Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fetchcomms Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fetchcomms

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

Final (126/0/2); ended 06:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) - MBisanz ^talk 06:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Fetchcomms (talk · contribs) – I am happily putting forward Fetchcomms forward for the mop. Fetchcomms has been with us since the beginning of last October, making 27,000 contributions, half of which to unique pages. Active in the mainspace, Fetchcomms has 14 Did you know? hooks and two good articles this one and this one. Fetchcomms is also active in the various activities of maintaining the article space with reverting vandalism, correcting mechanics, referencing, etc. In addition to the article space work, Fetchcomms is an extraordinary helper for new and learning Wikipedians, dealing with real-time assistance in #wikipedia-en-help and responding to helpme requests on-site as well as familiarity with the appropriate noticeboards and interaction with administrators.

Fetchcomms is trusted with rollback, account creator, and reviewer. Let's just bundle it up into sysop. Keegan (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've known this user for a long time, and think that he is an excellent candidate. He has helped me with lots of things; recently, for example, with tricky templates for restructuring WP:FEED, which has greatly improved that process. He was thorough, independent, well-reasoned and constructive in the GAR for William Windsor (goat). He's helped many, many new users to learn the ropes. Most importantly, Fetchcomms knows when to ask for help.  Chzz  ►  02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Ja. —fetch·comms 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: Helping clear out Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Proposed deletion, various backlogs involving files (such as Category:Wikipedia files requiring renaming, Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons, etc.), helping out at AIV and UAA, and dealing with {{editprotected}} requests. In addition, having the tools would be a great benefit when helping new users on IRC (just ask Chzz), as one may need to RevDelete certain edits, view/undelete deleted pages, etc. when requested.

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

A: Clinton Presidential Center, which I raised from a short blurb to a GA-class article back in January, was my first major content contribution, and I was happy with the way it turned out—learning parts of the MOS and understanding how GAN works, especially (though the writing itself was also a good experience). Also, my work with Articles for creation, where I also am able to help new users and create solid new articles, and where I feel that experienced and new users are able to work together to add to the project. Lastly, my work on IRC with #wikipedia-en-help, which was hands-down the place where I both learned the most from others and taught the most to users seeking help.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can't recall any major conflicts, but in a dispute, I find it best to apply common sense, a cluebat (if necessary), and some tea. I don't think that arguing helps Wikipedia, but rather distracts from our goal of writing an encyclopedia, and usually, talking something out calmly generally resolves the issue. A few editors have indeed caused me stress since I became an active user, but I feel that dealing with them is generally the same—common sense to discuss the issues at hand, a cluebat if something needs to be understood after repeated warnings, and a nice cup of tea to talk it out together.

Additional optional question from Lear's Fool

4. Most of your earliest contributions are to your own userspace. Did you contribute to Wikipedia before registering an account?

A: I did make several edits as an IP (no idea which one/s) and a few as User:Fetchcomms2, which I registered after not realizing I had made this account and unsuccessfully testing some passwords for it (but I did later find an old password that worked, so I had created this account), but none much other than that. I made a lot of userspace edits at first because I didn't understand the point of Wikipedia back then--I thought it was a place to have your own fancy page and nobody would care. Obviously, I now know that's not the case, and I think my non-userspace contributions have shown that. I think I realized in October or November that spending time on just my userpage was helpful in that I learned some basic Wikicode, but no more than an early distraction otherwise. —fetch·comms 13:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from wiooiw

5. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A: Socks of banned users, persistent vandals, or other LTA users; vandalbots or unapproved bots; users making death threats or outing other users; open proxies, obviously compromised accounts or accounts of confirmed-to-be-deceased users; grossly inappropriate usernames and SPA-spam accounts. —fetch·comms 13:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Shawn in Montreal

6. Could you comment on your CSD work when you were in your early days here? Looking back, do you feel there were times when you used the wrong tag, or nominated articles for speedy deletion when that was not the best course?

A: Oh, I was certainly overzealous in my early CSD work, as many new users are. However, my opinion on CSD is that A7 should be used sparingly (for something like "Jamie is 8 and shes cute", sure, but letting anything that may be notable stick around for a bit rather than tagging it immediately for A7 is a good idea, excepting unsourced BLPs or anything that falls under other CSD criterion; I have also learned about various inherently notable items since I started and not tagged those any longer). I'm not sure exactly what other tags are often "misused", although perhaps A1 and G1 are misunderstood fairly commonly, but I don't think I've had an issue with those. Some articles I mistagged were early on, which you may find at User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 1 (I probably replied to concerns on other users' talk pages back then), but I see Mystery Case Files: Huntsville (software is non-CSDable), Help with algebra (there was no A10 back then), Civilians operating against an occupying power which I PRODed rather than CSDing, authonomy, which I A7ed immediately rather than realizing it was sourced and notable and then caused a bit of an uproar here. So the concise anwer is, I was too fast back then and I mistagged quite a few articles, but as HJ mentions below, I think I've certainly improved since the beginning of this year. Most of my current CSDing is with files or items associated with AFC. —fetch·comms 21:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Suomi Finland 2009

7. Is there a reasonable explanation why you are IP-block exempt? I thought that was for people who share computers or have friends who are socks? If I misunderstood, please educate me.

A: I work in the Account Creation Team, and my day computer is on a large network with one IP address, which has account creation blocked. —fetch·comms 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Iridescent admonished me for having only 34% of edits as articlespace. He told me to work on articles more like he and Malleus Fac. do. He points to a 60% article edits as desired. Yet yours, at 28%, is even worse than mine see [1] Do you agree with that assessment or feel that a 28% article-space is ok. Note that I am not criticizing you for 28% but have apologized to Iridescent and promise to increase my 34% article space to a higher number.

A: I have nearly 7,000 mainspace edits, while you have about 1,000. The percentages obviously differ because I work in other areas than you—projectspace and project talk for WP:AFC, and some file work. I also have many talk page, portal, and template edits. It's not fair to compare these percentages as we work separately and I have far more edits to analyze. —fetch·comms 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

9. Apocalyptica is short one member. Are you good enough, and would you be interested?

A: I can play neither cello nor percussion, nor speak Finnish, so no and no. —fetch·comms 21:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Pilif12p

10. An IP makes a legal threat to you and WMF. What would you do in such situation?

A: If it is a blatant, incontestable legal threat, I would block the user and leave a message explaining the proper procedures for dispute resolution, our policy on legal threats, and how to properly pursue the matter if they so wish and if the issue is one that would actually require legal action. If this threat was not blatant, I would make sure that I was not simply misunderstanding them first and then direct them to dispute resolution, rather than blocking quickly. —fetch·comms 19:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from My76Strat

11. Assumption of good faith is an immeasurably important trait for all Wikipedins. It is undoubtedly that much more so in the case of your next appointment. Please tell your opinion in this regard and how it might govern your future activities?

A: This is a bit broad, but I don't think AGF differs if you are an administrator or a new user, simply because it applies to each and every user. Other than that, I have views somewhat similar to WP:CIR. AGF and help users whenever I have the opportunity, but there is always a point when AGF cannot be applied if the user in question is simply hurting the project without learning that they are in the wrong. It always annoys me when someone cites AGF incorrectly; if you do the same thing wrong after being warned multiple times, it is not my fault for warning you again and not assuming good faith; it is your fault for not heeding the prior warnings. —fetch·comms 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nexus of my question was spawned by the manner of handling for the deleted article Kraegen. Particularly that it was labeled as a blatant hoax which is akin to vandalism. Secondly that my own comments on the articles talk-page pleaded to consider the less antagonistic CSD-A7. And lastly that this is a recent action which reflects your current enlightened point of view. Congratulations on your nomination. My76Strat (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Iridescent

12. You say above that you "can't recall any major conflicts"; explain in your own words what happened between you and User:Sjc which ultimately led to his resignation from Wikipedia (documented on strategy-wiki here).

A: This is news to me, actually. The incident, which I touched upon in Shawn's question, was me rashly and incorrectly CSDing authonomy. Philippe notified me of a thread on meta or strategy about this, but I was still new at the time and didn't really understand the gravity of the situation. I was never aware that Sjc had retired because of this (and something about "petty bureaucrats"?), as I did not pay attention to Strategywiki back then. I would not call it a true conflict, but me making a bad decision that pushed Sjc over the edge. I only wish I could have participated in the discussion over there, but I understand that feeling of hopelessness with new users CSDing without thought now. That's one reason patrolling already-tagged pages is a better learning opportunity for taggers than tagging them yourself may be. —fetch·comms 13:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from True Pagan Warrior

13. In light of the failure of WP:CDA and the recently closed optional reconfirmation attempt, what do you think set term limits for admins? Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Admins who have voluntarily agreed to a set term limit?

A: I would support a removal of adminship for inactivity over a set term limit. There is no reason to take away the tools from someone who is using them well and benefitting the project just because they have had them for a certain period of time. However, like it is done on Commons and other wikis, any sysop not actively editing does not have a real need for the tools and keeping them only increases the possibility of a compromised admin account, so I would be more in favor of removing adminship from inactive users. I will not place myself in that (inexistent) category, but I will open myself up to recall. —fetch·comms 13:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from BigDom

14. A user asks you a strange and frankly pointless question at an RfA. Do you answer it?

A: Generally, yes, because I think they have their reasons for asking and that they should get an honest answer. The exception would be anything I don't feel comfortable answering if it involves others' and/or my private information. —fetch·comms 18:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from MuZemike

15. User:Charlie Horse has been indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption. About 1 week later, User:Hush Puppy appears and exhibits the very similar patterns of disruption as Charlie Horse. In a CheckUser request, the results come back  Possible between the two accounts. Would you still issue a block to Hush Puppy and for what reason? –MuZemike 01:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Well, a "possible" on the CU isn't the best reason the block someone for, but if the behavioral evidence and editing patterns are very close (they do the same things on similar pages, etc.), I would imagine blocking Hush Puppy as a duck sock. I'm not sure what type of blatant disruption this is exactly, but my interpretation of it would be bad enough that I wouldn't have bothered filing a CU, just blocking for continuing disruption. My likely block reason would be "disruption, possible sock of Charlie Horse", and I'd give them an indef (assuming the trolling was as much as what landed Charlie Horse the first block). As a related note, I don't plan to work in SPI. —fetch·comms 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question

16. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? 142.244.151.247 (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: I don't really know. I'm guessing somewhere OVER 9000!!! pieces of wood. —fetch·comms 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Nsk92

17. Do you use IRC to discuss Wikipedia matters and, if yes, why?

A: "Wikipedia matters" is quite broad, but in short, I do indeed. I am generally in only three Wikipedia channels: #wikipedia-en-help, for helping new users and requesting quick admin (or sometimes oversight) assistance, #wikipedia-en-accounts, for ACC discussion with others involved in that area, and #wikipedia-en-afc, which used to be for AfC administration and helping some users as well, but is now just for discussing AfC submissions. I've found that IRC is quite useful for discussing various matters, such as ACC, that can't be handled onwiki because that would be too slow, as well as helping new users more effectively for similar reasons. I think that the main downfall of IRC with Wikipedia is the potential for bad "secret" decisions to be made, but I also think that, as long as any important changes onwiki affected by IRC are documented onwiki, IRC is a very useful tool. —fetch·comms 19:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Edit stats posted on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong support, per reasoning in my co-nom. Chzz  ►  03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Totalmente a favor, I have interacted with this user, totally deserves it. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes! A thousand times yes! I think Fetchcomms would be a perfect sysop, andI actually thought he was one up until a little while ago... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Yah. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support based on contributions here and positive interactions at other wikis. User has my full support. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sure--RegentsPark (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Our paths have crossed both here and on other wikis; I've nothing but respect for Fetchcomms. C628 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Stephen 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. (edit conflict)Super Support—Yes! Airplaneman ✈ 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - Easy. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support without hesitation :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 03:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oh, hell yes. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Very good candidate; essentially acting as an admin already. I first came across Fetchcomms when he or she did a very helpful editor review for me (at the time I was very much a new user). From that experience I'm confident Fetchcomms will not only be a technically competent admin, but a helpful admin.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Yes, definitely. Tiderolls 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support - Excellent candidate and I'm happy to support. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 04:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong support Definitely, I've known Fetchcomms through IRC and I know that he will be able to handle the tools well. BejinhanTalk 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Absolutely no reason to oppose adminship. Fetchomms would be a good admin on WP. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Strong 'would have happily co-nominated' Support I thought that I'd quickly check Wikipedia before I went off and did other things (life is hectic at the moment!) - and saw this RfA. I'm glad that I did, as I have no hesitation in supporting Fetchcomms -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. —Dark 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong support- yesyesyesyesyes. Most definitely. sonia^♫♪ 05:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, no reservations. -Reconsider! 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strongest possible support. I don't normally give that twice in just a few weeks, but I've seen Fetchcomms doing brilliant work, well, just about everywhere! If admisnhip was a trophy, I could think of nobody more deserving. It's not, of course, but I could think of nobody more qualified to wield the mop nor who would do a better job. His work, particularly at AfC and in answering {{helpme}} requests, is exemplary and from my occasional work at the latter, I know how helpful it can be to view deleted edits. I have no doubt that Fetchcomms will make an excellent administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. I've seen him at work, and he's very helpful. No reason not to give him the mop. Shimeru 09:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. I like easy decisions, and they don't come much easier than this :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Clichéd support: "aren't they an admin already?" Is this another reconfirmation RfA, or have I not been paying attention to pop-ups again? And noting that Fetchcomms's contribs are wide-ranging, comprehensive, helpful and welcoming. TFOWR 09:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Super Support - It would be truly an honor to have Fetchcomms as an admin, he is very helpful and trustworthy. Dwayne was here! ♫ 12:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Fetch him the mop already. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support No reasons given not to. Aiken ♫ 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - good contributions, tons of clue, and very helpful based on my previous interactions with him. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Very super ultra strongest support ever - I wished this happened a few months ago. I waited, and waited, and waited, and now this moment is finally here! Fetchcomms would without a doubt make a great sysop. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐ • ✍) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. support- trusted user.  – td2010 [message] 13:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong support An experienced user who is very active in vandalism-fighting but also has created some content (at least 20 articles). Immunize _{Contact me} Contributions 13:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support An absolute yes. Fetchcomms has been a very helpful user and helped me out once (in this discussion). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Keegan (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. I see a goodly amount of reasonableness from the candidate, and it seems clear that adminship in this case will be a net positive to the project. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I have seen this users work in the past and feel that this user is responsible and can be trusted with the mop. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support – Nice article contributions, and the answers to the questions were reasonable. I trust Fetchcomms with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support I'm not sure why I'm constantly surprised when I find someone I though was an admin already at RfA. He seemed like one, with his experience in the Wikipedia-ways. Brambleclawx 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Spport. I can't think of anything why he shouldn't be an admin. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Umm... Hell yeah!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Seems like we can trust this guy, as he has made 27,000 edits, in addition to possessing rollback, account creator, and reviewer status. We need somebody who seems to apply common sense to arguments, can clear out backlogs, and create GA-class articles. Coasterlover1994 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support No negatives that I can see, lots of positives, though. —DoRD (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support I have had my fair share of interaction with Fetchcomms, and he certainly knows how to use good judgment and how to be civil. Support all the way. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. SupportWill make a good admin.--Forty two^{What colour is the bikeshed?} 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - I can find no reasons, including gut feeling, for not supporting this candidate.--Kudpung (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Clueful, reasonable, mature, and civil. Absolutely. ceranthor 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Checks out with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Appears to be clueful and unlikely to misuse the mop. Well-rounded, also. Best wishes! Jusdafax 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Excellent contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Absolutely. He would make an excellent admin. 95j (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support For sure. He's got what it takes. ^GB86 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Absolutely!  7  05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Strongest possible support Always liked this user as he welcomed to me to Wikipedia, and since then has always been helpful and civil whenever I had a question or needed help. Has always shown good judgement and commitment to the project.Acather96 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support without hesitation. I've witnessed how productive Fetchcomms can be and giving him the tools will greatly benefit Wikipedia. -- œ^™ 09:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - From the discussion against, and neutral concerns, either those "concerns" seem like a plus to me or I have yet to have a response that makes me question a support. Shadowjams (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is more appropriate to keep opinions solely to the candidate. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, but both of our opinions are well represented. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

59. Support - I've seen nothing but good things from Fetchcomms.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 14:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Pretty sure he won't delete the main page. Now seriously, I have known this user most of the months he has been on, he is a good user and knows his way around. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 15:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support One of the easiest !votes for me. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:51, 21 Tamuz 5770 / 3 July 2010 (UTC)
62. Support I'm sure he'll make a great admin. - EdoDodo ^talk 19:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support no concerns here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Why Not- A good reason for almost anything. Mr. R00t ^Talk 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I thought he was one. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Certainly- why not indeed? Everything I have seen fro this user has been uniformly positive. Reyk _YO! 01:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Looks like an excellent candidate. Jarkeld (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Will be an even bigger asset to the encyclopedia. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support I was honestly just going to look to see if he already was one, and if he wasn't, I was going to nominate him myself. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - Strong candidate, answers are well thought out, do not see any reason to think they will be anything other than a net positive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Strong Support - seen this user around all over the place, is trusted with lots of user privaliges, and has done an incredible quantity of useful work since he joined in October. OrphanWiki 11:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support I see no issues that would cause me to be neutral, let alone oppose. A fine user, who can be trusted with the extra tools. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support FC is one of the most committed Wikipedians that I've seen in a long time. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 13:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Congratulations and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support (from neutral). My concerns have been directly dealt with below. I would still like to see a little bit more care regarding AfDs, but Fetchcomm's obvious concern for the role of consensus in the deletion process is more than enough to counter that.  -- Lear's Fool 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support My dealings with Fetchcomms have manifest a staunch supporter of Wikipedia, an experience level which reflects competence, and a genuine fairness which is apparent to even those on opposing sides. Certinely these bundle into an appropiatly qualified candidate. My76Strat (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Definitely, good candidate. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Independence Day!} 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support I completely trust this user with the bit. Swarm^Talk 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support In the words of Churchill 'Oh yes' :) (Seriosly though only good things ive seen, well respected and definately ready) Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Absolutely. Plutonium27 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. ActivExpression^Talk_Guestbook 04:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support My review of contributions found predominantly dedicated, excellent work. The only small concerns were the 'Joy and Tom Studios' Afd, discussed below, and just a slight feeling that very occasionally a response to a newish user could be "short" enough to seem a little too "bitey". Not enough to prevent a Support vote, though. - Begoon (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm usually just a brief person ;) —fetch·comms 13:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah - I gathered that from your contribs in general - that's why it was only a very minor concern - I'm probably too verbose sometimes myself - so it takes all kinds to make a balance :) - Begoon (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

83. Support—from everything I've seen, this user will make an excellent administrator. –Grondemar 14:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. Good editor, no problems here. BigDom 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong Support. No concerns whatsoever. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - No apparent reason not to. Good work clearing backlogs, and writing a GA. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. I've seen good work, and I do not see any problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. The canditate is ready for the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support Seems capable...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. —mono 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support Clearly trustworthy. Steven Walling 00:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92. Very Weak Support (I was going to ask why User:Fetchcomms2 was blocked, but then I realized that I had blocked the account myself … O_O) I don't think there's any reason why Fetchcomms will turn out to be a bad admin; his contributions are wide-ranging and decent. I'm hesitant based on my past interactions with this user over IRC. I understand that IRC ≠ Wikipedia, but the IRC side is really all I know of him, aside from the few occasional discussions we have had together on-wiki. He has a tendency to act a little immature, and sometimes I get the feeling he does things without thinking them through or realizing the repercussions. For example, I notice how he often geolocates other users when their IPs are revealed. He will do this sort of thing to unidentified users requesting help in-channel, as well as someone like myself. This behavior is a little frightening, considering the user doing it will be trusted with a certain amount of private information as an admin. In the #wikipedia-en-afc ^connect channel, where I am a co-founder, he would sometimes act very inappropriate, once or twice causing me to quiet/ban him for a short time. This behavior has mostly ceased, and it was only prevalent when he first got active on Wikipedia, so he is much better now. Again, this has very little to do with on-wiki issues; on-wiki he is a fine user, which is why I am not going to let my concerns about his attitude on IRC affect my decision strongly. In short, I feel he would be fine as an administrator, which is what we're here to decide, isn't it? — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't geolocate random users looking for help unless it is pertinent to their help request... and you've disclosed your location several times to the channel. I've been entrusted with private information working with ACC already, and I certainly have not misused my access there. As you said, IRC != Wikipedia, and I may act "immature" sometimes, but it's done in good humour, and you've acted similarly as well :| —fetch·comms 02:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Always be careful with tu quoque. In most cases, it backfires. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant the last bit jokingly, referring to something on IRC the day before >.> —fetch·comms 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that might be part of the concerns raised. Many members of this project do not frequent the IRC channel or do so only very infrequently (like myself). As such, most people won't be able to "get" such jokes and might take offense, see your behavior as problematic etc. - even if you had no intention that it be considered this way - thus leading to concerns about your behavior. Regards SoWhy 10:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

93. I concur with Earwig, as a fellow member of AFC and one who shares the same long-term experience with Fetchcomms (e.g., I participated in most of those channel quiets, kicks, etc.). He handles himself on-wiki well, which is what this discussion is concerned with. Fetchcomms has greatly grown in maturity over the time I have had the pleasure of knowing him. Also, I ask that other editors empathize with NuclearWarfare's position. He most likely shares the same concerns. Sincerely, Blurpeace 02:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Off-wiki_activities. —mono 17:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He is supporting because of onwiki behavior, not IRC, and there's no harm in just noting that. —fetch·comms 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't blindly link to reading material (i.e., assume clue). I am fully aware of the existence of that page. There's a reason why it isn't an official guideline. And yes, I found that a little offensive. Sincerely, Blurpeace 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

94. Strong Support - Fetchcomms and myself have had our moments, in IRC, ACC and AfC but he has always showed insight and clue. Fetch it's about time.. Mlpearc powwow 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
95. Strong SupportSumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 03:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support – everything looks good in my view. –MuZemike 04:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Minor concerns were raised but they seem to have been addressed successfully. Regards SoWhy 09:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Seen Fetchcomm's contribs. Makes an admin for me. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
99. Full Support Entirely friendly candidate, good answer to the questions, particularly Q5. Minimac (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support. Been seen around, looks like a good one for the mop to me.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support He's been doing a good job. JDDJS (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
103. Strong Support Great job on-wiki and on the account creation tool. Willking1979 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
105. Yes. - looks good. Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support being generally helpful especially on WP:FFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - it's a yes for me. A hard working person  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
108. Per previous positive interaction. Has a good knowledge of how stuff works.  f o x  08:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Yes, give him the mop. --Leyo 13:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support, I have seen some good quality content work, and admirable demeanor in multiple capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
112. Mega support I tried nominating Fetchcomms myself a little while ago, but he was to busy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
113. Certainly. No alarms here. GedUK  21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Known Fetchy since he became regularly active again this past year. I've seen him help out a number of new members, as well as produce good DYKs and more recently a GA. No concerns.  IShadowed  ✰  21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support, in spite of the fact that he gave a wrong answer to question 16. The correct answer is of course, he'd chuck the wood as much as he could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood. Seriously though, Fetchcomms is a valuable contributor and I trust him with the tools. AJCham 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support per answers to questions and previous reasons. -- Jack?! 22:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support without a doubt. —I-20the highway 00:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
118. Ad quod damnum delirious et lost ☯ ^{~sermo preconor~} 02:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support: pretty much everything I've seen of this user has been impressive. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
120. SUPER Support He has a good clean track record, is a tireless and keen contributor and the mop would aid his work greatly. Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 09:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
121. Strong Support. Very impressive editor, definitely deserves the tools. The Utahraptor ^Talk 15:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
122. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Yesh! (No typo either). Will do great job as an admin. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Have worked with Fetchcomms with WP:FEED cleanup.--SPhilbrickT 01:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
126.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Fetchcomms. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am just getting kind of an uneasy feeling. I can't really substantiate it with anything at this point, but I do not believe that Fetchcomms is ready for adminship at this time. Sorry, NW (Talk) 10:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like a feeling that this was setup, or? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. Unless I'm missing some inside language only spoken on IRC, you clearly have some reason for your concern. At least provide some clue of a justification for the rest of us. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't badger him please. —Dark 01:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badger who? One person asking for an actual reason is hardly badgering. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the asking, but the method of asking. Everyone is entitled to their opinion in these discussions or question the opinions of others within the bounds of civility, but ultimately it's the role of the bureaucrat to determine whether the opinion is valid or invalid when it comes to RFAs. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless an actual reason is stated, this is the sort of vote that should be disregarded. Don't trash other people's reputations without some evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig highlights a couple of the reasons why I was concerned at first. I can't really substantiate more than that, but I didn't want to solely base my oppose rationale off of IRC experiences and figured it would be better to keep it vague. But I guess I was wrong; that ended up causing more drama. This vote can be indented, as I can't really find anything onwiki to substantiate my feeling of unease. Best of luck as an administrator, Fetchcomms. NW (Talk) 03:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. When the candidate was in his early days with the project I felt his CSD work was hasty and sloppy in some cases, and told him as much. It was all amicable and I'm sure things have improved dramatically since then. We all can make mistakes at the beginning. However, before supporting I would like to get a better sense of how his CSD work has been lately, particularly in regards to using the right tag for the job, and not resorting to CSD unnecessarily. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I supported, so I could be considered to have a COI, but I had a look through his last 300 deleted edits just to answer your question. Those 300 go back to the start of May and are mostly in the file namespace- lots of orphaned non-free images, a fair few F11s (no evidence of permission), a handful of copyvios (F9). Other than that, there were a few G11s (spam) and a couple of A7s. Although I largely avoid speedy deletion, all tags seem fine to me and almost all appear to have been deleted under the same criterion they were tagged. The only one that raised an eyebrow was a {{db-band}} the probably should have been a {{db-bio}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Db-band is fine for individual musicians (the tag says "a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble"). But if you're talking about the article I think you are, the issue might be the A7 tagging when it really should have been tagged as a hoax. The subject "was a member of The Supremes between Lynda Laurence's departure and just before Cindy Birdsong rejoined... [Her solo album in 1968] was critically acclaimed... [Later,] she became pregnant with sextuplets with a Chinese man." That article's author created other hoax biographical articles and was eventually blocked. Anyway, I looked over some other of Fetchcomms' CSD tags in the past couple of months and agree with you that they seemed fine. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sure his recent work has all been just fine. However, I would still like to hear his appraisal of what I saw from him very early on before deciding on whether to support. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm a stickler for correct tagging, but as long as an editor has learned from their mistakes, I can't see any reason to hold the learning curve against them. I don't do many speedy deletions any more, but I declined many incorrect taggings under my old username. —DoRD (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not. And I may still !vote to support. I just want to hear what the candidate has to say about it, with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think that's asking too much. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope my answer above was satisfactory; if not, ask whatever more you wish. —fetch·comms 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral moved to support 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC) - Fetchcomms is clearly a great asset to the project, and I'm sure he'll make a great sysop (whether in 5 days or later). However, I find some of his recent AfD nominations a little concerning for a candidate who wants to work in deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narayangad and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kandyan jewelry (among others), were nominated for deletion where Fetchcomms acknowledged in his nomination that they should probably be redirects. In these cases, simply being bold and creating the redirect without a discussion would probably have been more appropriate. Williams Murray Hamm was nominated for deletion last month when a Google News search would have revealed quite a bit of coverage. I wouldn't have a problem with this if his nomination statement had indicated that Fetchcomms had performed this search and found it unconvincing, but the nom was simply "I cannot find significant coverage for this firm", when a Google News search would have discovered plenty.
   To be honest, I would probably be able to overlook those nominations, if it weren't for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy and Tom Studios (last month), where a reasonably well-referenced article was nominated with the a nomination statement: "129 hits on Bing", which is neither a reason for deletion nor a helpful statement of the nominator's position.
   These AfD nominations make me uneasy, especially if Fetchcomms intends to be dealing with prods, where the closing admin is often the only person who reviews the initial tagging. This is not to say I'm not open to being convinced, but as it stands, I am not comfortable supporting.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't plan to work much in closing AfDs, though I may decide to do so later. I've just never had too much of an interest in closing them, I guess. For the first two nominations, I felt that more input was needed before I just merged the pages together—and I was disagreed with on both, so the consensus was against my opinion, which means something did come out of it. A BOLD decision may have been the right move then, but the result certainly wasn't what others would have wanted. I would have preferred to discuss a possible merge on the talk page, but neither of the pages were particularly popular, per se, and I think that an AfD would have been appropriate for at least the jewelry page, which needed a complete rewrite and may as well have been deleted first. For the firm article, I saw very little coverage from a regular google search and a new search, which came up with largely PR text. However, I admit that I did not really bother checking the archive search, and incorrectly assumed that what I had seen already was all that there would be. And for the last, I was trying to be brief, because even though there is no deadline, Google was not working for me (they were testing some beta thing, I suppose, and the search hits would not appear for several days, forcing me to use the dreaded Bing), and my computer was having issues, so I was trying to keep it alive while finishing a nom. Later, I did help the author of the article on IRC and give him or her suggestions on where everything was cited, and the article was kept, so I think it did end well. But even for PRODs, things are easily undeleted and I am always willing to help new users with a userspace draft. Often, though, PRODs are indisputable, and those that are incorrectly tagged are easily declined. —fetch·comms 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I understand where you're coming from regarding the first two AfDs. I still think a bold redirect could potentially have prevented the need for an AfD, but I respect your effort to establish consensus. What worries me about the Joy and Tom Studios nomination is less the nom statement (which I think you acknowledge was probably not the best) but more the fact that it already had (for example) well referenced statments about industry awards the firm had won, and sufficent references to satisfy the general notability guideline. It looked, to me at least, like an article that pretty clearly indicated its notability, and yet it was sent to AfD. I understand you're not intending to close AfDs in the near future, but had this been prodded, and you were the closing admin, we would now have one less solidly referenced article about a notable organisation.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, I would have declined a PROD on the last one. I don't think any article with several good references should be deleted without discussion, and I was unable to see the level of coverage in print sources, so I certainly would not have deleted it that quickly. As I mentioned, the author of the article later contacted me on IRC, and I realized that the reason I thought a lot of it was unsourced or poorly sourced was because they had not known to use a source more than once if referenced in different paragraphs, so the claims of notability were much better supported than I had first thought. —fetch·comms 12:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral - I've worked with him over at AFC and know he can be trusted. But he doesn't meet my admin criteria so I can't support. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   10,000+ non-automated edits is part of your criteria. Most successful RFA candidates have many fewer edits. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately, fetchcomms has not been active for two or more years, though :( Airplaneman ✈ 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Kraftlos actually has quite an interesting explanation of his criteria- I don't necessarily agree with them, but they're not something he's just plucked out of thin air. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks HJ Mitchell! Anyway, in the case where they meet most the criteria and I know their work, I'm not going to oppose. Especially when you rack up that many edits in one year. That said, I still think an admin needs two years. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't agree with Kraftlo's criteria either, but he's entitled to his opinion and this one's going to pass anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.