have nominated things for deletion without doing proper source checking before, and everyone else but him said keep. I also worry how he'll close schools that are nominated for deletion based on [2]. He nominated for deletion an article about someone hew knew was a well known potter with "at least one of his works is in the collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum."[3] Why try to delete an article like that? He nominated an article for deletion which had nine people show up and say Keep to, and no one else saying delete. [4] The articles he has created seem to be very short stubs [5] [6], so bragging about creating hundreds of two sentence stubs isn't much to brag about. Dream Focus 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
3. You can do a GA. They are not that hard. Just buckle down, fire up the Google search and write the damned thing. Do it as an exercise. I will support after that. You might learn something about formatting and Wikitricks and all that at the same time. You don't have to do them forever if you prefer Blofelding stubbing. Seriously, the work ethic (or moderate smarts, or social courage to put content "out there") to do content work, you really don't belong as an adminstrator on a project writing encylopedia articles. This is not to devalue other aspects of the enterprise...but if someone lacks the willingness or ability to write, they should not be a supervisor here. It really ends up warping and hurting the project when we do. [edited for tone]TCO (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   If your logic is correct, then some users out there (maybe me?) would already be administrators. Although I encourage admins or candidates to write content, I find that doing administrative work is very far from writing content. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   Changed from Support to Oppose Hopefully this is temporary only. I left a message on his talk page informing him about the questions. Now a few days pass already and still no answer. Will take it as "Not answering the questions = Don't dare to answer the questions" until he answers them. Arctic Kangaroo 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   I was thinking of making a similar move. Will wait a couple more days, but will do so if the Qs remain unanswered. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   No, no please don't take it the wrong way. I think he was busy or he somehow missed it. I have given him a note explaining the situation. Hopefully he will come up with proper responses. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   That's all very well, but Arctic Kangaroo put a talkback on Shirt58's tak page two days ago pointing this out (here), and it's not as if he's been inactive, so "somehow missed it doesn't cut much ice, I feel. --Stfg (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   To be fair on this candidate, he was very cautious about this RFA, waiting several days until he decided for it to go life. Give him another day or so to answer the questions, if he doesn't answer them by then, then it is right to start moving "votes" around. Secret ^account 18:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

4. tco addressed some problems. The statement about a fa prerequisite suggests maturity and factual concerns. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose, with regret. I really like Shirt58, especially his sense of humour, but not answering the questions is bad. I know they're optional, but it's hard-going-on-impossible to call admins to account once they have the mop, so failing to give an account of oneself while requesting the community's trust is a bad omen. It's also disrespectful, imho. Also, with regard to WP:ANI#Violetcries, Shirt has just done this. A sense of humour is great, but there's a time to use it and a time not to. That was facetious. --Stfg (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   I agree about not answering questions - see my comment, below. But I think we need more humor, not less - and I have no objection to someone finding sources for another editor who is having difficulty figuring out what to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   You're absolutely right. I overlooked this and thus misread the situation there. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   FWIW, I didn't feel offended or anything like that. It's more important to preserve information if it merits inclusion. I don't care if someone tells me "na na na na you were wrong", as long as I am wrong, and we save articles from deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   Reaffirming oppose. I'm not quite convinced by the explanation for the delay. He was editing in the three days after the prang, and having answered Q4, went off and did other things on-wiki for almost a whole day before returning to answer the others. The answer to Q6 is not an answer to the question asked, which was how much weight he would give to the subject's wishes. A degree of discretion is allowed about that, and having read the answer several times, I still don't know to what extent he would allow that discretion to outweigh notability arguments. I have misgivings about the other "optional" answers, too, leading me to doubt Shirt'58's readiness at present, though I believe he will do well with further learning. --Stfg (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose, tentatively. Shirt is an excellent editor and I find the other oppose comments unpersuasive... but I also believe that a candidate for adminship should have the courtesy to answer the questions posed, or at the very least beg off due to time constraints. "Give me a day or two to put together a quality response" might work, though there are those among us who would still be unsatisfied. But don't keep editing for two days while the questions just sit there. When you're an admin, and an issue comes up that is outside your experience level or comfort zone, you leave it for the next admin or link another admin into it "Hey, can you handle this image issue...?" or whatever. That doesn't really apply here. I'm happy to support once the questions, above, are answered, and the closing admin can treat this as a neutral comment if they are answered late and I don't see them. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   Struck, though my comment applies in a general sense. Might support or go Neutral, once I have the time to look over the answers provided. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose I'm afraid I have to oppose as per Arctic Kangaroo. — nerdfighter 18:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

6. Oppose - two days of unanswered questions. Shirt58 was notified that afternoon by another editor and has been editing in that time. Sure, they're optional questions, but even if you don't want to answer for whatever reason, the courtesy of acknowledging their existence is something one would generally expect. --B (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
   • FYI to anyone noticing he has not responded to these questions - he posted this on his talk page - [7]. --B (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
     • Affirming my oppose - I was asked on my talk page to state whether or not I still oppose in light of the questions being answered. I do. For one thing, as a word of general advice, don't make people hunt to find the answer. You answered the three standard questions very well - you gave a direct answer to the question and then elaborated on it. With the optional questions, I had to hunt through all of them to find your actual answer. Questions #5 and #7 are of the most concern. In #5, cherry picking your own administrator to resolve the dispute is likely to escalate it. Remember: this user already believes that you have unfairly targeted him or her. Even if it isn't at all your desire to cherry pick an administrator for the sake of a desired outcome, you have to remember how it looks to the user. In #7, this sounds like just a rehash of the policy rather than an actual answer to the question ... and I'm not certain from reading your answer that there is sufficient understanding of the policy. For one thing, it sounds like the way you are differentiating pending changes level 1 from semi-protection is that you would use semi-protection for edit warring. If an IP user is edit warring with a registered user, then all semi-protection does is pick the "winner". While I just looked at it and our policy does mention using semi-protection for IP-only edit warring, I would think that would be an extremely rare thing and edit warring protections should just about always be full protections. Anyway, all that said, it seems apparent at this point, your RFA will pass. I wish you all the best ... please take my advice under consideration should these circumstances ever arise. --B (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   Oppose, due to the candidate's reluctance—or refusal—to address additional questions posed by editors trying to get a feel for how the candidate would react to the real-world demands of the position. It's easy to craft "perfect" answers to the first three questions; I find Shirt's take-me-or-leave-me attitude over-confident and off-putting. Miniapolis 02:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   It looks like Shirt does have a good reason for his absence, judging from this link that B also posted above. I think we deserve to give him a bit more time to answer given the circumstances. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   Agreed—indented and struck through (I like the thorough answer to #4 so far). Miniapolis 15:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose While I have no problem with creating lots of short stubs, I do disagree with creation of BLPs that I would describe only as "underwhelming" [8][9][10][11][12]. If you are simply going to tag BLP that you yourself created, and move on to never return, then you probably shouldn't have created it in first place. Obviously its not against any rules, but I just can't approve such eventualist approach to BLPs.--Staberinde (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral tending towards support. Once I have seen answers to the questions posed I shall probably move across. He seems like a well intentioned editor and I personally am a big fan in WikiGnomes becoming sysops. iComputerSaysNo 19:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

   I do have some concerns about the editor and some of his participation in AFDs. I'm waiting for the answers to B's questions before I make a decision. Secret ^account 14:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

   Moved to support Secret ^account 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Moral Support Seems like a perfectly competent editor, however, the delay in answering questions makes me hesitant regarding his potential value as an administrator. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

   Neutral (Moving to support) Leaning towards oppose. I was originally thinking support but was waiting to !vote til I saw some more answers. The lack of answers to the questions have me slightly concerned. Not necessarily for the answers themselves, but part of the responsibility of an administrator is to respond to questions and comments concerning actions they take. Considering that this RfA was delayed slightly on launching I would have assumed that it was timed so that it could be given more attention. PaleAqua (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

3. Neutral. As I vote based on actual interaction with an editor, since I have never interacted with this editor at all in the past, I have to vote "Neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

   In comparison to the number of editors, we all thalk to only few editors. That is a not a strong point (specially it'll be counted towards percentage of support). --Tito Dutta (contact) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   I'm not referring to "talking" as much as I'm referring to essentially crossing paths by editing the same article, or noticing each others work regarding Wikipedia policy. I don't know of any of Shirt58's work, or anything Shirt58 has done, and that's what I mean by "interaction". I apologize if the term I used was not clear. And yes, I am aware that my vote is counted; that's why I voted, and I chose to vote "Neutral", regardless of how strong my point is. Steel1943 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   pace Tito Dutta, The RfA main page states: "In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered." --Stfg (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for the clarification; I thought that was the case. It would not make sense for a "Neutral" vote to outweigh a "Support" vote as an "Oppose" vote does, and that validates it.

   Anyways, Shirt58, I hope this works out in your best interests; I'm just stating that I cannot vote either way due to me not running across any of your work in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

4. It's not enough for me to oppose, but I wholeheartedly agree with Staberinde's oppose (#7) above. Creating articles that are clearly substandard and tagging them for others to deal with is not good practice, and I'd encourage Shirt to take the time to assemble enough basic sources for a BLP stub that it can stand on its own. Chick Bowen 02:26, 13 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.