Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ErikHaugen

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

ErikHaugen

Final (82/27/1); Closed as successful by Kingturtle = (talk) at 06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the comments by those in support and opposition and in reviewing the demeanor of Erik through this process, I have concluded that there is sufficient support for this RfA to succeed. The main argument in opposition to Erik is his lack of experience, but no serious red flags were presented as evidence against him. There were a few other reasons given in opposition, but none of them consistently, and none of them described a threat to Wikipedia or the community. In a close call like this, in order to reject this RfA (an RFA in which the supporters express that Erik is civil, trustworthy, and competent, engages well with others, knows policy adequately, and makes quality edits) there would need to be something glaring about Erik's edits or interactions, but nothing glaring came to light. In weighing these two sides, the balance tips to the side of promotion. P.S. I acknowledge that this RfA closed many hours after its full week on the board and that some more !votes came in after the scheduled close. I interpret the week timeframe to be a guideline, not a hard line. And I don't see any foul play. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

ErikHaugen (talk · contribs) – Greetings; I have been an editor since 2005, although up until a year ago I only edited very occasionally. I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges. I would be grateful for the opportunity to help out in that particular area, and hopefully my history of contributions demonstrates that I can be trusted with additional buttons. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I mostly intend to work on history merges, but I would also spend some time on various article deletion processes as well as some of the perennial backlogs at CAT:AB such as requested moves.

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

A: Most of my contributions have been wikignomic, ranging from {{db-hoax}} tagging to working on taxoboxes. I consider that body of work to be my "best", I suppose; I find helping others and curating to be very rewarding. I've created a few articles, and it has been a lot of fun to watch people improve them. I think pictures really add to certain articles, so I have asked a couple copyright owners to re-license their photos and I've added them.

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: Sure, it's always frustrating when someone is wrong on the Internet, but even more so on Wikipedia because I care a lot about the legitimacy and credibility of this project. But fortunately, on Wikipedia it seems significant disputes generally get the attention they need and result in outcomes that, all things considered, are pretty reasonable. I think the best way to deal with conflict-related tension is to dispassionately argue the facts, remember to keep perspective, and above all keep the heat down by assuming good faith - how much better the world would be if everyone assumed good faith!

As an IP editor, I have been in content disputes wth admins who have semiprotected the page in question in order to block me from improving the page, and I have seen countless good faith editors accused of vandalism and accordingly mistreated. If this request succeeds, you can be sure that I will be very careful to approach misguided, good faith editors without abusing them.

An example of a dispute that I found frustrating is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Largest_prehistoric_organisms. It was awhile ago, but I think it serves to give a pretty accurate flavor of how I get when I'm all riled up.

Additional optional questions from Nakon

4. What kind of situation(s), if any, do you feel would be an appropriate use of WP:IAR?

A: Very rarely, common sense will dictate that one ought to, while upholding the spirit of the core policies and pillars, do something that may violate the letter of some guideline or policy. I am pretty blown away by how complete and well though-out our guidelines, etc are, so these cases, I think, end up being quite rare. One application of IAR is simply that one does not need to know all the rules before editing: most good faith edits can be repaired pretty easily, so editors should err on the side of being bold and making a contribution rather than being overly hesitant for fear of breaking some obscure guideline.

5. In which circumstances would you block an editor without any previous warnings on their talk page?

A: There are a number of different kinds of cases where an editor might be blocked without warning, such as sockpuppetry or vandalism-only accounts, violations of 3rr – although for 3rr ideally the user should be warned/reminded before even breaking 3rr – legal threats, etc. I suppose most of the no-warning blocks that I might be involved with would be for inappropriate usernames, since I do a bit of new-page patrolling.

Additional optional questions from Sven Manguard

6. Have you read every page at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list? (Hint: There's only one correct answer, and that's "Yes." If you can't say that honestly, go read those pages, then say "Yes.")

A: Yes. I had read through them back in the day, but I took your hint and now I'm all fresh and up to date.

7. If your nomination is successful, would you be open to recall? If so, what parameters would you set on a recall of yourself?

A: Yes, and I would support an official process for recalling admins; that would be ideal. In the meantime, I would like to see something along the lines of User:AGK/Essays/Recall: an RFC with a clear consensus to initiate a reconfirmation RFA.

Additional optional question from 28bytes

8. You mention an interest in working with the deletion processes. What would you do if a recent changes patroller tagged The Underland Chronicles with {{db-g12|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Zuu0XIvDbvUC}}?

A: The g12 would have to be denied because there is obviously plenty of content in that article that is not copied from that book, and g12 only applies in cases where "there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." However, some of the quoted text on that page is quite long, containing entire poems from the book. I don't think its full inclusion is really necessary for users to understand the article. I would remove or rework those sections.

Additional optional question from Snottywong

9. Can you comment on why you'd like to specialize in history merges, why you believe you would excel at performing history merges, and why you believe that Wikipedia would need admins who perform relatively few admin actions apart from history merges?

A: I would like to work on history merges because it is such a huge backlog and because I enjoy spending time on meticulous or tedious things, kind of as a way to take a break from other kinds of thinking. I think I can do a pretty good job at this sort of thing because I am detail-oriented; but I don't have any experience doing history merges so I can't directly demonstrate it here.

Need is a strong word, but history merges are pretty important in order to provide attribution to be in compliance with our licenses, and this backlog is pretty big. However, like I said, if this request succeeds I plan to work on other backlogs also.

Additional optional question from Lear's Fool

10. You mention that you have been involved in content disputes as an IP editor. Given that you are requesting adminship, would you consider disclosing edits made with previous accounts or IP addresses to a functionary, as suggested in the clean start policy?

A: The anonymous edits were just a handful on another language Wikipedia to address some problematic content. I wasn't really trying to be anonymous, I just didn't bother setting up an account; I should have. I don't think wp:clean start applies directly, but now that you mention it full disclosure is probably best to avoid any suggestion of deception, so I have done that on the relevant project so now it should be nearly as easy to find out what I wrote as it would have been if I had been using my account all along.

Objection - You are requesting that the candidate reveal his IP address, something that is not even permitted for Checkusers to do in the case of a sockpuppeting user! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC) See talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

11. Sorry for the extra question, I'd like to know whether 1 you will agree to put yourself up for recall (if not, why?) and 2 what current experience you have with histmerges, XfD, RM, etc.

A: I'm happy to answer questions!

1. Yes, I would put myself up for recall. I alluded to User:AGK/Essays/Recall earlier; although I think an official process would be far preferable, if there is consensus at an RFC for me to do so, I would agree to go through a "reconfirmation" RfA and respect its results. However, if consensus at the RFC demonstrated legitimate concerns about incompetence, carelessness, bullying, etc; I would likely just resign rather than bother with an RfA. My claim in this RfA is that I can be trusted not to be careless or bully, so if significant doubt about that arises then I would not want to be a sysop anymore.

2. I don't really have any experience with history merges. I have participated in and initiated a number of AfD, RM, and RfA discussions. I've closed a handful of RMs; I always try to address all of the double-redirects and PLA issues after moving an article or requesting a move. I've also closed a couple of AfDs, including one of my own that was obviously a mistake. Other behind-the-scenes stuff that I've done includes a lot of speedy deletion and requests and denials and deletion proposals, the occasional AIV report or comment, and a fair amount of pending change reviews.

Question from — Fly by Night

12. Could you explain which administrator tools you would need for history merges, why you need them and how you would use them?

A: I would need to be able to delete and undelete articles. Generally, I would need to be able to delete articles so that the old article – possibly now a redirect – could be moved "on top of" the new one, and then I would need the ability to undelete so that I could undelete the revisions that I had just deleted. Other more complicated cases, or undoing a merge, require different strategies such as selective (un)deletion, a combination of deleting, restoring some revisions, moving them, then restoring other revisions of that same page, etc. But generally as far as I can tell all of these mostly only use the deletion and undeletion admin tools.

Question from Etineskid

13. How many article edits have you made where you add knowledge? Most of your contributions look like cleaning articles up and contacting editors about Speedy Deletion.Etineskid (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A: I don't know the number, but yes, it's probably true that most of my editing is clean up rather than adding new information.

Additional optional question from Armbrust

14. What's your opinion on "cool down blocks"?

A: I think blocks are very unlikely to cool anyone down. I have been autoblocked a couple times, and even that did not make me feel very cool. Blocks should only be used to prevent damage, so an angry editor could be blocked in some scenarios if it was likely the editor was about to do more damage, but should not be blocked just for being angry.

Additional optional question from Prodego

15. History merges are one of the more technically demanding tasks an administrator can do. It is easy to make mistakes, and mistakes are extremely difficult to undo. Generally I discourage new admins from touching them until they have a lot of practice with page deletion and undeletion, and have a good feel for how deleted pages interact with regular ones. There aren't terribly many admins that do (or that should do) history merges. What have you done to familiarize yourself with the process? There aren't that many pages needing history merges (or the ones that do are often not noticed). What about this area interests you?

A: I appreciate that undoing them is time consuming and difficult. To familiarize myself with the process, I have read over the instructions of course, looked at some that have been done, etc. If this RfA is successful, I was planning to practice a few different scenarios in the sandbox until I am confident that I understand how to use the buttons. I became interested in doing history merges when I came across the enormous backlog at WP:WPHM a while back. I think it is important that proper attribution is given, and when I read about how to do them, it seemed like the kind of meticulous/tedious task that appeals to me. There are a lot to be done, so I wanted to help.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit Stats posted on talk. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Allow me to be the first to add my support. I took a look over you last few hundred contributions, and I like what I see. You seem to have a decent amount of work on Speedy Deletions, by the looks of it the admins have agreed with you (860+ deleted contribs). You've only created eleven pages, eight or so being stubs, but your work in creating templates etc is good, and that's a plus. I've also seen appropriate warnings to vandals, not just reverts, which is key. Basically, I like what I see here and don't see that you would misuse the tools at all. Good Luck. Ohh, and you don't have to worry about me asking any optional questions, your contribs show enough :)Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support—having often seen you around the project doing good work, I can easily support. Airplaneman ✈ 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. Anyone who actually wants to do histmerges gets an easy support from me. -- œ^™ 03:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Bonus points for self-nom, no obvious red flags. Townlake (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Support. I think you'll be a great sysop. You clearly have goals in mind, which is perfect. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC) moved to oppose Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Nakon 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Support. I completely disagree with Hokeman's neutral– as someone who has been a member here since 2006, but really only became active a couple years later, I don't feel it's any bearing on what kind of administrator Erik would become. He's done great contributions in the past year, and he seems to be a great editor; that's more than enough for me. A quick glance through his contribs brought up nothing bad, but if someone digs up something less than savory, I'll reassess. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Weak support - You seem weak on the sourcing aspect of creating articles. However, you appear decent in most ways. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support. I didn't see any red flags in the contribution history, and I'm happy with the answers to the questions. More folks helping out with backlogs is always welcome. 28bytes (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. No red flags. Your low edit count doesn't bother me, as your contribs show me that you can be trusted with the mop. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
10. I've looked through contributions rather than arbitrary indicators of activity, and I'm happy to support. I'm impressed by involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FastCode -- taking a policy compliant position, engaging constructively with other editors, and remaining alive to developments that affected his position. This was a good A7 decline (although while not a G11 either, it could do with "advertisement" and refimprove templates). The candidate also knows what he's doing at WP:RM where he plans to work: making uncontroversial capitalisation moves himself and proposing more controversial moves with clear and compelling policy rationales (Talk:Fight Club (film)#Requested move). He is also demonstrably diligent in fixing redirects after a page move. So unless I see examples to the contrary that I've missed in my scan of contributions, I'm supporting. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Support no reason not to. Candidate has been around long enough to understand policies even though his edit count is low prior to last summer. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
12. I guess this would be a "weak support"; a bit more experience might be good but I don't think this candidate's experience, although low compared to most successful RfA candidates, is lacking too much. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Support, per Q1 and Q9. If anything is going to cause Wikipedia to collapse, it is our WP:Copyrights requirement for attribution, which, to the letter, can be very tedious, involving searching incoming links for redirects with significant edit histories. The solution is history merging. Someone who understands this, with an interest in contributing in this way, would be highly valuable, even if nearly no one sees what they do. Q12 confuses me, isn't history merging a admin requiring task?

    I've seen Erik around a little, and he seems to have his marbles. While his edit count stats seem low for a typical recent new admin, I see no reason for a lack of confidence in history merging, or that he might be adventurous in deletion processes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

14. Support. Is this an absolutely perfectly safe candidate? Well no one is, and this one may be on the lower end of experience to be an admin, but I believe this editor has shown a capacity for levelheadedness and and ability to learn to use the tools appropriately. In short, I believe this editor can contribute more usefully with the tools and granting them is unlikely to result in harm to the encyclopedia, so it's a net win. Zachlipton (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Support He'll definitely be a good administrator and he'll know what to do. WayneSlam 00:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Net positive, you'll do just fine. E. Fokker (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. A seasoned WikiGnome, who should do just find as an AdminGnome. No major problems, adequate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia and project space. Fences&Windows 01:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
18. Certainly competent, and not any sort of threat. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Support - good answers to the questions, and for me at least, 5000 edits is sufficient experience. PhilKnight (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - nice templates. Always need people contributing to other namespaces and history merges. Editcount is on the low side but not everyone has huge amount of free time to spend. His quality edits is what matters. Nice all round candidate which will be a net benefit to the community. --Visik (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Per several above, and admins willing to get involved in such dirty work are valuable. Resolute 04:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Seems to be in good-standing. I don't think I've seen any admins who have worked on history merges, so in my opinion he is a bit of a bonus here. Minimac (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

    Anthony Appleyard is great at it; before my RfA he was always the one who helped me. —Soap— 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

23. Support He obviosly knows his facts, he seems passionate about becoming an admin, he is perfectionate at his edits, he has shown us his wonderful editing skills which are beyond reproach. If anyone deserves to be admin, in my honest opinion it should be ErikHaugen. MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Looks fine to me - people wanting to work in areas like history merges simply have to have to extra bits (and frankly we're always glad of competent people to do that kind of drudgery). The opposition at this time (though valid) seems more ideological rather than concerned about your ability to actually use the tools. Pedro :  Chat  12:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Support clean blocklog and various civil talkpage discussions give me the confidence that the candidate has the right temperament, has grasped why we are here and what needs to be done. Judgement seems OK as well. Candidate has been editing at mostly a very infrequent level for five years, though only a few months of that actively. I see long tenure as a rough and ready precaution against certain characters coming back yet again, and five years is way more than needed for that purpose, otherwise a few months activity is more than enough to assess a candidate - I didn't go through all their more than 5,000 edits and I doubt if anyone else will. Not every candidate will be ready at this stage of their wiki career, but unless someone spots something I missed then I think this candidate is ready for the mop. I've read the Oppose section, over 5,000 contributions takes him well out of the wp:NOTNOW range; Candidate has contributed referenced material, a GA or FA would be a positive but is not essential, and I don't see anything else that troubles me. I agree that non-writers should not have access to the deletion button, but I don't agree that the author of articles such as Pterodon (mammal) is a "non-writer" ϢereSpielChequers 14:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support. Looking at some random contributions I see good decisions, civility, and no reason not to trust the candidate. I don't agree with the concerns about low edit count; 6000-odd edits is more than enough opportunity for a bad candidate to incriminate themselves. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
28. Support You probably do need more experience. However, although I usually disagree with your edits in my areas, close to 100%, you are one of the wikipedia editors who is always trying to make it work, meaning make the community work. Wikipedia needs administrators like you: people who can be wrong (or right) and move on without ever losing sense of being part of the community. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
29. Support. Looking over the user's contributions I see someone with a good head and who I'd trust not to misuse the tools. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
30. Support I see no reason not to give you the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
31. Support -- Per Bobrayner: "6000-odd edits is more than enough opportunity for a bad candidate to incriminate themselves." I have reviewed many of ErikHaugen's contributions and they look sensible. He has shown the ability to write about Pterodons and create taxoboxes in proper format. If he follows through with his desire to work on history merges, that will certainly be useful. He has 800 deleted edits, mostly speedies, PRODs and new articles tagged for referencing. I checked ten of them and his judgment seemed correct. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Seems experienced and trustworthy to me. Not every admin needs to have a huge edit count. Steven Walling 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
33. Support--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Contributions history is clearly sufficient to demonstrate trustworthiness. That and he's willing to work in a thankless yet important area. "Net positive" is the key. Pichpich (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
35. Support a gnome that wants to so more gnome work is easy to support. I see nothing bad about an admin who won't use their block tool or do vandal work. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Checking user and article talk shows ability to deal amicably with editors of all levels of experience, reason about policy, explain decisions, and to admit when in the wrong. Precisely what I like to see in an administrator. Go forth and history merge! --Danger (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
37. Support, no reason to believe that user would abuse the tools. I'm disappointed that 6000 edits is no longer good enough for the editcountitis brigade. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
38. Support. Long-term editor, no reason to believe he'd misuse to tools. Rami R 11:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
39. Support. Motivated editor with no red flags for me. No indicators that this editor would run amok. Wants to be a janitor? Give them the mop. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
40. Support For the exact same reasons as Danger --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
41. Support – Reviewing the candidate's contributions, my impression is that he appears to have enough good sense and seems appropriately cautious. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
42. Support No red flags, perfect answer to my question. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Honestly, I'd prefer to see more article building, but the crats, in close RfA, have made it fairly clear they don't think much of that as a reason and I have to accept that. If I didn't support, I'd probably neutral. No negatives I see, and I think he meets the community's standards. I'd really like to see an article or 2 built once he gets the bits though. Or if he doesn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
44. Some of the opposes are understandable, yet some are ridiculous. We have a candidate who knows what he wants to do with the tools, and it's an area that we could use more admins in (requested moves has the worst backlog on the site right now). Who cares if he doesn't have anti-vandal experience, or hasn't written five FAs? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
45. Support Can't see any issues here and if he wants to work on history merges ..... masochists make good admins! --rgpk (comment) 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    Only masochists run for adminship; need a control group. :) --Danger (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

46. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
47. His answers to the questions seem to generally be good. I presume in Q15, you mean a sandbox, not the sandbox though. Deleting and undeleting the sandbox wouldn't go over well. As someone who has had the pleasure of manually undoing a history merge, I'm glad that he's willing to practice. Mr.Z-man 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Ha! Don't worry, I won't try to history merge with Wikipedia:Sandbox. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

48. No problems. AD 00:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
49. Support. While I understand the opposers' and neutralists' view that the candidate could use a bit more experience, on balance I find him ready to take on the administrator role. I urge him to use the tools cautiously at first, and to use good judgment as to which administrator tasks he is or is not yet ready to perform—but that is advise I would give almost any new admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Not persuaded by the opposes, sufficient experience that I don't think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
51. Support No Red Flags Did go through the opposes but found nothing that the candidate will abuse or misuse tools .The user has been around since 2005 which is long enough and he has clearly stated the area he/she wants work in and Admin tools are not a exhaustible resource if a user prefers to work within a given area .Feel the Project only gains with the user having tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
52. Support No red flags jump out at me, and I'm glad that someone wants to help do history merges. --CapitalR (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
53. Support. We have a candidate who says explicitly that he wants to specialize in history merges, and we have administrators who say that this is an unmet need. No one has convinced me that there is reason to think that the candidate cannot be trusted to merge histories (so long as he takes it slow in the beginning). I think numerous users have made very reasonable arguments that there isn't enough proof that the candidate is ready to handle the whole range of administrative tools, and I fully acknowledge that. So, what to do? I'm a bit reassured by the candidate being open to recall, if need be. I've felt for a while that it's a problem that we haven't figured out how to unbundle the tools, so I'm making my !vote as a statement that we need to give that a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
54. Support --T H F S W (Contact) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
55. Support – A trustworthy user that I trust with the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
56. We've got a trusted member of the community here who's ready to do work we need him to do. Until we get back to the point where we're replacing active admins as fast as we're losing them, I don't think we're in a position to be so choosy. If promoting someone with less experience means that he'll push the wrong button at some point, it probably won't break the wiki. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
57. Support No concerns; I think his record here is pretty solid. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Further to question on talk page, I'm moving my vote here. Whilst I do still have concerns, this user has made more than enough edits to show himself untrustworthy and hasn't. He's answered his questions well and in every discussion I've looked at I've found him to be civil and reasonable. I see no reason to oppose and was only looking for a reason to support. Ronhjones has confirmed that a random sample of his deleted edits are CSD and PRODs, and it looks like he must have made 200-300 which were accepted by admins. As such, I would happily support this candidate to be given the tools. Worm 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
59. I think that ErikHaugen will be fine with the tools: I have no problem in supporting candidates who want to specialize in a particular area. Acalamari 10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - never mind the smaller-than-some edit count. It isn't that small. And the evidence is there that this peron can be trusted. Orphan Wiki 13:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
61. Support; no concerns that Erik will break the 'pedia/delete the main page/block Jimbo etc. Given trust that this user has good intentions and is reasonably competent, the rest will come with practice. --John (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
62. Support No reason to think theyll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
63. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 18:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. While I have no firsthand knowledge of the candidate, since this is currently in the discretionary zone I am adding my 2 cents based on weighing the support and oppose arguments raised. Nearly 6000 edits over 5 yrs, of which 1700+ are in mainspace, is more than enough to get a flavour of a user's interaction style and make sure he probably won't break the wiki (and if it does it can be fixed..) While it is true we have no enforced constraints that would prevent a specialist admin from behaving admin-like in other areas, perhaps we can increase our admin corps by trusting those who say they want to focus on one area to in general not do a Jekyll/Hyde flip once the mop is in their hands. A quick check of the candidate's talk page shows someone who is a better communicator than many of us, which is a bonus. Martinp (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
65. Unconvinced by opposers. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
66. I trust you and that's all I need to give my support. —Soap— 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
67. Support it seems unlikely that you'll break things and as such I believe removing obstacles that prevent you from doing work that helps the project (as little or specialized that might be) will result in a net positive. In any case, you already expressed willingness to undergo recall if needed, so the risk is minimal and is outweighed by the potential benefits, imo. --Waldir ^talk 13:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    I just noticed that the vote on my own RfA that resonated with my views on the process, and ended up inspiring my wording above, was precisely yours! I find it kind of amusing that your acts eventually returned to affect you back :) --Waldir ^talk 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

68. Support after a review of random contributions in the past few months, many of which seemed to evidence to me the sort of intterest in precision and detail focus that I'd want to see applied to history merges. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 18:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - While Erik's edit count is somewhat lower than the average historical edit count of successful admin candidates, it is not so low that we should be concerned, and I think he has proven that he is clueful enough to use the tools carefully. SnottyWong ^chatter 02:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
71. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
72. Support -- Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
73. Support Ive thought long about this one. My initial reservations were due to the fact that i was un easy about the on and off track record over the first few years, then the sudden massive edit sprees. But then I thought what if he didnt have that earlier history, would my analysis be different, if its based solely on the last 6 months. In those six months Erik has shown himself to be competent and a net benefit. Im going to give him my support here, and if the RFA passes I hope he lives up to the communities trust in him. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
74. Support - Reasonably experienced, net positive to project. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
75. Massive backlog is over there, here's a mop, sort it out. Courcelles 20:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
76. Support - A very precise and useful objective as an admin combined with clear evidence of high quality edits and a collaborative, level-headed attitude. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
77. Support Have seen no indication of problems with this user, if he intends to work on a finicky and unpopular backlog, we should let him at it. The Interior (Talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
78. Support. I'm impressed by Erik's temperament and judgment, shown both on this page and elsewhere. There's nothing magical about the admin tools that cannot be learned by someone level-headed and sensible. There are plenty of people to point Erik in the right direction and he strikes me as the sort of person who will listen carefully to advice. Happy to support. WJBscribe (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
79. Support The user wants to volunteer in an area that requires the bit to work in. Has the editor worked in all area that the bit may be used in? no. However, the candidate states that he does not wish to work in all areas yet. When I think of a users time and edit count (whether it be 2000 or 20000, 6 months or 5 years), I look at if they have demonstrated a dedication to the encyclopedia, an approachable, collaborative attitude, and whether they have been able to demonstrated these abilities at this point. Has he done this in my mind. Yes. I do not think he will abuse or miss-use the tools or lacks the ability to learn the processes he wishes to do or the mentality to ask for help with questions in this or any other area they may someday later encounter. Will do just fine. Calmer Waters 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
80. Support An extensive review of the candidate's new-page patrolling shows no problems, their talkpage indicates a collegiate and sensible editor. Perhaps, some more content work and bredth of experienced might have been preferable. However, I cannot see any indication that there would be much to gain in asking the candidate to wait a few months, particularly given their desire to work on backlogs.  -- Lear's Fool 02:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
81. Strong Support First signing up support before closure. Am adding comments, so request the crat to kindly give me fifteen or so more minutes. Thanks...

    Clearly, this is one of the oft-occurring cases where the closing bureaucrat has to go by his/her perception of whether the prospective administrator has made the mark. To one extent, getting the current support percentage, which is greater than~75%, is evidence enough of the acceptability of this community at large for this prospect. On another hand, given the opposing viewpoints, the closing bureaucrat must necessarily weigh in on how critical are those opposing viewpoints in this case. Has this prospect been called in by the opposing bench for his uncivil attitude? No. Has he been pulled up for edit warring flagrantly? No. Has he been castigated for going against community decisions? Not at all. In fact, more or less, almost all the opposing commentators have focussed on the perceptible lack of wide experience; at the same time accepted the editor's contributions in specialist areas. I recall one RfA where New York Brad had mentioned (I'm not 100% sure it was he, but more or less, I think it was) that it's simply impossible for editors to gain experience of the whole Wikipedia in the limited voluntary time that we have; and therefore, even prospects who are quite honest about their focus on a specialist set of areas, should be necessarily encouraged, motivated and promoted for the benefit of this project; massive benefit I should add. Erik should be promoted not just because he has been quite honest about his competencies and incompetencies, but the experiences that he has nurtured, the deportment that he has exhibited (not just during his time at our project, but most importantly in this Rfa), the openness to criticism that he has maintained, are all qualities that mark key characteristics of editors who're contributing their sincerest mite to this project -- so what if they're able to do this in 5 odd thousand edits over 6 odd years. WereSpielChequers wrote something like this once, and I agree fully, that even if an editor makes only one contribution in one year, and if that contribution is worthwhile for positive administration, then the editor should be made an administrator. Our project needs Erik, in as much as Erik wishes to contribute. With respect to the opposing bench, I should hope the closing bureaucrat ensures that Mr. Jimbo Wales adminship-is-no-big-deal statement is put in practice in reality than just in principle. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    Though I'm supporting, the above essay is off target. An editor who makes 1 edit per year should absolutely not be made an administrator, and advancing such an absurdity here highlights the potential inexperience of this candidate. While I disagree with the opposers in this particular case, their argument is entirely reasonable, and the consistency of this concern in the oppose section strikes me as reasonable grounds for the closer to go either way on this one. Townlake (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    I very much echo Townlake. It is usually valid to dismiss "too little experience" out of hand with this candidate's experience, but 400 wiki-space edits for a potential history merger might (or might not) be deemed as an exception to that general principle. —WFC— 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

82. support Adminship is quite obviously a big deal, at least potentially -- otherwise why we we be continually trying to reassure ourselves that it isn't . But most of it is potential -- the potential to do harm, especially to new users. I'm not worried about Erik doing that. He knows what he's about, and he'll work on what he says he will. The two basic qualifications are trust, & ability to know one's own competence. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose The candidate claims to be a Wikipedian since 2005, but let's be honest here. Most of the first 5 years were one or two edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). The candidate has created no new articles or redirects. There are also some gaping holes in the collaborative part of the candidate's portfolio. Your heart is in the right place. I would encourage mentoring and trying again in 6 months.(moved to neutral)--Hokeman (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I count 11 new articles. Since the toolserver is very slow today, I'll copy the list to the talk page. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Slow or malfunctioning toolserver. My bad.--Hokeman (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've had extreme problems with X-tools recently; I was beginning to think (Oh! what bad faith) they had been disabled again.--Kudpung (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Regretfully Oppose I admire the candidate's desire to better the project in an area that certainly do need attention, but I am not a fan of "specialty" administrators, which is what I would consider this request to be. Only 1780 edits to articles in a span of "five years" is entirely too low for me to consider as enough experience to be given the mop. I would encourage the candidate to broaden their skills a bit and try again in six months or so. With all due respect and still in appreciation of the candidate's desire to contribute, --Strikerforce (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose This person dosen't seem to be a dangerous individual, however there simply isn't a large enough track record for me to go off of. This RfA was perhaps 3 months too early, at least in my opinion. While I appreciate the willingness this user shows towards cleaning out the history merge backlog, there is a whole slew of other backlogs that do not require the mop. I'm all for specialty admins, but as I said below in the neutral section, my standards are higher for anyone anything less than a year of active editing. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Sven Manguard and WP:NOTNOW. Kudos for being a long-term member and contributor to the project, but there's just not enough overall activity to adequately evaluate the candidate's experience level and judgment, recent activity notwithstanding. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose Too little experience so too little information to make an informed judgement. I'm quite happy that someone is willing to do a tedious and fiddly task (I hate doing history merges), so I'd like Erik to become an admin, but I can't give support to someone with so little genuine experience of Wikipedia. I'm quite comfortable with someone becoming an admin in order to deal with just a handful of tasks; it's a just a case of having complete confidence in that person's judgement. History merges are awkward when they go wrong, and I note from Erik's edit history that he is a hit and miss editor who works casually by trial and error - [1] - which is fine for doing articles, but is not the sort of approach to take to doing history merges. I'd like to see an extended period of careful editing in order to feel confident. SilkTork *^YES! 16:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   SilkTork, I appreciate your thoughtful comments here. While somewhat tangential to your main point, I would like to note that several of my edits at Acrophyseter were to try to overcome bugs being repeatedly introduced and fixed in a template that that article was using. For example, I assure you this revision did not look that bad at the time. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

5. On WP:NOTNOW grounds. You're a good editor, but while I like most of what I see at the basic processes, with fewer than 400 edits I'm afraid that there isn't enough of a record to go on. While some would at a glance label me as a deletionist (which I only accept to be the case for marginally-notable BLPs), hitting the delete button will often be a big deal to an article's creator, and I think this is an important factor to bear in mind when judging a tight AfD (particularly when it isn't a low-profile BLP). For that reason, I think a reasonable article creation record is a must. In short, keep going, and in around 6 months (conceivably less if you are fairly active) I would be happy to support. —WFC— 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Fewer than 400 edits? 28bytes (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Fewer than 400 edits at processes such as AfD etc. Sorry for the ambiguity. —WFC— 19:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Further discussion on this matter can be found on my talk page. I've probably done a better job of explaining myself there. —WFC— 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   I would like to just close by saying that I have not blindly quoted NOTNOW, as seems to be the belief of some above. I think it is applicable in this particular set of circumstances, for an editor looking to do this particular job. I accept that the majority probably disagree with this, but I would hope that I have at least made my rationale clear. —WFC— 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose, regretfully. I have no problem with the recentism of major activity - some people take time to find their groove in the project. The nom seems to be reasonable and polite, but has little to no significant contributions. Non-writers should not be allowed access to the delete button. Looking at this editor's most edited articles shows stubs and articles in serious need of cleanup. While history merging is an area that could use help, I do not trust this user to close deletion discussions based upon WP space edits, writing experience, and overall demonstration of policy knowledge. Also, per User:SilkTork and WFC. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose − Sorry, but anyone that starts their RfA by saying "I am nominating myself primarily because I would like to work on history merges" and then goes on to say "I don't really have any experience with history merges" doesn't get my !vote. It might be an idea to reapply when you have some experience in the area that you want to work in. I wasn't convinced by the answer to Question 12 either. He doesn't seem to have anything but a superficial understanding of what tools he'll get and how he'll use them. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   I assumed when you asked question 12 that you knew that history-merging was an admin-only activity, but that you wanted the candidate to explain in his own words how he would do history merges if given the tools. It now appears you genuinely don't understand that non-admins cannot do history merges. What experience with history merges do you expect a non-admin to have, given that non-admins cannot actually do them? 28bytes (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   I agree with 28bytes - what experience where you expecting Fly by Night? The candidate also has ZERO edits to the mediawiki interface. Perhaps this is also a source of concern? Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm please that you both agree; that's really sweet. I could scratch the first half of my oppose and still have enough doubts not to support. The candidate just doesn't instil any confidence in me. It seems like he still has a lot of learning left to do. Pedro: drop the sarcasm, it doesn't suit you. I'm sorry you disagree with me, but hey. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Actually with all due respect Fly by Night, but Pedro is correct with what he is saying. Some people these days expect too much from others. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Listen guys, I have no idea what you're trying to achieve here. If you want them I'll list all of my reservations about the candidate. What good will that do, besides make him feel even worse about people opposing him. Save your breath and stop hounding. This getting annoying now. My vote isn't moving, all you're going to do is synthesis more criticism of the candidate. In fact, no. I'm not coming back to this page again; so you can write what you want. I won't be reading it. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Since I know you're going to come back to read this, I'll bite. Please list all of your reservations about the candidate. "He didn't do something he couldn't do without the tools" was an entertaining start. Townlake (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, I do believe your argument will be given more weight once you have made a valid point. Your argument right now lacks anything of substance. I do not believe the candidate will "feel even worse" if you list constructive criticism. But then again, the ball is in your court. —Dark 10:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

   Further conversation removed to talk page.

8. Oppose I see some good things with this application, and I'm sure that some areas could do with some more help at times. However, we don't have half a mop, just a full one, so I think it's necessary that applicants have some experience in all areas. In this case I see almost zero vandal fighting, and vandalism is a serious part of admins work (and the few warnings I have looked up have been warning1 when warning1 is already on the page) - I cannot even suggest some time with huggle as that requires a rollbacker attribute, and we haven't yet seen enough vandal fighting to be able to give you that - which you would gain if this application went through.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I see no countervandalism work, or any other need for the tools. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   History merges require the tools, there is a backlog and this candidate has offered to help address this. May I suggest you reconsider your oppose? ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose - I agree with Ronhjones, SilkTork and others expressing reservations. While I thank the candidate for service to the encyclopedia, there are too many areas of experience missing for me to cast a !vote in favor of adminship. Should the mop not be granted, please consider looking into broader experience, and perhaps trying again later this year. My best wishes. Jusdafax 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Oppose - Doesn't meet my criteria. I don't see any real negatives here, just needs more experience. I too am wary of specialist RfA's. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Regretful oppose. Basically, I agree with Ronhjones; while you're a valuable contributor, in my opinion your experience is not broad enough yet. I'm sorry. Please keep up the good work and come back in a couple of months, should this RFA be closed as unsuccessful. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose Self-nominating because one would like to work in a specific area (I would like to work on history merges) isn't appropriate because adminship is an all-or-nothing package deal. There's no way to hold an admin to such a commitment. Another red flag is that the candidate states they will be open to recall -- again, there's no way to hold someone to that commitment. Finally I can't see a serious dedication to content creation[2] (which supposedly is what Wikipedia is all about). None of this means that I think you're a bad person or anything like that, just that you shouldn't be a Wikipedia admin at this time. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

    Without commenting on the rest of the argument, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not "all about content creation". It's about providing content. This requires content creation but also a whole lot of maintenance. There would be no Wikipedia without people writing large chunks of articles. There would also be no Wikipedia without people doing vandal fighting, categorization and other content organization, broken links fixes, history merges, and so on. Pichpich (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    My concern is that in the past couple of years we have developed a Wikipolitical class that does not bother to dirty its hands with content and has no experience with the problems faced by those who do. We need to stomp that out, and one of the best ways I can think of is to promote those who have experience with content creation rather than those who do not. The things you mention are worthwhile. But they can just as well be done by people who also write articles; your remark implies that they are mutually exclusive. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    I certainly don't consider them mutually exclusive. (I humbly submit that I did both under this account and an older one) But not everyone enjoys both aspects and it's important to embrace this and not fight against it. It's true that admins with limited content building experience are susceptible to make mistakes that really piss off content builders. But what are the alternatives? Fewer admins? That gives you an even stronger Wikipolitical clique. More content-builders as admins? Sounds reasonable except many have openly expressed zero interest in the job. Others do have the bit but don't use it. Other potential recruits have a serious lack of experience with the administrative side of things. Pichpich (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    People want to see content building experience to prove that they actually understand the project, but in practice, very few admin tasks deal directly with content building, so being experienced on the maintenance side of things is also required. If you don't have the balance of experience that happens to be required in the week you do your RFA, you get opposed. But I agree that anything that tries, even indirectly, to discourage people from making any sort of constructive contributions is going to be counterproductive. Mr.Z-man 04:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

14. Oppose I am quite certain that this editor would be wholly competent at performing history merges. But Admin permissions are not and cannot be limited to this function. And I see no evidence that this user could be trusted with the tools in other areas, which he would have available to him if given the mop and bucket.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I'm sorry, but you simply don't have enough experience for me to be comfortable giving you the mop and history merges, especially the more complex cases, are not something one can pick up overnight or just by reading the instructions (which I actually found more complicated than doing the history merge itself). You seem like a decent person, but you're not ready to be an admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    How exactly do you pick it up then? History merges aren't something that a non-admin can really participate in. Mr.Z-man 07:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    Theoretically he could have experience adminning on other wikis, WMF or otherwise, that involves making history merges. That said, we've had a few admins come here saying they know everything because they're an admin on some other site and they tend to get massacred unless they have significant experience here as well. —Soap— 13:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

    I have very occasionally done history merges, and every time I have been frightened to death of making a mess of it. The only way, as far as I can see, to make a start on learning to do it is to sit there with the instructions in front of you and carefully read them and check every step as you go along. There has to be a first time. I also seem to remember that the first time I did it I first tried a dummy run on a user-space page created for the purpose. However, I would very strongly discourage anyone from doing all that until they have had a significant amount of experience at other deletions, moves, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    I meant but forgot to say in that edit "but I don't think this is a reason to oppose: it is rather a reason to advise the candidate to be very careful if this RfA succeeds". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    The candidate is a computer programmer, I take it from this that they are rather less likely than the average admin to muck up a history merge the first time they do one. But I'm less concerned about technical competence at RFA than I am about judgement. I believe that the risk with history merges is not so much that someone will miss a step out and fail to restore half the edits, I'm more concerned that they make the right decisions as to whether or not articles should be merged and either decline some sensible merges or undertake some less sensible ones..... From what I've seen of the candidate's edits I think they would get this right, but key to this is the candidate's ability to judge consensus and their views on merger. If those in the oppose camp want to persuade me to move here they would need to find some diffs showing either that the candidate had odd views as to when two articles should merge, didn't understand consensus or was prepared to use the tools in accordance with their views even when that went against consensus. From what I've seen of the candidate's edits I believe that such diffs would be hard to find, I certainly don't see many diffs in the oppose section. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    It's been a long time since I've done history merges, but I don't recall very many instances where one actually required consensus. History merges are entirely different from regular merges and except in rare cases, shouldn't be done together. In the vast majority of cases, history merges are just used to fix a copy-and-paste move. It's a non-controversial, technical fix that typically doesn't result in any visible changes outside of page histories. If the content of 2 separate articles is being merged, the history should stay separate unless they both evolved from the same original article via a C&P move. Mr.Z-man 23:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

16. Oppose per not enough experience Someone65 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose too green, not enough experience suggest revisiting in a couple of months The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
18. Oppose Erik specifically wants to be able to do history merges. Adminship is however a ticket for 'access all areas' especially deletion processes which are a core function and go hand-in-hand with page patrolling. Messages on his talk page would appear to indicate an error rate at New Page Patrolling that may be inconsistent with the level of knowledge of deletion policy required for using the tools with confidence and reasonable accuracy. He has demonstrated some knowledge of content building, which is of course fundamental to the learning curve; however, his experience is limited to 11 short stubs, some only one line, one still tagged for references while another is little more than a list of red links. Of the longer creations, it looks as if other editors have contributed the bulk of the content. I'm !voting late(ish) because I wouldn't want these issues to contribute to any pile-on opposition, but after much reflection, and a look at the other !votes, I think I'm echoing the sentiments of others in this section, especially SilkTork, and HJ Mitchel. Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Not yet, but very probably support for a future RfA when the candidate has had more experience. A good editor, but there are numerous gaps which have been pointed out on this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose: for the time being. When the candidate has more edits I will support. - Ret.Prof (talk)

    How many more would you like? 1? 17? 383? Editcountitis much. I doubt this comment will get much weight from the closing bureaucrat unless you substantiate it. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

    Presumably it isn't simply a cut-off number, perhaps the quality, size, or focus of the edits will matter to this editor. A large portion of the commentary in this section has been about this issue, which is a very important one, in my opinion the most important one at an RfA: "is this candidate trustworthy?" In a sense, ideally we could just give all the buttons to almost everyone, like we do with "edit" and "view history". But some of the tools can do more damage than others, so it is prudent to ensure that only those whom we generally trust to not rashly misuse or outright abuse them will be able to do things like delete or protect articles and block other users. While I, as I said in my nomination, disagree that my corpus of work on this project is insufficient to judge whether I will be careless or cruel with "delete" and "block" etc, or use them rashly without taking the time to understand their proper use if I don't understand it already, and know what I don't know, I certainly respect the care and hesitancy of the "oppose" !voters when trying to answer this question. I know for at least some of them that a simple number of edits is not the criteria, since they have recently voted in support of candidates with fewer edits. They are presumably also considering the namespace, magnitude, quality, etc of the edits when determining if there is enough experience to judge trustworthiness. I'm honored and humbled by those who have examined my contributions and found me trustworthy, and grateful to everyone who has taken the time to participate in this discussion, regardless of their conclusions. Thank you! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Well said Erik. This sort of calm and clear thinking is exactly why I put myself in the support camp here. Steven Walling 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

21. Oppose: After a thorough lookover of this candidate, the most concerning thing to me is the lack of Wikispace experience - there simply is not enough of it for me to trust you with the tools at this time. I agree that becoming an admin is a package deal - you would be expected to help out with backlogs in various areas, and I don't see that experience yet. 9 edits to AIV, none to RPP, no participation in ANI, and only 11 to RM, which is a huge part of history merging IMO. I would feel more comfortable in supporting you in the future if you had at least 1K edits in the Wikispace, especially in the areas I mentioned.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 10:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    "you would be expected to help out with backlogs in various areas, and I don't see that experience yet". Who would expect this? (This is a serious question, I'm genuinely curious.) Townlake (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    Generally, his peers (meaning other editors). Now if Erik wishes to concentrate on one specific area, he should be forewarned that editors do sometimes go to admins directly (HJMitchell has experience with this) and they would expect action from said admin in whatever area they requested, so that's why he needs relevant experience in all areas of the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

    This is an RFA myth. Take it from someone that actually is an admin: very rarely do editors come to my talk page expecting me to use sysop tools for something specific, unless I've already done something similar. I don't dispute that others approach HJMitchell about things. This may be because he frequents various noticeboards or has met people through handling other issues or any number of other reasons. But I find the idea absurd that someone that spends all their time working on history merges would get approached to do, for example, a sockpuppet investigation. It is true that once someone has the tools, they have the technical ability, but maybe not the knowledge or experience, to do sockpuppet blocks. But that just boils down to another variation on the trust question. Do I trust him with the deletion tool to do history merges? Do I trust him to approach the other tools with caution and circumspection? I don't know the answers to those questions for this particular editor. However, I sincerely doubt people will suddenly expect him to use the full panoply of tools simply because a 'crat has sysopped him.--Chaser (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

    History merges, in probably 99% of cases, are non-controversial technical fixes for copy & paste moves, there is virtually nothing for a non-admin to do regarding them; it's almost entirely unrelated to WP:RM. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

22. Regretfully Oppose. I'm sorry but with the number of edits you have made and given that you've only been editing Wikipedia seriously for a year I just don't think you have the necessary experience yet. I would suggest being re-nominated in a few months time.--5 albert square (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Unfortunately. Per above. Concerns with experience. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Limited content contribution and collaboration with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Oppose per experience. Baseball Watcher 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Oppose. I originally was supporting, but his answer to Question 9 makes me a bit leery about what he really can do as a sysop. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Logan can you be more descriptive here with what is actually wrong with question 9?, as I see it he stated he wants to help with a back log. Is that wrong? And non- admins cant perform page history merges so it would make sense there is no experinece. Am I missing something in the response Erik made to query 9?., Further details/reasoning behind the shift would be great thanks. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    It's unfair to the candidate to oppose based on an answer where the candidate states he has no experience in history merging, when he needs the mop to perform that duty in the first place, so naturally he won't have any experience at it until he gets the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

27. Oppose user requests admin privs to help out with the backlog. There are plenty of backlogs that do not require admin tools that the user has not helped with. Therefore, I do not trust this user is simply requesting the rights to help with the backlog. Lack of mainspace edits. Lack of projectspace edits. Only 6 months of active contribs. Probably more, but that's more than enough to oppose. -Atmoz (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

    Atmoz, thanks for considering this request and the time you have spent researching your decision. Despite ultimately only addressing part of your rationale here, I would like to point out that a large percentage of my edits were helping out at the new page patrol backlog. However, your point remains that most of my other editing is not backlog-driven per se. I won't hazard a guess as to whether this will affect the amount of trust you put into my stated motivations for this RfA, and your other points may remain; I just wanted to clarify that one issue about my contribution history. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Moved to Oppose Leaning weak oppose on policy literacy concerns, but that can easily swing around to support based off of question 6 <EDIT>and a strong portfolio of work.</EDIT> Also, six months of activity seems on the light side to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see 10-11 months of activity, but I'm not sure what you consider "active" Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay fine, I'm counting 2010/08 through 2011/01 as active. I'd even be willing to count 2010/06 (but not 2010/07) that's six to seven months. I'd like to see 12, will settle for 9 on an otherwise strong candidate, but if it's 6, it had better, IMO, be a very special case, like a longtime admin on Commons who wants the mop on Wikipedia to clear out the copy to commons backlog. I've changed my initial neutral to reflect that.

2010/1 and 2010/2? 95 edits in 2010/2 shows at least three edits a day, maybe they had real life commitments. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pending answers to questions. Nakon 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral The candidate has technically been a Wikipedian since 2005; however, during most of the first five years there were an average of 1 or 2 edits per month (usually punctuation or a wikilink). Really only highly active since the summer of 2010. There are also weaknesses in important administrative areas (e.g. vandal fighting). I see your heart in the right place, and would suggest mentoring, solidifying your credentials and trying again in 3-6 months.--Hokeman (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral Im not convinced on this one, my neutral can be summed up nicely with Hokeman's comments above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Moving to supportOttawa4ever (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral Long-term editor but very inactive until recently. Further evaluation required. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Move to Oppose, with regrets. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral – Waiting for an answer to Question 12. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Move to oppose. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral From what I've seen, the candidate looks reasonable, I certainly can't see any reason to oppose. However, I'm not seeing any significant content contributions, for example there is no correlation between top edited articles and top edited talk pages. I'm also not seeing any particular specialism besides 840 odd delete contributions and as I'm not an admin - I can't comment on that. As such, I can't see any strong reason to support. Worm 10:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Move to Support

   Neutral. Meh. Can't make up me mind :P The opposition raises valid points, but I can't say that is sufficient warrant either an oppose or support. Since this looks like it's going to pass, I wish you the best of luck as a sysop. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Move to oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:54, 9 February 2011 (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.