Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro

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

Final (talk page)(49/17/2); Ended 12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedro (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I nominate Pedro for adminship. Pedro first entered the Wikipedia arena in July 2006, and has been a solid contributor ever since. He contributes greatly to Wikipedia vandal fighting, with over 50 reports to AIV. He also does a good deal of work at WP:AN/I, and when he has time left over, he votes in AfD debates! This is certainly a user who has shown he can be trusted with the tools, and I think he'll make an excellent administrator. Ladies and Gentlemen, Pedro! G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With kind thanks to my nominee, and with due regard to the scrutiny of my peers I accept.Pedro |  Chat  09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my answers and contributions will provide enough evidence to other editors as to whether they should support or oppose this proposition. I will be delighted to reply to any extra questions as required. My edit count is probably low in some editors opinions. I occasionly use AWB for edits, but the vast majority of my contributions are "direct" rather than automated. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, I intend to learn from it and continue my activities here, whether I have a couple more buttons or not.

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: As discussed with nominator there are two initial areas I would wish to help out in. Firstly we are all aware of the frequent backlogs at CAT:CSD. I estimate I have made about two hundred sd-tags to pages, as evidenced by the discrepancy between server count and the count using the tools below (a review of contributions should indicate a number of "advise user of sd tag" edit summaries). I watch the outcome of these, and to date only one article I have tagged as speedy has not been removed through this process, and indeed went on to fail at WP:AFD. I check these things, to ensure that I am tagging within policy. I find that attack pages are a particular issue recently, and there is no question that their prompt removal is essential for the good health and public perception of Wikipedia. My second area, as evidenced by over 50 reports, is WP:AIV. Again, I check the logs at this page and to my knowledge all my reports have resulted in a preventative block. Again, I check these to ensure my interpretation of the policy is correct (i.e. repeated blatant vandalism with the correct warnings, not accidcental page blanking etc.) I realise that a number of applicants cite these two locations, but as per recent conversations at WT:RFA I see no reason why these are not great locations to start (and continue working at) with the tools.

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

A: In terms of main space my edits are generally minor or on subjects I know about. A look at my highest main space contribution might give away a bit about my physical location - not a lot I can do about that! I believe my value so far has been in discourse with other users, in trying to help genuine good faith contributors (even when they were wildly off the mark!) and, perhaps most importantly changing my mind. Being strong is a good admin trait, but being flexible and reviewing others opinions, and adopting them when they are better than your own, is also very important. I have done some (not a huge amount) of work at WP:AFD and was particularly pleased, for example when this article was saved from deletion by doing some research into it's correct name. In addition I allways try to offer neutral or moral support to RfA's that are clearly going to fail, as there has been talk that these editors then get disgusted with the whole project and end up moving on. These things may be small, but I believe they combine into contributions I can be proud of.

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 have had a lot of confrontation over articles that are blatantly speedy delete candidates. I'm sure it's frustrating when an editor spends time creating an article about their band and some editor just turns up and tags it. I do use standard templates to advise these editors, but allways try to explain the reasons why in a civil fashion. I've had disagreements of view point on numerous talk pages, once used WP:SARCASM without thinking (I've learned from that!), but have endeavoured to allways be WP:CIVIL. A long time back I initiated this thread over a user who has now sadly left the project. At the time I felt her attitude was brusque to the point of rudeness. The community felt otherwise, and I acknowledged that I was wrong and "over touchy". I'm a fair bit more resilient now - once you've had your user page vandalised a few times you get used to it! Other than that I do try to follow WP:TEA when the editing gets hot.

4 Question(s) by Haemo: Since you mention that you want to help out with speedy deletion, I wanted to just ask you a couple of questions relating to that. Specifically, you mention that a "backlog" is often the problem -- however, this can be considered in a couple of ways; firstly, as a numerical backlog (too many articles), or as a time backlog (too many old tags). Which of these do you (1) feel is more important, and (2) what deficiencies (if any) do you see in the current system? Also, as a user who will be evaluating these requests, (3) where do you draw the line on what an "assertion of notability", with respect to criterion A7, and do hoaxes qualify under the G1 nonsense criterion. Haemo 02:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A An excellent set of questions. To deal in order : 1) The backlog is was refering to is really numerical, but all backlogs need to be addressed. As above, when an attack page sits for 20 minutes there is a real concern, wheras a dictionary defenition that needs to be transwikied is less "urgent". I'm thinking about the public face of wikipedia. Given most activity on wiki is not using a mop and not even writing articles, but people actually reading them, it seems clear to me that certain speedy requests need a "higher priority" than others. This is not limited to attack pages - copy vios, spam and unfair images all come in here. With this in mind I would be looking at the breakdown by sub cat rather than the main list. 2) With regard to any deficiencies I see the CAT:CSD page to be one of the easier ones around here. If anything the only failing to the system is that we need a few more people to help out. As I mentioned above, an editor creating a new article that sees it quickly tagged must get very frustrated, but I imagine that frustration increases if they then spend twenty minutes continuing to develop it before it gets deleted. That's where we lose potentially great editors in their first interaction. I think that (and I know it's time) there is value in reviewing the contributions to an obviously speedy article and occasionally dropping a note to the creating editor on why it's gone. This also stops a lot of talk page "hey, where's my article" comments. Obviously blatant SPAM / vandalism doesn't fall here - I'm thinking more bands, new star up companies etc. 3) Assertion of notability. If in doubt, don't delete. A talk page "hey this company is brand new but they are going to be massive" is not an assertion. A line in an article "They are really well known in the Bay area" is not notable. A comment in the article "They have appeared on BBC News" gives one pause for thought. A simple Google test may help, but caution is best. I'd also intend to follow up any article that was not a clear cut speedy, to try and add value at AFD. 4) Hoaxes do not fault under G1 unless they are blatant. By this I mean a new article "2007 purchase of Red Rum's bones by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" - would require a bit of wider discussion to establish a) if it's a hoax and b) if not where it needs to go to. However an article entitled "2007 purcahse of the whole world by Bill Gates" probably needs to be recommended to The Onion but would be vandalism and therefore speedy.

Optional question by AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.

A: I appreciate you have already expressed you opinon of support, but I really do want to answer this as it's very germane. I spend a lot of time simply reading the 'pedia. As you rightly guess that's how I first came to it. Whilst reading I may see the odd error and quickly fix it. My main interests lie in such things as;

1.Space shuttle is a great article with fabulous extra links from it. How else would you find out the the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft has "Place Orbiter Here - Black Side Down" written on it!!

2.STS-117 and backwards! I often find the 'pedia to be better sourced than even, say, the BBC and with greater coverage of live events that will still be encyclopedic in twenty years.

3.Nineteen Eighty-Four which I ran into recently has a great wiki-source link to the book, which I spent a pleasent day reading - again the wonders of how a minor wikilink ends up into a voyage of discovery.

4.WP:HORSEMEAT to include a wikipedia essay. A true gem.

The important point here references the concerns in oppose of my RfA. I love reading, and I love the maintenance. I'm no expert on space flight or the greatest books of the last century. Editing for editings sake (or for edit-count) would seem worthless when there are people better qualified than me to add real value. Imagine Encyclopedia Brittanica being created only by academics. Geniuses in their subjects but with no knowledge of proof-reading, typesetting, publishing, binding, getting the book to the bookseller etc. all their work becomes valueless. In an ideal world their would be no vandalism and every editor would recongise our notability guidelines before putting their content in. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world. So I read, I learn, and I try to keep this work clean and tidy so others may do so as well.

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

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Pedro before commenting.

With grateful thanks to all who have commented here. I think it is becoming clear that I am not as clued up on policy as I thought I was. I regret that I am unlikely to now start editing articles furiously, as this would be 1) a contradiction of everything I've stated 2) be seen as seeking adminship for adminiship's own sake - rather than just to get some buttons to help out. I am, however, going to continue at RC Patrol and keeping this work clear for readers and other editors. Would the next passing editor/admin/'crat who can smell the snow in the air please withdraw this RFA :) Thanks all, see you round the 'pedia, and as ever Happy Editing Pedro |  Chat  12:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Nominator support! Good luck! G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support Oh yeah baby! Second to the polls! Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Would make a great admin. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Vote for Pedro. xD -N 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd be shocked if anyone could oppose after that :P Why didn't I think of it myself?! G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Would make a great admin, totally support his work. Warrush 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Definately will make a great admin. Captain panda 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Well, N stole my witty joke, but in all seriousness, Pedro appears to be a knowledgeable and experienced editor who is willing to admit mistakes -- both excellent adminship qualities. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Looks like a great user who would do great with the mop, due to the fact that he is experienced in the administrative areas in which he wishes to assist. ♠TomasBat 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Definate support, great candidate. You'll do great :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. I have seen this user around wikipedia and I trust that he will make a fine admin.--†Sir James Paul† 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Adminship is no big deal, (and even if it was, I'd still support Pedro :-)) ~ Wikihermit 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I found the answers to the questions very very thought out and complete. Thank you! Gutworth (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support: Great editor with good contributions and good answerers to the questions. Eddie 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - Though typically I like a higher edit count the amount of time he has been here breaks any qualms. Also, there is always the saying Quality not quantity. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong Support I had actually though Pedro was admin, but I'm happy I get to support him here. And, as a bonus, he has the name of one of my favorite baseball players of all time, Pedro Martinez. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I reviewed your contributions, katewannabe count and user talk page and could find no reason not to support you. --Ozgod 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Although I have not interacted with this iser, I have read with great interest the discussions this user takes part in, especially at WT:RFA. Although I disagree with many of this user's points in the discussions in which he participates, Pedro's contributions to discussions are the kind of reasonable and well-thought comments I consider to be creditable evidence for suitability in adminship. Although it is important to write articles, I feel that it is not an applicable reason to oppose this candidate - I feel that Pedro will be the kind of administrator who keeps the wiki free for hard-core writers to do what they do best. One can contribute to Wikipedia in more ways than mainspace text. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Insert standard "thought you were already message". Jmlk17 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support, joining the "wasn't... already" clique, and Pedro has always come across a very civil and friendly editor with a fabulous attitude towards the project. No issues here. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support -- Seems to be a well rounded editor, but some of the concerns posed by the neutrals need to be looked at. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk -- (dated 07:13, 22 June 2007 UTC)
20. Support - per analysis of contributions, personal interaction previously, and good answer to the questions above. --Haemo 08:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - very good editor who I bump into almost every where, would make a great admin. --Lwarf ^Talk! 08:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support True, the low contribution count to actual articles is perhaps unusual. But administrative work and editorial work have become increasingly separate beasts as the project balloons. Committed contributors like Pedro are deserving of the mop. Eusebeus 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support with a bit of unasked advice :) - I think there is still a bit of that "touchiness" you mentioned. From my interactions with you and what little I have seen of you in discussions, I think you would do better to assume good faith more often but more importantly, Assume the assumption of good faith and Assume the presence of a belly-button. Of course you are more than civil and I often find your arguments thoughtful. I see from your contributions that you have done consistently good work, so there is no good reason to oppose.:) - TwoOars 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cautious Support per Twooars. I was on the fence, but I think xe sums it up nicely above. Majorly (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24. Support. I see Pedro's votes in RfAs all the time, and they're usually well-reasoned, which causes me to think highly of his judgment. Plus, no one's brought up any reasons to oppose. Walton^{alternate account} 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. No doubt one of Wikipedia's finest editors, and these editors always gain my support. ;) –Sebi ~ 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support - as per Majorly and Twooars..--Cometstyles 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Terence 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, of course. Tim^{speak} 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (changing to abstention)Support, of course. ("changed" from neutral)—AldeBaer 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    Candidate insulted my question as being "very germane", which indeed I am and I take great insult in his slandering my nationality. However, changing to strong support for an expectably good answer .-) —AldeBaer 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

    With regard to several opposes, I'd like to note that while article contribution is our primary goal, not contributing much by measure of mainspace content doesn't indicate likely misuse of the tools. —AldeBaer (c) 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

30. Support No problems here. Would be a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support- Pedro seems well suited for the mop, based on the jobs he intends to make use of with the privileges. I can look past his editing history and see that his need for the mop is suited for his situation, and ultimately would make a good admin. Curran _{(talk | contibs | random)} 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - I have seen you around Wikipedia and you have done a lot of good work even if that is not actual article writing. I think you have enough experience for the tools and will make sensible use of them. Camaron1 | Chris 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I have noticed that concerns are been raised that people are just supporting for popularity and relations in RFA. My support at least is not from this - it is from contributions and positive interaction with users, I would probably support if you had never set foot in RfA before now. Camaron1 | Chris 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

34. Support and how can I not Vote for Pedro? --tennisman 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Pedro offers us his protection! :) Riana (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Committed user, seems to do great work all around the project. Hello32020 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Past use of sarcasm in no way excludes excellent users from becoming sysops. Italiavivi 23:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support- Per above. Would make an alright admin. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. There are many ways of contributing to this Wiki, and while active editors with lots of main space contributions are the mainstay, I see no reason why this should be the only criterion for adminship. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support I've seen Pedro's comments all over the place, and I'm impressed by some of the answers above. YechielMan 04:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oh, very much yes. Daniel 04:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Sure, this is an encyclopedia, by someone's got to work behind the scenes (i.e. have more project than mainspace edits). Having a certain number of mainspace edits isn't admin criterion anyway. Sr13 08:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support You are trustworthy enough, and experienced in back-end work, and really that's all there is to it. Stwalkerster talk 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. It would be nice to see a few more reports to AIV but I see no other problems, I've seen you regularly around here, you should make a great assett to the administration. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. Strong support, having offered to nominate! Pedro is an excellent, civil, and fairly experienced editor whose actions show a clear need for the tools. ck lostsword • T • C 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support It's not a big deal, and I don't believe he'll misuse the tools. --Evilclown93_(talk) 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support He is a great candidate. I like his answer to number 1. It's time to give him the MOP! Politics rule 04:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support As much as I like a great article contributor, I must say that the only real question is whether the candidate can be trusted with the mop. He has proven that he is willing to dig in and do Wikipedia's dirty work, and contrary to someone's Oppose vote, we DO need more administrators working in project space. There are horrendous backlogs out there, and there are some areas that will quickly go deep into the red if even one admin gets burned out that has been working it. I respectfully but strongly disagree with the notion that any candidate gets pushed into being unacceptable by not being a heavy editor of articles. If that's your only reason for opposing and everything else looks kosher, I strong urge you to reconsider. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with actually writing articles. As far as I can tell the only times he's ever added substantial new content to an article are [1] and [2] and that was all unreferenced. I admit this is a bit of a pet peeve, admins who don't know how to write encyclopedia articles properly, I see them bumbling around and causing problems when they get into sensitive situations that require an understanding and appreciation of how articles are written. Then there was an exchange with me on WT:RFA where it was clear his being sarcastic was leading to misunderstandings with multiple editors, and he kept being sarcastic. he took the debate to my talk page and the talk page of someone else who complained [3]. All over some minor misunderstanding... just seemed like a worrying overreaction. --W.marsh 11:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Weak Oppose, sorry. Looks promising, but I have lack of experience concerns, particularly in the project space.--Húsönd 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose I agree very much so with JayHenry, on his comments regarding your Wikipedia activity, and how much of it deals with administration. It can be viewed in different respects, mind you, but I see it as a flag. There are people who contribute to Wikipedia to simply become admins and hold their mighty wielding strength, and then there are people who have been here years, make thousands of edits, and never once consider the spot. Now, Pedro, you have, roughly, the same amount of contributions to Wikipedia as I do (two hundred more than me). Your highest article Mainspace edit count is 12 to Bishopstoke, while mine is 484 to Red Hot Chili Peppers, followed by 134. Now I'm not the one being scrutinized here, but, nonetheless, I like an admin to be well rounded not only in the Wikipedia aspect of things, but in the actual articles we're all here to write. Out of the 15 different sections of Wikipedia listed at your edit counter, 13 of them have something to do with administrators. Your have two Portal contributions, and they are both made to a seemingly non-existent portal. You haven't shown any interest in Images, which can be an integral part of being an admin (Fair use disputes, deleting images, etc.). Really, I think it's high time you strayed out of RFA and head into some more concrete editing. I have no intention of being rude, mean, or disrespectful, mind you, but, please, join a WikiProject. Regards, NSR77 ^T_C 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per W.marsh. Article work should be the main focus of any editor on Wikipedia. I think you're a bit weak on the article editing side, and most of your mainspace work appears to be RC patrol or AWB edits. Also, I find your sarcasm at WT:RFA really unhelpful. Responding with sarcastic and witty comments to other users is something you want to avoid on Wikipedia. I feel that discussion-style editing is a good evaluator of how a user can handle him or herself in normal everyday situations that they would encounter as administrators. As you could infer from what I wrote above, I'm not too confident about this, and so I must oppose this RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose After sleeping on it I've switched to oppose. Largely per my comments below. I don't want this to sound inflammatory, but I'm concerned that Pedro is being given a free pass because he's friends with the RFA crowd. The editor has simply done little work for Wikipedia and I can't support giving the tools to someone without experience. He does not have anywhere near the level of contributions that is otherwise expected of admins, and I don't think many of the supporters have actually looked through the contribution history here to see how sparse it is. Adminship should not be a clubhouse or a popularity contest. --JayHenry 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree. It's my general belief that, because Pedro is popular and familiar with the RFA crowd, this RFA will pass. NSR77 ^T_C 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have stated repeatedly this RfA should pass or fail on my contribution history alone, and whether it shows I am trustworthy with the tools, and whether I will get good use of them. I would encourage all editors in Support to consider if they have made those comments solely on popularity and if so switch to oppose or neutral. To pass RFA through popularity alone undermines this process, and will not further wikipedia. Pedro |  Chat  07:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per W.marsh and Nishkid64. WP:ENC. I'd appreciate more contribution to the encyclopedia side of things. I also share JayHenry's concerns about this being a popularity contest - but then again, it has always been. – Chacor 04:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose no sorry - your edits do not convince me that you are ready as yet.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose - Not enough experience writing articles, per those above me.--Danaman5 16:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Tentative oppose. Concerns about him being promoted as part of the "in-crowd" worry me, and those who have looked at contributions don't have many positive things to say. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong Agree with the first part. Too bad I can't !vote on it. ~ Wikihermit 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose - lack of experience regarding article writing - for example Bishopstoke lacks citations. Addhoc 23:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Opppose I don't really want to see any more metapedian admins. Pretty much no real content contribution to mainspace. Removing crap from the encyclopedia is of course important, but I can't support his promotion as nearly all of his mainspace edits are automated. I appreciate that Pedro is well meaning and I'm glad for the contributions that he has made, but I can't support an admin that hasn't had article writing experience (it's what we're here to do, after all). Kamryn Matika 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. oppose per issues upon article contributing as described by W.marsh and concerns about taking adminship controversially as a "popularity contest" as described by JayHenry. – N96 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This user joined Wikipedia on 9th June, about 15 days ago. Majorly (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User has also participated in a number of RfAs since joining Wikipedia. For any editcountitis fans, the user has 809 edits as of June 24 17:11:47 2007 (GMT). Nishkid64 (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose - sorry, you seem to rub salt in the wounds of users that are about to get blocked [4][5], I also don't like the fact that you don't seem to understand that you must substitue user warning templates [6][7][8], which any aspiring administrator should know well in advance of an RfA. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How is telling a user that they've been reported to AIV to be blocked rubbing salt in their wounds? Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because it just is! You give a test 4 warning, if they vandalise post that, report to AIV and let admins block them - you don't need to go back to the users talk page and let them know that their ability to edit is about to be revoked. Also, take a look at WP:DENY. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Ryan for the most part, though I wouldn't oppose over that alone (I may comment later). The last warning tells the user that if they vandalize again, they'll be blocked. The vandal can expect this to happen, so there's not really any need to report the report. Leebo ^T/C 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree as well. However, in Pedro's defense, I note that the you've-been-reported message is not that uncommon - until recently we even had several templates for exactly this (e.g. {{non-admin fwarn}}).--Kubigula (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose - Concerns about passing due to being in the "in-crowd". Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We all need to help write it. Sean William @ 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Reluctant oppose. I don't think there's any harm in Pedro taking some more time and digging deeper into article writing. Almost half of his edits in the Wikipedia namespace are to WP:RFA pages. Nearly all of his edits to the Wikipedia talk namespace are at WT:RFA. Exuberant focus on RfA is distracting, and I think Pedro should look into joining a WikiProject or task force that relates to something he likes. Leebo ^T/C 02:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per W.marsh --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose I've thought a lot about this one, but I can't support it. Pedro seems well-versed in RFA but not much else, and it bothers me. I'd like to see several months of mainspace contributions – not just vandalism removal, but solid contributions that show he understands how to reference articles and use templates correctly and so on. It's hard to understand the admin role without understanding how to write the encyclopedia. - KrakatoaKatie 07:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose Nice person and very civil but I'd like to see a more rounded set of contributions. Ryan's diffs are also indicative that the user is a little too specialised and needs to get out of RFA more often. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral for now. Perhaps leaning toward oppose. Changed to oppose I'm not a fan of counting edits in a vacuum and using that as a decision criteria. But there are less than 10 actual encyclopedia articles to which this user has made more than 5 edits. That illustrates to me that Pedro has virtually no interest in writing an encyclopedia. I'm not talking about any specific numerical criteria (I'm also not opposing, I'm really just thinking aloud) so please don't say "Well, JayHank, how many articles should a user have more than 5 edits to?" That's not my point. A look through Special:Contributions/Pedro tells the same story. My point is that I'm uncomfortable trusting someone with the tools to administer an encyclopedia with which they have little demonstrated interest. --JayHenry 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say that his excellent vandal fighting work would demonstrate interest in keeping the 'pedia clean for others? G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 04:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to preface this by saying that I mean absolutely no disrespect toward Pedro who is a very civil editor. I do not mean this as an insult; nor as an assumption of bad faith and I truly do not intend for this to be incivil. But I will state the obvious: Pedro is interested almost exclusively in adminship. Roughly 10 percent of his edits are to WP:RFA and WP:AN/I. He has made about 30 wikipedia space edits to pages without the word "Administrator." He has made less than 30 edits contributing content to the encyclopedia. He does not edit templates or categories or images or portals. Yes, we should consider quality of edits over quantity -- but almost all of Pedro's edits outside of talking about adminship are minor and/or automated. You don't need to be an admin to discuss it all the time. --JayHenry 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend no badgering of participants here. My RfA stands or fails on my contribution history, and I fully respect that I am light on major article input. JayHenry has expressed a fair point, and a valid one when it comes to the scrutiny we should expect of any RFA. My thanks for your time in reviewing my contributions, and expressing your opinion. Pedro |  Chat  07:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After adding my comment I scrolled down to read what everyone else had to say, and you have said exactly what I was thinking but didn't know quite how to express (and I didn't want to be too critical, either). I don't want to be mean, but I completely agree with this assessment. Kamryn Matika 00:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Q.4, awaiting answer. --Haemo 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pending answer to my optional question. I want the candidate to work for my love. —AldeBaer 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (changing to support)

1. Neutral for now. I see you are still using sarcasm to editors: "(1. Wikipedia does not cite itself. 2. There's a "what links here" button just over to the left. A bit further left. That's it !) " [9] (June 1) Agreed it's mild, and I wouldn't have been personally offended, but there are eds. here who would. DGG 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed. That is the kind of edit summary open to misinterpretation as being offensive rather than humour. I shall learn from your comments, and thank you for your time in reviewing my contributions and commenting here. Pedro |  Chat  18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral. I'd really like to vote to support your RfA, Pedro. You're performing some valuable tasks and you're obviously dedicated. However, I'm concerned that you don't yet have enough experience writing articles. Whether this RfA passes or not -- and I suspect it will -- I encourage you to make substantial contributions to a GA or FA drive on a couple of articles. Best of luck and keep up the good work. Majoreditor 03:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral (changed from support). Sorry but User:Ryan Postlethwaite's diffs have now concerned me, for the reasons he gave, and I think Wikipedia would be a better place if as few vandals as possible knew WP:AIV existed. I can't oppose this candidate though, as the reasons to support balance this out somewhat, so I'm neutral. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I have changed to abstention for the exact reason Zeibura gives. —AldeBaer (c) 10:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.