Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 3

Late Co-nom

I hope nobody minds if I just squeeze myself in here a little late. Now, in general, I wouldn't support a candidate a mere six weeks after their last RfA. However, never in all my time at RfA have I seen somebody respond so well to constructive criticism as Connormah. Several issues were raised at his last RfA and many opposers raised valid concerns, leading to a closure of no consensus, with a final percentage of approximately 76%. In the last 6 weeks, however, Connormah has worked tirelessly to address those concerns not to give himself a better chance of "winning", but to make himself a better editor. The biggest concern that was raised was the lack of content work. Well, since then, he has taken himself off to the library and produced 2 outstanding GAs on 19th century Canadian politicians—Herbert Charles Wilson and William Egbert and even got himself an ITN as well as 2 DYKs that will have appeared on the Main Page by the time this RfA concludes. He has also made a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you can find it in you to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom support—I opposed weakly last time based on the answers to some of the questions and concerns over his content contributions. Connormah has definitely addressed those issues (see the nomination and question 4, for instance), so I'm more than happy to support. Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Like people who work images---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Good nom - yes the last RfA failed but it was very borderline. As I supported then I will obviously support now for the same reasons.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - I supported you last time and I'm happy to do so again. Work in images is excellent. Opposers last time were unconvincing, even overly fussy. Best wishes, Jusdafax 05:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Was going to oppose or go neutral based on the fact it was so recent. Then I thought how stupid that would be. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Support as I did last time. Solid candidate who deserved to pass last month. Pichpich (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support for the third time in a row per my reason in the first RfA, but also the concern has been released as Wehwalt mentioned. Minimac (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support I've only interacted with this user once, but does seem friendly. I see a net positive with this user. wiooiw (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Longterm user, clean block log and his last RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Yes the last RFA was relatively recent, but it was also unusually close. So if he has since addressed the concerns raised by the Oppose !voters I see no reason for him not to run again after a shorter wait than would have been appropriate for someone who'd failed clearly or for reasons that take longer to fix. ϢereSpielChequers 10:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support supported last time and my rationale still stands. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Sleepy nom support Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Yes. Supported last time, very much respect this editor and belive them to be a net benefitOttawa4ever (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I like that he said in his answer to 4 that he'd block anyone falling under the category "users" without warning. Takes chutzpah. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Lots of progress since last time round, especially on the content front, which was my main area of concern. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. I supported last time, and I'm happy to support again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
18. As co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
19. This editor has more than enough article work to alleviate apparent fears they may misuse admin tools. Getting an article up to GA standard isn't easy, and FA is even harder. With regards to the single oppose so far, I think it's off the mark. I also think that counting article creations is inappropriate on RFA. The candidate could have created over 9,000 articles but they might have all been unsourced BLP stubs. It's quality over quantity on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Looks good to me. Derild4921☼ 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - Same as last time - don't see anything that would change my mind. AlexiusHoratius 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
22. 6 weeks is generally a bit low to try again at RFA, but Connormah seems to be on the right path. Although I opposed last time, I shall support this time in recognition of the work you have done to improve your editing. NW (Talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support, per the two nominators who summed things up rather well. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support as a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - good track record of positive contributions, a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools. Thparkth (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - though I agree that this is perhaps a bit too soon, I believe that the candidate has learned and improved since his last attempt. I would, however, gently suggest that he consider re-reading WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support – In spite of only 6 weeks between this RFA and the previous one, I am supporting based on your improvements. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support – congratulations on raising your content game so quickly (e.g. improving Herbert Charles Wilson). - Pointillist (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

    BTW I don't object to the six weeks in this situation: it is long enough to confirm that a candidate can put together well-sourced content without stepping on other editors' toes. Re-taking the "content" part of the exam makes perfect sense for someone who was borderline last time. However, this is probably the only admin area that can be re-taken quickly: most of the back room skills need to be assessed over a longer period. - Pointillist (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

30. Looks fine to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. I supported the last time and I'm supporting again. It would have looked better to wait a bit longer after the last RfA, but I do not blame the nominee for having accepted the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - almost 20,000 edits, sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. P.S. I did not take part in the last RfA. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support - No concerns and frankly, someone opposing an editor with a GA and DYK because they aren't a content contributor is being ridiculous. -- Atama頭 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Satisfactory answers. Tommy! [message] 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Strong Support Absolutely. Great, trustworthy editor. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support I supported last time, I see no reason not to now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support if only because the opposes make so little sense. I'm all for admins being content creators, but article creation is a poor metric for that, and this user has actually done good content work. Then there are those who say he is hasty, or something, but I don't see why we should care how long ago the previous RFA of a good admin candidate was. Contrary to DGG, I find his answers concise and to the point (though a few are indeed a bit vaguely worded). I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a great admin; good luck! Ucucha 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support per Fastily. --John (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Yeah, it's been six weeks. So what. Connormah's sensible, civil, and professional. I don't see why anyone wouldn't trust him with the tools, even if he doesn't do a lot of content work. ceranthor 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Strong Support - Worked with this user on an FAC. User is knowledgeable, knows the systems and policies in place. Will make a good admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Supportsure. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Taking a chance here, but I think you have grown. Good luck...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Great editor, no problems here. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong support Yes yes yes yes yes. Great editor, i see no reason to oppose. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
50. Support I supported last time, and have only seen more good work since, so I support again.  Begoon^talk 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support: The Candidate has great potential and will be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    Hi, could you possibly elaborate as to your concerns of my understanding of core policies? Connormah 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I took a second look and changed from weak support to support. You are handling yourself well - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

52. Support - candidate has shown they can turn their hand to new tasks and do a great job of it; they can find their weak spots and address them. The 6 weeks thing doesn't bother me at all - I might have leant towards Oppose in the case of some self-nominated brat desperate to gain more power, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support per convincing nom by Wehwalt, fine contribs, and because I find the "time elapsed" rationale for opposing wholly unconvincing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I find snipes at people that question the judgement of doing so an equally unconvincing reason to support. But hey, bureaucrats do not have the courage to discount spurious supports. --WFC-- 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not a snipe, WFC. Merely a disagreement. Furthermore, my support is not spurious (please see my other two reasons). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

54. Support. More time between noms may have been the tactically correct choice if the goal was winning. Tiderolls 10:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support, this user seems to have necessary experience and contributions, and Wehwalt's discussion of BLP issues from last time is also encouraging. I don't see any good reason to say that Connormah will misuse the tools. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Pro I donna see problems. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
57. support, per oppose rationales below. In particular, I have no problem with sysops that just do janitorial work or whatever. Having this sysop does not mean fewer sysops with content experience. Small backlogs are good. I don't see the downside. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
58. I cannot in good conscience withhold support in this RfA. See my last edit though where I admit to feeling uncomfortable at first. —Soap— 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support Although I hesitated because of the short time since the last one, that one was close. I have no problems with an admin who doesn't contribute majorly to article creation (don't we have thousands and thousands of editors who do?) and I am in favour of janitors wielding the mop rather than tenured professors. My only advice would be that if Connormah ever does venture into CSD, to start with really obvious ones (copyvios and the like) - and feel free to ask for advice from experienced admins (hell, you can even ask me if you want to!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Weak support I was leaning neutral until I looked at the individuals who were supporting and those that were opposing. GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I may switch to strong oppose based on your rationale, so I'll see you and raise you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

61. Support - Didn't last time but will this time because the concerns the last time have been taken to heart. Not loving the tone of this RfA though (through no fault of Connormah). Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    The hypocracy of me lecturing anyone else on tone is duly noted. But the tone of a discussion has a tendency to be set by the tone of early exchanges. --WFC-- 09:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Ugh...thick irony, I was reacting to the beginning of what is in full throw now. Nothing was unclear about that answer, and if I run for RfA I'm sure I'll start by annoying as many people as possible before I do it. The tone issues started well before, and they've continued well after. Insofar as I'm responsible for responding to what I thought was an unfair response to a loaded question: my mistake was taking the bait. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

62. Support On merit from looking over a few days, and anyway because a nom by Wehwalt is good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Contribs since Aug 1 look fine. -Atmoz (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Knowledgeable, productive contributor. No concerns from me that the tools will be abused. Deli nk (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support I was a conflicted neutral last time. Lots of positives, but some concerns about content creation. While the content in the intervening six weeks isn't enough to move candidate into the ranks of strong content creators, I've seen enough to alleviate concerns. I am puzzled at the timing. Candidate has participated in enough RfA's to know that three months between attempts is often viewed as a minimum, and it is not uncommon that three months isn't viewed as sufficient. I fear that this tactical blunder may be the difference between success and failure. Six more weeks, and this might be a shoe-in—unfortunately, the clock gets reset, so if this fails, it isn't just a matter of waiting six more weeks. --SPhilbrickT 17:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Really good contributor, these admin tools would be put into good use for sure. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Not without concerns, but my primary concern in the last discussion (I'm a stickler on BLPs) seems addressed. I wish the candidate had waited a bit longer, but I also respect the enthusiasm. And without meaning to call anyone out, I would ask that folks opposing using questions of "content creation" would (as a favor to me) consider a different choice of words. Images are content, too. I do understand and sympathize with the idea that article creation and test are our primary product, and mean no disrespect to that idea. But the candidate's contributions are signficant and have made Wikipedia a better resource. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support per HJ Mitchell. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Looks like a decent editor. We're handing him or her a mop, not a cranial saw.--Danger (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Hyperbole rarely helps. You're handing him or her the ability to block you and me, delete articles, and various other mischief, with almost no recourse whatsoever. You may feel comfortable with that but I certainly don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Adminship really isn't as exciting as you make it sound, Malleus. ;) Yes, if given a mop, he could delete every FA, for example, in 3 clicks, but that doesn't mean he would. I agree that it's far too difficult to get rid of a "bad" admin, but that doesn't make all of us evil. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oh, you'll have to forgive my ignorance then. I was sure that administrators had the ability to block editors and delete articles. Silly me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    They (we) do, yet, for some strange reason, the contents of Category:Featured articles isn't deleted on a weekly basis. Just because someone has the ability to do something (and, trust me, that would be disturbingly easy) doesn't mean they would. What makes that more true of an editor with 10 FAs than one with more modest content work? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    This drifting off topic, but my opposition is based on the candidate being too keen to join the hallowed ranks of you untouchables. It's absolutely nothing to do with deleteing FAs, which can easily be reversed. What's not so easily reversed is blocking established editors. Sure, the block can be technically reverted, but not the collateral damage it causes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Untouchable is a little extreme (though only a little). I do agree we need a better system of getting rid of admins, but that's not Connor's fault. It has nothing to do with hallowed ranks either—trust me, you only get shit for carrying a Cabal membership card. As for established editors, sometimes it has to be done. I've blocked several, for a variety of reasons, including an administrator. I know you have a philosophical objection to administrators in general, but we're not all evil and there are a lot of things that don't get done if no admin is around to do them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't intend to make any controversial blocks, I mostly just plan on blocking vandals. If I do, though, I will certainly seek second/third opinions regarding it, though I can't imagine myself performing such an action. Connormah 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    The truth is though that what you say here and now is irrelevant, as you may later change your mind and there is no recourse if you do. I could give you examples of administrators who have made similar promises, only to ignore them once given their cloak of invulnerability. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Good point, however, in the occasion that that does occur (which I doubt, but, hey, what do you know) , I'd happily resign my bit if consensus shows that I'm no longer fit for the tools. Connormah 03:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    As I said, you can make whatever election promises that you feel are expedient now, but you can't be held to them. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's not entirely true. I remember an admin removing himself from CAT:AOR after agreeing at his RFA to be in it. People protested at his talk page and he put himself back in the category.--Chaser (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

70. Support I see no reason to change my stance since the last RfA. Jarkeld (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully considered the opposers and neutral commenters' concerns and find them unpersuasive. (In particular, I consider "he wants to be an administrator too much so he shouldn't be one" to be a rather weak basis for opposition.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Rather similar perhaps to the way in which I consider your knee-jerk support of all underage candidates, including this one. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I had, and have, no knowledge of the candidate's age. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Neither do I, but where you see maturity I see childish behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'd like to note that childish behavior does not confirm that one is a child. Likewise, adult-like behavior does not give solid evidence that one is an adult. Airplaneman ✈ 04:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    In much the same way that the pretence of mature behaviour in the run up to an RfA, in this case for only six weeks, proves anything other than that the candidate is aware of how to game the system. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    This is Connormah's RfA, not your soapbox. Do you have diffs to share of the candidate behaving immmaturely prior to six weeks ago, or is it just some unfocused foaming at the mouth about RfA? --John (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It's about time you stopped being abusive and trying to pick fights with all and sundry John, else you may find that you've bitten off more than you can chew. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Honestly Malleus, I could say the same about you. Airplaneman ✈ 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

72. Support per HJMitchell. Shiva (Visnu) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support happy with the answers now, no issue with the Six weeks, the last one was a very close call. Codf1977 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Support no problems. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support great candidate! --Stickee (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support. I supported last time, this time is no different. Three months is a good time to wait for a candidate who fails an RfA: Connormah's last RfA fell within the closing 'crat's discretionary area and I feel a shorter wait before the next RfA is entirely appropriate. TFOWR 10:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
77. Support - problems raised in last RfA, problems solved quickly, people interpret that in itself as a new problem to oppose over. In my view Connormah will be a definite asset as an administrator at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support in the role of dealing with vandalism. Is sufficiently ready to perform in that role. I would suggest demonstrated ability and undergoing mentorship before going beyond that role. expanding also, per Mazca, per Joe Decker, per Phantom Steve, per nyttend, per Bob Rayner. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Weak Support While I supported in the last RFA, this time round I feel that you reapplied too early since your last RFA. However, improvements have taken place since then, so I feel that I can support again. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - After careful consideration, and in particular, investigating the points made by HJ Mitchell in his co-nom, I came to the conclusion that the candidate did make a valiant effort during the six-week period to address the concerns raised in the last RfA. He deserves a chance.--Hokeman (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
81. Support Seems to be qualified. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
82. Support - knows what he's doing, seems like he would do a good job as an admin to me. Also, I have to add opposes along the lines of 'too soon since last RFA' strike me as particularly weak - if the worst thing about Connormah is that he's too keen to become an admin, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It has more to do with the judgement of doing so. Make no mistake, an admin being willing and able to make controversial calls is a good thing. In fairness, Connormah doesn't claim to be one of those admins. But if you're oblivious to the fact that your actions might prove to be controversial until a dozen people have complained and more than a dozen questions have been asked about the decision, I question whether you'll end up being a net positive. --WFC-- 08:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

83. Support- clearly knows what he's doing, and by all rights should have passed the one in July (which was as borderline as you can get), so I'm sot impressed at all by the people who reckon it's too soon to renominate. Reyk _YO! 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
84. So it's been since weeks since the last one, who cares? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
85. Article writing isn't a necessary part of being an admin. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
86. Strongest possible goddamned support, because it's the only way to boldly (ho ho) make up for the rampant stupidity of most of the oppose section. You've produced GAs, that's good enough on the content side for me. You've got AV and similarly admin-related experience, excellent. Done. Anyone who feels different can drop a note in my suggestion box *holds up waste paper basket*. Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
87. Support. A positive contributor with a substantial track record and reasonable grounds for wanting the tools, and I see no red flags. The many opposes for "too soon" after the last RFA are surprising to me. The result was "no consensus" and the candidate made a very reasonable effort to address the concerns of the opposition. If he had done the same thing for a no-consensus FA or XFD nomination, I would not consider six weeks too soon for a new nomination, and I see no good reason why it is too soon for this one. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
88. Strongest possible support per --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
89. Strong support per Shirik. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
90. Support The opposes are unconvincing and in fact make me make me want to support more. Looks to be a net positive James (T C) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
91. Support per WP:GETSSHITDONE (I know, it doesn't exist... but shouldn't it?) I see no legitimate reason why this user shouldn't have the mop. He has a demonstrated use for the tools. He is unlikely to break the wiki, delete the mainpage or accidentally block Jimbo. As I have said before, it all comes down to trustworthiness and competence, everything else is standard RFA political asshattery. Trusilver 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
92. Support Qualified. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
93. Support per my comments on your editor review. I normally oppose users in RfAs if they have no real major content contributions to the encyclopedia, but you've contributed a great deal unlike what some of the opposes are stating. Although I'm a little bit wary of an RfA coming so soon on the heels of a failed one, your dedication towards improvement and your quality contributions lend me to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
94. Weak support It is quite soon since your last RFA, but I do see content work since then. Plus, image admins are always important. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
95. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. I didn't read or participate in this person's previous RfA's. I find the Oppose votes, generally, to be extremely weak. Who cares if he had a recent RfA? What does that tell us about his likely performance as an admin? He ate the burger and went back and changed. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? It takes a big man to accept good advice and change his actions based on it. Who cares if he appears to really really want to be an admin? Good for him. In your job (if you're a manager) and an employee really really wants a promotion and does the things that make this possible, do you go "Nah, wants it too much"? We're supposed to be working to take our skills and responsibilities up the the next level. As to content creation, good grief. First of all, he is a perfectly adequate content creator, and second of all, administrating is not about creating content. "Only" seven articles created, give me a break. Everyone can't be good at and interested in everything. His answers to the questions are perfectly fine. I'm looking at a lot of oppose votes that basically seem to be "Oppose: Not perfect." People, please. And we need admins. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
97. Support per all the reasons below used to oppose. Let the record reflect that the previous RfA almost passed, the criticisms were noted, and the candidate addressed them. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
98. Support. I think RfA has lost the plot. None of the opposers say he can't be trusted, so what's the prob? If he stuffs up (doubtful), what's the prob? Easy fixed. Re contributing/creating content, I suggest everyone read User:Trusilver's comment way down below in the oppose section. Moriori (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    In what way would it be "easily fixed", and at what cost? Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Rouge admins learn from their mistakes (problem fixed) or they are defrocked (problem fixed). Cost? If we all had a crystal ball there would be no cost, but we haven't so we can expect an admin to occasionally disrupt or even damage Wiki. Essjay for instance. Bit like the cops really. A couple of baddies among them, but overwhelmingly they do a great job. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your faith in the present system is very touching, almost brought tears to my eyes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Ahhh, the "system" -- the unfathomable be-all and end-all of Wiki. To people like me, who has never used chat-email to plot or lobby, the system is inconsequential because it doesn't rule my life. People who introduce "system" into a wiki conversation are usually it. Moriori (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Malleus, the spot above where you had the guts to accuse someone else of hyperbole was humorous. You are aware that we are only talking about giving someone the admin tools and not the nuclear football, right? Any mistake any one admin makes can be undone by the other thousand or so admins. Trusilver 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

99. Support. Not convinced by the opposes. There's no real reason to not give the tools to this fully qualified candidate. He has the clue and a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia, that's good enough for me. -- œ^™ 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
100. Nothing wrong with being keen to help. --Stephen 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
101. Give the guy a chance to prove he was born to be an admin. ;) Diego Grez (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
102. Support Seems to have a reasonable grasp on the project and no reason not to WP:AGF. Triona (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
103. Support. I have no concerns. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
104. Support per nom. I don't see a reason not to give him a mop. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
105. Strong support Nice collegiate approach, responsive, works with images, good mix of content building and content defence skills. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
106. Support I don't seem to have any history of interaction with this user, but I like everything that I see in his responses to questions here and in his recent edit history. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
107. Support - Responses to questions are good. Seems overall to have dealt with the issues raised in the previous RfA. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
108. Support. The main concern is how long you waited. I'd perfer if you waited longer (~4 months) but so far it looks like all concerns in the last RfA have been resolved. AutoGeek (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —I-20the highway 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) - Silly me, was in the wrong account! (I need to look more closely)—I-20the highway 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
109. Support; although six weeks is usually to short a time between RfAs, that last one was so borderline as to raise the question whether candidate has since successfully addressed the issues addressed there. In my view, s/he has. Article creation is not the be-all and end-all here, and I see nothing to indicate that Connormah would misuse the tools. Accordingly, support I must. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

     For the record, it's a 'he' - you can call me 'Connor". Connormah (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

110. Support - I see no problems to not give him the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
111. Support - per OlEnglish.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
112. Support. Opposition is entirely based on RFA etiquette rather than editing practices. Chick Bowen 05:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
113. Support As per Newyorkbrad whose judgement I fully trust.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
114. Support Clearly has learned from the criticism of previous RfA attempts. Seems level-headed with a good understanding of policy. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
115. Weak Support, been considering this for a while now and taken several looks at it. On balance I would say it would be a net positive promotion, as the user has clearly learnt from previous mistakes and thus has the qualities to be a long term benefit. ---Taelus (Talk) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
116. Support - For same reasons as last time, except that this candidacy is stronger than before, and meets my RfA criteria. Like last time, I can find no comments from the candidate on this RfA which meet the definition of "To pester, to annoy persistently". 6 weeks is a perfectly reasonable time between RfAs, and while more time is needed in some cases, given that I supported last time, no further waiting is needed as far as I'm concerned. As long as they don't disrupt the process, I have nothing against users running for adminship frequently, nor against candidates politely responding to opposes to ask questions, apologise, clarify e.t.c. CT Cooper · talk 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
117. Support We need the help and Connormah is qualified. Jmlk17 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
118. Support Time since last RfA is a non-issue to me; I don't buy into people putting themselves through this process just to get a God-like sense of power. Calls for content creation make some sense to me, as an admin is asked to judge the extent to which articles/content comply with policy—inferring that someone who has created "good" content is more likely to be able to make these judgements in the admin role. So here we have an individual with policy experience, content creation experience, and the knowledge to stay away from things he/she doesn't understand. Net +++. --Livitup (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
119. Support Opposed last time based on content/BLP concerns, confident that those have been dealt with, and have no concerns. C628 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
120. Support - Although six weeks is a little short, he has done a lot of good work since then. Nolelover 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I'm sorry to be the one starting this list. The user seems well intent to fight vandalism, and that's good. However in my opinion a great content provider is the best qualified person to have admin tools. In my experience in Wikipedia the most time consuming issues are content related. Per his userpage this user has a DYK, and some help in one FA and one GA under his belt . This is way too little: The user also has only 7 started articles . I continuously incite users with incredibly high contributions to become admins. We should have more admins of that nature: academic scholarship and content related qualities is what I value the most and, unfortunately, this user is not part of the strongest people in those areas. I am aware I might stir up controversy with my vote, but in my time in Wikipedia, the only problems that I've had with admins relate to their poor knowledge of content or inability or unwillingness to read well the articles and the epic wars related to it. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's two GAs. And I've got 26 FAs and am an admin (though that and three bucks buys a cup of coffee at Starbucks) and I not only support him, I nommed him. Doesn't that count for anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Your nomination and sponsorship, without mentioning your own scholarship surely counts. However, although I don't know very well neither of you, because I contribute in unrelated areas, I look at the numbers as offered by the user himself or the soxred93 tools, and I am not happy with what I see. In general I vote oppose for all those who aspire to admin positions, and who, in my opinion, are not qualified to give enough content to the project. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Didn't mean to blow my own horn too much, which is why I put in the self-deprecatory comment! While I respect your oppose, I think the editor has sufficient work in the content area to be sensitive to concerns of content-contributing editors. You are of course entitled to your own views, but I think he'll be a net positive as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm going to be blunt because, to be quite honest, I'm sick of this crap. I do not respect your oppose, despite the fact that some people seem to feel the need to say this when they don't. Until you can give me a good reason the admin bit helps with creating articles, then to be quite honest, I think your oppose is just awful. Don't feel like I'm singling you out here, as this is more of just the "straw that broke the camel's back", but seriously, this is the reason RFA is failing, right here. Because we have incredibly competent users that use the admin bit for what it was made for and we refuse to give it to them because they don't do stuff that it wasn't made for. Seriously, that you were the first oppose may actually say something. The next time you (or anyone) opposes, think again. Is there a reason for this oppose? Or is it just that we've lost the WP:NOBIGDEAL mentality. Obviously, we know the latter is true (and has been for some time), but that doesn't mean we should just let the former get out of hand either. I'm not a bureaucrat, and I never will be (I have no desire to go there), but if I were I would look at each one of these kinds of opposes and burn it in fire. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not sure you could burn it with much else than fire, anyways.  IShadowed  ✰  15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   I can count on one hand the number of times I have challanged an oppose over the last four years or so, but this one is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. Only seven articles created? Is that it? seriously? This will go down in my mind as one of the most ridiculous opposes I've ever read. Therefore, I propose the counter-question: Who is a better choice for an administrator? Is it someone who is creating large amounts of content and featured articles or is it someone who is fighting vandalism and reviewing new content? Now, in your mind, the obvious choice is the person who is creating the large amount of new content. That sounds like a fantastic idea if you consider adminship to be some badge of honor that should be bestowed upon the mighty and noble (someone cue to dramatic organ music and beam of heaven light), the academic elite among us. If you consider the mop to be nothing more than a set of administrative tools to manage the encyclopedia, then it doesn't take a great genius to see the necessity of giving the tools to the person with whom they will be the most valuable. There are many great contributors who are also great administrators, however how many of these great contributors immediately move over to start manning the WP:AIV or the WP:CSD desks after they get their bit? Not a whole lot of them. Why? Because they are busy creating content, which is a damn good thing, but the gritty and often tedious admin work STILL needs to get done. Given the choice between giving the mop to a long-time content creator and some guy who's been here for six months but is a class-A vandal whacker (obviously... I would give it to both of them if I had a choice but...) I would pick the vandal-whacker every single time. Why is this? Because I'm pragmatic. If you were to drop off the face of the project tomorrow, then sure, some articles wouldn't get created as quickly as they otherwise might, but they would eventually. If the vandal-fighters all dropped off the project tomorrow, it would be chaos. We could survive without content creators for a good long time, without the projectspace maintainence people, especially the anti-vandalism people, this place would cease to be a functioning encyclopedia within the space of a month. Trusilver 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Sulmues. 7 new articles doesn't cut the mustard sorry. Not enough of a real content contributor. Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Because we admins are primarily there to create articles...? I understand not supporting someone because they have little-to-no work with content, but opposing on an arbitrary number of created articles doesn't seem very rational. Oppose for whatever reason you want, but I doubt your oppose is going to hold much weight. -- Atama頭 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Rational? What's rational about voting somebody to become one of the sites representatives when over their entire time on wikipedia they have done relatively little to improve the encyclopedia itself? I want adminstrators who have a balance between admin duties and have a passion for developing wikipedia (which believe it or not is the most important). Come back in six months and if I see more evidence of content work (even a tiny fraction of the sort of standard work accomplished by another candidate named Dana I'd support this individual, although a mere six weeks between one failed RFA and another makes this candidate look desperate. I become highly suspicious when editors a desperate to become admins. It is good to see two new GA articles from this user but to me is looks like an attempt to make this candidacy look better. If I see evidence of prolonged improvements to wikipedia DYKs/Good articles/New articles over several months I would probably support this candidate. If Connor produced content like Robert Brett regularly I'd support him. Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   With no disrespect intended, the admin bit is really not much use for content creation and there is much more to do in improving the encyclopaedia than creating articles. I've created a few articles, but only one of them has ever got as far as GA. Most of my creations are about "start" class, but I have put serious work into several GAs and an FA. Your oppose seems to suggest that my contribution in improving an existing article is worth less than if I'd contributed 1500 characters of prose to a new article, not t mention the thousands of images Connor has created (granted, not as much work as a GA, but valuable nonetheless). You're entitled to your opinion, but that seems odd to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   I should also mention how valuable Connormah has been to me in getting my last couple of articles to FA, and in my current FAC and forthcoming ones. I am not very good at images, it takes a load off my mind to have someone willing to do image chores which are easy for him but difficult and time consuming for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose No o serious attempt to answer the questions, just like last time. fortunately, he doesn't have any real need for the tools, so he can continue the good work he's been doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DGG and because this RFA is too soon, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose I supported last time, but this is too soon subsequent to the July failed RFA... and of more concern to me, it's obviously leveraging the Chicken Little path to adminship. Townlake (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   So what? It means we have a qualified admin for that much longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   The bureaucrats just declared him unqualified last month. If this one passes, it is for the wrong reasons. Townlake (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   It's not the job of the 'crats to declare someone qualified or unqualified. They interpret consensus and, six weeks ago, the consensus was that there was no consensus. If this one passes, it's because the community thinks he could do a good job. If you supported last time, I would guess you thought he could. Why would that change just because he hasn't waited for some arbitrary amount of time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation of how RFA works. A sufficient degree of community support is a necessary qualification, as is evidenced by RFA's existence. To answer your other questions: I am no longer confident that he would not misuse the tools. Townlake (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. A mere six weeks between RfAs displays an unseemly haste. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
7. NO NO NO Failed last month, Coming back a month later pushes me awful close to a no never.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   In all due respect, this seems unnecessarily harsh - I have addressed concerns from my last RfA, which was borderline, and I wished to try again - I'd really like to help out with admin tasks in the areas I've specified. Connormah 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Harsh but apparently necessarily so.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I remember a time in which a month was acceptable for a candidate to retry RFA, we have to look for if the user improved since the last RFA, and he clearly did. Six weeks in perfectcally acceptable to retry, that's coming from an editor who been in the project since 2005. Secret ^account 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   The last 2005 admin I dealt with didn't know the difference between an IP and an account. Pardon me if I don't equate longevity with wisdom.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose. The short time period between this and the last rfa doesn't sit right for me. That this one was started the day after the two GAs were promoted also doesn't feel right. I personally don't particularly care about the whole content creator thing, but I do care about adminship appearing to be "levelling up" in the game of wikipedia. I just get wary when someone seems to want it too much. Quantpole (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I did request reviews for my GAs, to clarify - I wanted an assessment of my writing skills for both of those GAs, just to see how I was doing. I'm fine without the tools - don't get me wrong, but I feel I can be of more use with them. Connormah 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I agree with DGG, address the issues in your last RfA and come back after a dignified effluxion of time. MtD (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Without wishing to badger, I have a question on which I am generally curious - what else is left from the previous RfA to address? I believe I have addressed all concerns, but if you don't feel I've addressed something, please do notify me. Connormah 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well WFC answered this below. Your content creation (an issue from last time) needs work. Your untimely return to RfA hasn't allowed you to demonstrate the fullness in that particular area that I would like to see from you. MtD (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Agree with MtD --Gian (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose - In my opinion, six weeks is too short of a time span to determine if the issues from the last RfA have been addressed. Also, one of the issues in the last RfA was a possible lack of understanding of some core policies. CSD for example. You didn't answer the (admittedly optional) question 6a. That does not help your case in my opinion.--Rockfang (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Was this intended for the neutral section? Airplaneman ✈ 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I have stated many times that I do not intend to touch CSD, so I didn't feel the need to answer. Connormah 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Just a suggestion - if you don't feel you need to answer a question (and I agree with you on this one) it might help to at least answer to explain why you're not answering. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Regretfully. It should be noted that I supported last time, which in itself is rare for me for candidates with little or no content experience. But content experience was a legitimate concern last time. The fact of the matter is that while your recent creation record is impressive, a few weeks is not a long enough time to deal with things such as people making edits you do not agree with to articles you have an emotional attachment with. This RfA itself demonstrates at best questionable judgement on the part of the nom, late co-nom and candidate. Last time I was prepared to gloss over your lack of all-round experience on the grounds that would mainly stick to non-controversial, technical decisions in an area we could do with an extra admin in. But given that anyone could see that this was going to be controversial, I can no longer assume that you will stick to non-controversial calls. And given that I am now weighing up your ability to make controversial calls, I find myself here. --WFC-- 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose Speedy renom and answers to questions are perfunctory or absent. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose I stayed out of RFA #2 because I couldn't form a strong opinion either way; I have no such problems this time. Coming back after a mere six weeks isn't the best judgement, but I could have overlooked that, but you either knew or ought to have known it would be raised as questionable. The answers to questions, then, should have been outstanding and through. Instead we get one sentence answers with no depth of reasoning, no heavy thought processes, and even a refusal to answer a basic question on A7. That comment pushed me down here from the possibility of being willing to tactfully ignore this RFA. Courcelles 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Striking. I may support, or I may merely abstain, I'll have to think about this a bit more. Courcelles 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose was leaning towards support as I do not feel the "six weeks" between RfA is an issue and the last one was very close. I was however waiting for the answer to question 6. The answer Connormah has given troubles me as like it or not with the mop he will be able to delete articles (even though he does not intend to do now), the very least he should have done was answer the question to show he understands policy, and it is for that reason I feel I need to Oppose. Codf1977 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Moving to support. Codf1977 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, I guess you've swayed me - I'll think about it in the next few days, the points you raise are good points. Connormah 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    FWiW, I specifically stated in my own RfA that I would generally avoid CSD in general and A7 in particular. I don't see a problem with that since (contrary, it seems, to popular opinion) there are many, many other areas that need admins, most of them I would consider more important than deciding the fate of an article on someone's myspace band, which makes my promise to avoid those areas a very easy one to keep. You would be amazed at some of the incredibly trivial things that require a mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It was not the fact he said he was going to keep out of CSD that was the issue. It was the way the question was answered that I had an issue with - by answering it as he has done now he shows he understands policy and if called upon in the future he can make the correct call. Codf1977 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose I have had so many concerns about Connormah (as stated in previsous RfAs) to do with CSD, understanding of policy and other issues that repeat RfAs with slightly altered reasoning has just gotten me in a knot and as this new RfA unfolds I can only see a reason to oppose a candidate who changes their intentions over such a short period of time in order to get the bit. Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Six weeks since last failed RFA. Vodello (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - This RfA is very premature and the decision to go ahead with it rather hasty. I like eagerness in my candidates for adminship, but this is just coming off as bad judgment and a desire for status. That's just my perception. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    #Per Polargeo. Diego Grez (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose – I've actually thought long and hard about this, maybe longer than I have with any other RfA. I did indeed "tactfully ignore" (as Courcelles aptly puts it) your second RfA, and have tried to do the same here. However, something is niggling me which I can't ignore and neither can I sit on the fence with it. I believe you have the commitment to the project, I don't think anyone can deny that, and I have no doubt you will make it in the end, but it's just the sense of urgency you seem to have about getting There – this mythically positioned place in the echelons of Wikipedia. It's not just the fact that this is only one month after your second RfA, it's your third in 6 months and 3 weeks – the time it, arguably, takes for just one to come and go. Now, I think this is because you have become very good friends and colleagues with your nominators Wehwalt and HJ Mitchell, for whom, I stress, I have the greatest respect, and you maybe feel you are missing out on something if you are not a fully-fledged member of The Club. I don't really see in your contributions a need for the tools. In your second RfA, you were opposed on the grounds of content contribution versus vandalism fighting. So, in your third RfA you have worked on the content contribution (for a month), but seemingly forgotten what it is the tools are for. Now, I know that may seem like a "FFS! Damned if I do, damned if I don't!" situation, but it is all about balance. And consistency. If you are Vandalbane the Great or Sherlock Sockpuppet, have little content creation to speak of, but I often find myself blocking or deleting on your behalf, I will support you; if you are Mr GA 2010 but find it frustrating when someone has plonked a great big redirect where you want to move a more appropriately named article with a rich history, I will support. Or any mixture of the two is welcome. However, since this RfA started it seems you have avoided contact with anything and everything at all (apart from userspace article work) – this doesn't really tell us what you want or intend to do; only that you are perhaps scared to do anything in case it has an adverse effect on this Request. There's no consistency, and vitally, no character to assess therein. Nothing more to say, I'm afraid. – B.hotep •talk• 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    In case this is TL;DR: 3 in 6 months, 3 weeks. – B.hotep •talk• 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I assume the candidate is trying again so soon for the reasons outlined in the answer to Q1; frustration at AIV backlogs, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Interesting armchair psychology! I'm hardly the guy to go to to be part of the admin club, my admin cape is at the cleaners being repaired for moth holes. I spend my time creating content, with very little glamour into the bargain. I could see Connormah associating with me and wanting to take articles to FAC, but becoming an admin to be part of my club? Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Then tell him that, W. Instead of urging him to re-RfA so soon. Come on, we're on the same page. – B.hotep •talk• 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I apologize if you'd assume that I;m avoiding contact - I've been a bit busy in the past few hours - I'll try to be active as much as I can for the following days, though. Connormah 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Due to the short time that has passed since the previous RfA, it appears that the user is far too keen to become an admin even though it is supposed to be no big deal. Should concentrate more on regular editing, and less on trying to impress people in the hope of passing an RfA. BigDom 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

18. Very Weak Oppose I'm sorry but 6 weeks is simply not enough. This nom shocked me when I saw it because it seemed like just yesterday when you ran for the second time. Just give it a few months and I'll support. It does not appear that you've really fixed all of the issues from RFA #2 in that short amount of time. Just the fact that you decided to run again so soon makes me question why you want the bit.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I have to agree with everything you've said. However, if the candidate is willing and able I don't see why not. But that's just my opinion. Tommy! [message] 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Wow. Having just read my oppose, I've found out that it's just full of some sentences that don't really fit well together. Sorry for that! In reply to Tommy, I understand but it seems like Connormah is just a bit too willing.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    How can one be "too willing" to help? Trust me, the one thing I've learned in my 4 months of adminship is that good help is hard to find! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'm more concerned about being not competent enough more so than "too willing." Net positive, I'd trust him. Tommy! [message] 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose Only 6 weeks since the last failed RfA. I might support you if you wait another 6 months to 1 year and you can do more articles (about 30 or more) and do more DYK articles, more FAs and more GAs. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's quite the list you got there!--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'd go further, and say that most editors who met that criterion would be lucky to get out of this bear pit alive. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    6 months to a year would be appropriate advice for a complete newbie or someone who'd lost the trust of the community. But for a candidate who 6 weeks ago almost passed RFA that advice looks rather odd. Especially when accompanied by a requirement for multiple FAs - if that became the standard we'd be lucky to get one new admin a month! ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps Connormah can also solve world hunger and settle the Israel/Palestine dispute while he's at it? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

    You have to wait more than 6 weeks between attempts at solving the Israel/Palestine dispute. Otherwise you look too eager to solve it and that's a bad thing. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not that I expect to change anybody's mind, but I'll say it anyway. When I passed RfA (~four months ago), it had been less than 6 months since my first shot, I had (and probably still have) created less than 30 new articles. The only criterion of December21st's I met was that I had a handful of recognised content. Connormah has 2 GAs as well as 2 DYKs (for expansion, and expanding an article fivefold is a lot harder than adding 1500 characters of prose to a blank space), an ITN, a lot of useful images. In addition to that, he knows what he's doing in the areas he wants to work in (like RfPP, where he's one of only a very small number of editors to make consistently useful non-admin comments). He knows RfPP etc better than many current admins and could only be a net positive if he were given a mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    And anyway, at least a third of every day's DYKs seem to be absolutely pants, so they're by no means an automatic badge of merit! - Pointillist (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Have you looked at Connormah's? I have. They are a bit short but they make the best use of the information he has, about obscure Canadian politicians. Let's face it. Connormah had an RfA six weeks ago, yes, it ended in the discretionary zone. There is nothing wrong with him trying again after having addressed significant areas of concern, in this case content contributions. Frankly, I believe that the opposes that do not speak to Connormah's qualifications to be not well made. As for the latest complaint, that Connormah, like Barkis, is willin', gee whiz so what? --Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Actually I already supported Connormah (at #30) and I've no problem with him re-taking the content part of the exam so quickly. I was just questioning an assumption which seems to be creeping in: that DYKs are in some way comparable to GA or FA contributions. I don't see how they can even be mentioned in the same breath and frankly I'd be more inclined to vote for someone who 5x improved an article but didn't try to hang a lame DYK hook on the result. On a totally unrelated note, did Mr Barkis express his willingness more than once? - Pointillist (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Been a while since I read David Copperfield but I think he says it about 4 times. I am hoping Connormah will not need to match that. I find DYK a fairly harmless pastime, I have 58, but I concur, they look for very limited things there and it in no way can be compared with GA (which very much depends on the reviewer) or FA (which is a strong, but idiosyncratic process).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose I dont know what the record is for most failed attempts but I am rooting for my little retarded trainspotting buddy to break it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.36.242 (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    IP !vote stricken. Airplaneman ✈ 01:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

20. I do not believe an editor could satisfactorily deal with all the issues in their last RfA within 6 weeks. The fact that you addressed my concern regarding the sourcing of fair use images a day before this RfA is also problematic, to say the least. I would've hoped that a candidate would take criticism on board immediately, and not a day before the next RfA started. And the fact is, you haven't even sourced all the images either. Sorry, but I do not believe it is acceptable for a candidate to address their concerns for the sole reason of passing an RfA (sorry to be blunt, but that's how it looks like to me). WP:NFCC is important. —Dark 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I agree NFCC is important. It also is difficult to understand, with the result that even experienced editors bring non-free images to even FAC and have them knocked out. Since Connormah works so much with images, it would be great if he became a NFCC expert, but I don't think it is required for admiship.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    So is Connormah supposed to sit and twiddle his thumbs between addressing the concerns of his last RfA until some arbitrary amount of time has passed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    That seems to be the feeling of the opposers who state no other reason than "too soon". The major strikes against Connormah last time were complaints of a lack of policy knowledge (which he has now shown) and a lack of content creation (which he has addressed). I respect the opposers, but their rationales seem far weaker than last time. To say "I will gladly vote from you six months from now for content creation today" seems peculiar. Especially since Con is nominated by a content contributor who very much has a dog in the fight of wanting admins with sufficient content contributions, and has said so in the past.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I knew I'd probably miss some, unfortunately. I'll address them shortly. Connormah 17:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Addressed. Thanks for noticing. Connormah 18:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    HJ Mitchell - I was not aware that my comment was solely based upon a generic time limit. I urge you to read my entire response, and not just the first sentence. —Dark 05:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

21. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    As the nominator, I'd like to be able to advise the candidate as to which areas he should gain more experience in. Can you tell me which he seems too inexperienced in?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe he could remove his userbox which says "This user believes that articles are useless without images". Failing that, he could click on random article a few hundred thousand times to see that wiki contains a wealth of very useful articles without images. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    That one was added when I first started my userpage - it'll probably get pushed back soon. I'll reword it however, though. Connormah 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's interesting, but I am still hoping the colonel can explain to me the areas in which Connormah is inexperienced, having to do with his qualifications as a admin. So I can guide him as his nominator, of course, though no doubt the closing crat will be interested too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Most of the candidate's edits seem to be less than a year old and the bulk of them seem to be minor busywork so my impression is that he lacks experience in most areas. As a specific recent example, I noticed Snow pea. In this edit, the candidate changes a picture and caption and it's not clear that this is a change for the better. No edit summary is provided nor is there any discussion on the talk page. The article still has a large improvement banner tag and is surprisingly neglected for a significant topic. What is he doing here and why? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

22. Weak oppose This is, without question, way too soon for another RfA. For me being an administrator isn't a big deal, but this push so soon makes this appear to be something that is a big deal to Connormah. He does good work, but I think DGG and Polargeo raise some good points. Take a couple of months, at least, before applying again should this fail. The wiki isn't falling apart, and will survive should you not become an administrator this summer. AniMate 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    I must say I agree with your "no big deal" statement and, indeed, the place won't crumble without one more administrator, but, I have to ask, if he has addressed all the concerns raised in a previous RfA, but that takes him very little time, why must he wait until some arbitrary amount of time has passed? That's a genuine question, I'm not just badgering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    You're badgering. Townlake (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    No he isn't. Aiken ♫ 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

23. oppose. No doubt that you are not a typical vandalfighter-sysopwannabee. You contribute real content. I wouldn't care too much about the sneaky nomination practically immediately after the failure: thirty opposes is a lot but not an overwhelming veto. But why do you have to confront every opposing voice? And do you realize that Wehwalt's too-evident support makes more harm than good? The way you handle the process is not a good sign. I see poor judgement and agression. No, thanks. East of Borschov 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    To be completely fair, it's much not me this time around - last time I made the mistake of responding to majority of the opposes. Connormah 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict):Not to badger, but I think Connormah has been responding to many of the opposes because he wants more feedback on how to improve. Airplaneman ✈ 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Whatever the reason, it might be better if he ceased doing it. - Pointillist (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

24. Oppose – "Final (88/30/11); ended 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)" ?? Surely an editor with a modicum of judgement would feel that attempt 3 is premature? (I see the average is slightly better at the moment, so perhaps attempt 4 or 5 in mid-October or so will succeed.) Occuli (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not to pick on you in particular, Occuli -- you just happen the the be latest Oppose vote at this time, and what I have to say applies to many if not most of the above Oppose comments -- but I call bullshit. Who gives a gosh darn if had a recent RfA? What has that got to do with his likely performance as an admin? I want to see oppose votes like "Oppose, because (optional: based an x and y and z), I think as admin he will do such-and-such bad things". If he will be too quick to block. If he will be too quick to delete CSD candidates without thinking. If he will protect articles in which he is involved in a content dispute. If he will inappropriately post deleted material. If he will screw up history merges. That sort of thing. Also acceptable would be "Oppose, lacks the maturity/people skills/deportment/whatever to hold a leadership position representing the Wikipedia to new editors and distinguished expert editors". But nobody is saying any of these things. It's like Ooooh his RfA is too soon. Hey, maybe he's got a photo on his user page and we can be like "Oppose, don't like his tie". People: there is a problem with the Oppose voters at RfA, and this has been discussed on the mailing list, and we are not promoting enough admins, and you need to chill and get with the program. The Wikipedia need you to stop being so negative. Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Weren't you an administrator once Herostratus? Perhaps an alternative argument might be that wikipedia needs fewer but better administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your "perhaps an alternative" argument works best if there is a distinct "vandalfighter" or "first aider" role, with the power to block unconfirmed users and/or semiprotect pages for a few hours. You can comment on this proposal here. - Pointillist (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    I am sympathetic to the proposal, but I recognise that it has no chance of being accepted, hence no point arguing over it. Administrators accrete power to themselves, they don't unbundle it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Such power. How long did you stay blocked last time someone blocked you, Malleus? Twelve minutes, I think? Doesn't say much for adminly power!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Do I have the power to block the incompetent administrators' whose blocks are almost immediately overturned? No I don't don't, hence that's power. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    You don't understand what power is, Malleus. You have power. You are a very accomplished editor. That gives you power. You are also sociable, and so you have a number of wikifriends that will come to your support. That is also power, as any gang leader could tell you. You have the power to say and do things that weaker people would be banned for. You are clever, and you do not doubt yourself. These attributes also give you power. You can get away with things that many admins could not. Are you not more powerful than them, then? What is power, Malleus? Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    If someone brings the same nom back to cfd within 6 weeks it is summarily sent packing, on the grounds that it has just been discussed. Why is this any different? This editor has just been discussed and found wanting ... why are we going over the same ground again so soon, without a decent interval for reflection and the onset of maturity, or for consensus on this editor's suitability to change? Occuli (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    It's a fair point, and touches on why I was willing to nom. We do not require an editor who lost an RfA narrowly, indeed, the crat easily could have gone the other way, to be treated the same as a NOTNOW. The concerns regarding Connormah were fairly narrow, and he's addressed them. They were not maturity concerns, or concerns because of blocks. Connormah's qualifications required mild enhancement; they did not require a six month wait so he could prove he would refrain from disqualifying behaviors, because that was not what his last RfA was all about. The community was free to reject the nomination, and it may yet do so. Connormah, though, has responded seriously to concerns, without whining, and then come back to the community and said "look at me again, what do you think"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

25. weak oppose I think on the balance it is more likely he will be a benifit rather than a negative. But quick re-RfA and lack of solid answers to questions (or any at all in some cases) lead me to have doubts about judgement and communication skills. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose per above, mainly with the RfA being premature. Plus, oppose badgering is annoying as hell. BLGM5 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I'll be overly fussy again, but a bit less severe: I !voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of the need for his own recent unreferenceed BLP stubs to set an example to others, and the fact that he promises to do everything right if he is promoted. I still say that admins should be a role model and a breezy six weeks down the line isn't enough to convince me of a change. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, and assume he is in the process of improving, and I move from oppose from last time to neutral this time. And please note that neutral is neutral - it's not a weak oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I share your concerns, but I asked the question above. I sure[think] we all sleep at some point, and I eagerly await Connormah's response. I'd suggest we hold off until we get an answer. There's plenty of time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Shad, I most certainly have not ignored your question, which is probably one of the most intelligent, pertinent, and poignant of the ones on this RfA. However, if simply deleting and redirecting unsourced articles is 'a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time' it does little to assuage my concerns: fantastic: imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality - Oxford American Dictionary. --Kudpung (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   While not 'fantastic', I do believe I've done a good job at cleaning up my articles created - most were created during the time where I had limited knowledge of certain guidelines, and I've cleaned that up. Connormah 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral I voted oppose the first time and neutral the second. I don't appreciate another RfA occuring so soon (the last one ending less than 6 weeks ago) so I am not inclined to spend time reviewing this user's contributions. That said I will not oppose on this. Polargeo (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Leaning oppose I supported last time. That is the only reason that I'm starting off neutral. A ridiculously short time has elapsed since the last nomination, and I see that as bad judgement on the nom's part. Equally I consider accepting it to suggest either bad judgement on the candidate's part, an attempt to benefit from the current RfA honeymoon without having had enough time to demonstrate improvement in the previous areas of concern, or a combination of these two things. --WFC-- 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Moving to oppose --WFC-- 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral, would not normally post a Neural, I really would like to see the answer to Q6 before making my mind up (hope that Connormah reads this and answers it) but want an opportunity to comment on the concerns about the "six weeks", normally I would agree that six weeks is not long enough, except in this case as the last one was so close I do think it is fine to ask again so soon. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Given answer to Q6, my !vote stays here then. Codf1977 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) On reflection moving to Oppose. Codf1977 (talk)

2. Neutral Six weeks is a short time. I'm not convinced that accepting a nomination so early after the last one was the best decision. Almost over-eager, to me, but I suppose that's up to opinion. I'm not trying to bash the nominator's judgment either, but I think that six weeks can't possibly mean everything has been fixed, and lessons fully learned. —fetch·comms 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I voted neutral less than six weeks ago; I'm voting neutral again. Six weeks is simply not enough time for any meaningful improvements to occur. moving to support--Hokeman (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral, will support if Q6 is answered satisfactorily. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral (from Oppose in #2). Because on the one hand it seems unfair to oppose due to the candidate being eager to improve and stand for adminiship again. Still, it almost feels like yesterday that the candidate ran last time. I like Connormah's honest and straightforward stance on blocking and the warning system. His somewhat diffident approach to deletion and questions regarding deletion, not so much. decltype (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral I think there are quality arguments to oppose and support here, but this is a quality editor and I hope they don't become disheartened from this process. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral I voted support the last time around, but would have preferred this candidate wait a bit longer to reapply. That said, I think he's capable and has shown a desire to improve on the areas where he was found wanting the last go-round. I'd support if he reapplied in a few months, and kept up the good work. Right now I can't bring myself to support nor oppose. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning oppose. Plus, opposes are weak imo. Minus, quickly RFA since previous one. Minus, why so much emailing? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Some convincing opposes. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:50, 2 September 2010 (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.