Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog

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

thedemonhog

Final (31/14/12); Closed as no consensus by WjBscribe at 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thedemonhog (talk · contribs) - thedemonhog has been editing Wikipedia since June 2006. Since then, she has made around 5,000 edits, including 3,000 to mainspace, and has written two featured articles, two featured lists, a good article and a DYK article. thedemonhog is an active member of WikiProject Lost, and has participated at AfD and Wikipedia:Requested moves, where she has displayed a good knowledge of policies and guidelines. She is also experienced at working with templates and images, and is a regular contributer Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. thedemonhog is a sensible and devoted editor, who would make excellent use of the admin tools. Epbr123 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Hello, I accept. Please note that I began contributing in April 2006 using my IP address. Including the 1272 edits with 230 not in the mainspace using my IP, my count is over 6500. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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 intend to move protected pages that are protected against moves, create accounts for users when similar user names exist (as long as they are not too similar) and respond to problems and questions at the noticeboard. The requested moves and account request pages seem to be monitored less than some others, such as the one for protection requests. Of course whenever I pass by the protection requests page or recent changes, I will try to make myself useful. Finally, while the "undo" button is quite speedy, the "rollback" button is apparently faster, so I would use that.

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

A: Most of my time on Wikipedia has been spent editing articles of the Lost WikiProject. I have renovated the project page and significantly contributed to many Lost articles, adding "out-of-universe" information and citations. The article on the fourth season has over 80 references and the season does not even begin airing until February. When the new season airs, I plan to tackle the episode articles immediately and get them nominated for good or featured article status a week after the episode airs.

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: I do not think that I have been too stressed out, nor do I think we should be as editing Wikipedia is just for fun. I had a minor disagreement over which picture to use in an article, but that was a year ago and we rationally discussed it. There was also a misunderstanding in March after a user (unknowingly) uploaded a picture within minutes after I uploaded an almost identical image. His was deleted because I was (barely) first, I edited out the watermark and I shrunk mine so as to better meet fair use. He didn't understand and thought I was out to get him, so I explained myself while keeping a cool head. The biggest conflict I have had was in December/January. Two sides engaged in an edit war, violating the three-revert rule several times. At the time, I was largely unfamiliar with the policy and that incident taught me to discuss matters instead of reverting. Protection was granted and it was discussed on the talk page – both of which should have happened earlier.

Optional question from Elkman:

4. I noticed you were blocked in June for violating Wikipedia:Non-free content. You were warned here and then blocked a minute later. (Personally, I don't think it's right to give someone a warning and then block them right away, unless they're a persistent vandal, but that's another topic.) Could you explain the circumstances that led up to this block? Was it only in relation to fair-use images that were later orphaned, or were there other problems? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I enjoy an illustrated Wikipedia and I used to upload high resolution fair use pictures without providing rationales. By June, I was beginning to clean up my mess, but I was blocked due to my numerous prior violations. Now, each of the fair use pictures that I have uploaded are low resolution and have rationales. See them here.

Optional question from Lankiveil:

5. I notice that most of your contributions are related in some way to a particular television programme. While there is nothing else in your history that indicates you would be unsuitable for the role, this extremely narrow focus makes me uneasy, as I'm not sure that you've interacted with more than a narrowly focused group of Wikipedians. Can you direct me to any significant contributions that you have made outside of the TV programme "Lost"? Lankiveil (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Most of my edits have been television-related, but of course, I fix spelling errors whenever I find them. Occasionally, I visit the recent changes page and revert vandalism. I also comment at the TFA requests page, welcome new users and am helping with the proposal for today's featured list.

Optional question from Jonathan:

6. I have noticed that your edits are more distributed to the mainspace than the other namespaces. Why is that? Signed, Jonathan • Don't stereotype 15:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I do not think that I consciously chose to have my edits distributed the way that they have been (~65% to article, image and template namespaces and ~35% to Wikipedia and various talk namespaces). Maybe I would rather improve the encyclopedia than talk about improving it.

Optional question from DGG:

7. Could you give us your view of one currently disputed policy question at WP, and one open disputed AfD not involving television programs. Obviously, there's no right or wrong answer,--thats why I asked for currently disputed subjects. I ask because I see almost no edits to discussions of WP policy, or to XfDs among your contributions. DGG (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A: Hi, sorry I took so long to answer. Are there other places to look for diputed policies besides Requests for comment/Policies and the policy village pump? I looked over requests for comments discussion for the wheel war policy. I disagree with the proposal. The original wording was short and to-the-point. The proposed wording seems overly long and more likely to confuse. I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marion Frances Chevalier, writing that although sources will be hard to find, the article satisfies notability guidelines. Now, I'll give some explanation as to why I contribute the article namespace more than the Wikipedia namespace. The wheel war proposal will come to a conclusion regardless of whether I give input (unless I was the one who proposed it). Vandalism will be reverted and AfD's will usually have the same outcome whether or not I vote. On the other hand, no one was going to rewrite Through the Looking Glass (Lost) to featured article status (or at least, not for a while).

among the places to look for discussions of policy are the talk pages for the basic WP:POLICY pages, such as N, RS, V, NOT. I hope you will have looked at some of them by the time you apply again. DGG (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Question From Pedro

8. I have reviewed your contributions per my standards and I still am undecided. The opposers make some good points, and I'm still in awe of Q6 that whilst brusque is also accurate. Onto my question, as this is now about mid point in your RfA. If this RfA fails how will you feel? Pedro :  Chat  11:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A: I would not feel too bad. It does not look like I am going to make it and that is okay as the tools are not necessary. You can expect Greatest Hits (Lost) to go to FAC soon and for me to contribute more to the Wikipedia namespace regardless of the outcome of this RfA.

General comments

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

• Links for thedemonhog: Thedemonhog (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/thedemonhog before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Upon reviewing your contributions, I see no obvious reason to oppose :) good luck! Anthøny 00:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. Epbr123 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support I see no reason not to. Unlikely to abuse admin tools as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 07:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - as per AGK. Nothing to oppose with. Rudget.talk 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I'm going to support, although I would like to see you edit in more areas of Wikipedia. I know that giving you admin tools will do this, as you will be able to do admin tasks, so that is the reason why I am supporting. Good luck. Jack?! 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   Support. I agree that participation in a broader range of topics, both in and out of the mainspace, would be of benefit to the candidate, and I encourage her to read and understand the relevant policies before wading into areas where she has had little involvement to date. Having the mop will force her to broaden her horizons, which is why I support the candidate. Good luck, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to oppose, below ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

6. Support, from writing TTLG to FA, she's a quality contributor, although the limited scope of contributions is of small concern. Will ^(talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
7. This candidate is a quality contributor. I see no evidence that the tools will be abused. Acalamari 19:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
8. OK, your editing is great, but I wish you had more experience on the Projectspace. Nevertheless, you will be a fine admin. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Support As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support - nothing wrong here.   jj137 (Talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support Seems like a really great editor, and an excellent contributor to the project rather than someone who just reverts vandalism all day. I can understand the arguments made by the opposition, but don't think that there is any legitimate reason to oppose (just my opinion). Nor am I worried that the editor has a narrow field of interest; if anything, I find this preferable. She is devoted to one specific topic, and is likely an expert on the subject. All admins should have at least one area of expertise, where they can really help the project; why deduct points just because her area happens to be a television show? faithless (^speak) 10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. I find her work definitely satisfactory. Some are opposing because of the many mainspace contribs, but I prefer a high percentage of mainspace edits, because it's the whole reason why we're here. She also has sufficient experience in other areas and has been editing for a long time. No reason not to support. Useight (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Support I think she'll do fine --MoRsE (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Support benefits outweigh risks to the ultimate task of 'pedia building in this case so a green light from me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Support — I don't see any compelling evidence that this user will misuse the tools. Everyone should have tools, unless they are going to misuse. This editor seems mature and intelligent enough to know when to apply the tools, and when not to. Concerns about experience seem to ignore this distinction. --Haemo (talk) 01:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Support, no concerns. Neil ☎ 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support, seems unlikely to abuse the tools. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
18. Support capable user no concerns --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 05:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Support I see no concerns on my part. Dustihowe (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support because she satisfies my standards. I have no reasons to dis-trust and not give the mop to her. She's a competent and long-standing editor. Although her interests are not mine, we could use some knowledgeable about such things as a sysop. She's made reasonable answers to all the questions. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
21. Support I sense nothing but good intentions from this user. My primary criteria for Adminship is a mature, responsible editor with a sufficient body of edits to prove knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies. Clearly mature and responsible, lots of edits, and clearly passionate about a particular field. Great answer to #6, by the way. Everyone is talking about Wikipedia but no one is doing anything about it! DOSGuy (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. Adminship is about trust. I trust this user to read the manual before throwing herself into unfamiliar tasks and to refer users with questions onward if she can't answer them herself. Anyone with that level of content work has enough social skills to handle most any social interaction that pops up. The answer to question #6, which has almost certainly doomed this RFA, is awesome - succinctly worded in its certainty about the primacy of content over process in an encyclopedia, which is exactly as it should be. (When in a forum of users who, by self-selection, tend to be interested in process and policy, it's bad politics to imply that they're interested in issues secondary to the site, but I'll give you extra points for being oblivious to wikipolitics.) - BanyanTree 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yay, extra points!  :) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

23. Support per Q6. Having an admin who is not interested in being a process wonk, let alone a process bully, would be a net improvement to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support I have seen nothing to demonhog's detriment; re Q6, what is seen as brusque, I read as terse, which is no bad thing. There are too many words wasted here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Weak Support Based on honest answer to my question. Many concerns of the opposers are valid, but I am confident that whether this RfA passes or fails the candidate will take the criticism on board constructively. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support per Questions 6, 7: a golden ratio of work vs. talk. We must have workhorse admins in addition to wikilawyers. `'Míkka>t 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Well said. DOSGuy (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

27. Support She is an excellent editor and I doubt she would abuse the position. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Weak Support - Overall, a Good Candidate but the lack of Knowledge with some of the Policies is of Concern. Other than the Policies Issue, the User has my Support. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - no indication that the user will abuse the buttons. Adminship is not a job, it's a set of extra buttons given to editors who are trusted not to misuse them. There's no requirement that they ever use them for anything specific or anything at all. Zocky | picture popups 13:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Support. Safe. Axl 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. I see no cause for concern with this editor, and I was rather impressed with the answer given to Q6, which I thought was right on the button. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I think that more experience in other areas of Wikipedia is necessary to create an admin who isn't quickly out of their depth in issues they haven't encountered before. Also, I am rather concerned over the image issues in the past, the seems to continue at least in the Peter Petrelli article about a month ago, wherein images already in place were replaced with random, less-effective images. It would seem that someone seeking adminship would be highly interested in finding consensus before making these drastic sorts of edits. The editor needs more experience. When Thedemonhog is able to distance himself further from his problematic past, and garner experience outside of the Lost series of articles, then I would be more comfortable supporting this editor for adminship. Not now, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   Fair enough that you do not feel that I have enough experience, but I can defend myself against the Peter image dispute. I was going through the Heroes character articles and I noticed that the majority of infobox images were portrait promotional photos. Strangely, Peter's article had a cropped screenshot instead (see here). I felt that the articles should be consistent so I uploaded a promotional photo (see here). Arcayne said above that "images already in place were replaced with random, less-effective images." The image I uploaded was not random, it was equally effective and it was an image – not images. Arcayne then saw that I had changed the image without discussion and instead of reverting back to the old image, he uploaded a new version of the picture (see here) without discussion. As I said at my talk page, I can ask Arcayne the same question that he asked me (why did you change the image without gaining consensus?). –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   With respect, you pulled the initial placeholder image without consensus, and inserted another, again without consensus. While trying to find the image that had apparently been deleted or overwritten, I found another. While I didn't seek consensus for the replacement image (which focused on the character's fact and not a torso shot), I am not the one seeking adminship. Admins should not just be folk with a better toolbox; they should be serving as examples to the membership, so as to inspire editors to want to be better. Pulling and substituting images without consensus or even a single post before the fact is not what I am looking for in someone who wants admsinship I am not saying you are a cad, and without merit. I am just saying that you need more time outside your comfort zone, so we can see how your experience is applied in other areas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose No demonstration of knowledge or even interest in Wikipedia policy. The basic work of an administrator is the application of this policy to disputable situations, and without experience in policy there is no way of doing the work correctly. Acquire some by working in WP space, and come back in three months, and I hope to be able to support. DGG (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per dicussion. I have worked with thedemonhog for over a year- we are two of the most active editors of the Lost articles. As has been said, she is quite a capable, understanding and intelligent editor, and it has been a pleasure to improve and promote articles with her. Nonetheless, I too take issue with the fact that her editing and time on Wikipedia are so narrowly focused. An administrator needs a history of experience with the technical and policy side of Wikipedia. As a member of the overall Wikipedia community, I hope and expect that our administrators fully comprehend policy and can help guide us, and if we feel that there are doubts with a prospective admin, here, the requests page, is the place to sort them out. I'm afraid that thedemonhog's history and experience with Wikipedia policy is lacking now, and I would not feel confident currently to call upon thedemonhog to resolve a Wikipedia matter outside of the Lost pages. However, also as has been said, I am confident that in time thedemonhog would make a wonderful admin, and I unfortunately must oppose. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Not At This Time. I'm reasonably confident that user would not maliciously misuse the admin tools, but as per the answer to question five above, I'm not convinced that this user has had a broad enough experience with Wikipedia to use the tools effectively. Perhaps in a couple of months when your contributions to things like Featured Lists and the like are a little wider, I will be more confident supporting your application. Lankiveil (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC).
5. Oppose User does seem like a great editor, but I don't see the broad(er) range of experience I would prefer to see in an admin. The TV episode editing is wonderful, and I do hope you keep up the great work there, but try broadening the areas you edit in. I'm almost positive I will be able to support next time. Best of luck! Jmlk17 07:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose A great editor but not ready for admin tools yet maybe at some point in the near future Alexfusco5 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. The editor needs more experience. The editor needs to demonstrate more knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Editor needs greater breadth of experience. Needs to get involved in a greater variety of articles. Get involved in XfD discussions. You're going to have trouble helping resolve disputes if you don't know more about the variety of things that go on around here. Although apparently unlikely to abuse tools, editor shows insufficient need for them. Wryspy (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose A crucial part of being an administrator is to help mediate disputes, help less experienced contributors, and make sure that the whole process goes smoothly. A lack of knowledge on various policies and guidelines are not going to help a(n) [future] administrator go anywhere when they are involved in a dispute. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (GMT)
9. Oppose One of the users primary interest in becoming an admin is to move pages, but I see only 7 edits on the Request for Moves page. I'm also concerned about her depth of knowledge elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose I'm unsure whether this user understands what admin work entails. Answer to Question 6 is frankly offensive and confrontational toward Wiki-Gnomes, which also causes me to wonder about candidate's communication abilities. Xoloz (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    How was it offensive or confrontational? –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Respectfully, I disagree with Xoloz's interpretation of the answer. thehog indicates her own preference for how she improves Wikipedia. She does not imply that the work of Wiki-Gnomes is less valuable. Axl 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose While this user clearly has a fundamental grasp of the subject whic clearly forms the vast majority of their edits - the TV programme "Lost" - it is nor demonstrated to me in the edits presented that they possess an equvalent grasp of the basic wkipedia policies. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose due to Question 6. A great deal of admin work takes place in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk namespaces. Indeed, much of an admin's work directly involves "talking about" improving the project, whether through warnings and blocks to vandals, discussion of proposed and contested deletions at XfD, discussions at AN/I, or evidence at RfC and Arbitration. The well-qualified administrator must be prepared to discuss his/her actions, seeking consensus if necessary, and accepting consensus if it shows their actions to be in error. While a lack of prior participation in these areas isn't necessarily a problem, disdain for those areas of the project is of serious concern. With all respect to the candidate, I cannot support. changed from support, above ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose per question 6; I don't feel as offended as Xoloz at the answer but admin work involves a lot of talking about things, handling difficult and contentious issues, and lots of thankless work that probably doesn't fit your vision of improving the encyclopedia but it does many other people's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose - due to the conflict, that seemed pretty petty to be arguing over. remember as admin you should act at all times professional. I just witnessed an admin that started an edit war and then went to another admin to complain. This is what I don't want to see. admin's should never feel they are the almighty, they should not think that they are correct all the time. They should take a step back and look at things objectively. Because of the way the above was handled and the way he seemed to react after he was vindicated, indicates to me that this will happen again. Therefore I strongly oppose this nomination. --Jeanenawhitney 17:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. This editor is clearly highly accomplished in the area of TV series. She understands how we create featured articles in that area, and has a clear understanding of where she would work as an admin. However, articles about TV series are somewhat unusual; they are typically sourced from a narrow range of types of media - typically, the programmes themselves, as well as accompanying material from magazines and the web. In spite of my concern that her experience of article space is thus limited (although she reverts vandalism on a much wider range of articles, including scientific topics), I am encouraged by her expressing an interest in Greek mythology. Have you, thedemonhog, made significant, well-referenced content contributions to articles in that area? Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

   A: No, I have not. Right now, I want to fix the Lost articles because most of them are just plot summaries that are in danger of being nominated for deletion. Greek mythology articles seem to be in no danger of this. Additionally, I am currently more interested in Lost than classical mythology. If this was three years ago, I would more likely be editing mythology articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral I see no indication that this editor would attempt to abuse the mop, but also see no broad range of experience to gauge how they might react to different circumstances. A steady editor who is learning, but perhaps needs to widen their Wikipedia imprint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Although I have no doubts that this editor is unlikely to abuse the tools, I too have doubts which echo those of LessHeard vanU. These concerns are not enough to lead me to oppose, but I cannot support. Perhaps in a few months, with evidence of additional experience outside of the niche of TV articles. -MBK⁰⁰⁴ 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Maybe - You are a great user and all, with your Lost obsession and all that jazz, and true, you will not abuse the tools (in good faith), but you lack experience in almost all areas. Now, that may seem hypocrytic if you look at my background, but I think that you would be overwhelmed by the responsibilities of admin-persons. For example (and this is an optional question, too): What if, by arbitrary means, an user that was knowledgeable, but not too knowledgeable, asked you about a subject that you had no experience in whatsoever, such as, say, World of Warcraft or Wikipedian Arbitration? Would you quickly pilfer through Wikipedia searching for random bits of information that they asked you about, or would you direct them to another administrator? Or, as an alternative option, would you simply ignore them and do the opposite of what a Wiki admin is supposed to do? Flaminglawyer ^{talk contrib} 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   I don't find that neutral particularly weighty, considering your ~100 contributions. Rudget _talk 14:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   Notice that in my second sentence I said that this comment/question may seem hypocrytic. Flaminglawyer ^{talk contrib} 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   I suppose. But that very fact, sort of removes all sort of substance from the rest of the neutral. I'm slightly surprised by your good knowledge of Wikipedia. Rudget _talk 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

   A: Administrators are not required to play World of Warcraft, so I would direct the user to its Wikipedia article. As for arbitration, I would refresh my memory at requests for arbitration, give the user a summary, tell the user that it is the last step of conflict resolution (if the dispute cannot be resolved sooner), and give them links to arbitration policy and dispute resolution. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Neutral I don't know what to do; support or oppose; I've seen good things in the support comments while there are concerns in the oppose section. NHRHS2010 talk 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Neutral.This neutral is significantly leaning towards oppose and I will likely more it there, but I would like to encourage the candidate to respond to DGG's question seven first. I had been waiting to respond based on the answer there, but the user has not done so. As has been said in the opposes, I am worried about policy knowledge. That question is a prime example of a way to demonstrate knowledge. SorryGuy 07:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

   I am going to go ahead and remain neutral. While I appreciate your answer, I am still not convinced of policy knowledge or need for the tools. SorryGuy 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   Does anyone need the tools? –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

   I don't, but I would use them responsibly if I had them. I like the sentiment that you intend to continue to be an editor — using Admin tools when necessary in the course of your editing duties — rather than become a bureaucrat and divert your attention from editing. That kind of casual attitude toward Administrative powers is preferable to anyone who wants Adminship too badly, which betrays a lack of understanding of WP:DEAL. Since you will need to know Wikipedia policy to be able to responsibly use those tools, even if you don't intend to make policy or become a bureaucrat, I think you would be wise to phrase your answers in a way that makes it clear that your primary passion is editing, and that you don't have disdain for the work that goes on outside of the mainspace. You came here to edit, and there's nothing wrong with that. DOSGuy (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

7. Neutral. I'm not totally satisfied about the fair-use image business. While I can appreciate that the user learned something from the experience, and that she won't make the same mistake again, I'm not certain about her ability to enforce policy in this area in the future. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

   Neutral. I would prefer to see a broader range of experience before offering support but see nothing in principle against. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC) CHanged on reading extra info. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

8. Neutral I doubt that this user will abuse the tools, but her lack of experience with policy worries me. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Neutral Hher lack of experience with policy is of issue. --evrik ^(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Neutral There are no major red flags for an "oppose" from me, but the issues with lack of communication make me a little unsettled to hand this user the mop right now. I would like to see a little more collaboration, broad range of experience, and "behind the scenes" work (that of a WikiElf) for me to feel content that thedemonhog has full knowledge of policies and the inner-workings of Wikipedia, as that's what admin-work entails. нмŵוτнτ 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Neutral at this time Have no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools, but I feel a more rounded contribution to the project would be desirable. Whitstable 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Yeah, you seem pretty fun and all, but do not strike as a professional. Also, Statusbot says you haven't been online for 3 days - what's up with that? --Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Not professional? I will look into the StatusBot problem, but if you look at my contributions, you will see that I have made ~90 edits in the last three days. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:02, 30 November 2007 (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.