Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peteforsyth

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

Peteforsyth

Final (59/9/5); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 23:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) - I am pleased to present to you Peteforsyth, my first RfA nominee. Pete has been editing Wikipedia for over two years, and in fact joined Wikipedia only 8 days after I. Pete has contributed to several pages reaching DYK, GA, and FA status, pariculary amongst Oregon articles, where he is one of the most active and productive contributors at WikiProject Oregon and has helped Portal:Oregon reach featured portal status. Pete has a good edit distribution amongst namespaces, including over 5000 mainspace contributions, and has shown to be very reasonable in dealing with other users, a key trait to look for in an admin. Pete has expressed an interest in helping out with admin duties, and I think he is more than experienced enough to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and procedures to be productive with the mop. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept and appreciate the nomination. I look forward to the opportunity to support our project in new ways. -Pete (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement from nominee (added after some discussion)

In recognition of some of the comments below, I believe some further general comments are in order.

1. Why do you want to become an administrator?

   Administrative tasks are vital to the continued development of the encyclopedia, and the evolution of a collegial and productive community. They are best conducted in a transparent and policy-driven way, and distributed among a number of people. I feel it is a good idea for any frequent contributor to take on some of this work, both to lessen the load on others and to contribute to their own ongoing hands-on education in how to make Wikipedia better.

   Perhaps more significant, I believe it's important that Wikipedia have recognizable faces, i.e. non-anonymous contributors, in all of its areas. I have no objection to anyone choosing to remain anonymous, there are many excellent reasons for not using one's real name. But I do feel that on the whole, Wikipedia is better off with more editors, administrators, etc. who are known in other communities to be of sound judgment. When a newspaper reporter or school administrator or politician has a concern about Wikipedia, it's good if they have a ready opportunity to contact someone with a recognizable name, who's listed in the phone book, active in the community, etc. I have always made myself available in this way as an editor, and there are numerous times when that has been a positive for Wikipedia. As such, it would be good to be able to speak with direct experience about administrative duties as well as content expansion and community building. I doubt this would come into play very often, but feel it could be a big positive for the project on occasion.

2. Why are you qualified to be an administrator?

   It seems a number of editors have concerns about the small number of edits I have made in certain administrative areas. I believe my experience is sufficient -- my contributions in those areas has been of high quality, and I've made contributions in article and project space that are closely related to administrative tasks. It seems to me that the ability to determine consensus, or to lead a discussion toward consensus, or to evaluate a situation in relation to policy, are the most challenging aspects of being an administrator. I have engaged in those situations extensively, but more often on article or project talk pages, etc. than on official noticeboards. If anybody wants me to, I will seek diffs to back this up. At noticeboards, the ability to follow instructions is paramount, but that is not difficult; Wikipedia procedures are generally well documented. Good judgment is a quality that is essential to being a good administrator, and harder to come by; I believe I have demonstrated good judgment in numerous situations.

   There are a couple principles I try to stick to: first, I make sure to focus most of my attention on content building, because it keeps me in a good mood and keeps me inclined to interact in a collaborative manner. Second, I try to resolve situations without imposing on official noticeboards, procedures, etc. wherever possible. I prefer to rely on common goals and common sense, and feel that this approach is vital to maintaining a respectful atmosphere. Familiarity with more formal procedures is of course important for an administrator, but there are reasons I have not delved into them in more depth. I think those principles are essential to my staying productive, and fostering a productive community.

3. How much administrative work would you take on?

   As I said above, administrative tasks are essential to the ongoing health of the project. I would make sure to pitch in on a regular basis, but would not radically reduce my content-building to do more administrative tasks. As it is now, when I am feeling a lack of creativity, I often look at recent changes or deletion discussions etc. I am happy to contribute to the project in a way that's different from my day-to-day, and also find that such work makes me see issues with fresh eyes. As an administrator, I would treat administrative backlog similarly; I would likely not devote large chunks of time to it, but would look to pitch in when not deeply engaged in another project.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would keep an eye on the Administrative backlog and pitch in where needed. This would likely include speedy deletes, proposed deletions, articles for deletion, categories for discussion, images etc. for deletion, and likely other wonders of which I'm not yet aware. I doubt I'd deal with user categories or userboxes much, I'm just not that interested. (Of course, if there were a significant backlog, I'd consider getting into that stuff too.)

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

A: I'm proudest of my work in three areas: improving articles, building community within Wikipedia, and representing Wikipedia in the wider world.

1. Two of the articles I take most pride in are Columbia River and List of Oregon ballot measures (a work still very much in progress).
2. I am active in WikiProject Oregon, where we have drawn a number of new contributors over the last year or so. I try to welcome new users in substantive ways, making sure their questions get answered and they see a path to make their best possible contribution to the encyclopedia. I believe we are developing a highly effective WikiProject, and thereby making a valuable contribution to the future of the project.
3. I am also active with Portland WikiWednesday, a group of wiki enthusiasts who reach out to groups like politicians, schoolteachers, and historians in the community to help them better understand the world of wiki, and to find ways to give back to the local community.

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: Yes, twice.

1. One time, I took umbrage at what I considered a rash and unilateral action on the part of an administrator, who (unknowingly and coincidentally) semi-protected a popular page just as we were developing some momentum with new editors, whipping the article into shape. I objected in ways that I'm not proud of, that might be considered personal attacks. I regret the way I responded, and would respond very differently if a similar situation were to arise.
2. Another time, I nominated two related articles for deletion. It was a routine nomination, for articles I didn't know much or care much about, but were unsourced and appeared to be non-notable. A non-Wikipedian saw the nomination, created an account, and dug through the Web for background information on me, and wove together a strange version of who I was and what my supposed hidden motives were. It was a distressing experience, and indeed caused me stress. But I feel I responded appropriately. I chose not to engage in much depth with the editor, and let the community respond. I was gratified to see the community show no tolerance for the personal attacks. It was especially satisfying to see that it was mostly editors I had no prior contact with, responding out of principle rather than personal loyalty. The experience gave me a great deal of faith in the Wikipedia community. The incident ended without any lasting wounds on anybody's part, without blocks or bans or mediation or anything like that; I'm happy about that as well, as I feel such avenues should only be pursued as a last resort.

There have been other discussions where emotions may have flared briefly, but I believe that is par for the course when you get a group of passionate people together to try to accomplish something meaningful. I believe I have entirely steered clear of making personal attacks, though, apart from the first instance I mentioned.

Optional questions from jc37

4. In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, could you describe/summarise:

• 4a. Generally, why and when should someone be blocked?

• A: I'd start with the premise that a block is a tool for protecting the project -- or individual users, subjects of biographies, etc. -- rather than a punitive measure. Generally, a block is appropriate when an editor has engaged in disruptive behavior, and has not been responsive to attempts to improve their behavior. It may be appropriate when a ban is in place, or when a sock puppet has been identified.

• That said, there is a specific policy on blocking. I'm reasonably familiar with it, but not intimately. Starting off, if I were facing a decision about a block, I would read the policy closely with the specific situation in mind, before making a decision.

• 4b. When would it be appropriate to protect a page?

• A: Protection would be appropriate when a page has become a target for vandalism or other disruption from a variety of editors. It also may be useful in more limited content disputes, when blocking a single editor might unnecessarily antagonize them. Semi-protection or full protection, though, has an incremental effect of straying from our mission, of being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So it should be used judiciously. (There are other kinds of protection as well, for instance when consensus has been reached that a certain article should not exist.)

• 4c. When would it be appropriate to speedily delete a page?

• A: There are a number of criteria for speedy deletion. The general rule, as I understand it, is that when an article is uncontroversially or egregiously in violation of a policy, it should be deleted. So for instance, if an article consists solely of random text, or personal attacks, or a different language than the encyclopedia is on, speedy deletion would be appropriate. Or stuff that doesn't fit with established procedure, such as a talk page where the corresponding article does not exist. Biographies of living persons must be treated with particular care when it comes to speedy deletion, due to concerns about libel etc. (In many cases simply deleting content from an article might be sufficient to satisfy the BLP policy, but sometimes deleting an entire article is more appropriate.)

• When the alleged violation is controversial or unclear, proposed deletion or articles for deletion (or CfD, IfD, etc.) may be the better path.

• 4d. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an WP:XFD discussion, a WP:DRV discussion, and an WP:RM discussion.

• A: The important goal in seeking consensus, is to arrive at a conclusion that everyone can abide by. Consensus is not majority rule, and it is not unanimity. Rather, assessing consensus often requires an element of judgment of the arguments advanced. It is important to evaluate "minority" opinions, and make sure they have been taken into account. There may be a delicate balance, though, if those in the minority withhold their consent without making a full effort to pursue a true solution. Participants who have engaged fully with the process may have more thoroughly justified arguments than those who merely express a passing opinion. Participants who cite policy and guidelines may arrive at more appropriate conclusions.

• On a talk page about an article, consensus can be very flexible, as there are often many options: a debate might start with a clear "either/or," but new options may emerge as the discussion progresses. With XFD or deletion review, there is a specific decision to be made: keep or delete an article/item, or keep or overturn a decision. Careful attention to policy and guidelines is of particular importance in these cases; close attention should be paid to arguments grounded in policy. (I have no experience with WP:RM.)

• It was rightly noted below that my statement is inaccurate: "With XFD...there is a specific decision to be made: keep or delete..." Some "XfD's", such as WP:CFD, are X for discussion, not deletion. My statement above was thus not accurate. But I understand the principle well: in another answer here, I referred specifically to "categories for discussion. Also, in the most recent CFD I've engaged in, my first words are "Keep. I'm open to alternatives...", indicating my understanding that deletion is not the primary question. -Pete (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• 4e. User:JohnQ leaves you a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: In such a case, my first concern would be the appearance of bending to "admin-shopping", or setting a precedent for admin-shopping. There are procedures in place, and notice boards, that are important resources for resolving content disputes.

• I would advise JohnQ, and probably the others depending on the circumstances, of the appropriate steps for dispute resolution. If there was a clear and severe case of policy violation, such as a three revert rule violation, I might intervene depending on the severity. Otherwise, I would advise the person who contacted me -- and perhaps the others -- to take it to the appropriate notice board.

• jc37 questions this response, below. I stand firmly by this answer, though I must point out that it is a hypothetical question, and my approach might vary depending on the specific nuances of the situation; no situation is as simple as this question would suggest. jc37 cited don't bite the newcomers, which according to my understanding of the original question is in error. The question does not appear to concern newcomers. I can't speak to jc37's feelings, except to say that I don't understand what is inherently unpleasant about the approach I outlined; surely there are uncivil ways of phrasing such a response, but those are not the phrases I would choose. -Pete (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Optional questions from Wisdom89

5. User User:fdsl203498rjlfe creates a page titled "NorthwestConstantine Prep School" that reads "It is an all boy prep school in Utah". What do you do to/for the page?

A. I would first put "NorthwestConstantine Prep School" and "Northwest Constantine Prep School" into a search engine, and see what comes up. I would also take a look at the article's contents, and see if it's generally an acceptable stub or article; if it's just a page pumping up the school's football team and mocking a rival school, for instance, it might be a good candidate for speedy deletion.

If a clearly notable school with lots of Google hits came up under the second name, and the content is reasonably encyclopedic, I would simply move the article.

If fdsl.... is a new user, I would let them know they had chosen a confusing username (not a policy violation) and suggest they choose something more meaningful. I'd probably point out the typo in the school's name, and thank them for their contribution; in the case of policy violations int the content, I'd bring those up as well. If the violations were significant, I'd probably just use a {{uw}} template (substed of course!)

To clarify, the "speedy delete" option is a response to one of an innumerable number of possibilities. I guess I find the scenario too vague to give a worthwhile answer. I could write 100 pages on the possible scenarios that might evolve, but I don't think that would accomplish much. I don't jump to "speedy deletes" quickly, though I suppose my earlier answer might make it appear that I do. -Pete (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy -- I now see that I read the question wrong from the beginning. I didn't realize the sentence in the question was the entire contents of the article. This is a much more straightforward case than I thought: I would add the appropriate stub tag, look for a couple categories to add the article to, and if it's a new user, would welcome them, thank them for the contribution, and maybe mention to them in a friendly way that their user name might be considered confusing (something that is noted in, but not a violation of, the username policy), and maybe mention that other editors might have concerns about notability or sourcing. All of this would depend on how much time I had; none of it is of vital importance (except maybe renaming the article to add the space in, which is quick and uncontroversial.)

6. When is it appropriate to indefinitely block an IP address?

A. I don't know the exact policy, and would certainly not undertake something like that without careful consideration, reading, and probably consultation with a more experienced admin. Basically, I would think that vandalism or other disruption that cannot be prevented by lesser means would be the standard for a measure like this. A banned user who always posts from a certain IP, that does not seem to be used by other editors, might also be a case where this is appropriate. But above all, I would look to policy and those with more experience for guidance in a situation where an indefinite IP block seemed like an option worthy of consideration.

7. You discover that an administrator who is respected in the community may be using sockpuppets abusively, how would you proceed?

A. As in any case of suspected sockpuppetry, I would go to great lengths to gather as much information as possible before taking decisive action. I'd try to figure out whether shared IP's, meatpuppetry, etc. are possible explanations for what's going on. I'd also carefully consider whether the behavior is truly abusive, as there are cases where sockpuppets are permissible. Assuming I still suspect a sock puppet, I would then file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and seek the opinions of others.

The fact that an editor has admin tools, or is respected in the community, really have no bearing on the situation. Login details might have been acquired by another party, or the editor may be succumbing to some temptation. If a respected community member has substantive comments on the situation, of course it would be important to take them into consideration; but the respect by itself does not exempt an editor from following the sock puppet policy.

8. When is it appropriate to invoke WP:IAR?

A. Ignore all rules is, in my opinion, the most interesting and the most important of the five pillars. At its core, I understand it to be a reminder that Wikipedia is what we make it, by the rules we agree to; and that the primacy of making something good is what holds it all together. I think it's important for anyone who takes their Wikipedia work seriously to think carefully about IAR at some point in their development as an editor.

Unlike other policies, I tend to be skeptical when editors invoke IAR to justify a specific action. Sometimes laziness, or an inability to fully articulate an argument, might make IAR a tempting principle to end a complex or contentious debate. This can be particularly dangerous with admin tools, where those who disagree may not have the ability to admit revert the invoker's actions.

I think that more than other policies, any serious invoking of IAR should be carefully considered in its context, and along with any accompanying argument, before being agreed to. In the abstract, all I can say is that it is probably only applicable in a case where there is strong consensus that a rule was created in ignorance of a specific situation, which demands a more nuanced solution.

Optional questions from Legoktm

9. Will you be open to recall? Why?

A. No, not in that quasi-formal manner. My reasoning is this: Standards pre-determined by an individual administrator, as opposed to carefully considered consensus, invite wikilawyering, and are unlikely to apply properly to a specific situation. For instance, the AOR page uses the agreement of six editors with over 500 mainspace edits as an example. But there could be situations where five such editors have a very compelling case, or where a temporary content dispute inspires 20 such editors (who later regret their decision) to temporarily vote for recall. Or in a more extreme case, you could even have editors artificially padding their edit counts just to be eligible.

The Wikipedia community already has procedures in place to deal with bad behavior. Administrator can and have been banned; and I believe that ArbCom could probably revoke admin privileges itself if that seemed like the most appropriate action.

But at an even more basic level, my desire to contribute to Wikipedia is firmly grounded in a desire to build a resource, and doing so is not possible without the respect of my peers. With or without a formal AOR agreement, if I were to find that a significant number of experienced editors found my actions to be consistently counterproductive, I would not be sticking around Wikipedia for very long.

Optional question from Sharkface217

10. Do you think age should be taken into consideration when voting for an RFA candidate? Why or why not?

A. No. There are better and less arbitrary ways to assess a nominee's trustworthiness, and also, determining age is a difficult task on a wiki.

General comments

• See Peteforsyth's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Peteforsyth: Peteforsyth (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/Peteforsyth before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. VegaDark (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
2. From what I can see he is an article builder and has some extra competences useful to wiki. So I'll support. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - Works to add content, works to bring people together. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support, seen him around plenty, very deserving of the tools. Wizardman 03:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I'll support any article builders who are unlikely to abuse the tools. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, per Wizardman (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. I would like to see a little bit more experience in the areas that he is planning on working in, but aside from that I can't find anything that I don't like. Would definitely be a net-positive. Trusilver 06:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - an asset to the project. X Marx The Spot (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Dorftrottel (talk) 08:08, April 25, 2008
10. My work with Pete around GA stuff has presented him as someone who would do well with the tools. Will go far with the tools. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Support. Will likely be able to learn on the job. It's not exactly rocket science if you're a sensible person, which Pete seems to be. henrik•talk 10:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
12. asking a good faith editor to change their name because he finds it "confusing" (with what?) isn't great, but he said he'd talk about it, and didn't mention blocking, so I'll support this candidate.Dan Beale-Cocks 12:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Support When you get right down to it, you have to be able to trust that the person wont abuse the rights. I believe Pete wont abuse the rights. I see no evidence for it, and the fact that he hasnt done much work in AIV and XfDs doesnt bother me. Those things are pretty straightforward and vary from person to person as it is. Queerbubbles | ^{Leave me Some Love} 12:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. While he admits inexperience in some of the admin areas, the answers to the questions indicate thoughtfulness and knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and principles. Plus, he gets points for contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon -- they do good work creating content about their state. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Between his contributions and his answers to questions, this user has shown that he understands Wikipedia, will work to improve it, and can be trusted. Unfortunately, from the opposes, it looks like fine-grained editcountitis is back in style. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Support. Worked with him a lot and have always been impressed by his proactive and common-sense approach to developing consensus. Would be a great admin. --Esprqii (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Support A long time editor with a good track record. More than qualified. --Duk 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Pete's careful answers reflect an approach to editing that is conscientious and measured, and show that he will not take adminship duties lightly. He takes his time to understand policies and guidelines, isn't afraid to ask questions if he doesn't know something, and is a quick study. Pete is a champion at negotiating consensus in contentious situations and is able to be a voice of reason when things get heated. He also excels at approaching new editors who have run into trouble with their initial edits and encourages them to keep trying while others are merely templating them. I've never known him to be anything but honest in his dealings on the wiki and he's quick to apologize when he's edged into incivility (which hasn't happened recently). And as an admin who would be familiar with adding content (and not just in discussions and project pages), Pete would be better able to determine the viability of questionable new articles and additions when a question of deletion comes up. Katr67 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Unlikely to abuse the tools. I'm confident Pete won't wade into a situation until he's fully versed in all subtleties. — Zaui (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Support due to no memorable negative interactions or other obvious signs of problems. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
22. SupportI've read the answers to the questions (paying close attention to jc37's, which I find to be brilliant questions), I've read the opposes below (paying close attention to balloonman's, who I find to be brilliant), and I've concluded that this is a dedicated user that communicates clearly, knows policy, and more importantly, knows what he doesn't know and will research before acting controversially. Support without hesitation. A dedicated user, a clean talkpage, a clear communicator that treads slowly, politely, and correctly. What's not to love? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
23. -- Naerii 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Weak Support - Per the reasons Balloonman listed for opposing. There is the chance that you may misuse the tools unknowingly due to inexperience in certain areas. That said, I do not believe that I should oppose you for that, as I believe that you are minimally qualified to wield the mop. Rather, I suggest that you spend a good deal of time learning about the various functions and tools of a sysop before just jumping into certain areas where your experience is limited. Admin school is, of course, always useful. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Support -- Seems to be a case of net positive...keep up the article building work! --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Support, primarily because of his civil record and the fact that he will be able to control himself with the tools. Doesn't strike me as someone who would do other wise, so why not. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Support So he wants to get involved in a new area, so what? Let him get his feet wet and see if he likes it or not.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Support, of course. Pete has good experience, and is a helpful, amiable person. The idea that someone has to be a model bureaucrat before we give them a few extra buttons so they can better help the encyclopedia is silly. Dmcdevit·t 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong Support First, his encyclopedia building work is sterling. Seriously, read the articles. Second, Pete conducts himself not just well on the wiki, but far better than most (myself included). Third, with his off-wiki work, he goes above-and-beyond the call of duty in attempting to improve the project and educate others about what we're doing. I get that there are some who are legitimately concerned about his experience with the details of policy. But I want to ask people to give him a second thought. He may not have memorized every speedy deletion criteria, but he gets what we're here to do, and the best manner in which to do it. He's the person least likely to abuse the tools that I know. VanTucky 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Strong support Everything I have seen from Pete makes me think that he would be a careful admin and go slowly at first as he learned his way with the tools. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Support. I've been watching this one all day, and it was a hard decision. The answers to some of the questions are vague, and in a couple cases, initially wrong. Typically, I won't support a candidate that has not properly prepared for an RfA. And as someone mentioned below, a few of his comments have an unpleasant texture to them - sarcasm? Condescension? I can't really place it, and I could just be flat out wrong. But, in the end, the positives outweighed the negatives, and VanTucky's support and comment pushed me off the fence into the support camp. This guy is here to improve Wikipedia, and he will be a net positive. Tan | 39 01:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Support While Balloonman and other opposes may have a point about Peteforsyth's relative experience in some areas, I maintain that Pete's goodwill and efforts towards building the project count for quite a lot in my book. It's possible he may make mistakes but I also trust his good judgment to learn from them. Pete has a good track record. I suspect he'll be able to handle the buttons just fine. Pigman☿ 04:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Support. He's a citizen. Best they come. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. I am concerned about his lack of experience in some areas and especially that he does not know that ip's are generally not blocked indef because of collateral damage. This is pretty basic stuff. However, he has been a consistent editor and has displayed a good and positive attitude toward others. He has proven to be helpful at the articles he works in and seems to have support from those who work in the same area. Good luck! -JodyB _talk 12:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Support although there is some learning to be done, seems to have the right attitude for the job Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. There are many paths to become qualified for adminship, content editing is a perfectly valid one. The abaility to generate a lot of content means that the user is already good at learning and following rules, which is a big part of being an admin. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

    1. Support - I have concerns. I think that the candidate is a good editor. And with coaching would likely make a good admin. I really have a "feeling" that I can't explain concerning some of his responses. And some are just, in my opinion, bad. So why support? Because he is a good contributor, and appears to be friends with some Wikipedians who should be able to more fully "light his way". And second, (and I can't underscore this enough), my sincere trust in VegaDark's discernment in his assessment/opinion of the candidate. (Incidentally, as they likely know by now, I welcome Bureaucratic discernment/discretion as far as my comments go, in this and any other RfA discussion.) - jc37 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

       While the above is true, and this will likely pass anyway, in re-reading the above, I probably should stay neutral. I wish the candidate well : ) - jc37 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

37. I think Pete should be fine. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Support. Good record of content contributions. Although he may not have less experience in administrative areas than some other candidates, his excellent and thoughtful answers to the barrage of questions suggest he wil be just fine. the wub "?!" 11:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - excellent contributer to this encyclopedia - has done lots of great article building and helped out in a range of Wikiprojects. Also participated actively in Wikipedia-space. Seems good to me. Lradrama 14:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Support seems like a long time great contributor. Lack of experience in Admin areas doesn't unduly concern me, nothing wrong with on the job learning. I don't think this candidate will act rashly or abuse the tools in anyway. The answers they gave seem well considered and they come across as a well rounded candidate. Polly (Parrot) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Support. I'm going to declare a bit of time travel on this. 14-16 months ago this RFA would have stormed through. As the sands have shifted and we have become more focused on "admin" contributions, our article writers are now finding they have to rack in edits vandal whacking or at CSD or XFD etc. etc. for the sake of it, which is clearly bad. Whilst not disagreeing with the communities current vogue for wanting a "well rounded" candidate, I feel in this instance that the thoughtfullness and thoroughness of contributions to the encyclopedia imply a candidate who won't do anything hasty, or take actions that will cause extra workload for other admins. On balance a net positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - Per "No Big Deal" Garion96 (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. His hisotry shows a strong contributor with solid knowledge of the workings of the pedia. I'm confident that he will not start pressing buttons in unfamiliar areas until he has gotten the hang of how things work. Thus, I am not concerned that he will abuse or misuse the tools.--Kubigula (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
44. Support - As per why the hell not? asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Requests for adminship are, at their core, a forum in which project participants can opine on the body of work of the submitting candidate and decide whether or not the candidate has demonstrated the knowledge, maturity, and judgment required by the project as a whole of their sysops. It is in these forums that each of us can declare what particular aspects of the sysop responsibility we feel are important, whether or not the candidate has demonstrated sufficient competency in those areas, and whether or not we trust the candidate to act in an appropriate manner in situations that may require the mop-and-flamethrower™. In my opinion, Pete has demonstrated the judgment and interactions that I feel are paramount to proper application, and more importantly, non-application, of the tools that the sysop bit affords. Looking at random diffs from his 950+ user talk conversations, I find that he portrays a friendly, polite demeanor, even when in disagreement with the editor with whom he is conversing. This personality trait, that of civility in the face of opposition or worse, is one that I feel is critical to sysops to minimize, if not nearly eliminate, the chances of wikidrama, wheel wars, or worse. Pete's contributions to mainspace articles stand on their own as an indication of his understanding of both the project's ultimate purpose as well as the policies and guidelines that govern the day-to-day workings of the project. The point has been raised about the relative dearth of experience in regards to certain administrative duties. My personal opinion is that while a high level of sophistication can certainly not be claimed, enough understanding has been demonstrated to indicate that the user will not abuse the tools, will fill any knowledge gaps quickly, and will help continue the smooth working of the project. I believe there is a fundamental difference, and the project members have clearly stated, between the level of sophistication (at least vis-a-vis RfA's) which we require from bureaucrats, since their actions are more permanent, and sysops, each of whose actions may be corrected, if necessary, by any other admin. This safety net is sufficient enough for me to feel that the remote possibility of a mistake made from ignorance is far outweighed by the positive characteristics that Pete presents. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
46. I should write something long, but I'm tired, so I'll just say per Avraham and Anonymous Dissident. Rudget (Help?) 15:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    What, trying to average the longest and shortest responses ? -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    In that case, I'd be averaging yours and Naerii's :) Rudget (Help?) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

47. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Why not? Wikipedia can always be better, and that's what admins try to do.-- Barkjon  20:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
49. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - meets my standards. I am a bit concerned about lack of XfD experience, as noted in opposition, but that is "no big deal" as Jimbo says. I have no reason not to trust this user. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
51. Support as a strong mainspace contributor. Candidate's statements appear to be well-reasoned and thoughtful, and I have no doubts that that care will follow him to Admin tasks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
52. Excellent editor. Acalamari 16:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
53. The differences between Pete and the average candidate (who would be more comfortable memorizing policy and checking their brain in at the gate) make this an easier choice than I expected. Support. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Strong, dedicated editor. Spinach Dip 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
55. Support, will be fine. Neıl ☎ 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
56. Whilst I respect and understand the opposition, and believe it to be a genuine concern, I also appreciate Petes' attitude and believe if he gets into unfamiliar waters, he will read up fully before acting. I therefore trust him with the tools and therefore support this request. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    Support per AGF. I see no reason he will abuse the tools and he seems ready to keep learning as he goes. Good luck Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    Indented duplicate !vote (see 35)Balloonman (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

    Per Vegadark's once more impeccable judgment. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:38, May 1, 2008

    Oops. Supported already. Dorftrottel (canvass) 14:39, May 1, 2008

57. Support I've been impressed by Pete's work and think he'll be a fine admin. Additionally, I think the weak opposes and neutrals make some valid points that I'm sure Pete will dutifully consider. Wikipedia:New admin school will prove helpful, and I'd be happy to offer any help as he comes along... — Scientizzle 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Uses real name, something I believe every admin should do George The Dragon (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
59. Support -- I've been impressed working with Pete, and like his answers to the questions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose I hate to do this because Pete looks like a fine candidate. He's civil and cooperative. Has the respect of a number of editors that I have a lot of respect for. But his answer to question one is of great concern. In his answer he says, This would likely include speedy deletes, proposed deletions, articles for deletion, categories for discussion, images etc. for deletion, and likely other wonders of which I'm not yet aware. Yet if you look at his last 3500 edits (which takes you back to December) you will find that he has only participated in roughly 8 XfD's. The ones that he did participate in are almost exclusively related to Oregon (eg he likely came to the debate through the wikiproject he belongs too.) So I looked to see if had a strong history with prod'ing articles or CSD. Nope. Thus, it appears as if this candidate either wants to work in an area where he has no experience/interest or gave us the answer he thought we wanted us to see. Either way, I have to vote oppose based upon this answer. It truly is a shame, because I would have probably supported if he gave what I felt was an honest answer.Balloonman (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Hey! Prior to becoming an admin, I only been to <5 AfD, <10 AIV, 0 CfD, 0 IfD (image for deletion) and tagged 2 speedy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Many would argue that you shouldn't have become an admin then. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   No, my problem is that when he indicated the areas in which he wanted to work, he opened the door for his contributions to those areas to be explored. As he doesn't contribute to those area's, it is impossible to evaluate how/if he knows the applicable policy/guidelines. But, I don't think that really matters. I hate to say this, because it admittedly doesn't AGF. I suspect that Pete gave us a stock answer that he thinks indicates a need for the tools, but without any real desire to work in those areas. If he had a real desire to work there, then he would have a stronger history there. I would have much rather had an answer such as "I don't plan on using the tools that much, but having them will help me better contribute to Wikipedia."Balloonman (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   I raised a similar issue with Pete prior to the nomination, and he responded on my talk page with what I consider to be a satisifactory answer, which you may want to review. VegaDark (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Unfortunately, his last 3500 edits don't support it. In your dif, he says that he has reported things to AIV, but according to this he has no fewer than twelve reports to AIV. He says that it's good to have admins with sufficient experience with things like image licensing and fair use, yet he only has 90 image edits and 14 image talk edits. As for total edits that have been deleted, we are dealing with less than 150 total deleted edits. There really isn't much there for somebody who claims to have done CSD/prod work. It looks like somebody (such as myself) who experimented with those areas and didn't like them.Balloonman (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   When you look at this, you will see he has several edits to AIV. Your link only shows he has 12 or less. VegaDark (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   I stand corrected, he has fewer than 12 edits to AIV.Balloonman (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Balloonman, since you suspect dishonesty on my part, there is likely nothing I can do to change your mind, so will keep my answers brief and oriented to others following along. (Also, if there's something I've done in the past to offend you, please consider contacting me privately, either during or after this RfA.)

   • My answer was sincere. I do not want the mop badly enough to risk my reputation for it.
   • I know of no standard for "strong" experience in any area; I feel my experience in the areas I listed is sufficient for me to make a positive contribution as an administrator. If you disagree, that's fine, but my belief is genuine.
   • The answer you say you would prefer is certainly true of my intentions; however, the question posed was "What admin work do you intend to take part in?" as opposed to "How much admin work do you intend to take part in?"
   • Unless I'm missing something, the link you provide merely proves that I haven't made more than 12 reports at AIV. I'll admit that it's possible I'm confused up with other noticeboards like ANI and 3RR, but I'm pretty sure I have made reports at AIV as well.
   • I have a image edits at Commons as well, though I'm not sure how many are enough for you.

   -Pete (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to weak oppose as I like his contribsBalloonman (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Balloonman. Admins should ideally have experience in most areas where the tools will be used, but should have significant experience of the processes that the intend to focus on - otherwise there is no way to gauge their judgement in these areas, or their knowledge of policy. Other users may have been made admins without that type of experience but that is not a good rationale (it is the RFA equivalent of Other stuff exists). TigerShark (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Weak oppose Lack of experience in the admin areas he'll work in. Epbr123 (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to weak oppose after clarification of Q1, although his original answer demonstrated poor judgement. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

   Changed to neutral. Epbr123 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per Balloonman. I don't like the fact that Pete stated he made reports to AIV, yet the facts say otherwise. Plus, no to little work in the areas you say you will be involved with. Sorry, but I cannot trust you with the tools at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Please see my link above, Pete has several edits to AIV if you look through his contribs. VegaDark (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose - Changed from neutral below. Most of the answers to the questions look pretty good. However, schools do not meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, especially if a google search proves that the school in question exists. Second, an IP address is never blocked indefinitely. I appreciate the candidate's honesty about looking into policy if a situation arises that they are unfamiliar with, but those two answers suggest a weak understanding. Finally, per Balloonman. Candidate wishes to work in areas they have little experience in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Just to clarify. Yes, if an article about a school existed simply to disparage something else, it might meet CSD criteria, but not if it's pumping up a football team. Also, the other answers are well thought out, well written, but chock full of vague generalities that it makes it quite difficult to tell whether this user understands any of these policies. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose. I think that you just aren't ready for this yet. Experience in the projectspace is limited to mostly discussions and Project pages. I also didn't see much experience in the deletion area, which you wish to work in. I'm not worried so much about the lowish AIV count, and I think you're smart enough to figure most things out. Despite this last fact, I think you need to do a little bit more in other areas of Wikipedia. Sorry, Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Changing to neutral. Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose - I regret doing this as I have the utmost respect for Pete and the wonderful work he has done for wikiproject:oregon. I feel that Pete lacks qualities of a administrator but has those of a strong article editor whom has improved this project vastly. Those qualities/skills can be easily learned over time, and with a little reading (policies and such) and maybe getting some coaching, I know in a few months Pete will make a great candidate. The areas that I feel need some improvement are deletion (as he clearly states his interest in working), along with a better overall grasp of policies. I would like to see him contribute to project space a bit more, where we can get a feel for his level of policy understanding, along with proof that he can remain calm under fire or take appropriate actions with the tools. I think Pete is a wonderful wikipedian whom I have never had a negative interaction with, and for that reason do not feel he would abuse the tools, but maybe misuse them. Tiptoety ^talk 18:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Weak Oppose per Balloonman. I think that the candidate is a great article builder, but doesn't have some of the needed experience for a admin. I suggest that Pete gets more diversified in editing, and later he would be a nice admin candidate. Maybe next time, Spencer^T♦C 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose I'm sorry, I know you've done a great deal of work for this site, but I have to oppose you per Wisdom89 and Balloonman. I wish you luck in future RfA's. Razorflame 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose The answers, tho mostly not actually wrong, show a lack of understanding of the typical situations that arise, and a self-admitted lack of familiarity with policy. Here's a clearly wrong one, that seems not to have been noticed: saying a reason for speedy is if an article is in a "different language than the encyclopedia is on". That is simply wrong. The criterion is "Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. " Otherwise, they are to be listed for translation. See WP:CSD A2. I advise the candidate to actually read the relevant policies before next time, or at least as soon as possible after he becomes an administrator. DGG (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose, seems to have a weak knowledge of deletion policy per the above opposes. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral - Pending answers to questions, but unfortunately leaning towards a weak oppose per Balloonman Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Changing to oppose. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - Pending answer to question. --Sharkface^T/_C 04:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions have been answered, and maybe it would be wise to hold off on !voting before he answers the questions. Tiptoety ^talk 13:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no harm in going neutral initially and then changing my vote after the questions have been answered. And I have changed my vote to weak support. --Sharkface^T/_C 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral, with regrets. The candidate has the makings of a good admin. However, I'm concerned with his lack of experience in certain projects, per Balloonman. I lean toward Support since I think this candidate is trustworthy and diligent. Majoreditor (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - I sincerely thought I was going to support, and really dropped the questions as a prliminary to that. The answers to most of the questions were fine, if showing a little inexperience with some of the areas (which, for me, is ok, to a point). But a few answers stood out as "not-so-good": Several of the XfD pages are not X for deletion, but X for discussion. So while often a discussion concerns keep/delete, other options are available. And so, this should be kept in mind when attempting to determine consensus. (This is a common misconception, and not enough to oppose for, obviously.) The answer to 4e, just "felt" a touch bitey, or at least disdainful of the editors involved. While your suggestion about static IPS being a possibility seemed fair, it's rarely, perhaps never, a good idea to indefinitely block an IP address (as I found out after-the-fact, myself). And you come rather close with WP:IAR, but I don't think you're quite there. All this said, I may change position upon further clarification. - jc37 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   In my answers above, I specifically referred to "categories for discussion." My participation in CfDs should make it abundantly clear that I understand the difference between discussion and deletion; I could seek out diffs if you like. (I acknowledge that the specific answer you reference is inaccurate in that way, though. It was a technical oversight on a hypothetical question, and should not be taken as an indication that I would support deletion over more nuanced discussion.) I don't think I've ever been accused of biting a newcomer (and the question you reference says nothing about newcomers.) I'd be happy to answer in more detail; maybe you could formulate this into a question or questions? -Pete (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well, 2 of them would pretty much require a near complete re-write of your answers to provide more clarification. (4e and 8 - IAR) The others merely would be that you saw the concerns, and summarised how you agree (or disagree, a valid position, regardless of whether someone else considers it "right") or weren't clear enough in your response. (Which you have partially, somewhat.) So clarification would be nice, but I was hesitating to actively suggest that you make that effort. (It's unquestionably a risk. You could bring more people to understanding, or your responses could create further alienation. It's a question of discretion and discernment, and how you even choose to act will even be observed and weighed. Hence my hesitance to do more than merely ask for clarification.) - jc37 18:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   I note that you've clarified several things. I was waiting to see if further questions would be clarified, but I guess not.

   I am confused by these two sentences:

   "Second, I try to resolve situations without imposing on official noticeboards, procedures, etc. wherever possible."

   "There are procedures in place, and notice boards, that are important resources for resolving content disputes."

   They seem to be mutually exclusive. Could you clarify? - jc37 06:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Mutually exclusive? I disagree. -Pete (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   (Retaining the context of the surrounding sentences) - In one you suggest that you would direct them to "procedures in place, and notice boards" and in the other you suggest that you "try to resolve situations without imposing on official noticeboards, procedures, etc. wherever possible."

   So which is it? - jc37 10:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Well, I was making an assumption about the question, which I suppose might not be justified. I assumed that JohnQ was approaching me because I'm an administrator, and seeking an administrative intervention like a block. If that's the case, I think it would be inappropriate to meet that request; if JohnQ has a good reason for seeking administrative intervention, I feel it's more appropriate to make the case to a noticeboard, rather than choosing a specific administrator.

   If the situation was something that grew more organically out of my editing work, I would treat it like I've treated countless situations in the past. Which means, if I had the time and capacity, making an effort to evaluate the situation, engaging the other editors, and trying to find the right solution. In a case like that, I wouldn't use any administrator tools in the situation; I'd be too closely involved. So if administrative action became relevant, a noticeboard would still be the appropriate place to seek it. -Pete (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   So if it was due to being an admin, you wouldn't use the tools, and if it wasn't due to being an admin, you wouldn't use the tools? - jc37 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, you understand me exactly right. In the context of that question, it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which I would use the admin tools. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you for the clarification of the seeming duality of the responses. Would you update 4e to reflect these several clarifications? - jc37 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   I think you should do that if you think it's the best thing -- I don't, because I don't see the seeming duality, and nobody else has jumped into this side-discussion. I answered your questions in the best way I could see. If you disagree, by all means, act accordingly. -Pete (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral I feel somewhat weary of this users answers, I've no doubt he is a good editor, but I'm insufficiently persuaded that they'll use the tools correctly and regularly enough to warrant administration. Good luck in the future though, this by all means isn't an oppose, just that I don't see enough reason to support. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 11:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - basically meets my standards, but he might, due to inexperience, make a serious error. Needs more work at XfD. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I changed to support. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Changed from oppose to neutral. Sure you don't have the experience that I generally like to see in potential administrators, but it's obvious that you're very smart and not likely to go blundering about with the tools. Over the time of this RFA, I have seen you take criticism very constructively and without snapping at the editors who've left it. Combined with a re-examination of your contributions, this was enough to change my stance from Oppose to Neutral :). Of course you will need to review policies more often in the beginning than most do, and you should review key policies listed at WP:ARL. Best of luck to you, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   A useful directory -- thanks, I was unaware of that. -Pete (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   No problem! Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Can't support on this one as you do not have enough exp in xfd's (as per baloon man. If you're going to work in that area as an admin - I suggest you practise a little now. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 03:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   Fattyjwoods, it's a busy time for me, but I'm doing what I can to meet your suggestion. I've jumped into a few WP:DRV discussions, which is an area I haven't participated before. I'll do more of this, but might not have much time for it for a few days. Also, I'm planning to download and print some of the material from Wikipedia:New admin school and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide for closer reading. -Pete (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   Fattyjwoods, while I fully recognize that the small number of edits possible during the 7 days of an RFA are unlikely to sway your opinion, I'd like to report back on my progress. I've made a number of edits to WP:DRV and WP:RFD in the past few days, areas in which I previously had not worked. I have tried to make substantive contributions -- i.e., reading closely enough to offer a new perspective where possible, rather than just a bunch of "me too" !votes. My impression is that my contributions have been well-received, and demonstrate a pretty clear grasp of how policies, and generally the reasons for redirects and the processes of deletion, work. I invite anybody questioning my readiness to take a look. (Again, with the understanding that it may not be enough to sway your views in this RFA.) -Pete (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Do you think you're now ready to participate in admin work at WP:DRV and WP:RFD. Epbr123 (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   Good question. No, not yet; I have not yet seen any of the discussions I've participated in go through closure, which would be an important thing to watch. After some more of this sort of work, I would look for a few discussions that appear to be nearing completion, and ask a more experienced admin if my impression of the discussion matches theirs. Then I'd watch how those discussions close. After that, I'd look for very uncontroversial entries to use the buttons on. I'd watch the results of those, see if anybody contacted me with feedback, see if anything got reviewed. If I found my contributions were well received, I'd start to look at ones that aren't so WP:SNOWBALLish. -Pete (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   (Although, I suppose you might consider what I said above to be "participating in admin work." The thing I'd be hesitant to do without the kind of exploration I described is actually pushing the buttons.) -Pete (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

   On reflection, I have a little more to say: there are areas where I do think I'm ready to start, cautiously, using the buttons. I've dealt with WP:3RR issues, maybe not a whole lot, but enough to make me feel I have a good grasp of the available remedies (such as page protection, user and IP blocks, recommending the Mediation Cabal, etc.) I've also participated in numerous WP:AFDs, and am more comfortable in that area. Finally, on redirects, I think I'm catching on pretty quickly, because I create what I think is an enormous number of redirects (sorry, don't know a way to prove that in a diff.) To my knowledge, none of them have ever been deleted. But I'm very familiar with this area, and seeing the kind of redirects that get nominated for deletion fits pretty well with my understanding of the tool and its proper use.

   What I'm trying to do is show a good-faith effort to meet the concerns a number of editors have raised. While I understand that I won't come as far as they'd like in these specific areas in the timeframe of this RFA, I'm trying to provide some basis for considering how I'll get myself up to speed. -Pete (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral I think you candidate needs at least another two weeks of experience and observing other admins before he actually uses the tools in any area. Epbr123 (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2008 (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.