Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ILovePlankton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pete.Hurd (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 31 May 2006 (→[[User:ILovePlankton|ILovePlankton]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ILovePlankton

Discuss here (27/10/4) ending 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

ILovePlankton (talk · contribs) – ILovePlankton has been here since Valentine's Day 3 and a half months ago, and he already racked up 4200 edits. Article wise he is interested in science fiction, and is a member of Wikiproject star wars, star wars collaboration of the week, and has helped with the science collaboration of the week. He's done about 2500 edits maintaining the articles of wikipedia. What's stuck out the most to me though is how friendly ILP is. He is always a friendly face in IRC and a kind person in general. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I very humbly accept. ILovePlankton ( L) 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First support... <_< Redwolf24 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redwolf24, you're a...... you're a....... you're a..... oh ok. I'll say it. You're a cheater! I still beat you! nobody take this as a personal attack, or incivility, because it's not. It is harmless fun. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. zOMG first second person to support (sorry ;-) -Red) Support. Seriously, ILP is an excellent editor, excellent interpersonal skills, I'm honoured to support him. — Nathan (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn dirty such-and-such *mutters under his breath* ;) — Nathan (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Friendly user, balanced edits; I see no problems. However, I am bothered by the candidate's crunchiness when he is consumed as sustenance; makes for some unpleasent stomach pains... Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 01:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support before nom support! --GeorgeMoney T·C 01:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. support as per above. Whopper 01:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support Where (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support per above. G.He 02:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support per GeorgeMoney. FellowWikipedian 02:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support per everyone! --digital_me(t/c) 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support I've seen this user around alot, very active, will be a great admin. -- Shizane talkcontribs 02:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support Meets my critera, plus, excellent and friendly user. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Weak Support Tempted-to Oppose Though I really think he's a good user and could be an amdin. ForestH2 03:03, May 31 2006 (UTC)
    If I may ask, could you please elaborate, so that I know for myself if I'm making any mistakes that I could correct? ILovePlankton ( L) 03:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, super-friendly user! -- DakPowers (Talk) 03:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. Mostly Rainy 03:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Merovingian {T C @} 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support will be a great asset. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, you show great enthusiasm. Royboycrashfan 03:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. ILovePlankton ( L) 03:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I love ILovePlankton. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Great editor. Will make a good admin. DarthVader 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support Would make a fantastic admin, kind, helpful, good editor, I can't say enough! Sergeant Snopake 11:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Is friendly editor, no doubt about it. Will make great admin. - Tangotango 12:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Super Strong Support A very kind user, know his way round wikipedia, would make a good admin. The Halo (talk)
  23. Strong Support, friendly, helpful, kind and a great user. My interactions on IRC have been always great, I'm very sure he will make a great admin. --Terence Ong 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Moderate Support From my interactions with ILP, I have determined that he will not abuse his tools and therefore there is no reason for him not to have them. However, he hasn't been here very long, so I hope his knowledge of policy is indeed good enough. --Xyrael T 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support!!! Give em' the mop already!! --Mahogany 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. No doubts for me. RadioKirk talk to me 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong oppose - User_talk:ILovePlankton#User:ILovePlankton.2FMy_loyalties_to_my_friends; fails my criteria re. project edits. NSLE (T+C) at 02:21 UTC (2006-05-31)
    I'm just wondering why did you put the link there (You do know that me and tony settled it on his talk, right?)? ILovePlankton ( L) 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is how a person's edit count is broken down really a good indication of whether a person would be a good admin? Where (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. He removed everything that could possibly be seen as breaking policy. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Committee for Replying to Oppose Votes in the Hope that They will Change has done a great job on this one. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AGF. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All of you, chill the hell out. We all have the right to decide the way we want to "vote". Low project-total ratio = fails my criteria because doesn't show enough knowledge of process. User who at one time not too long ago (less than a month) claimed that he'd go to the extent of getting banned for his friends CANNOT be trusted with admin buttons. NSLE (T+C) at 13:12 UTC (2006-05-31)
    Thank you for explaining it. ILovePlankton ( L) 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mid-WikiBreak strong oppose per NSLE. I'm uncomfortable with giving the mop to a user who has had such sentiments in the very recent past. Kimchi.sg 05:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive loyalty can be a bad thing. I am not prepared to support users willing to be banned for whatever reason, and it has only been 2 weeks since he removed the offending phrase [1]. I will support if he does not say anything to that effect again in 2-3 months. Kimchi.sg 11:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you for explaining your reasoning, I understand what you mean. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to strong oppose per KAS. The abrasive tone of his reply [2] contrasts strikingly with Xyrael's right above his! (Fortunately usage of all caps doesn't count much in my book, or I'd be tacking on another superlative to my vote.) I love plankton, sure, but I don't love comments like that. Kimchi.sg 12:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - for now It is my opinion and for the record...from recent posts by ILovePlankton on my (talk) page that ILovePlankton appears to me to be impulsive and responds emotionally rather then objectively and in a constructive way. I’ve seen him write in a mimic style to a Wikipedia editor (me) in “conceding tone” rather then be helpful and handle a situation matter-of-factly. His interaction with me wasn’t helpful but tended to escalate a situation rather then to deescalate it. I would think this is a grave concern that this type of emotional and impulsive personality profile would have ADMIN powers. He may well be a good ADMIN later, but for now I think he needs to work on his style of communication and constructive skills. Example: Such statements, With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP" and "What the hell are you talking about? I also do not think ILovePlankton has a clear understanding of policies. My page was blanked after I made a very favorable edit on my USER page and forgot to sign in. The edit only showed an IP. Judgment would dictate it was a positive and favorable edit and that perhaps the USER forgot to sign in. But his way to handle the situation was to take sides and state: ‘’“With people reverting edits that YOU made to YOUR userpage then maybe YOU shouldn't edit it as an IP"’’ and this in your face tone won’t be that productive on Wikipedia. I think it's not the quantity of the edits he has made but the quality of the edits that are most important, that is "especially" in situations when emotions are escalating. In my view his condescending tone is the worst part of it. I think if he were to work on not being condescending that would a great start. Maybe an ADMIN later, but I think, again, he needs to develop his skills on handling adverse situations and show a more objective view frist. But then again, this is only my opinion, and I am sure the powers that be will look into for themselves and make their own conclusions. KAS 07:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Half of the shouting in KAS' post is quoting ILovePlankton. In addition the other half isn't "shouting" at all as KAS explained on his/her talk page. RicDod 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I concede to this point. — Nathan (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I understand that Nathan doesn't like the way that KAS expressed her point, but that's something to take up with the user privately, not a reason to treat the opinion which she's expressed in reasoned detail as a bad-faith vote. Besides, if Nathan really feels so strongly that capitalizing words is highly uncivil, then the quotes in KAS's comments also reflect rather badly on ILovePlankton (by Nathan's criteria) - and surely that's a reasonable thing to note in this RFA. (I'd also argue that Nathan's rather over-large signature might be considered somewhat uncivil by his own criteria.) Zaxem 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I said "What the hell are you talking about" because I couldn't understand him. ILovePlankton ( L) 12:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I was considering voting Neutral as ILovePlankton has a good user name done a lot good maintenance work. However, the more I think about it the more concerned I am with the point made by NSLE. Such comments, while reflecting well on ILP as a person, are counterproductive for an admin to have in their user area because it adds fuel to the oft-repeated accusations that we are cliquey and have favourites. I also share KAS's concerns that ILP has the tendency to act emotionally rather than objectively. I could well support in the future if these issues are resolved or left in the past. Rje 13:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for now Well on the way. Just needs more time. Reverts, warns, and reports vandals. Takes part in AfD discussions. However, edit count is a little low given the power of VandalProof. Answer to question 2 does not show strength as an editor. Willingness to be banned in support of one's friends is not a strength in an admin, even if the statement to that effect has been recently removed. A cabal of friends advocating/arguing against opposers does not help even a little. The "hell" quote indicates incivility and quick temperedness not suitable in an admin. Also, the recent use of a copyrighted image on your userpage may indicate a lack of understanding of policy. Cheers :) Dlohcierekim 13:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning your right to oppose, I just wanted to tell you that the image someone else put on my userpage, I never even looked at it. ILovePlankton ( L) 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tony Sidaway 13:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Doesn't yet seem to understand what Wikipedia is about. Needs more time, perhaps.[reply]
  7. Way too much focus on the "community" aspect and very little focus on the actual encyclopedia. He seems to think guidelines are something that should be flaunted, not followed. --Cyde↔Weys 13:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I flaunt policy? (I would like to know so I can correct it) ILovePlankton ( L) 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Cyde The edit summary of "Nathan really made a mess of things ..." could have been a lot better worded and I feel you're only contributing to an already tense situation. I'm sorry, but I did make some comments that could have been interpreted as incivil - I was told about this and I did make every good faith effort to rectify this. As this is an RfA, comments shouldn't be deleted (that's what I've heard but please do outright delete them if I was misinformed), so I struck them out. I do not appreciate that edit summary and urge you to re-evaluate the way some of your typing comes across to others. Cheers. Additional edit: Please at least consider my comment. Thank you. — Nathan (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I said you flaunted flouted guidelines, not policy. There's a huge difference. As an admin candidate you really should be aware of the this distinction!!! And the word "guidelines" is wikilinked in my comment for a reason. --Cyde↔Weys 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way are you going to answer the question? ILovePlankton ( L) 14:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we've all seen enough. I have no idea why you're being so combative over this, but it does not reflect well at all. When someone says you may be doing something incorrectly the proper response is to examine your actions, and if you believe them to be acceptable, defend yourself. But you shouldn't be brushing it off flippantly or pretending not to even understand the nature of the criticism. I believe your response to this simple criticism about a signature of all things shows why you are not acceptable administrator material. --Cyde↔Weys 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you getting angry at me for asking a question? I really don't understand what I did to have you dislike me this badly. ILovePlankton ( L) 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyde, could you please consider phrasing your words to something that resembles less of an incivil tone? I know how blunt and direct you can be from experience, but this is really not helping matters here. You know as well as I do that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please consider using a little more tact. Thank you very much. — Nathan (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose until a little more mature: fix that signature; lose that daft "loyalty" thing (as an admin, your loyalty should be to the wiki as a whole, otherwise your neutrality is hopelessly compromised); fix your user page (so that it actually fits into one screen width—at the minute it looks like something an HTML tutor might use as an example of "what not to do"—I have to scroll rightwards five times to see the far side) and above all learn to take criticism (as an admin you would expect to receive it by the bucket-load, not drip-wise as you have been doing). HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The userpage is lick that since it is designed for 1024x768 resolution and looks fine at that resolution. But I can see where you are coming from; a stripped down version that people with lower resolutions could use would be ideal. Where (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Friendship is something dearly, but expressing you would get banned to defend them raised some concerns in me about the WP:NPOV every admin must have. I don't agree with all KAS does, but I agree that the candidate's behaviour left a lot to be desired. The user seems to be good contact with other users through User talk pages, but his 2% of edits in article talks is just too low. Nice to see ILovePlankton started editing summaries, hopefully he will continue doing so. Maybe in a couple of months, controlling his temperament and participating more in article development. By the way, Nathan, you should strike things out, not delete. -- ReyBrujo 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per NSLE and Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 17:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per the above; not confident of this user's maturity and understanding of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose unimpressed by responses to Cyde above, and as per NSLE. Pete.Hurd 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral leaning support I've had many positive experiences, though the lack of edits in the Talk: space is slightly concerning. Computerjoe's talk 08:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    which talk space (I would like to know so I can do better)? ILovePlankton ( L) 12:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he means "article" Talk: (for instance Talk:Democracy talks about the Democracy article.) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Less than 100 article talks is concerning.--Jusjih 13:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Internet Explorer is still an 80+% share of the internet and your user page is utterly unreadable in IE. It is the wrong message to send to visitors. I brought this up at ILP's talk and he said he couldn't fix it, which in practice means he is unwilling to consider the needs of the readership as a whole in (re)designing his page. I believe this issue should be immenently correctable, and I will consider other aspects of the nom if this one is addressed. Dragons flight 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said I couldn't fix it I meant I didn't have the ability to fix it. (I don't know a thing about HTML, but I have started trying to get someone to fix it). ILovePlankton ( L) 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. One objection down, will look at the others later. Dragons flight 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, very strong at building community, excellent vandal fighter, but not enough building of articles in the mainspace. Contrary to those above, I don't think the "my loyalties to my friends" thing is daft; rather, I think the world would be a far better place if more people were as loyal to their friends. Please edit more substantially in the mainspace (pick a couple of articles, go to the library, and just build them up!) and you will gain the experience to have my support. -- Samir धर्म 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for the very construstive critisism. ILovePlankton 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral - would support, especially given the user's positive community involvement and support in fighting vandalism, as well as the questionable reasoning from a couple of those opposing, but User:ILovePlankton/My loyalties to my friends worries me ... a lot. Of specific concern is this - "I will NEVER attack them or be uncivil towards them". On WP, we should not attack or be uncivil to anyone - friend or otherwise. The mention of this implies, or at least seems to imply, that in the user's view, it is possible that loyalty to friends could be at odds with civility towards others. I would humbly suggest examining what message you are desiring to communicate here. BigDT 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user ILovePlankton (over the 4302 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 107 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 31, May, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 15, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 35.08% Minor edits: 94.34%
Average edits per day: 26.25 (for last 500 edit(s))
Analysis of edits (out of all 4302 edits):
Article edit summary use (last 141 edits) : Major article edits: 86.52% Minor article edits: 100%
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0)
Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 0% (0)
Superficial article edits (wikify/grammar/spelling/tagging): 43.35% (1865)
Unmarked article edits: 2.12% (91)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 3114 | Average edits per page: 1.38 | Edits on top: 17.64%
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 8.6% (370 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 46.42% (1997 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 8.81% (379 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 36.17% (1556 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 52.51% (2259) | Article talk: 1.88% (81)
User: 9.53% (410) | User talk: 25.85% (1112)
Wikipedia: 7.37% (317) | Wikipedia talk: 1.49% (64)
Image: 0.21% (9)
Template: 0.16% (7)
Category: 0.7% (30)
Portal: 0.02% (1)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.26% (11)


Username ILovePlankton
Total edits 4292
Distinct pages edited 3152
Average edits/page 1.362
First edit 00:27, February 15, 2006
 
(main) 2260
Talk 81
User 408
User talk 1110
Image 9
Image talk 2
Template 7
Help 1
Category 30
Category talk 9
Wikipedia 310
Wikipedia talk 64
Portal 1

 G.He 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would help with Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard and Wikipedia:requests for page protection. I would close AFDs, and I would block vandals and impersonators.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The article that I am most pleased with would have to be The Black Fleet Crisis, the reason I picked that one, is because it is the only time I have ever contributed to apart of an article that didn’t already have something for me to build on.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I try to avoid conflict as often as possible. I do that by staying away from things that I have a strong position towards, but sometimes conflict doesn’t come from that. I will try my best to be civil at all times, and I will try never to bite the newcomers for their accidents.

I've got a couple of questions. It is, of course, up to you whether you wish to answer them or not.

F0. You mention above that you'd like to begin closing AfDs. Do you have a general philosophy on xfD articles? What would you consider a rough consensus on xfD? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to delete, but for the evidence presented by an expert (such as this one)? What would you do if an xfD appeared to show consensus to keep, but for the evidence presented by an expert? What is your opinion of this AfD?
A. My only philosophy for AFD articles is, if the consensus is delete than delete if the consensus is keep than keep. I consider 70% in either direction to be a clear consensus on a xfd. I would have done the same the closing admin did. My opinion of this AFD, is It was ended correctly.
F1. You also mention that you would block vandals. What is your general blocking philosophy? At what point is it appropriate to block a vandal, and how do you decide when and for how long? Under what circumstances do you feel it would be appropriate to block someone who is not, strictly speaking, a vandal?
A. My general blocking philosophy is, the vandal has to have at least 3 warnings, and the vandal has to actually vandalised something. I would block a first time vandal anywhere from 12-24 hours depending on how bad the vandalism is. I would rarely block someone who is not strictly speaking a vandal, the only time I would is if the user in question Is seriously disrupting wikipedia, and has been warned for it.

Thank you, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm split on this one, below are my optional' questions -- Tawker 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like. :)[reply]

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A
  2. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A
  3. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A
  4. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A
  5. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
    A
  6. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A
  7. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A
  8. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A
  9. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ILovePlankton&oldid=56185952"