The '''clown loach''', ''Chromobotia macracanthus'', is a [[tropical]] [[freshwater]] [[fish]] belonging to the [[Cobitidae]] (loach) family. It is the sole member of the ''Chromobotia'' genus. It originates in inland waters in [[Indonesia]] on the islands of [[Sumatra]] and [[Borneo]]. It is a popular fish in the freshwater [[aquarium]] trade and is sold worldwide. <ref name="fishbase">{{fishbase species|genus = Chromobotia |species = macracanthus | month = April | year = 2007 }}</ref>
|'''<span class="plainlinks">[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=purge}} Purge page cache]</span> if nominations have not updated.'''
|}
</center>
<!-- Place new nominations for adminship right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else. Also, please note that RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you.
ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate. -->
==Taxonomy and naming==
The fish was first described as ''Cobitis macracanthus'' by [[Pieter Bleeker]] in 1852. In 1989, the scientific name was changed to ''Botia macracanthus''.<ref name="wetpetz">{{cite web|url=http://www.wetpetz.com/clownloach.htm | accessdate=2007-08-17| title = Clown Loach | publisher = WetPetz.com | year = 2004}}</ref> In 2004, [[Maurice Kottelat|Dr. Maurice Kottelat]] split the ''[[Botia]]'' genus, containing 47 different species, into seven separate [[genus|genera]], resulting in the clown loach being placed into a genus of its own, ''Chromobotia''.<ref name="kottelat04">{{cite journal|title = ''Botia kubotai'', a new species of loach (Teleostei: Cobitidae) from the Ataran River basin (Myanmar), with comments on botiine nomenclature and diagnosis of a new genus | author = Kottelat, Maurice | journal = Zootaxa | volume = 401 | pages = 1–18 | year = 2004 | url = http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2004f/z00401f.pdf | format = PDF - abstract only| issn = 1175-5334 | accessdate=2007-08-17 }}</ref>
<!-- Please place new nominations for adminship at the top, above the most recent nomination. Please leave the first "----" alone, and don't forget to include the "----" line separating the new nomination from the previous one. -->
The genus ''Chromobotia'' derives its name from the [[Greek (language)|Greek]] word ''chromo'', meaning "colour", and the regional Asian word ''botia'', meaning "warrior" or "soldier". The [[specific epithet]] ''macracanthus'' is derived from the Greek word ''macros'', meaning "large" and the [[Latin]] word ''acanthus'', meaning "thorny", referring to the large spines below the fish's eyes. The "Clown loach" common name comes from the fish's bright colors resembling a clown's makeup, and the fish's ability to entertain observers with its comical behavior when kept in an [[aquarium]].<ref name="wetpetz"/>
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vishnava}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jac16888}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ale jrb}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Xymmax 2}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Krm500}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lazulilasher}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ameliorate!}}
----
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thingg 2}}
----
==About RfB==
==Description and behavior==
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}
Information about the maximum size of the clown loach varies, with some estimates ranging from 11 to 14 [[inch]]es (40 to 50 [[centimetre|cm]]), and with typical adult sizes ranging from 7 to 10 inches (15 to 20 cm).<ref name="ahlander">{{cite web | url = http://www.bollmoraakvarieklubb.org/artiklar/praktbotia/clown%20loach.htm | title = Clown loach ''Chromobotia macracanthus'' (Bleeker 1852) | accessdate = 2007-08-18 | publisher = www.bollmoraakvarieklubb.org | author = Âhlander, Ola | date = [[2 September]] [[2004]]}}</ref> The fish's body is long and laterally compressed, with an arched [[Dorsum (biology)|dorsal]] surface and a flat [[ventral]] surface. Its head is large and its mouth faces downward with thick, fleshy lips, and four pairs of [[Barbel (anatomy)|barbels]]. The barbels on the lower jaw are small and difficult to see.
==Current nominations for bureaucratship==
The body is whitish-orange to reddish-orange, with three thick, black, vertical bands. The first band runs from the top of the head and through the eye. The second band lies between the head and the [[dorsal fin]], and wraps around to the belly, and the third band covers the start of the [[caudal peduncle]] and extends to the [[anal fin]]. There is some regional color variation in the species; the pelvic fins on fish from [[Borneo]] are reddish orange and black, while the pelvic fins on fish from [[Sumatra]] are entirely reddish orange.<ref name="loaches1">{{cite web | url = http://www.loaches.com/articles/clown-loach-coloration-marking-variations | title = Clown Loach Coloration & Marking Variations | author = Thoene, Martin | date = [[13 August]] [[2007]] | accessdate = 2007-08-18 | publisher = Loaches online }}</ref>
<!-- Place new nominations for bureaucratship right below, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else.-->
<center>{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</center>
----
==Related pages==
The fish is sexually dimorphic, with females being slightly plumper than males. In addition, the tips of the tail on the male curve inwards slightly, whereas the females have straight tips.<ref name="wetpetz"/>
*Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at [[m:Requests for permissions]].
*Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]].
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Requests for comment]] on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.
[[Category:Requests for adminship| ]]
The fish has a movable spine that lies in a groove below the eye, which may be extended as a defense mechanism. The spine may cause a painful wound, but is not venomous.
[[Category:Wikipedia adminship]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]]
<!-- Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Front matter -->
==Distribution and habitat==
Clown loaches originate in [[Indonesia]], on the islands of [[Sumatra]] and [[Borneo]]. For the greater part of the year, the fish lives in murky or blackwater rivers and lakes, but breeding adults migrate to smaller waterways to spawn annually.<ref name="ahlander"/> They are especially predominant in the flood plains of the hill country.<ref name="badman">{{cite web | url = http://badmanstropicalfish.com/profiles/profile13.html | title = Clown loach profile | publisher = Badman's Tropical Fish | accessdate = 2007-08-18}}</ref>
In its native habitat, the fish is found in water with a temperature range of 77 to 86 [[Fahrenheit|°F]] (25 to 30 [[Celsius|°C]]), a [[pH]] between 5.0 and 8.0, and water hardness between 5 and 12 [[dH]].<ref name="fishbase"/>
==In the aquarium==
A seemingly harmless, very active, social fish, they are best kept in groups of 5 or more and due to their potential size a 100 gallon aquarium should be the minimum size used. They also associate themselves easily with [[Panda corydoras]] and school together in currents. These fish have bifurcated subocular (located under the [[eye]]s) spines, which are used as a defence mechanism. If a loach deploys its spines while caught in a net, untangling it is difficult and can cause severe injury. It is also a good idea when moving larger specimens to double or triple bag them or use a solid container. Some owners have been stabbed while trying to catch or touch these fish. When kept in groups smaller than 5, they may spend more time hiding under obstacles in the water. [[Tiger barb]] also will associate very well with clown loaches, and they may school together. the tiger barbs will act in the same way as the loaches if they shoal, and vise versa.
They are also found to make clicking noises when excited or eating. This sound comes from the grinding of their [[pharyngeal teeth]]. Sometimes they lie on their sides on the bottom of the tank or swim upside down and appear to be dead. This is a common event and the aquarist should be aware of this fact or unnecessary removal may occur.
If you have noticed that your clown loaches do not come out of hiding, there are some easy things to adjust so that your clown loaches will be more comfortable. A good tank setup for a clown loach should include ample shade, real plants, hiding places and other peaceful fishes. Make sure the environment is not too bright initially. Provide shade from tank lighting. The tank should not be next to a window unless ample shade is provided. Window tanks with ample sun will allow Chromobotia to warm themselves and do their dominant color dances with more splendor as they flash in and out of sunlight slicing through opeings in natural cover. An example tank will have a powerhead to create a current for them to swim against as well as cover to stay under while doing so - think clear water mountain brook with current rushing from cascades deep beteween boulders. In fact, Clowns show a strong preference for larger rocks taken directly from mountain streams too swift to allow algae growth. They will peck at these rocks often and always sleep under and on them.
Clown loaches are keen observers of other fish in the aquarium; they observe and react accordingly. If other fish are skittish and hide, clowns will observe this and do the same. Make sure that other fish in your community tank are docile and not prone to hide. Chromobatia will all sleep together under their favorite collection of stream rocks. When other fish absently enter that territory and dither too long, the clowns will occassionaly react with a swarm behavior at which time (unfortunately) the errant straggler will experience with lethal outcome the thorns that give the Clown its second name, Thorny Eyes. We find that all-orange fish are prone to mass kill-offs regardless of where they swim, and this may have something to do with Tiger botia’s domainace color displays. However, overly inquisitive Glass Tetra and small slow-moving catfish can also fall victim. If the killed fish are not removed, the Clown pack will move the kill a short distance from the lair and wait until the fish decays into a white blob when it is rapidly consumed. Sometimes they cannot wait and will open the gut cavity with their thorns and mouths and immediately eat the victims guts and vital organs, something scaleless algae eaters may be most prone too. We have tried Beta (also an agressive species) with Botia and it is clear that safety in numbers holds true: the Beta will quickly begin to fray and need to be removed. Chromobotia do not seem to attack same-size or larger fish or any fish that keep away from their chosen lair. Perhaps Borneo mountain people who know the fish better could describe Chromobotia’s predation more accurately.
Because clown loaches come from [[rivers]] and streams, they are accustomed to having other fishes and plants in their environment. Not having plants and/or other fishes can cause clown loaches to become stressed and to go into hiding. Especially on introduction to a new tank, it is imopirtant that lots of placid, active smaller fish are present. Until you know what fish company they like best, use many colors and varieties of inexpensive minnows. Another important thing to remember is that since they do come from a fast moving river environment, they need a tank with lots of clear, well filtered and fast moving water which can be achieved with proper filtration and the use of powerheads. Stream rocks should allow resting back eddies as well as shade and cover.
[[image:ClownLoachesWithIch2.JPG|thumb|right|Two juvenile clown loaches with [[Ichthyophthirius multifiliis|ich]]. Characteristically, for this stage of infestation, both are hiding in an ornament.]]
Before introducing clown loaches to your tank, make sure the fish you currently have are compatible because aggressive fish will stress your clown loaches and may need to be removed. Clown loaches are particularly susceptible to [[Ichthyophthirius]] (ich), so they must be watched closely when initially introducing them to a tank and when new fish are added. Ich usually deals the typical clown loach a poor prognosis since the standard treatment is especially toxic to the clown's "skin-type" and the dose must be halved and is therefore less effective.
A variety of food should be provided for clown loaches, and their behaviour should be observed during feeding. In a [[community tank]] other fish may take the food before it reaches the bottom, where the clown loaches feed. Most clown loaches accept commercial flake food and sinking pellets as their dietary staple, but thrive with a variety of food: live (worms, brine shrimp, small snails), plant matter, freeze-dried ([[tubifex worm]]s, especially if it is fortified) and frozen [[brine shrimp]] (always thaw frozen food to aquarium temperature).
Clown loaches are also regarded as a natural way of controlling an infestation of small [[snail]]s in the aquarium. This being said, a person considering them for this purpose must also consider their future needs with regard to a large aquarium. A person getting clowns to remove snails in a smaller tank might be better served with one of the many other botia species that are as effective at the task but remain much smaller. Despite that utilitarian purpose, clown loaches are usually kept for reasons of appearance and personality.
==See also==
* [[List of freshwater aquarium fish species]]
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Cobitidae]]
[[bs:Klaun botia]]
[[de:Prachtschmerle]]
[[es:Chromobotia macracanthus]]
[[fr:Chromobotia macracanthus]]
[[it:Chromobotia macracanthus]]
[[hu:Öves díszcsík]]
[[nl:Clownbotia]]
[[ja:クラウンローチ]]
[[no:Praktbotia]]
[[pl:Bocja wspaniała]]
[[pt:Bótia-palhaço]]
[[fi:Tiikerinuoliainen]]
Revision as of 05:20, 11 October 2008
You haven't specified a username. Please return to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate and replace "USERNAME" with your own username or that of the person you wish to nominate. Thank you.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Vishnava (talk·contribs) - I present myself, Vishnava, to you to request adminship. After 6 months on Wikipedia, 4.5 months of active work and 10,600 edits, I am ready for the additional responsibility. I want to become an administrator because I find it important to add to the ranks of the +1,600 administrators who watch the backs of +8 million full-time editors and safeguard the quality of more than 2 million articles and other content. I pride myself for my integrity, resolve, open-mindedness and productivity. The purpose of this statement is to let you know exactly why I am qualified and prepared. I know I have limitations but I will work hard and never hesitate to ask advice or seek help if I find myself lacking in some regard.
I love working on DYKs and my chief contribution is authoring 59 DYKs (and 5 pending nominations) in the area of international relations and South Asia-related topics. I love working on DYKs and have actively helped out on maintaining the DYK template and cross-checking nominations. I pride myself on personally letting the nominators know immediately of any concern on their article and help keeping the updates on time (and felt frustration at not being able to do so myself). I plan to diversify over time and hopefully write a featured article soon.
I am an avid and active RC patroller and "Huggler" - I travel fast and wide tirelessly, and as a result, have at least 8,000 anti-vandalism reverts to my credit. I have been moderately active at AfDs - one example worth noting is when I nominated "Mecca Time", an article I had created as there were some serious concerns about its noteworthiness. I chose to go to AfD because I wanted the community to have a proper discussion and decide what should be done. I always backed my work on the article but I was conscious of my responsibility to keep out articles that violate policy and I respected the views of others and knew the limitations to my own knowledge in those early months.
I have worked well with others to resolve any issues with my work - [2], [3], [4]. I have respected criticism and have worked to address it without hesitation. I have never hesitated to ask questions or simply advice on improving my performance - [5], [6]. My only disappointment is the few times I have mistakenly reverted a legitimate edit (mainly while pressing the revert button 1 sec after someone else has removed vandalism). While these mistakes are few and infrequent, I make it a point to apologize to the person, registered users and IPs and promptly restore their edit - [7], [8]. I have also immediately retracted warnings and encouraged editors who demonstrate a positive attitude.
I have not hesitated to give my thoughts during policy discussions - I am pleased that one suggestion of mine was near to what another editor recently proposed in order to reform RfA and is being tested by others - [9]. I also tried to shoot some ideas to solve the issue of timely updates to DYK and I hope that did some good - [10]. I have studied policy, discussions at ANI and other forums and observed the work and views of more experienced editors, so I believe that I will be ready to tackle any kind of problem.
I would like to thank PeterSymonds and Royalbroil and for being terrific mentors and role-models. There are several other people like Johnbod, D.Trebbien, J.delanoy and SchfiftyThree, who have given valuable advice and support during my time here. I would like you to note that I had initially joined Wikipedia as User:V i s n a v a in December 2007 and authored 1 DYK but was forced to leave Wikipedia at the time due to some real-life commitments.
Thank you for considering me - to anybody to feels I am not yet ready, I request you to let me know precisely what your concern is and how I can improve. Vishnava talk 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am ready.Vishnava talk 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would like to regularly help maintain and update T:DYK and fight vandals both via WP:AIV and during RC patrols. I will also actively work on CSD backlogs, attend to requests for page protection,protected edit requests and WP:3RR. I will also keep watch on WP:ANI and WP:PNB and help out there. Importantly, I would like to be in a position to help any other editor who may need an admin's assistance.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am very proud of all my contributions. My record speaks of how fond I am of writing DYKs - it is a simple yet skilled task that enables one to quickly and substantially learn a particular subject and produce quality work that benefits others. It has often taken me only 5-10 minutes to write a properly composed, summary article from scratch, with all references and citations given. In addition, helping to cross-check articles and maintain DYK in general has been very rewarding. I am also proud of being an alert, effective and responsible RC patroller.
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 am proud to say that I have not had any stressful encounters or conflicts with anyone. I am always open to criticism and frank but respectful in expressing my views - I don't expect others to agree and I don't like to argue and fire off ripostes too much. When tempers get noticeably high, I don't have a problem walking away. I want to enjoy working here and I choose to reserve my energy and time for real-life battles of importance. Taking a route I don't agree with is better than stopping the train by arguing too much; if I am proven wrong, I will happily learn from it; if I am proven correct and the route taken is flawed, I will help correct it.
# Will your mainspace (such as DYKs, not including huggling) contributions be hindered by the granting of the tools?
A: Absolutely not. I love writing DYKs and I actually hope to write a FA soon. Adminship is being able to help out a bit more, but it cannot change my raison d'etre, which is to help build an encyclopedia and learn a bit.
5. How much experience do you think you have in areas such as XfD?
A. I have gained much valuable experience through participating in some key discussions on how a policy is to be applied in deciding the question, how to address the issue through valuable criticism and to value wider consensus over personal belief. I point out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mecca Time, because it shows that I understood from the very beginning of my time here - (1) how to resolve questions over compliance to policy through wider discussion and seek consensus, (2) that I know my limitations and won't make any arbitrary, hasty judgments. I nominated an article I created myself without hesitation because I respected the views and knowledge of others on deletion policy and that I would not put ego before the good of Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Nepal (my first AfD), I made some good arguments to point out that the article in question did not violate WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE. In both cases I used the opinions expressed in the debates to remove any data of concern or questionable nature and make the articles better. In any future case, I would work obtain a wider consensus on case in which WP:CSD does not apply, improve the article in question by listening to critics and keep an open mind. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist terrorism (2nd nomination), I felt I gave a constructive suggestion to resolve an issue that took up 2 AfDs. I was impressed by Sandstein's closing statement, which chided the conduct of some editors - this showed his ability not only to balance the scale but to carefully examine each statement and speak with authority as to how arguments should be made properly - I will incorporate the same discretion and attitude. I admit that I do not have experience on WP:IFD, but my answer in this regard is summed up pretty well by what Pedro gave to Stifle in regards to the IfD experience of Jac16888 - I will learn and act responsibly, I will ask questions, seek help and not act arbitrarily.
6. Is there any Wikipedia policies or guidelines that you disagree with? If so please give an example and tell why.
A. No, I don't disagree with anything particular. However, I can answer the question in another way - that I feel that Wikipedia is "lacking" in being able to protect its editors from invasion of privacy and harassment. I've been around a few months and I've seen a few editors having to leave because there was a breach of their privacy, revelation of identity, off-wiki harassment. I don't know what exactly can be done, what kind of measures are necessary, but its my opinion that Wikipedia has a responsibility towards the people who build it and can't avoid that by saying that its not responsible for anything that doesn't happen on space owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. People who give so much time and energy for no compensation save knowledge deserve some level of protection as a mark of respect.
7:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I wanted to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
A. I don't feel that "cool down" blocks are a good idea for 3 reasons: (1) In essence, each block aside from an indefinite one or a ban are to enable the particular user and the situation to "cool down." If we did not expect the user to cool down and improve his/her behavior over a given period of time, why wouldn't we just perma-ban them outright at the first offense? A ban is given when a user has had enough opportunities, warnings and blocks, continues disruption and exhausts the community's patience. Even a sockpuppeter is not necessarily blocked indefinitely. (2) A block is not a punitive measure and is meant to be a last resort to protect the content and other editors. Therefore, all personal efforts/clear warnings should have been made to cool a person done before applying the technical solution according to blocking policy. (3) Looking at it from the blocked person's point of view, it is largely taken as an insult. As you say, "there is still the small chance" - well, blocks are serious and not to be made based on an administrator may hope of a "small chance," but on the policy designed to let the person and situation "cool down" in situation where personal efforts/clear warnings have failed. To add, no administrator should use his tools if he/she is somehow personally involved in the situation. The only time I've seen a block removed before time is in cases of WP:3RR violation, where the editor pledges not to violate it ever again. However, WP:3RR is an explicit policy and is a lot more straightforward to enforce than most other situations.
8:: This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in thhttp://geodsoft.com/howto/password/common.htm weakest password list]? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account.
A. Yes it is formed by at least 8 characters, no dictionary words but I can adjust it right now to satisfy other requirements.
9:: Lots of DYK experience. Do you have any experience in GAs or FAs?
A. Well sadly very little. I have so far preferred DYKs because you can achieve the same quality and learn by summarizing in a short period of time. I did participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kazi Nazrul Islam because I had seen it on the main page many months ago and liked it very much; there the debate centered around WP:RS and I helped copyedit the article to satisfy FA criteria and the criticism of others, although it was decided in the end to remove the featured status. I definitely want to write a featured article this December when I will have a little more time in my hands - the WP:RS, WP:NPOV standards of DYK are pretty high and have helped me prepare for the bigger task of writing an FA.
10: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
A. To an "established" user, one may give a direct message asking why he/she is doing it, and that they should be aware what they are doing and what will happen if they continue. If they have a block history or some clear evidence that they are aware of policies on WP:VANDAL, one may issue 1-2 strict warnings and 1 final warning before blocking for 24-36 hrs. If they have rollback privileges, these must immediately be removed if the user has more than 1-2 offenses, does not respond to 1 strict warning or has actually used it once to restore his/her vandalized page version.
11:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
A. Well one would directly engage the IP with the 4-stage warning process and then a block. Semi-protection in cases of vandalism may be applied if the page is under attack from multiple IPs or is on the main page or in a situation where it is not possible to go after individual IPs.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Vishnava before commenting.
Discussion
Issue of automated edits OK now the vast majority of my edit tally comes from Huggling, no doubt. But Huggle was designed to make anti-vandalism faster and more efficient - it does not mean a user doesn't know the proper steps, knowledge or ability to deal with vandalism. In fact, with Huggle one has to be scrupulously careful. A good Huggler should be respected for the work. In terms of my total contributions to mainspace or encyclopedia-building, I have written 59 DYKs - at most I have had to make 60 edits to an article I wrote and nowadays it is 5-10 because I draft the article off-wiki. So I can understand that some people may think my contribution is skewed, but I request them to understand that my contributions to content are more in value than Huggling, which also indicates that I've used a powerful software with effectivity and responsibility. Writing 59 DYKs is no small or usual achievement; I recently fired-off 5 articles in space of 2 days. Wikipedia is a cleaner place due to Hugglers like me, I am proud to say. Vishnava talk 21:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support
Support Pleased to be first, per excellent and persuasive self-nom. Excellent work with Did You Know articles. I do believe his mainspace edit count does not reflect the work he does. Well qualified in other areas - thought he was one! Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 03:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I've had several interactions with the candidate, and they have been nothing but positive. I've always looked up to how you wrote so many DYKs in such short a time--and on thirld world countries to boot! While I'm not a fan of massive huggling, you are certainly a qualified candidate. Good luck on that FA! (P.S. Your answer to my qustion was awesome). ~one of manyeditorofthewikis(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 03:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per my RfA criteria this candidate seems to have a clean bill of RfA health, good DYK contributions, vandalfighting is not a crime, although I don't have editcountis the count seems good, keep up the good work, and if you branch into other areas, make sure to read up on how to do things. FoxyLoxyPounce! 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. 50+ DYK entries should be enough to convince anyone that this user is valuable in the mainspace. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
Support - as I've said before, and I'm sure I'll say again, you can never have too many anti-vandal admins. jj137(talk) 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I have no doubts about this user. Xclamation point 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Per above. Dlohcierekim 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I thought you already were an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - In response to Wisdom's oppose, what we are voting on here is not whether this user meets a set of criteria or whatever, or at least we shouldn't be. RfA should be all about who is going to abuse the tools, and whether we trust the user in question to be a net gain to the project. Automated tools do not suggest that the candidate will abuse the tools, and thus I must default to support. — neuro(talk) 11:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per Wisdom89 in the oppose section... xD. macy 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support 6 months and 12000+ edits, I believe this editor is ready! Good luck! America69 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Looked through almost all contribs, no reasons not to trust editor. Tan | 39 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Vish can deal with the highs and lows of being an admin with a suitable level of maturity and responsibility. Blooded Edge (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support good contributor. The text on your talk page is tiny though. An admins talk page should be easier to read than that. I urge you to change it. RMHED (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. A committed editor. However I would like to see more active article creation such as a GA article. Axl¤[Talk] 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. No negative interactions. Please utilise the tools wisely. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Opposition commentary offers no significant reason why giving Vishnava would be detrimental to the project, whilst the nomination and experience suggest quite the opposite, that Vishnava will be a significant benefit to the project with additional tools available to him. Nick (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I've seen Vishnava around before, and his words and deeds have always been positive in my book. Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling(talk) 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support the magical word of RfA is "trust." This is a candidate who is inarguably trustworthy - and the opposes don't say anything to assert that she's not. In fact, the only consistent argument is that she doesn't focus enough on article building - which is odd considering she made 59 DYK's during her time here. Additionally, regardless of whether or not mechanical edits are preferred, vandal fighters are valuable assets to the community, and one of the areas where administrative attention is needed. I have no doubts about her understanding of policy and see no reason to oppose. Valtoras (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing really worth opposing for. The oppose column hasn't got me convinced. —Ceran (Strike!) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong SupportAfter careful consideration.Editor has over 10500 edits of which only about 1600 edits are Huggle edits or Automated or script-assisted edits.Editor has done considerable work even without these.Further after checking the track find nothing that the user will misuse the tools.A commited editor and vandal fighter Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm impressed by your work and our interactions, godspeed. -FlyingToaster (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose - Most edits to the mainspace are mechanical reversions - no evidence of experience in 3RR or RFPP, or the other noticeboards that you indicate you will monitor. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, no collaborative effort as per your talk page contributions. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I don't understand 2 things - (1) I have written 59 DYKs, so why are mainspace contributions in question? (2) I have worked extensively at T:DYK in evaluating, promoting noms and maintaining the template and I've provided some diffs on how I've worked with others on article problems, the AfDs and policy discussions. All that is collaborative in nature. Vishnava talk 03:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you have work with DYK, which is pretty good, but I've never been impressed with that area of Wikipedia alone (just a personal opinion of mine). I've examined your template DYK contributions, and the last time you worked on it (from what I can see) was back in late June..yet you claim to love it. AFD participation was short-lived and back in April. It seems that huggling has become your forte/primary focus, and I'm just not comfortable with that. Besides, you simply do not possess/have not demonstrated the necessary experience in the other areas where you wish to work. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I was travelling abroad from July to September, which is why I stopped contributing pretty much during that period. Since I have returned, I have authored 3 DYKs (+ 5 pending noms). Vishnava talk 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Noted, I will take that into consideration. Wisdom89(T / C) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seems good but a little too inexperienced in general and in the edits I like to see in administrators. DYK is nice and all but, as also stated by Wisdom89, it doesn't factor too highly in my decision. Too little experience with GA/FAs, and only 6 months of work in general. I'm sure you'll be a great candidate in another few months! I just have those reservations for now. --Banime (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
See, each article in DYK must be at least 1,500 bytes of content. Since Vishnava has had 60+ of these, that equals out to about 90,000 bytes of new content. And that's the bare minimum--quite a few of Vish's DYKs are in the 10,000+ range. ~one of manyeditorofthewikis(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't trying to knock any of the contributions, sorry if it came out that way! --Banime (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I would expect a user with 10000 edits to have more than 370 wikipedia space edits, and lack of mainspace talk edits shows little effort to build articles collaboratively. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC) It should be noted that I am not opposing because of Huggle work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Or not tagging talk pages like bots. I guess that's because Vish's contribs are in a third world country, which doesn't see too many contributors to collaborate with. ~one of manyeditorofthewikis(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I have over 300 talk edits, and I don't tag talk pages like a bot. Collaboration is key for an admin regardless of what subject area they work in, because ANI sure has a lot of contributors with which to collaborate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
With due respect, I am beginning to feel that there is a serious miscommunication here and I hope I can clarify it. Writing DYKs is a huge contribution to Wikipedia content - and writing 59 DYKs in space of 3-4 months is not usually or easily done by most. As to Wikipedia space edits, I have given examples of how I contributed to AfDs with great thought and policy discussions. The examples are clearly given in my statement. Collaboration is the key element in working at T:TDYK where I've reviewed and promoted noms, cross-checking nominations and working with the nominators and other reviewers to clear the articles. Vishnava talk 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, low level of Wikipedia-namespace edits indicates a likely lack of policy knowledge, and deleted contributions indicate little or no work with speedy deletion. I'm also not a fan of every oppose being challenged and argued. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that it is EOTW doing the badgering for the most part. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry that I have to oppose in the end, as Vishnava is clearly working hard to improve Wikipedia and is a good vandal fighter. But in reviewing some of the recent successful DYK articles, various small (and one large) referencing problems turned up, leading to the thought that Vishnava needs more experience at interpreting references before being an admin intending to work in DYK. The minor ones were a tendency to slightly misrepresent articles "hoping to" became "planning to" in the article, "intends to invest" becomes "did invest". As one example, a source for Kazakhstan-Turkey relations stated "the mass importation of textiles—both second-hand from Europe and new garments, mostly from China—has led to the closing of 65 Nigerian textile mills" was interpreted as "cheap Chinese goods ... led to closure of 65 textile mills ..." While they are common mistakes, and not overly serious, Vishnava is writing in politically sensitive areas (bilateral relations), so I'd rather see a tad more care. Of more concern was a big chunk of what appears to be copyvio: in Chittagong Hill Tracts Conflict the section starting with "The agreement recognised the special status of the hill people" is identical to a section in Chittagong Hill Tracts Peace Accord, 1997. It is referenced to it, which is good, but given the low number of article writing edits, it stands out as a bigger problem. Finally, just looking at the last few vandal reverts, I've noticed twomistakes - both quickly fixed by Vishnava, and the sort of thing that can happen on Huggle, but a tad more care might be warranted. Overall, a good editor, who's definitely improving and I'm sure will become a good admin in the future, but who I feel needs more experience interpreting references and a bit more care in identifying vandalism before becoming an admin who intends to work in DYK and anti-vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral leaning towards support Seems like a net positive, but I'm a little concerned about the number of mechanical edits.--LAAFansignreview 17:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral This is a tough RfA for me. On one hand, I am pleased by the candidate's rate of activity over the amount of time that they have been here. That shows me that the candidate is committed to the project. On the other hand, however, I am a bit concerned over the perecentage of this candidate's edits that are mechanical in nature. I believe this candidate would be a net positive to the project, if given the tools, but I can not - for reasons that I can't quite put my finger on - offer a support vote. So, we'll call this a neutral vote with a moral support. Best of luck! --Winger84 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (64/0/0); Ended Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:54:32 (UTC)
Jac16888 (talk·contribs) - Dear All, I'm pleased to offer up Jac16888 for consideration. A long term account, Jac started editing around March of last year. Very much a content creator Jac has also been highly active in the project space of late. So, as ever, the rationale and headlines;
Main Space
Around 68% total edits are to the main space - a commited encyclopedia builder.
Substantial Talk Page entries show a desire to colaborate.
Realtively large number of template edits.
Project Space
Substantial input at WP:AFD - not just drive by comments but adding real value and creating discussions
Around 300 or so deleted edits are due to accurate speedy tagging / PROD's
Substantial input at WP:ANI and the village pump - Jac is not afraid to get his hands dirty
A review of talk pages shows less experienced editors asking questions and getting answers - the additional tools will help this even more so.
Accurate use of Twinkle but with most edits good "old school" editing
House Keeping
Clean & sensible User Page
Clean block log
Sensible signature
E-mail enabled
Jac16888 declined an immediate nomination a few weeks ago due to other commitments (see here). Jac is in no haste for the tools, and modest and demuring as to wether a request would pass - an excellent attitude to the role. I believe that only a Net Positive will be forthcoming by giving him access to the bit. I hope the community agree with this course of action. - Pedro : Chat 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination, and thank you Pedro--Jac16888 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, since i've heard of it coming up lately, I am currently 20 years old, and writing that makes me feel ancient--Jac16888 (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: If this Rfa passes, i don't intend to immediately throw myself into every possible admin related activity, instead i'm simply going to ease myself into it gently, starting of with the things i'm confident i can do, and as time goes by moving into other areas of adminship;
Speedy deletion, as Pedro said, i have a considerable number of correct taggings, there have not been to many cases where a speedy tag i have placed has been declined, and from the ones i can remember, many of those were eventually deleted anyway and as an added bonus i plan to set myself an informal rule whereby i will only delete articles that others have tagged(when valid) and tag ones i find myself for other admins, although i won't apply this to obvious cases, i.e. Attacks, vandalism and copyvios.
Checking and deleting expired prods, and closing Afds, which as i understand it, the only task for an administrator is to gauge which way the consensus goes and act accordingly, starting of with the more clear-cut nom's.
I will also try to be active at WP:AIV. Although i have not used that page a significant amount, its mostly because the vandals i come across are not often committed, just ones who make one or two bad edits then never come back, although i try to keep tabs on them anyway, checking their contribs regularly for a few weeks after.
Finally, i hope to remain active at AN/I and AN, that won't change whichever way this goes, although it would be nice to have an increased ability to help.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Unfortunately, I have no really significant contributions i.e. FA/GA's, hopefully i'll be able to change this sometime soon, i have a few ideas up my sleeve. As for my best contributions, i have none that stand out in particular, instead, i'm simply proud of the time i've spent on wikipedia, i feel that i have in general been a net gain for the 'pedia, i've done a fair amount of work in cleanup, tidying and improving articles to just to get them to a decent level. I'm also quite proud of some of the work i've doing with newer editors, helping them to improve their articles by talking through it with them rather than simply jumping in and doing it for them, i feel that helping them do it themselves will help their confidence here and hopefully convince them to stay on and do more good, the most recent example of this is the work i'm doing here Nicole Lai.
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: As anyone here will no doubt soon discover i was at one point fairly deeply into the whole "TTN/fiction" thing that caused so much drama across wikipedia, and yes, once upon a time i was dead against everything the so-called "deletionist cabal" were doing. However i dealt with this simply by stepping back from it, and trying to work out compromises, working to get the two "sides" to work together. I do however feel that i have shown myself to be able to see past my own likes/dislikes and work with them, particularly User:Eusebeus, with whom i managed to negotiate something of a truce, and i believe that edits such as these, [11],[12], [13], show that i'm willing to make edits that need to be done regardless of how i feel about it.
As for other disputes, none especially come to mind, i've generally learnt to avoid major conflicts, and i find that the more recent ones have come to amicable conclusions
4.Why do you have only one image upload and so few edits in Image space
A: I'm asking myself this because i'll be surprised if it doesn't come up. Yes i do have barely any edits in the imagespace, to date the only image i've uploaded was this Image:Aspire Sculpture Artwork - Nottingham.jpg (since moved to commons) which took me several hours to understand and sort through organizing the copyright OTRS stuff for it. The reasoning behind this is that i simply cannot comprehend all the copyright policies we have going on, it seems like a lot of technical mumbjo jumbo to me. Perhaps someday i'll have a spare few days and force myself to learn it all, but in the meantime i simply intend to avoid that area of wikipedia, if i don't touch it, i can't break anything. Hopefully you won't think any less of me for this
5. Under what circumstances may a non-free image of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A.As i said above, i have little to no understanding of the image policies, although from a quick look at WP:Nonfree, i can say that they shouldn't be, unless it is a person who is notable for their appearance, who is no longer in the public sphere, and the only images that illustrate the person properly as they were at the time they were active are non-free. To give what i think is a valid example, sort of, If Gene Simmons(first thing that came to mind, no idea why) had retired 20 years ago, and the only photo of him in his Kiss outfit and make up was non-free, it would be acceptable. Hope that's right
6. I see that you are 20 years old. Do you have any personal commitments which may hinder your work as an administrator? (Look, I'm 21, and I have assignments, design projects, lab reports, etc to deal with on a daily basis. How comfortable are you in handling your personal affairs along with administrative duties?
A. Well I'm currently at university, so that doesn't take up of my time(joke). I do have real-world commitments, i think it would be more worrying if i didn't> I have my university studies, so similar to you in that i have assignments, design projects and lab work to do(plus the related social life), and I'm also looking for a part-time job, but no i don't think any of that would really hinder any admin work i undertake, I've long been able to balance Wikipedia with real-life stuff, and since i don't intend, if i get the bit, to suddenly triple the amount of time i spend on here i don't think i'll have any trouble.
7. How do you see Wikipedia in five years?
A. This is quite a difficult question, i can barely imagine myself in 5 years never mind Wikipedia, but I'll have a stab at it. I think/hope, that it will continue to improve, particularly if it continues to spread through the academic world, obviously for a student its the font of all knowledge(or rather a good base point), but i have now had several lecturers, not just the younger ones but some very high ranking, emeritus ones, who not only refer us to specific Wikipedia articles, but use them personally. This, i believe, is absolutely vital to the project, the biggest task we face is convincing the academic world that we are in fact a reliable source, and i think that this is starting to happen. If we achieve this, and get them not only reading, but editing, then i think we will be well on our way to perfection
8. How do you view the role of an administrator and how do you see yourself as one?
A. Now obviously, the smart thing to say is that an administrator is nothing more than a janitor, a person tasked simply with the maintenance of wikipedia, they are not above or beyond any other user and do not have any authority. However, this should be taken with a pinch of salt. Anybody who has been here for a while, probably everyone reading this, knows that adminship is not a big deal, that admins are not automatically right, but new users? Throughout the internet forums, chatrooms and community sites all have admins. And they are all figures of authority, their word is law and when people come here for the first time they expect the same, its not uncommon for new users to go to an admin for help because their page was deleted, they have an edit dispute etc, how many times do you see "resolved - no admin attention required" on AN/I? What i'm trying to say here is that while an admin is not special, not higher than others, they are often seen as so, and therefore need to be willing to help out users even if its not the admin "powers" that are needed, but simply some experience of the community.
I have no idea how to answer the second part of this question, could you rephrase it please?
Sure! :D OK, now that you've described how you view the role of an administrator, describe how you fit that description. Feel free to describe an experience you had with a new user, a dispute you (helped) resolve, essentially, how you fit the big shoes of being an admin. Feel free to ask me for another clarification if you should require one! :D - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 17:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i've been stressing about this all day, every time i come up with something to write I delete it soon after because it feels like i'm boasting. All I feel I can say is that I think i would make a good admin, i have had several experiences helping out new users, and i do believe that i can fill the role of administrator well, beyond that, not much i can really say
9. In your acceptance statement, you pointed out that you are 20 years old. Do you feel that age is a deciding factor in regards to adminship?
A. Not in the slightest. Being at university the last year I've met people of different ages, 16-30, and I've found that a persons age often has no bearing on how mature a person is, in fact in more than case older people tend to be less mature than you would expect, and that is what is relevant to adminship, how mature a person is, maturity being completely separate to age. The reasoning behind my indicating my age was because, although i don't often follow RFA's, i have been aware of recent cases where a persons age is taken into account, and since I've never revealed my age before, it seemed like a good idea to disclose it.
10:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I wanted to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
A. A cool down block is simply a bad idea, in almost all cases, as you say there is a small chance that the subject will actually cool down, but its a very small chance, and its more likely that it will really inflame the situation. However, if a person is really overreacting to a revert, then a block may be necessary, not as a cool-down because they actually warrant a block, i have seen cases where a reverted user goes out of control and starts attacking other users or vandalising, although if i had reverted the user, it would be foolish for me to block them, and would take to AN/I or AIV dependent on the situtation, and let some others look at it .
11. I am 34, a company director and father to two children under three. Do you think my self evident real life commitments impact on my ability to be an administrator?
A. Erm, ok then. Yes, of course your job and your little Pedrinos are going to impact on the time you have free to be on wikipedia, nobody could expect otherwise, but on your actual ability? I very much doubt it, short of you being a bit tired sometimes. I think it might actually have been you who said this, but if an admin spends one hour, one day or one week a month doing admin duties, that person is still a net gain for the community.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jac16888 before commenting.
Discussion
I can't quite make out the point of Pedro's question. Is he not simply repeating what Jameson asked before him? Except, the question asks the nominee to give opinion on the asker himself. If you get what I'm trying to say, please explain =|. Blooded Edge (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll let some others comment perhaps. Pedro : Chat 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Noted your edit summary Blooded Edge. Basically it's a flip to the rather odd Q6 question (from a respected editor don't get me wrong). This place is almost entirely a volunteer effort (unless someone else is getting my pay cheques!). RL commitments don't really mean anything when it comes to granting +sysop unless a candidate has so few edits because of their commitments we can't form a consensus on their abilities with the tools. Pedro : Chat 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Aah, OK, so let me just clarify. You want to be sure he stays active enough to warrant the tools which come with the status? Or am I missing something? Blooded Edge (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You're missing something (no disrespect)!. I'm saying Q6 is a poor question. Future or current real life commitments are totally academic to gaining adminship. Let us see - Oppose User is 21 and likely to take a gap year after leaving university to go around the world. No point them having the tools. Doesn't make much sense to me. BTW - did you note I actually nominated the user? Pedro : Chat 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh, no I did not notice that, I didn't bother looking to see the name of the nominator after reading the text, my bad. Thanks for explaining more clearly. Cheers, Blooded Edge (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a minor point, but I wish Jac would consistently capitalize the first person singular pronoun (" I "). Majoreditor (talk) 01:43, 13
October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, this is something I try to do, but sometimes I slip, and although I try and correct myself, I often miss it, especially when I am talking about myself a lot. For example, 6 i's in this sentence I, wrote 5 of them lower-case the first time--Jac16888 (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support
Support As nom. Even if I now feel very, very old :)Pedro : Chat 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support A bit on the old side, but ok. MBisanztalk 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the initial decline for the tools, as well as the work with deletions. Very valuable in that area and can be trusted with admin.--Banime (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to make an an age joke. --Banime (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Recent assistance on a "major" rewrite of a list specific set of guidelines as well as as stepping into an Edit War shows Jac16888 to be helpful and neutral. (Guess with age comes wisdom huh?) Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Not power hungry, not seen them around but from what I can tell they would be a net positive for Wikipedia. — neuro(talk) 17:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, is too old. Seriously, though, he should be fine. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Per Pedro's nom. User looks a.o.k. Wisdom89(T / C) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Per nom. Good user. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I give credit to the nom for pointing out all those facts, it saved me some time, anyway, looks good. Good luck! America69 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Best of luck. — ceranthor(strike) 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support as per above comments BookswormDo you speak Orange? 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC) (Could someone explain the relevance of the Image upload question? I do not quite understand the connection
Do you mean question 4? If so, i asked myself that, so that i could give an explanation for my lack of image edits--Jac16888 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - too old :P Garden. 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No way that joke has been done... meh, I think he'll be a good admin. Garden. 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support has over 4000 mainspace edits.As per track see no chance of misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - After examining the user's talk page and contributes; And the full examination from the Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool and from the SQL's Tools [14]. — Orion11M87 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Why not? :) Looks good to me! II MusLiM HyBRiD II 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust him. rootology (C)(T) 22:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I usually trust Pedro, anyways. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, I very much trust the nom. RockManQ(talk) 00:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Jac, don't be humble about your contribution history. I've gone all the way through it and you're an excellent wikipedian. By the way, I am an administrator and I know nothing about image policies either, and there's nothing wrong with that, because I do hardly any work with images. You clearly understand the policies that apply to the areas you work in. Incidentally, my understanding of current policies is that list-type articles are allowed to contain redlinks, because they encourage others to create articles to turn the redlinks blue. If the redlinks bother you, you can link it to something else. Have a look at my articles Agro- or Aggi for some examples. See how I have no redlinks, but there is a link on every line despite some of the topics not having an article? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: I see absolutely no reason not to support. Tcrow777Talk 00:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support There is plenty of reason to support. It has just all been said already. Good to see another speedy-deletion-willing candidate. I experienced in my RfA to be opposed because I said I wanted to handle this as it was considered an "easy task" but with days such as today, where there are more than 600(!) requests for speedy deletions, I am glad of anyone willing to help. And much more so, if the person in question is shown to be as competent as this candidate. SoWhy 10:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support You'll make a fine admin, no worries here. You'd better start growing that beard ;) Nancy talk 12:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Per nom and positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - good contributions to the project. Caulde 16:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support- Looks good to me.CMJMEM (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportOld fogeys are much more calm and useful than the young idealistsGreat candidate, lots of contribs, why the hell not?SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 18:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I can spot a Pedro nom from a mile away. :) GlassCobra 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I was swayed by how Jac16888 responded to Q5. Maxim(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
support Stifle raises an interesting point but since the user does not intend to do image work it is not a serious concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support lack of image policy knowledge concerns me, but not enough to make me oppose an otherwise wonderful candidate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportSeems to be a perfect candidate, stay away from our image policy if you don't understand it until you do, also per my RfA criteriaFoxyLoxyPounce! 08:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, will be fine. He's said he'll stay away from images til he learns more; that'll do. No reason to presume he wouldn't be able to gen up on image policy if he wanted to. fish&karate 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pedro's answer to Stifle as well as Jac16888's frankness. Vishnava talk 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Nothing worth worrying over, apperently has plenty experience.--KojiDude(C) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportGood choice to be an admin. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good candidate. Good luck, Jac! Malinaccier (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. The candidate has not raised any significant doubts in my mind, so I see no reason to oppose this request. Blooded Edge (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support especially because of the answer about image policy, which I think realistic because if approximately matches my own feelings and abilities. DGG (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Haven't seen reason not to. The candidate has answered two out of three questions I've asked and so far so good. Review of candidate's record has come back clean so far. Just because I voted doesn't mean you shouldn't answer the last question though... I am still waiting :) - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributions & reasonable answers. Axl¤[Talk] 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, per answer to question #9. I didn't particularly like the question asked (we have many dedicated, trustworthy users in their twenties, myself included), but I liked the answer. Best of luck to you. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Plenty of edits, good work against vandalism, nothing negative that I see. Good luck to you. -FlyingToaster (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - 'Pedia builder (and a Pedro nom) ;) Tiptoetytalk 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributions in multiple areas and nothing to worry about. Just a note about knowledge of image policy: unless you upload a lot of them, it's difficult to become well-versed in that area while you are not an admin because few discussions take place. VG☎ 14:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – I like most of this editor's answers to the questions. Constructive contributions in many areas also, and in a good amount of admin-related ones also. Will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually have any age-related jokes, sorry. Giggy (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. The tools will be in reliable hands here. (Trying out how it feels to say "when I was 20" ... somehow it doesn't make me feel old now, but I remember hitting the benchmark which closed my second decade of life and, yes, feeling old then ;-) — Athaenara ✉ 05:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too many numbers in their username, lack of capitisation of "i", too old, too young and too many age related jokes ... but I'm editing the wrong section so I'll support per the positive contribs anyway. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good editor. No reason to oppose. --Carioca (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - per RyanCross. iMatthew (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Everything looks good. :) Nice answers to questions, too. Midorihanaみどりはな 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support even though I might question feeling "old" at 20. At just more than twice that, I must be a prehistoric fossil :-) Good answers to questions. Keep up the good work. Frank | talk 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. OMG. I am so old for Wiki :( ( reading I am 20 statement) :) . No concerns ... Best wishes.. I also admire the interesting way of Pedro's nom style. -- TinuCherian - 12:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Hate to be the first one, but knowledge of image policy is quite important for admins nowadays. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I do agree image policy is becoming ever more important these day, and respect to the candidate for "putting his hands up" that he is weak in this area (although I will be the first to say that I am too). What impressed me in the answer to your question was that he could identify where to go (in this case the relevant page being WP:NONFREE) to find out answers. I don't think every admin needs to know every bit of policy and guideline. What they do need to know is where to find out the information, and how to act (or not act) accordingly. Just my thoughts, not badgering. Pedro : Chat 14:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Once s/he becomes the sysop, s/he will know the image polices as accordingly; and image polices are not required for RfA, nor are needed if never s/he doesn't work on images. Like I said, as others have, s/he will probably learn them fluently once admin. — Orion11M87 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
My only comment here is that the first statement isn't necessarily true. — CharlotteWebb 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That I feel old? Trust me, I do. Pedro : Chat 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was replying to Orion11M87. — CharlotteWebb 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The folks above have good points. I won't blot your copybook. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (talk page)
(60/0/2); Ended Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:52:43 (UTC)
Ale jrb (talk·contribs) - I first met Ale jrb a few months ago while on Huggle. I was very impressed by his accuracy, since at that time Huggle was still in a rather early stage in its development, and it was much more difficult to use then than it is now. Since then, Ale jrb has continued to maintain a practically flawless record with his reverts. I would also like to point out his even temperament and civility. When people ask him why he reverted their edits, his replies are always civil and helpful, as evidenced by his talk page archives.
In addition to his anti-vandal work, Ale jrb also finds time to write some. He maintains a list of significant contributions here and I would encourage you to take a look at it. Here is a user who is not only an excellent vandal-fighter, but he also understands how difficult it can be to write good articles, and, per the initial failure and later success of Artemis Fowl's GAN, he has the perseverance to keep trying when he wants to do something, even if he was unsuccessful to begin with.
In the past few weeks, I have more and more frequently noticed a shortage of administrators on vandal-patrol. Ale jrb is active in this area and he has a clear need for the tools, with more that 500 reports to AIV, as well as myriad CSD tags. On the subject of CSD tagging, Ale jrb has not had a CSD tag declined (link is admin-only, sorry...) since February 9, 2008. (The bluelinks in the list after that date were either recreated after his original tag was accepted, or someone turned the page he tagged into a redirect.)
To summarize, Ale jrb is a user who primarily focuses on vandal fighting, but at the same time, he knows what it takes to start and improve articles. Coupled with his civility and helpfulness, I think Ale jrb will be a fine admin. J.delanoygabsadds 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Ale_Jrbtalk 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At least early on, I suspect that the majority of my admin-related tasks will involve those areas that I am most familiar with - WP:AIV and WP:CSD. I have significant experience with these, with around 750 deleted contribs and a few hundred AIV reports. What's more, I quite regularly see backlogs in these areas (well, CSD moreso), and would be pleased to help reduce these, rather than adding to them!
If I choose to branch out, it will probably be towards WP:UAA, as this is quite similar to the aforementioned areas and I have a little experience with it. I don't really intend to be very active in XfD, as I haven't been until now, but I guess it is possible this will change in the far future. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say the contribution I'm most proud of is my work on the Artemis Fowl (novel) article, which I took from stub up to GA standard. I'm not an amazing article writer, so I was very happy when it passed the GAN, after a quite substantial amount of work, if I say so myself :P. I'm currently editing Sir Thursday which has improved somewhat since I began (in my opinion), but still has a long way to go. I'm quite pleased with it so far, though, and watch it in the future!
I'm also pleased with my work on the VandalProof anti-vandalism tool, for which I was basically the sole developer between it's original developer opening the project and the introduction of huggle. That leads me on to my anti-vandalism work, which I can't really leave unsaid. I have lots of vandalism reversions, quite a few AIV reports, and lots of CSD taggings. Vandalism is a blight on Wikipedia, and I am proud to help get rid of it. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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 don't think I've been in any significant conflicts on Wikipedia. I have, however, dealt with lots of users who are upset that I've tagged their page for deletion. Several of these don't really understand why their article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, and make their first comment angry or upset, and I help them by explaining the problem, and giving advice on what to do. Of course, some users just come to vent, and these I tend to ignore. I don't imagine myself handling situations like this very differently as an admin - it's simply a question of explaining what the problem is, and helping the user fix it. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
4:: You certainly seem to find the trash in the new pages. Can you provide examples of new pages which could have qualified for CSD but you actually chose to improve instead?
A: Unfortunately, I'd say that the vast majority of pages I tag for deletion are either blatant vandalism, where there's no hope of an article being created, or complete lack of notability, which is about the same. Recently while patrolling (well, 2 days ago, but before nomination), I turned this page from a vandal-tagged page into a redirect, because I feel it could be useful there, and I will occasionally take action like this.
However, when it comes to writing articles, which I find more difficult, I prefer to choose one that I know about, and these aren't usually found in newpages. Hope that answers your question. Ale_Jrbtalk 07:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
5:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I wanted to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
I generally disagree with the idea, because I think it is fundamentally flawed. People act rashly because they are angry or upset, and in the case of Wikipedia, they're angry or upset at either a user or an action, who/which they strongly disagree with. This leads to disruption, WP:POINT issues, and sometimes personal attacks. The reasoning behind a cool-down block is that the user won't be able to edit for a bit, so will calm down. In my opinion, however, if something has made someone sufficiently angry to edit without thinking, being unable to edit so they can 'cool-down' will just make them worse - they'll see it as even more of a 'conspiracy' to stop them from saying what they're annoyed about. I think it's this - which makes them think they're being silenced, rather than 'punished' for breaking a rule (I use the term loosely, as that's not what blocks are for, but in that frame of mind I think that's how a NPA/3RR block would be seen, etc), that caused cool-down block problems. Therefore, in these circumstances, I would almost never use one.
The only time I see it having any effect is with a very experienced contributor, who is clearly furious about something and not thinking at all, where a short block might shock them into thinking that, actually, it's getting serious and they need to calm down. I feel this is different from a cool-down, though, because it's more a message they can't ignore than an actual block. But then, however, blocking an experienced contributor before they need to be blocked by policy, is very dangerous ground, so I probably wouldn't use one there either.
That was quite a long response. To summarise, no, I dislike cool-down blocks, and don't think they're helpful. I would wait until someone needed to be blocked, before lbocking them. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks alot for your clear response :). Blooded EdgeSign/Talk 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ale jrb before commenting.
Support - one of the good non-admin huggle users. Garden. 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Good candidate. SamBlab 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you a lot at newpages, I was thinking about askign you if you were interested, actually. — Ceranthor[FormerlyLordSunday] 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support one of the best hugglers. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Trust the nominator, and no red flags. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Beat the Eco Support, I'd like tickets to see the 9 o' clock show...oh wait, wrong place. Guess I might as well support while I'm here. RkMnQ (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Solid. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Satisfactory answers to the questions, and we need more admins. GlassCobra 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support 11,000 edits and no blocks is more than enough for my vote. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Has plenty of experience, no sign of any trouble, and we can use admins at CSD. --Banime (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent contributions. Axl¤[Talk] 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Per coding skills. MBisanztalk 15:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I see no reason to oppose, default to support. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Don't see anything worrying. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support As per track and cannot find anything to suggest user will misuse tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – I see no reason to oppose. Tcrow777Talk 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - why not? macy 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributions in multiple areas. I'm not worried about the uneven distribution of edits over time. This is not a paid position! VG☎ 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good candidate. Have seen around. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Evidently here for all the right reasons, and technical skills add further reassurance. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 11:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support as A Good Thing. As a couple of users reminded me, even when it's 99% likely someone will get the tools it's still helpful to try and up that a percentage point. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I think he will maje a great admin.CMJMEM (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support since he has a solid record of tagging pages for speedy deletion. There's no shortage of pages at CAT:CSD. (So why am I voting on an RFA when I could be patrolling new pages? Oops.) --Elkman(Elkspeak) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has provided some good answers to the provided questions, I feel no reason to vote against the nominee. Blooded EdgeSign/Talk 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I have encountered you on several occasions and have found you to be smart, bold, and correct in all editing. I trust you with admin tools fully.--Res2216firestar 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support A very good candidate. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - excellent record, good contributions, diligent editor. Caulde 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Highly respect contributions to Artemis Fowl (novel) as well as in other areas. Understanding+experience+great question answers=Support. IceUnshattered[ t ] 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – Per question 5. Nice, thought out answer. Good contributions also in many areas. Like I always say, you'll do just fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support:Moved from neutral eventually...busy times. — Realist2 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support --aye. ~ Troy (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Jdelanoy catches another good one! iMatthew (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral for now: I'm edging to support but I have a few issues. Firstly, your a very sporadic editor, away for months at a time and have only recently come back to the forefront. I would have also liked to have seen more reference/help desk work. Still, there are a lot of positives and you have a great nominator. Hmm.... — Realist2 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) moving to support. — Realist2 00:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Based on the answer to Q4. I do New Page Patrols, too, and I frequently find wobbly articles that need to be strengthened -- or, at the very least, marked with the various "Wifiky" or "Unreferenced" tags to encourage article enhancement. I am surprised about your claim that you were unable to identify a single new article that warranted your input for enhancement and improvement -- are you making any effort to save new at-risk articles? Or do you see the process as simply an exercise in deletion? Anyone can tag a junk article for deletion, but the real test comes in serious content creation and enhancement. Let's not forget that we are here to build and strengthen content, not just swat away the flies. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Eco. I looked at Ale jrb's last 50 non-blatant (not G10, G12, or G3) CSD tags, and there was one article that I think could possibly have been salvaged, and that was a very long shot. J.delanoygabsadds 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey J., not having access to this data, I cannot comment one way or the other. From my own experience, however, I've come across a good number of supposedly hopeless new articles that were easily saved -- mostly as stubs (nothing wrong with that), but sometimes as larger articles (including three that went to DYK after originally being deleted by admins who insisted their subject matter had no value). Sometimes people assume an article's subject lacks notability without making any effort to confirm if this is the case. I am not opposing this candidate, out of respect for his contributions, but his answer to Q4 gives the impression that he never makes any effort to save articles and I find it difficult to give 100% support for that line of operation. Hope this makes sense. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, and I'll admit I'm not the best person to be telling you about his CSD tags, since I tend to lean more toward a deletionist mentality. J.delanoygabsadds 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - As Ecoleetage I find the new page patrol one sided. I don't see may maintence tags or stub labels or one of our nice welcome messages to the newbie behind them that would be preferable over some very fast A1 / tags A3 (I would e.g not have tagged or deleted Horace (tv series) per A3 as it relates to Horace (play) by the same editor). So i think you could raise your head more often and consider what is the best things to do in a given situation. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Note to readers: This is an experimental RfA based on the discussion on the RfA talk page. People were given four days starting from Tuesday 7 October to ask questions and generally review the candidate. On Saturday 11 October, the discussion and questioning section were closed and the voting section opened up. This is, despite the experimental nature, a serious RfA; I'd appreciate if people vote based on the user, not the process.
I have an extraordinary respect for Ironholds. He has brought a peerless degree of intelligence, sincerity and dedication to this project. As an editor, he has worked tirelessly to expand the depth and scope of Wikipedia’s contents, both through the creation of original content and in his insightful observations within the AfD process. He also does a find job identifying articles deserving of Speedy Deletion and, where applicable, reporting users who violate Wikipedia policies. In his communications with his fellow editors, Ironholds displays maturity and good spirit, which helps to solidify the positive aspects of our community. By offering his candidacy in this variation of the RfA vehicle (which most of us agree is not working), he continues to show his passion for improving Wikipedia’s operations. By nominating Ironholds for adminship, I believe Wikipedia will be well served by this wonderful individual. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept. Thanks to Ecoleetage for his kind words :).Ironholds 18:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate 1-10
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Speedy Deletion candidates are something I'd like to focus on; several times while patrolling New Pages i've had to wait around for 25-30 minutes due to the lack of an admin, hitting F5 on my watchlist every few seconds to make sure people dont remove the speedy tags on their pages. Did You Know is my second and not-so-commonly-picked area to focus on; I've written quite a few and there's been occasions where the DYK's haven't been switched over for several hours.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I tend to focus on obscure area's people haven't heard off, having encountered the common problem that area's I'm an expert on have already written about by someone far more knowledgeable than myself, so I can't claim any FA's or GA's. The 21 DYK's (and another three confirmed and awaiting posting) are something I'm quite proud of, although I know (within reason) that having a DYK on an article is not a measure of the article's quality. I did once try for a Featured List (List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead) which didn't go through but i'm still proud of; see before and after. The before is actually a bit deceptive; Most of those bluelinks were red when I started, but I created a load of articles (I think about 100, mainly stubs, about 10 decent big'uns) to bluelink it all up.
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?
4. Do you think you have addressed the concerns raised in your previous RFA's? If yes, could you explain how? Thanks. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A:I believe I've addressed them, yes. The issues in the first two RfA's were no-brainers; even I (as I am now) wouldn't have me; I had barely 3000 edits of recategorising and general wiki-gnoming, a wildly fluctuating edit count between months and wouldn't have even known what the abbreviations CSD, XfD or ANI even meant. The third one was more interesting; some of the opposes came from me having a cynical and slightly offensive atheism-related userbox on my page (similar to that of SoWhy's RfA) while most were to do with real editing concerns. Chief among them were a complete lack of article work, bite-y tone, lack of WP:ANI contributions and some really inappropriate MfDing of userpages that verged (barely) on policy violations. I took some time off constant CSD and Recent Changes patrol, which definitely helped the stress levels and thereby the biteyness; since then I've tried to be more polite to new users (especially considering that, after a year and a half of edits, I knew barely more than they did). I've also been doing a lot of article work and have developed a real love of filling in redlinks and expanding articles; i've had 23 DYK's so far, all but 2 for new articles. I've also worked on trying to get the List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead (see diffs in Q.2) up to Featured status; it didn't pass due to silly grammar and style issues, but I'm going to try again once I've finished my current "things to do" (which stands at about 20 bio's, getting a legal court to GA status and 5 lists of redlinks). ANI contributions are something I've been more involved in, and that and the inappropriate MfDing and so on have been helped by me trying to abide by the spirit rather than the text; the rule should be that if you have to twist and think to work out how something should be deleted, it shouldn't. Another (rather embarassing) complaint at my RfA was that I failed to capitalise my i's; this I've corrected and now make a conscious effort to do so. Ironholds 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
5. What do you consider to be your biggest weakness on Wikipedia? Once identified, do you feel it will/can hamper your ability to work as an administrator?
A: I'm not the best person with the english language, by which I mean that I'll never churn out an entire FA or perfectly-phrased soliloquy. I don't feel this should harm my work as an administrator; I can fix my phrasing by simply working through the sentence in my head a few times (although this can be a long process when dealing with 40KB of text, hence my FA example). Ironholds 18:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
6. You previously edited under the O keyes account, and indeed had two RfAs whilst using that persona. Why (excluding any privacy reasons, which I will understand if omitted in any response) did you change your username? Did the change have anything to do with avoiding the somewhat curious "...4" after your RfA (specifically, one user requesting an RfA four times as one account may be regarded as power-hungry)? Anthøny✉ 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A. Nothing like that; after all, the previous 3 still show up in a little box on the side. As cliched and, at best symbolic, as it sounds, I fancied a change. I previously linked to my old account contributions on my userpage for the sake of honesty, but it seems to have got lost in the shuffle of redesigns. Ironholds 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up. That response seems to put any worries I previously had to bed. Thanks for responding. Anthøny✉ 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for bringing it up, actually, I'd completely forgotten to link the account name in as part of my userpage redesign, and this reminded me. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
7. In your own words, what is the role of an administrator on Wikipedia?
A.None of the normal phrases are applicable to the role, to be honest, although I use "banhammer" sometimes because I find it amusing. Banhammer implies that their job is to hit people with the heavy end when they mess up, "mop and bucket" makes them sound like some kind of Ubermensch, superior to us mere mortals and tasked with cleaning up our foolish, ignorant mistakes, which again is heavily inaccurate. An administrator to me is a user who has shown, through the RfA process, that he is trusted by the community (or at least the microcosm that spends time around RfA). He/She (lets say "he" for the rest of this for simplicity) is granted tools additional to those that a standard user can access because he has shown that he can be trusted not to misuse them (although misuse does, on occasion, happen). Being an administrator does not make you "better" than other users, it simply makes you more communally trusted. I'm sorry if I've repeated myself at any stage, but I believe that emphasising the difference between "more trusted" and "better" is something that needs to be firmly ingrained in peoples heads.Ironholds 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
8. How seriously do you feel the role of admin is taken on Wikipedia? Do you feel that you agree with this?
A.The role of administrator is taken too seriously and not too seriously depending on the user. Many people seem to go between "adminship is a big deal" and "to quoth Jimbo, adminship is not a big deal" without looking at the details. Becoming an admin and the title of administrator is not a big deal, but using the tools and responsibilities correctly is. This is my (personal) opinion and something I feel is oft-overlooked. So in a nutshell: People take it too seriously and not seriously enough, with very few people in the middle. But then everyone with an opinion has the (majority) of people on either side of their fine line. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
9. Will having the admin status hamper your article contributions? Will you continue to do both of the highly important roles of sysop and editor?
A.My editing time is normally divided thus: Write a bio/list. If I finish it in one session, write another one. If i'm bored of writing, do some quick New Page Patrolling or investigate any AfD's around, including those I start as part of my new page work. Holding administrator tools would not reduce my "proper editing" output since I genuinely enjoy writing; If I get bored of writing for an hour and look through New Pages I can actually get more work done in that position as an administrator, since after tagging a group of articles I don't have to sit around for 20 minutes on my Watchlist hitting F5 to make sure there's no improper removal of tags. CSD work and so on also gets boring on its own; that combined with my love for writing on one side, and the grind of article creation on the other means that neither type of contribution is going to take over my editing time completely.
10. Do you feel having so many RfAs makes one seem power hungry? How can you quash these claims by way of what you would like the tools for?
A.Three previous RfA's indicates "this person was not judged a fit person to hold the tools" not "this person wants power for powers sake". I've applied for admin each time because I feel I can do good with the tools, not because I want to be some kind of uber dictator; I think my answers to previous questions show that that's exactly the opposite of my opinion of what an Administrator is.
11. In your opinion, what do you think is the most commonly applied of all Wikipedia's 'policies' and why so? Do you agree it should be the most prevalent? Caulde 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The most widely enforced and applied policy is Wikipedia:BLP without a doubt, and for good reason. Wikipedia is one of the most widely viewed sites in the world, with a massively high search engine rating; "jennifer aniston" in google, for example, brings Wikipedia up in second place, and many people, however unwisely given complaints about its accuracy, use Wikipedia as a primary reference tool. Celebrities are people, and information posted on Wikipedia can shape how people view them, be it standard biographical information or offensive lies. As such, Wikipedia should constantly adhere to the policy, both to prevent any offense or harm coming to the articles subject and to prevent any kind of legal repercussions on the foundation. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
12. Do you feel that upon failing three RfA's your best course of action is to return with an experimental RfA? Please answer with consideration to the regular cycle of discussions concerning "how to fix RfA", "the mop is no big deal", "power hunger", and "drama for the sake of drama". Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I find it quite offensive that people would assume that, although I can see why they would in a way. My choice of an experimental process is nothing to do with my previous failures under the old system, it is simply that someone has to go first, and I had previously considered rerunning anyway, having received several "I'd support you looking at your contributions now" messages and also a nomination offer. RfA discussions are like economic cycles; the boom and bust always comes round again. Every so often there is a mass debate where everyone agrees the current system is broken but nobody can agree exactly how it should be fixed. I decided it would be a good idea to just go right ahead, cut through the mass-debating and just run with a new idea. If it works, we've offered a possibility of a new system; if it doesn't, we've ruled something out for future debates. Either way we've made progress, although I doubt the debate will ever be resolved (My normal phrase is "when you have two wikipedians, you have three opinions"). I don't think its for the sake of drama, as I said earlier, people agree things need changing, but not what; should the process be reformed? The general philosophy? if it is process, what should we reform it to? I feel constantly debating over what is or is not the best way to reform something is not productive in something that comes up again and againIronholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
13. How do you feel about being the first RfA to test the new RfA process? Do you feel this new process is better than the other three processes you've experienced? How?
A.I'm fine with the idea; I volunteered for it after all :). This process is significantly different, in some obvious ways and some less obvious ones. I feel the system is better in that it seeks to test the candidate rather than base it on their past activities. If someone joins soley to become admin then, with the appropriate caution, they can create a perfect resume. 4 days of being probed on everything from process to process reform is more difficult to fake. This isn't something that affects me, obviously (anyone looking at my first 2 RfA's can see that if my aim was to become admin I did a piss-poor job of it), but it might help weed out a couple of "bad apples" that might otherwise get in, and maybe help out a couple of potentially fantastic admins who's contributions don't fit the typical "requirements" for an administrator. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
14. How do you see Wikipedia in five years? What types of improvements or changes to do you see happening?
A. I'm not sure if we'll go through another catalytic process like that of 2003/2004, but I do see Wikipedia growing a lot bigger. I'm also thinking we'll see a mass shift in the next few years to quality over quantity. We currently have 10 active proposals for defining the WP:N guidelines to a finer degree, including things as varied as toys and political parties. Drawing a finer line in the sand will firmly keep out articles that don't have a place and, with a reducing number of new articles in relation to the growth of the userbase, switch the focus to improving the quality of articles. At the same time the near-current introduction of things such as flagged revisions should reduce vandalism, raising Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia, rather than as happened last week, when 3 of my university tutors in seperate speeches about dissertations told us not to touch wikipedia with a vandal-encrusted pole. These could together cause problems; instruction creep through things like larger and more specific notability guidelines could bog the encyclopedia down, and following the principle of Incrementalism this could prove a problem; "items which were once deemed to be insufficiently notable to have articles may eventually prove notable enough for an entry" will not have an entry created due to the increasing complexity of process making overturning outdated rules difficult at best. Overall wikipedia will become more established and/or more bogged down in paperwork, although some would say this has been happening right from the beginning. Ironholds 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
15. There has been a shift of how the community votes for RfA. Please list your personal guidelines of what you look for when supporting or opposing a candidate.
A.
I'm going to post this in list for for simplicities sake, I'm afraid
A high, regular edit count is required, emphasis on the regular. If the candidate made 20,000 edits a month 6 months ago (a bit OTT as an example, I know) and few since I have no way of seeing if he (for simplicity) has a good grasp of Wikipedia policy as it currently stands.
FA's and GA's coming out of their ears is not a requirement. Despite points that admin tools are for varied tasks, most are used for two things: removing vandalism, and preventing it happening again. People argue that an admin should have a firm grasp of all policy; this is not a requirement for me. If a user has 100+ AIV reports and 1000 CSD's, all good nominations, then I trust he is an experienced editor in regards to those areas. If the users other contributions show a level of maturity and civility then I also trust that the user will not head right off to an area he has no firm grasp of; an AV editor is, when given the tools, not going to jump right into mediation work.
Lack of blocks, general incivility or immaturity in the last 3 months (or more, depending on the ol' gut). I don't need to see that a user is a squeaky clean, perfect person who is cheery and lovely to everyone regardless of their behavior; this in most cases smacks of a user either in it for the tools or starting each day with a vallium enema. If a user has shown in their recent contributions either change or the ability to change, I will support or go neutral (again, the gut).Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
16. Which has priority, WP:V or WP:BLP? In other words, should a verifiable fact be added to an article if it infringes of the privacy of a living person?
In my opinion, BLP. If a perfectly verifiable fact infringes on a persons privacy it should be removed; we're an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine or telephone directory. We have a moral responsibility, upon finding the address and phone number of Jennifer Aniston, to make sure that she isn't phoned day and night by everyone who can use a keyboard, and a legal responsibility to make sure that the Foundation isn't sued. Here in a world of near-perfect anonymity, should a user choose it, it is easy to forget privacy concerns. Think how unnerving people like Daniel Brandt are to any Wikipedia user who raises his head above the parapet, and imagine if his site was visited by millions of people yearly. The argument that it is "verifiable, publicly findeable" information may hold sway in a law of court, but morally it is a different story; regardless of whether or not the person is a celebrity, and "should be used to it", people have a basic, undeniable right to privacy. Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
17. A user makes an insertion of a potential BLP violation, which is reverted by another user. There is a revert war, and the first user reports the second to WP:AN3 after 4 reverts. Do you block the second user?
No. It isn't a case of "oh, the second user reverted first", as I mentioned before the maintenance of high quality, accurate BLP articles is of the utmost importance, and the 3RR policy specifically mentions the reversion of libelous or possibly damaging BLP information as an exception to the rule. I would, however, advise the second user of what he should have done and should do in future situations (Get in a third party or admin before it got to the 3RR violation point). The first user would be informed of our policies on BLP's, and again asked to get a third opinion in next time. I'd then keep an eye on both of them and the article itself until things cool down. Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
18. A user is reported to AIV for vandalism after making 5 vandalistic edits. However, the first edit was reverted and the user wasn't warned, meaning that the user has not committed any vandalism after the final warning. Do you block the user?
If his only contributions, including those 4 are vandalistic, yes, indefinitely; regardless of a "final warning" if three warnings of progressive severity which specifically mention blocks are not enough to dissuade him he's unlikely to be a helpful contributor.Ironholds 00:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D Ordnance Battalion, you fought pretty hard for the losing side: you wanted deletion, and it wound up being kept. You kept your cool and argued calmly, which is a good thing, but something struck me about this AFD: no one, including you, referenced any existing guidelines or policies. MrPrada came closest, referencing MILMOS, but that hasn't got much weight in an AFD discussion. I have three questions related to this AFD discussion:
19. How much weight does an individual editor's intuitive opinion of notability count for in an AFD?
AIf he can back it up, as much as his vocal skills allow. AfD is a debate: If a user is backed up by policy, he has the upper hand, but notability policies are interpreted; you can't just apply the same policy to every situation under the sun. If a users intuitive opinion of notability can be expressed clearly (as I seem to be failing to do, heh) in relation to the policy and the situation at hand then his opinion should have just as much weight as anyone elses. Whether or not the other users involved agree with his intuition and interpretation is another matter, but someone should not be discounted just because he used words instead of TLA's.
20. You stated during the debate I dont think press coverage for military units is a good way of defining their notability. How do you think our policy of WP:NOT#NEWS and our guideline of WP:N interact with that argument?
AThe press coverage argument was based on the point that, as a unit involved in a war, there are no doubt going to be a load of newspaper articles, particularly since they deal with IED's, a well-known presence in the current wars. The issue is: are they independently notable? WP:NOT#NEWS says that not everything in the news requires an article, with the general rule being that if something/someone is notable beyond a single event, they're probably notable enough for an article. Me saying "delete" was not in relation to the NEWS policy, however, but rather to my interpretation of the WP:N policy. WP:N accepts "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My problem with the provided sources was that they were not, for the most part, "significant coverage"; an unexploded bomb is found near their base, they defuse it, they write a newspaper article about the bomb that, as the unit defused it, makes mention of the unit and gets an officer in for a quote. How does that make the unit notable? Bomb defusal is their job; if the bomb had been closer to another engineer battalion's base, they would have been tasked with defusing the bomb. Several of the newspaper reports are from the Yakima Herald Republic; the base that unit is at uses the Yakima Training Center for live firing; hardly a bastion of independent neutrality. The majority of the newspaper sources were either insubstantial or not independent. Many military units, in a time of war, are going to get newspaper reports due to their presence in a theatre of action; nothing sells newspapers more than war and bloodshed. But does this make the unit notable in itself, or as part of the military? My feeling is that the unit would not be considered notable regardless of training or their "elite" status if it wasn't for their presence in a news-worthy arena. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
21. If you were the closing admin, how would you evaluate the consensus? What weight would you give to each editor's arguments, and why?
AI'd probably close as "keep" myself. While no policies or guidelines were really mentioned (other than a MILHIST essay, which doesn't really count) the newspaper reports make a "keep" the better idea. As much as I believe it should be deleted, the argument I made at the time isn't strong enough to convince a closing admin. In a situation when it's marginal, a keep is the better idea; it can always be renominated, and it's best not to set a precedent of "delete" since restoring deleted articles is much more difficult than renominating a kept one. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions 21 through 25
Optional Question from Balloonman
Preface Wow, I consider myself to be one of the tougher reviewers at RfA as I oppose 43% of the time, but you seem to take the cake. As of this moment, you've participated in exactly 40 RfA's. Of those 40 RfA's, you've opposed 75% of the time. You've only supported 10 candidates---4 of your supports have come in the past two weeks!
22 Why do you oppose so often?
AI like to follow a WP-specific variant of Speaker Denison's rule; to wit, it is much more difficult to have a bad admin after he has succeeded than it is to renominate a good candidate who has failed. As such, when I vote on RfA's it's normally with the intention of preventing someone I feel could be a bad admin from getting the tools; good candidates will garner enough supports that one from me wouldn't make a difference. Actually it'd be 9 supports; 2 were the FoxyLoxy RfA and then reboot.Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
23 I know you are aware of the recent discussions here related to the lack of new admins. How might this discussion affect your future involvement here?
AAttitudes are a difficult thing to change; changing the opinions and temperament of over 100 editors? I do partially buy that attitudes are a problem, but it's far to difficult a thing to effectively change. The discussion has given me food for thought, but much of it doesn't apply to me; when I contribute to RfA's I always try and be civil, not contribute to drama (as at SoWhy's RfA, although that simply moved it to a different page) and not generally tear the candidate a new one. The comments on SNOW's, however, has made me think; I feel i'm not going to recommend any kind of SNOWing in future, although I have in the past recommended to a candidate on their talkpage that they withdraw. A fuller process would give the candidate a better idea of what he is doing wrong; I know I learnt more from my third RfA than the first and second, which were early closers.
In terms of "RfA philosophy" the discussion has made me reconsider that, in the past, i've opposed on maybe a single difference. As seen in my RfA criterion above, within reason this is no longer a reason to oppose (on its own). The discussion, however, was the straw that broke the camels back; my viewpoint had already changed before then, just like my massive shift from deletionism in early '08. Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
AI'm taking the question to mean "what can you say to people who assume that you may be one of these 'bitter people'"; if I'm misunderstanding, my apologies. I've never taken that kind of viewpoint; as I said, looking back on it I (as I am now) wouldn't have voted for me on my first two RfA's, where I was woefully underprepared and inexperienced. I can't possibly hold any "grudge" with the community for those, nor for most of my third, where some excellent points were made. The only slightly frustrating part of the third RfA was the "userbox opposes". A users personal biases should not be an issue as long as they don't come up in his contributions; everyone is biased in some way. I understand where people were coming from, however, and appreciate that in most cases it was not the sole reason, and I hold no "grudge" there either, something evidenced at SoWhy's RfA where a user (Andrew Kelly) expressed a view that he "couldn't vote in an atheist" as a strict christian. Despite a disagreement with this sort of viewpoint I will defend to the hilt someones right to express it, on my RfA and on any other, and trust that, should it get particularly ridiculous, the closing 'crat will discount it. I have no grudge with the community, RfA group or otherwise, and i'd point out that someone who had this view of "if I can't have admin, no one can" would have voted oppose consistently; if I'm a voter with a grudge, I'm really bad at my job! Ironholds 11:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
25. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A:Deny it. His previous behavior gives no indication that he'll be anything other than a nuisance, and the posting of a nice pretty unblock request immediately after calling me a cockfag makes him look like he's simply being a weasle and trying to butter me up. If the 11:18 post had been the most recent one, maybe an unblock with a strict eye kept on him, but vandalism following his sole edit shows that it's more like he's done contributing usefully than "done vandalising". Ironholds 16:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This question struck me as a bit of a "trick"; I was of the opinion administrators shouldn't fiddle with their own blocks. I've left the answer anyway; to hide it would undermine the process. Ironholds
26 You disclosed on your userpage, perhaps jokingly, that you have a history of mental illness. Are there any conditions in which this would interfere with your ability to participate in consensus reality?
No, no joke. I suffer from now-mild clinical depression, helpfully controlled with a little white pill once a morning. I've also got Asperger syndrome, although too midly to be properly useful. You know those wonderful autistic savants who can do fantastic things with their minds? Yeah, i'm nothing like that. I can't think of any situation in which these would affect my judgement or perspective; one is nicely under control, and the other is too weedy to be good for anything. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
27. One of the key abilities in administrators is the ability to accurately judge consensus, wether it be at WP:AFD, deciding to archive a discussion, or to make edits requested on the talk of a protected article. If you find that there is no consenus for granting you +sysop (i.e. before the "voting" begins on the 11th and from a close reading of the discussion here) will you withdraw this RFA?
A.Yes. The only reason to continue would be a "lets see what I'm doing wrong" thing, but if there are enough signs that people will be voting oppose I expect them to have reasoning attached, making waiting around a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Impressive response. Pedro : Chat 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Optional question from User:EdJohnston
I'd like to provide a central place for you to respond to issues mentioned by Oppose or Neutral voters in your last RfA, if you care to do so. If you already answered any of these above, then you don't need to here. I numbered these for convenience. Add your answer under each item if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
28.not enough article work
I've been working on articles almost constantly since my first one, Thomas Prince in mid july, one I'm very proud of as a first stab (although I need to get round to adding inlines at some point). I've just completed a fully referenced five-fold expansion of an article, and my 23rd DYK was stuck up just yesterday evening. Article work is no longer an issue; I've grown to love creating and expanding articles (As I type this I've got another tab open with an article I'm expanding). Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
29.the candidate seems a bit too biased in regards to deletion/inclusion criteria
I was very deletion-friendly, yes. That's changed completely, although I can't pinpoint an exact moment when that happened, I think it was more of a gradual change. I think most deletionists probably experience a slide towards the middle at some point. Point is: I wouldn't define myself as a "deletionist" any more or even an inclusionist; more a policyist. If policy says it should be deleted and common sense raises no questions, I'll go with delete, but if you're having to twist or "interpret" notability policies it's a good sign that the article is worthy; bad ones would be in violation of WP:N off the bat without any kind of word games. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
30.you have little experience of WP:ANI, something infamously valuable as an administrator
It isn't something I've had much reason to look at. Disruptive editors I encounter during my AV patrols are normally so disruptive I can just send them to AIV, where I have 172 reports as of the beginning of this RfA. I participated once, I believe, during the WikiUpdate/Radio Wikipedia thing (which was a bloody stupid ANI report, I'm glad I wasn't the one who submitted it) but as I said, my editing doesn't lead me to the point where I get involved there. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions 31 through 40
31.I am concerned with your lack of experience in basically anything non-Twinkle, especially in article contribution
This again has changed; see my answer to question 1 for most of it. As well as the article creation and expansion I've also done quite a bit of Gnomish work without twinkly assistance, and I've even had to do CSD reports manually (shock horror!). Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
32.I've seen some pretty bitey and borderline reports to WP:UAA, which I can only assume is an area where they will end up working.
Definitely something that has changed. UAA reports I make now are neutrally toned and only if I'm certain. Example from my last report: A user who's name is something like CarlssonPR. He creates a db-spamtastic article on a housing development in area X, and searching for Carlsson PR brings up a PR company in area X; clearly here for promotional purposes. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
33.I am concerned about the user's lack of non-twinkle experience. If I was you, I would have waited for a reply on admin coaching before self-noming. I personally am scared about his only 32 mainspace talk edits.
Lack of non-twinkling already answered. Self-noming, here not an issue; as for the admin coaching; I still haven't recieved any coaching response. Mainspace talk is 130; the article-writing area's I work in are not those many people frequent (13th century civil servants, anyone?) so there isn't much to say to people; I do run into users (User:Choess springs to mind, an excellent writer) but if I'm making a general comment about an article (example was "Is it "Lord Chief Justice" for the court of common pleas or "Chief Justice"? My source says one, yours says another") then the quickest way to make the user in question aware of my query is their user talk page, not article talk. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
34.I was floating around on MfD earlier and my main thought on seeing your massive pile of contributions to it was that "Wow, this guy needs to relax and stop scouring peoples' userspaces for trivial violations",
Another thing I've stopped, something related to my shift from deletionism and my "stop acting like a jerk and contribute to areas of the encyclopedia people actually go to" attitude change. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
35.things like the MfD and other errors around the deletion process make me too wary to support.
See the question above for the first bit. As for deletion: User:Dlohcierekim below says I've tagged about 100 pages, three of which have been rejected, and in two of those cases my original tagging was valid. The normal reason I find for rejected tags is (for example) a user creates a spamtastic article. I tag it as db-spam, the user removes everything spammy and an admin gets there before I do. When I make a mistake in CSD's or the problem is corrected, I remove the tags; I know i'm not above making base errors. I've on occasion helped people reference and fulfill WP:N correctly when there's a subject that should be kept but the article on that subject doesn't fulfill guidelines; see Bang Bang Eche for example (although that'n needs to be referenced, funny, I thought i'd told him how to do that). Thanks for the valid questions, btw; if this format picks on I think "address concerns at the last RfA" should be a general set of questions for those with previous requests. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Additional pointer to that: I've never had a deleted article. 99% of those are therefore AfD's, PRODs or CSD's, with a percentage for maybe something I Wikignomed and was later deleted (although with the articles I look at I can't see that happening). Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
36. Do you think consensus can change based on new Reliable sources? PXKT/C 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you mean "If I provide Reliable sources counter to the opinion of Consensus, which has no reliable/few reliable sources, should consensus change" then yes. There is a philosophical theory in epistemology called the Three Condition Theory which sums up my view; in order for something to be considered "fact" (lets say A says that X is true) A must believe X, be able to present evidence X is true and lastly, X must be true. If consensus believes X, has evidence X is true but later, more substantial evidence turns up that X is false, consensus should change. one piece of verifiable information trumps a thousand Tom, Dick, and Harry editors simply agreeing that something took place. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(If you feel you have already answered one of these specific questions above, please point to that response.)
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
37. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
A:If the editor is being particularly disruptive, either through page edits, inappropriate behavior, sockpuppetry or personal attacks. Other less obviously-disruptive ones are violation of the username policy (not to say User:shitwanks isn't obvious, but promotional names or names designed to be similar to a current user for purposes of harassment may not immediately appear to be disruptive to people not familiar with that company/user). Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A: In terms of current pages, in situations of edit-warring, persistent vandalism (see Ancient Olympic Games, a page I hang around, which for some unknown reason became a target for IP vandals a few months ago) or to protect from damage to the foundation (such as libel-y edits to BLP's). In terms of deleted pages, normally they're "salted" (i.e "salting the earth to prevent crops grow") and protected to stop the recreation of deleted pages that are a) being recreated a large number of times with the same sort of content as the deleted version) or b) again, potentially damaging to the foundation. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A:Easiest, it seems: When it violates the speedy deletion criteria. Recreation of pages deleted through XfD also comes under this, although I encounter quite a few people on New Page Patrol who've taken "pages previously deleted through a deletion discussion" to be "stuff I CSD'd 5 minutes ago", and when I've done so I inform them of the correct reasons for that tag. Nonsense seems to be another one misused as "anything I don't understand"; again, I take pains to inform users I encounter misapplying this tag as to its correct use. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
37d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?
A: In a situation where common sense would indicate action X should be taken, but policy says action Y, either because the writers hadn't forseen the situation around X or because there are individual nuances. Wikilawyers seem to take it as "Do what the hell you want, and damn policy"; that's crap. It should only be applied when the final result is beneficial to the project as a whole, not when it allows you to one-up a user correcting your mistake. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
38. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
A:First things first: Consensus is entirely different to a vote. A vote is to do with numbers, consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments of users on various "sides" of the dispute. Talkpage "arguments" in terms of editing disputes normally have references, sources and strength of policy as their "aces", while XfD is more closely based on policy and its interpretation in respects to what counts as an independent, verifiable source, for example. DRV is different to talkpages and (in some respects) XfD in that it is more closely based on policy than wordplay; users either feel the original XfD/CSD was correct, or that it was incorrect, citing issues with the CSD criterion used, and so on. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
39. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
A:A temporary page protection action on the article in question while I assess what's going on. I'd then message the users involved and inform them (if they didn't already know) as to the three revert rule, and guidelines on determining consensus. I'd then discover, hopefully through the talkpage (since most article discussion goes on there for obvious reasons) the consensus as to the article content, and inform both users about the current consensus and that, should they continue to argue and revert back-and-forth, I'd block them for a certain period, and that any issues they may have should be debated on the talk page, not through throwing the article back and forth. I'd keep an eye on the discussion, page and their subsequent edits, and any subsequent issues would (assuming there are more attempts at mediation) lead to a case at WP:RFM. It's rather long-winded I know, but I prefer not to throw off competent users due to an editing dispute when discussion might solve the problem and keep the users. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
40. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
A: "World Peace". Oh wait, is this not Miss USA? The stereotypical answer would be "because I believe, as an administrator, I can help the project", which is perfectly true but skimps on the details. I focus on three main area's of editing: Article creation, New Page Patrol and XfD. With administrator tools I could do more work in two of those three areas, and two out of three aint bad. As a New Page patroller I've spent frustrating half-hours hitting F5 on my watchlist to make sure users aren't removing CSD tags from their own article, since there's no admin around to delete the damn things. An extra admin in that pool would lighten the work load for a lot of people; I could've spent that half hour patrolling instead of repetitively button-pressing, for example. We're currently suffering from a constantly increasing userbase and a constantly shrinking admin pass rate; at some point, I fear, the pool of active admins itself will start to shrink. If I can slow that even a bit, not by mind-numbingly voting support on every request that comes my way but by serving as an effective admin, then I'm serving the project simply by being present. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions 41 through 50
More questions from Balloonman
41. While I've commented on your RfA, I haven't really vetted you yet. Looking at your talk page, I find that you have one of the more annoying types of talk pages that can hurt your chances. For example, this interaction doesn't reflect positively on you, especially when you only read one side of the conversation. Do you know if the case was ever resolved? Was it a Sock?
A.That was related to a sockpuppetry case Arbiteroftruth had opened up which I, quite frankly, felt was ridiculous, and you can see here. He was saying an account as a sockpuppet on the grounds that 1) he edited two areas another sockpuppet had previously done (and also edited various other areas, I'd like to add) and 2) the fact that these edits were useful just showed "he was trying to establish legitimacy" (to which I pointed out that a sockpuppet trying to establish legitimacy through good edits looked exactly like somebody making good edits, and was hardly grounds for a sock case). The case was closed with a "there's no way in hell you can link this account" and the account in question hasn't been blocked, so I'm assuming nothing came of it later, either. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
42. You've indicated that your 23 DYK's is proof that you've now got experience writing articles. Looking at about 10 of your DYK's I've noticed that they are all stub/start class at the most. I think they are all less than your contribution to them was about 4500 bytes. Some are short on sources... have you written anything of real substance?
A.Try Court of Common Pleas (England) which at (some) point I'm going to get up to Good or Featured if I'm lucky. Well referenced, good content, the works; took me many an hour in the law library to work on that. Ironholds (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
43 One of the things that others seem to be finding concerning is your (let's say) "blunt" way to comment (both in RfA and elsewhere). A question of bite-y-ness, and perhaps uncivility, and at the least seeming to not convey collegiate good will, or Wikiquette. (An indication of not feeling the WikiLove.) How do you feel that you can re-assure those commenting here that this isn't an indication of all of the above, and further that this isn't an indication of further likelihood of what might be considered "untrustworthy behaviour", such as inappropriate action with the tools and responsibilities that adminship conveys? - jc37 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
A:
The fact that, out of my X thousand edits they could only find those? The RfA opposes cited (the ones I made, that is, not the ones based on my opposes) were valid. Tutthoth-Ankhre, for example; I said that I the statement had a "severe annoyance factor", which is how I classify someone saying "I have a an edit somewhere aroun 450. now, I know what you're thinking. But listen. Jimbo Wales said the Adminship is no big deal. So why not? I leave you there." It sounds wiki-lawyerish at best. I don't see how the third oppose is at all bitey or incivil; I simply stated the facts. The internet is hardly the best way for transmitting emotive content, and even if it was, one man's honesty is anothers incivility.
As possibly-smug as it might sound depending on how this comes across, the fact that you could find maybe 10 issues out of 10550 should at least partially show that I'm not a deliberately bitey person. Opposing at RfA's has nothing to do with the tools whatsoever (except reducing the number of "RfA friends" you get). My record in relation to admin tools (the stuff I can get at, such as CSD's and AV work) is excellent, not that I'm blowing my own trumpet or anything; Caulde described my CSD work as "outstanding". None of my past bluntness has any relation to the tools or, in 99% of cases, even the mainspace, at all; this is not suddenly going to change if I get the tools. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
44. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. Mainly if the hangon tag is fairly obviously there simply to stick a stumbling-block in the way of deletion and keep the page visible for as long as possible rather than because the writer honestly feels it should be there; if it has been there for 3 hours with no talkpage explanation written then the writer is pretty obviously not interested in keeping the article but more into having it linger for as long as possible. Personal attacks and other massive BLP violations will be deleted immediately regardless of hangon tag; there is nothing you can say or write on a talkpage that will justify such things. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
45. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. If it is fairly obvious the user has a clue stick. A lack of blocks, horribly inappropriate AV and CSD work and outright-offensive comments is enough; if a users contributions persuade me that, based on his previous work, he is unlikely to be a liability with rollback, i'll grant it (although that's a rather general statement, I think everyone would agree with that).
46. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A.Only in the situations where 1) there is no possibility of taking a free use one (highly unlikely, but possible) or 2) when the persons notability rests on their appearance, and again, a free use one would be unavailable; example, if the Blue Man Group broke up and publicly swore they would never perform in their costumes, reunite and so on, and there were no available free use images, a non free-use image would be acceptable, as their appearance and mannerisms are a large part of their fame. Should they then get back together, raising the possibility of subsequent free use images, that could be tricky, but I'm not a copyright lawyer. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
47. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A.I would not consider it a conflict of interest, in that that implies I might have reacted differently if no interaction between me and the IP existed. If I have warned that user that their next vandaltastic edit will result in a block, and they make an edit vandalistic in nature, then regardless of the target I would have responded in the same way. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
48 How much time after passing will you spend reading WP:NAS?
Around a week, although I'm not sure how much that works out in in wiki-time. For now I might skip the "how to make a user an account creator" course in that that isn't an area I can ever see myself working in; if I do end up doing so, I can simply come back and learn then. Learning something I have no intention of ever using is not high on my list of priorities. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ironholds before commenting.
Discussion
Do Q12-15 really have anything to do with adminship, or are they just being asked for the sake of asking questions?--KojiDude(C) 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Most likely the latter. :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be an interesting unintended consequence of this format. Editors will be "punished" more for declining to answer certain questions. Protonk (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And thus, we've found the Achille's Heel of the format. What to do, what to do...--KojiDude(C) 22:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. It's merely a different quirk. I suspect we will find many more. Maybe the social pressure against opposes based on "you didn't answer my question about banannas" will increase if the question period is longer. Maybe not. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As he who asked question 12, what doesn't that have to do with adminship? Anyone ready to be an admin should know better than to pull something like this. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"Something like this" being experimenting with the RfA process? Ironholds 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Which should not be taken to mean that I think this is a bad thing in and of itself. I just think that anyone ready to be an admin would know that you have to cross your T's and dot your I's in a contemporary RfA, and then game the heck out of the system to pass. Don't take this to mean that I intend to oppose you. Instead, understand that this will probably garner more tendentious opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
<reply to H after EC> It's a good question, but I disagree with the idea that this is something a prospective admin should not have done. Interestingly, there is very little discussion of the candidate at this point. Looks like the discussion is an integral part of the voting part. Or vice versa. I think that if we make any change, it would be to have a separate question-answer part followed by discussion/voting. Question-answer/discussion followed by voting is not working, IMHO. Dlohcierekim 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this for discussion of the process or the candidate? Anyway, here goes. I expect to support. I like the answers to the questions, for the most part. I came up with nothing damning in my review of the last 500 contribs. Don't believe will abuse/misuse the tools. Dlohcierekim 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just some data here: in his last 500 contribs he tagged 91 pages for speedy deletion, only three were declined. Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw like 500 successful taggings since August. Only one of the rejected ones did I have a real concern over. The other two were understandable given the content at the time. Also, I saw where he removed his own speedy template. That shows the sort of care I find encouraging. Also saw a talk page where he took time to explain to a new user till the new user understood. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree! My post was not a direct response to you and had no opinion attached with it. To tell the truth it was just an attempt to get some discussion going. IMHO we should use this interim time to discuss the candidate not just ask hundreds of questions. Icewedge (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you, 100 %. Cheers, and good night. Dlohcierekim 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm very interested in seeing the response to Kww's question. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I too expect to support, although the answer to Xeno's question concerns me slightly. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've met Ironholds in person. He is clearly dedicated to the project which has certainly benefited from his efforts - he seems to have another DYK every time I take a glance at his profile, for instance.
While the fact that I actually know this person should add no more weight to my opinion (I simply feel it's important to mention because I'm in a position unique to this discussion): there is an issue that concerns me. Do I think Ironholds will become an admin? Somewhere down the line, yes, I daresay there is an appropriate time. If you were to ask me now though, the answer would be that that time has not yet come. This aura of "not quite" was confirmed to me via an MSN conversation yesterday, where it transpired that Ironholds, by his own words, "didn't know" how to use the logs.
Keeping the peace with individuals while at the same time, dispassionately and undramatically pursuing the interests of the community is not an easy task, and while I hate to be such an awkward spanner in this new machine, I think it would be bit of an insult if I did not bring this forward. The bottom line of it is, is that there is simply no way I can support any request for adminship where the candidate learns how to use the public logs 2 hours after having filed his RFA. WilliamH (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be interested to see Ironholds' comments on this, if he wishes to make any. Giggy (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Question for the talk page; could such a comment not be made in normal RfA? :-)
I don't really have much to say, to be honest. WilliamH informed me he'd be mentioning this here, and I even recommended he do so; I don't want to undermine this whole thing to try and boost my chances of passing. The public logs are not something I've ever really had to use; the only real thing it's useful for that things like "contributions" aren't is blocks. In article creation, blocks and so on don't come up, and blocks I apply for at AIV and so on are normally indefinite due to the nature of them (mass spamming, attack pages, so on). The lack of knowledge about public logs does not indicate "there are a plethora of things this user is ignorant about", although I'm sure there are some things about wikipedia I don't know, but if people feel this is a sign of possible unpreparedness they're welcome to ask questions relating to the use of MediaWiki functions, processes and policy, and so on to ascertain if it is a sign of more widespread ignorance (which I don't believe it is, but then if I don't know something, I don't know I don't know it). Ironholds (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, I wasn't familiar with or used anything beyond new pages, recent changes and watchlisting before starting my own RfA. I only really learned about them or applied their use in new admin school. Question is, where does the balance lie between demonstrating your capability of performing admin duties and learning how to carry out tasks "on the job"? Gazimoff 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I don't think it matters. We shouldn't expect candidates to know how to perform all admin tasks, or even things such as utilizing the logs. Specifically speaking on logs, learning how to use them probably took, what, like 5 minutes? It's not a big deal, and I don't see it as a reason to withhold support. Jennavecia (Talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Using the logs is a technical thing one can learn. Having clue and a fine touch is not something that can be taught. As Jenna says - it's a 5 minute process to pick it up so it's really not a deal breaker. Pedro : Chat 13:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If a candidate doesn't know about a lot of things, I'd be concerned because their learning curve might get too disruptive. Not being familiar with one fairly important thing (like the logs) isn't that big a deal in my mind. The fact of the matter is, picking these things up on the fly isn't that hard, as long as you're careful and go slow at first. Some evidence of a history of not getting in over his head would completely erase any concern I might have about unfamiliarity of some processes; evidence of galloping full speed ahead into unfamiliar territory would make it much more worrying. --barneca (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Logs what are those? Actually, I think I was an admin for several months before I realized what they were ;-) It's definitely not a deal breaker for me.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I eschewed the logs. The deletion logs are important; I can get at them via the page history. The block logs I can get through via user contribs. Balloonman said it best. Dlohcierekim 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, logs aren't precisely the most mind-boggling of utilities to get to grips with. I'm sure Ironholds will cope fine with them. I think William made a wise move, however, in sharing his concerns regarding logs and such with the rest of this discussion's participants; concerns are best out in the open, rather than shut away, in my opinion. Anthøny✉ 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement from WilliamH: followup:
Concur with Pedro. My concern lied not with the tool itself (and learning it, which indeed is quite facile), but the odd timeline of experience, which really caused my confidence to falter. If I consider these things, that Ironholds:
a) is clearly advantageous to the project
b) has
i) clue and will willingly
ii) ask others to use their clue stick too if he thinks it offers benefit.
c) at no point during our beer/pub lunch, contemplated blocking Jimbo or attempted to shave the word HAGGER?? into the back of my head.
...then I retract the sentiment of my previous statement and know of no other matter which I may feel the community should be aware of, as after all, that was what my interest was ultimately vested in, and always will be. Best of luck. WilliamH (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :). You appreciate I may at some point in the future shave a small triptych portraying the rise of four-part crop rotation in Western Europe into the back of your head? Ironholds (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment (and only labeling it as that because I'll be reverted if I don't, which is silly on the face of it) 36 questions for an administrator candidate? This candidate thinks it's a good idea? The RfA pass rate is dropping faster than the stock market and this, this is to be the cure???? I don't need four days to draw my own conclusions. This is insanity. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Insanity? This is Wikipedia! In all seriousness, though, this is for discussing the candidate; complaints about the process should go on the talkpage. Ironholds (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm-- if you read the top, you saw this an experimental RFA? If you read the talk page discussions, you'll see that the length of time for "questions and discussion" is under discussion there. I think one of the conclusions that will come out of reviewing the process after this is complete is that 4 day is to long. At any rate, please review and join the discussion on the talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not interested in discussing the format. The format is a joke. That's plain to see. I am discussing the candidate in that thinking this is the right direction to go, even for an experiment, is astonishing. I can't imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea. If the candidate had the best interests of the project at heart, he'd close down this abomination. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sold on the format for a number of reasons... but I think the candidate should be commended for being brave (stupid) enough to be the first person in a long time to bring a viable alternative to the RfA process. Everybody agrees that RfA is broken, I'm not convinced that this is the right fix, but I will not hold the candidate to blame for trying something different... our community is too uptight as it is, which is why nothing ever happens... let's not punish somebody for testing the waters (even if you think the idea is ill conceived.)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I do commend him for trying. I don't commend him for letting this process continue when it is so obviously a horrible solution. It's a train wreck. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, then Hammersoft. <<grin>> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree all the way around. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
First up, this RfA is an experiment. Experiments usually involve some form of trial and error. If you don't try something new, you will never know if it works or not. To discount something out of hand or to wilfully resist change with nothing more than destructive criticism does no benefit to yourself, the candidate the process or the project. The fact that you're not even prepared to discuss the topic is regrettable in my opinion. Then again, from the way you rigorously archive your own talk page perhaps a willingness to discuss may have been misguided optimism on my part. Even so, the situation we find ourselves in with the RfA process (plummeting succesess and nomination rates) is a situation we as a community should try to resolve, lest we reach the situation in the future where our active admin pool starts to shrink. This scenario may in fact already be happening. Gazimoff 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to discuss it because it is obvious it failed. I don't mind experiments. But continuing the experiment so long after it evidently failed is absurd. I DID give criticism, and it wasn't destructive. This experiment resulted in 36 (and counting!) questions. That's 10 times the number of default questions. It blatantly failed. I can archive my talk page however I like, thank you very much. The way I do it has nothing to do with this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what your fail criteria are. When we looked at proposing a new mechanism for RfA, we specifically did not list among the requirements a desire to either reduce or cap the number of questions that a candidate would face. The key aim was to ensure the candidate would be reviewed fairly and thoroughly, and not gain or duffer from early or pile-on supports or opposes. It was also a requirement to reduce the level of badgering that support or oppose statement would receive by encouraging discussion of the candidate's merits and issues before !voting commences. Neither of the requirements can be judged to have failed as yet, and cannot be scored until the RfA completes. If you feel that there should be a cap on questioning, perhaps you should detail it as a requirement when the post mortem is held in order to ensure that any further experimental RfAs can be designed with this requirement in mind. Many thanks, Gazimoff 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but..
Putting it here rather than the talkpage so I can guarantee people'll see it. I'm AFK for the rest of the day, hence me planning it to open at 7PM-odd (although Ecoleetage seems to have been WP:BOLD and done it already). I'm deeply sorry; I would've waited if I was aware this'd happen. Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support
Strong Support As nominator. Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia at every possible level. No "wrong queue" jokes here -- I am completely serious in backing him and I'm in the right queue! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
SupportWisdom89(T / C) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support an excellent editor. The fact that he donated his RfA to test this experimental format only makes me support him more not less, I don't see how it shows bad judgment, as RMHED has suggested. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Strong support - I think the candidate has learned from previous RFAs and adjusted contributions accordingly. In that he avoids the cesspool of drama-mongering that is AN/I, he earns bonus points. We don't all need to be there, srsly. I'm pleased with his answers to the questions, even impressed by some. I think it's admirable that he volunteered himself to test this format, and any opposes for it should surely be discounted as pointy and shameful bs. (Anyone who feels inclined to ask me to strike that, save it, because it won't happen.) His heart is in the right place and, as always, I ask myself Can I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools or the position?, and my answer is a resounding "Yes." Jennavecia (Talk) 01:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support As someone who opposed his previous RfA (and saw my comment in one of the questions, actually), I think that the candidate has learned well since his previous RfAs. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
AbsolutelyProtonk (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - he could benefit from the extra tools. jj137(talk) 02:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Nonwithstanding my great annoyance with the format of this RfA, Ironholds is an experienced and dedicated editor who will be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolute ultra super-duper Support with sprinkles on top! This user will be a credit to the admin group/right/community/whatever, there are many reasons why a user would have many RfAs, the cynical and assume bad faith side could say that its because Ironholds is power hungry, but I believe quite the contrary, this user is determined to help the Wikipedia community to the best of his/her ability. It's good to see that you are also experimenting with the RfA format, shows that you are open to change; A Good Thing. Good on you Ironholds! And keep up the good work! It might also be worth mentioning that Ironholds meets my RfA criteria as well :-) FoxyLoxyPounce! 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I have see several bitey comments of yours in RFAs, which is not exactly adminlike behavior. However, it must be recognised that we are all human, and people must look through the trees to see the clearing (or something tlike that) I recently miserably failed snowed my RFA basically due to one opposition that your nomintor agreed with (eco rocks my socks). I could have toned down my statement a bit, as I assume you would have had you the oppurtunity to turn back time. Your work with DYK is impressive, which clearly shows a dedication to building the project. Oh and all that admin stuff yada yada. You are qualified, Ironholds, to be on The Administrator Cabal! :) ~one of manyeditorofthewikis(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support He might have been a little mean in RfAs, but he has enough experience with policy and he seems reasonable. I like his ideas about improving the reliability of Wikipedia articles. Wronkiew (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong SupportSee no reason to believe will abuse the tools. Iwas impressed with his CSD experience. Has grown remarkably since last RfA. Per Icewedge and Jennavecia as well. Dlohcierekim 04:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - User demonstrates the qualities of WP:BOLD admirably, even in the face of quite appaling opposition. Opposing the process rather than the candidate? In terms of barrell-scraping, I think we just hit a new low. Gazimoff 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak support Ironholds is an experienced editor who could really use the tools, and has created 273 articles?!?!!!??!?! That's a lot - I've only got 114. But I read Acalamari's oppose, and it seemed a little bitey. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes 08:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The oppose or the context? Caulde 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ironholds is an asset to Wikipedia and I don't think he will abuse the tools. Acalamari has raised some concerns, but adminship is not a big deal. AdjustShift (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Ironholds is one of the best people for the job. Also, I note that most of the opposes are pileons or people saying they hate the formula which was actually the thing we were trying to prevent. PXKT/C 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Epic support — This user put himself in the firing line for four entire days without a flaw. The only valid oppose I see is by Acalamari but I am not swayed by it. RHMED's oppose is entirely inappropriate and quite frankly, rude. I wholeheartedly support this candidate and I think you'll make a great admin. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support, per DHMED and Giggy's opposes. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think Ironholds will be a good admin, and I hope he joins the DYK-updating crew. I support the experiment as well: inviting discussion on the RfA talk page two or three days before the RfA !voting phase opens is an intriguing idea and worthy of further testing. — Athaenara ✉ 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Not my perfect candidate, but per nom and per above, positive qualities definitely outweigh negatives. Many of opposes are reasonable, even though I disagree; the others based mainly on the format are depressing. And Ironholds, thank you for sticking your neck out and giving this a try. --barneca (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per Acalamari's diffs. RMHED (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain this more? Aren't Acalarmari's reasons more for oppose? I could have misunderstood your reasoning though.--Banime (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith here, but it could appear that you are supporting the candidate because of rather uncivil RfA opposes. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Anyone who had to answer as many questions as he did deserves my support. JockBoy 22:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Moving to Oppose per some very uncivil actions at others Rfas. JockBoy 22:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Notable improvement since his last RfA. Axl¤[Talk] 08:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – per CSD tagging (which is frankly, outstanding) and the shared sentiments in barneca's support above. Not my perfect candidate, but good enough for support. Caulde 14:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. After an intense interrogatory that failed to find any substantive faults in the candidate, the opposes are based on the candidate being outspoken and making use of colorful language and sarcasm at times. These actions are labeled as uncivil by the opposition. This seems to be the new standard of wiki-political correctness, which I must oppose. Outspoken and blunt ≠ uncivil. My experiences with the candidate have been positive. VG☎ 15:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Supportanyone who answers 43 questions deserves support and anyone who reads all the answers deserves a medal! Not a good process but despite all of this the candidate will not make a bad admin in my opinion even if some find him a bit short tempered or rude.Mjchesnel (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Ironholds and I have an almost opposite pattern of voting behaviour at RFA, so I was perturbed at some of the allegations of him being bitey and the frequency of him voting oppose. However almost all of his opposes were to unsuccessful RFAs, which I take as a sign of his good judgement. I read his comments as blunt but focussed on the edits not the editor. I have seen some very uncivil votes at RFAs, but I do not consider Ironholds as uncivil. ϢereSpielChequers 09:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Irrespective of the process employed in this RfA, the ultimate question remains: do I trust this editor with the Sysop bit? Yes I do, therefore Support. Nothing else matters. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose You thought this experimental RfA was a good idea, what terrible judgement you have. RMHED (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You might want to temper your comment abit. That was a little too strong. Wisdom89(T / C) 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
"This is, despite the experimental nature, a serious RfA; I'd appreciate if people vote based on the user, not the process." What a giant middle finger to Ironholds, dude. Jeepers creepers, folks, cut the poor bastard some slack. Is your dissaproval of this RfA method so important to you that you have to thoughtlessly oppose an RfA to get it out there?--KojiDude(C) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I congratulate Ironholds for being bold to test a new RfA format, but I have some reasons to oppose this request. To begin with, I came across this oppose which, in my opinion, was incredibly biting, as were thesetwo. This oppose, like a couple of the ones I mentioned above, was unnecessarily uncivil. I also came across a few other opposes that came across as aggressive in tone and/or lack the assumptions of good faith on behalf of the said candidates: [15][16][17] I'm also not happy with an event surrounding Ironholds' last RfA: two weeks prior to it, he tells another editor to wait to be nominated, and that is what he (Ironholds) was planning to do, yet he goes against his own advice and self-nominates: I do not consider that to be good judgment. On top of my other concerns, I have two more: I came across this, an inappropriate hidden comment on his user page, and is still on his user page as of the most recent edit (note that the most recent edit may change during the course of this RfA). Lastly, note in the first part of how I congratulate Ironholds for running in an experimental RfA? Well, I still do congratulate him, but I noticed part of his reasons for opposing two other candidates, Ali'i and Mr. IP: in Ali'i, he mentioned, "In addition, applying to prove a point makes a mockery of the process. Yes, admins are technically no more important than users, but RfA in a way shows the quality and quantity of your contributions to Wikipedia; debasing that to prove a point is almost disruptive.": the RfA for Ali'i was somewhat of an experimental one, and Ironholds partially opposed her on that basis. As for Mr. IP, I found that more worrying; Ironholds' entire rationale was: "Oppose. This RfA does nothing but disrupt the process and create DRAMAH. If you want to test the RfA policy then you can contribute to the discussions about overhauling it, not waste peoples time here. By posting this RfA as a "test" you've proven yourself an inappropriate admin candidate." That oppose was uncivil, which was bad enough, and now that Ironholds himself is running in a "test" RfA, after accusing two other people of “disruption” and/or “DRAMAH” for doing the same/similiar thing, and he has not followed his own words. Suffice to say, I am not comfortable with Ironholds' judgment for the time being. Acalamari 01:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, I think this is the exact kind of oppose that this experiment was trying to prevent with this RfA. You should ideally have brought it up in the discussion section so he could talk about the diffs rather than have them used during the Oppose section and then have 3 pileons right beneath (and likely more). No offense intended. --Izno (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no problem with him talking about them now. Acalamari rarely opposes people; I'm sure he'll be happy to discuss with Ironholds, as would I. -- how do you turn this on 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)You know, that this is just another proof that this format doesn't work as intended. A person is A) not obligated to pose questions during the "question" phase and B) you can't assume that a person who posts a strong oppose with a valid reason did so with malicious intent. I for example, haven't reviewed this candidate in detail yet... despite it being announced for what 4 days? Are you saying that if in my vetting this candidate that I find strong reason to oppose, that I can't do so because I didn't ask questions during the "Q&A?"---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) With him being the keywords. Another issue brought up in regard to this was drivebys (I somehow doubt most of those present currently are usual drivebys), and that consensus becomes much more difficult to judge when people don't return to talk about what the candidate in question has replied with in regard to the oppose. I am in fact very certain that neither of you will have issues with discussing in line as is normal at RfA, but am not so sure of the populace at large. Not that it doesn't work as intended, just that it doesn't work at the moment. Tweaks are usually necessary, and hence why this is considered experimental. And no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that such a strong oppose (because that is what it is) should have probably come during the discussion, and not as one of the first opposes on the list, in effect 'poisoning the well'. It's not an assumption of bad or good faith (in my case), just one of "why didn't that come up earlier?", as I'm sure he has been watching this thread for the four days it has been open. --Izno (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Semantically (rather than by the WP definition), it is, by the strength of the argument provided by the diffs, and by the fact that it had three other opposes attached to it. For all that he didn't say "strong oppose", nor did he mean it, that is what evidence means to me: there is strength behind the oppose. --Izno (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, this RFA, with it's long question/comment/debate phase, was deliberately intended to remove the need for opposes of this sort, as they attract more "per X" opposes before the candidate even gets a chance to respond. While I'm dissapointed that it happened, I'm not exactly surprised. Gazimoff 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. I think that having a "pause" before "voting" has helped. That said, perhaps the ratio should be 3 days of discussion, followed by 4 days of "voting", while still allowing discussion to continue. (I seem to recall this was discussed previously.) - jc37 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Note that Acalamari has made a comment about this on the talk page. -- how do you turn this on 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
You are not going to be able to eliminate this type of !vote. You will have A) people who don't visit the page during the Q&A B) people who don't believe they need to ask questions and have enough info already to make a vote, and sad to say, C) people who will deliberately wait til the !vote to kill an RfA of a person they don't support. (To be frank, There are people who regardless of what they might say in an RfA that I would oppose. I won't waste my time asking them questions.)---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 23:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to Acalamari's response on the talk page. Feel free to drop in if you have further comment. --Izno (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I challenge you to find diff's showing Ironholds using the same "bity" or blunt manner outside of RfA. (Outside of RfA is, after all, where 99.9999% of admin actions take place)--KojiDude(C) 14:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the comments I cited below. There were also some cases where he told people not to make changes unless they had been fully discussed first on the talk pages---which goes against BOLD. Yes, on controversial pages it is often best to discuss first, but newbies might not know this... and you don't always have to discuss first.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 15:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing that I've noticed about Ironholds is that he frequently makes rude, bitey, empty or unecessary opposes. I was going to dig through his contribs and provide some links, but hey, Acalamari did all that work for me. naerii 02:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Acalamari, I'm sorry. You're a great editor (I love Court of Common Pleas (England), hope to support it at FAC one day), but too many unnecessarily harsh comments at RFAs. -- how do you turn this on 02:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per RHMED. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose While I have high respect for the user, I must go along with the comments above. America69 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I'm afraid I must oppose per Acalamari as well. The candidate's contributions in the mainspace are definitely of a high quality, I don't think anyone could dispute that. But some of the rather flippant and bitey comments shown just go too far, in my view. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
Oppose. Per Acalamari. Those types of comment show disregard for the civility standards we ask of all editors, let alone admins. These diffs show lack of understanding of adminship. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I would like to personally commend the candidate for trying this new form of RfA. Please understand that I encourage these types of experiments. RyanGerbil10(Unretiring slowly...!) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Per RHMED (yes, my opinions on the format do carry over here... and yes, you're welcome to express your disagreement with my doing so) and Acalamari (incivility = meh, but criticising an experimental RfA and then running one yourself isn't impressive). Giggy (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Aqwis' support. Giggy (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Aren't I funny?
OpposeThis comment on his userpage, that was mentioned by Acalamari above, is absolutely and entirely inappropriate and unacceptable. Indeed it's simply not better than vandalism. —αἰτίας•discussion• 09:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Like America69 said, I have high respect you, but some of the points brought up by Acalamari are concerning. iMatthew (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Tentative oppose - I'm sorry, but I agree with Acalamari. I have lots of respect for what you have done and continue to do, but I can't truly support when points as concerning as have been brought up are at hand. — neuro(talk) 12:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Acalamari brought up very concerning points. Candidates seems incivil and lacks good judgment, and though I don't want to sound rude, seems hypocritical. The hidden comment on his userpage doesn't help either. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose All of Acalamari's points, especially announcing his plans for getting someone to nominate him for admin, and opposing people who try experimental RfA processes when he did the same thing. --Banime (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
there is a huge difference between this and mr ip's experimental rfa. mr ip's appeared to be a case of making a point/disruption (I know that he meant for it to be serious, but it wasn't received as such.) this is experimental as a means towards improving the process.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 20:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. I was set for support based on your impressive answer to my question in the "pre-voting" phase. Reading the opposition and support I was still fairly convinced - until I saw the diff provided by User:Aitias[18] . Okay, it's over three months ago, but the attitude portrayed there really is not what I'd like. You get far more abuse as an admin, and if you're then tooled up with the block button I think you're likely to cause more harm than help when dealing with it. Pedro : Chat 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Oh dear. A bit hypocritical? Tiptoetytalk 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
moving discussion RE who opposes more than Kurt to talk page
Oppose Failed to answer questions 43 through 47 within six minutes of their being posed. More seriously...it is in part the candidate's willingness to make available to the community, by way of answering our many questions and by participating in a form of RfA that theoretically lends itself to a thorough examination of the candidate and then to a broad explication of the merits of his candidacy, whatever information it should desire toward the adjudging of his fitness for adminship, that makes this oppose a regretful one. There is, in fact, I think, much to recommend the candidate for adminship, and I do not doubt that he is largely well acquainted with policy and that he knows whereof he does not know, such that he should be (exceedingly?) unlikely to abuse or misuse avolitionally the tools because of an unfamiliarity with policy and practice. It is the candidate's temperament and demeanor, which are, it must be said, most commonly unproblematic, though, that, per a few of the others, give me pause, and in the end, in view of that and, less significantly (I would have opposed in any case; my !vote might simply have been "weak"), of the candidate's apparent regard for BLP (admins act ministerially, to determine for what actions a consensus exists and then to take those actions, but we have a few admins who interpret their role vis-à-vis BLPs more broadly, and although actions that do not command the support of the community are oftener than not addressed and reversed, we would probably do well not, absent compelling reason, to add to the BLP-hardliner admin corps, who are, one may say with hope, otherwise on the wane [I do not propose precisely that Ironholds is a BLP absolutist, and on the disposition of that issue my opinion does not turn; I mean only that I get a bad feeling whenever a candidate speaks so reverently of BLP, or of a sense of BLP that may be inconsistent with good practice]), I am unable to conclude with sufficient confidence that the net effect on the project of the candidate's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect for both Joe and the rationale, this oppose reads like a Jane Austen novel. Could someone please point out the main reason of opposition? —kurykh 10:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Selective quoting; It is the candidate's temperament and demeanor ... which ... give me pause ... and ... less significantly ... the candidate's apparent regard for BLP (... we would probably do well not, absent compelling reason, to add to the BLP-hardliner admin corps ... [ ... I mean only that I get a bad feeling whenever a candidate speaks so reverently of BLP, or of a sense of BLP that may be inconsistent with good practice] ... ) .... Giggy (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Though I agree; he should be strongly opposed because he failed to answer questions 43 through 47 within six minutes of their being posed.
Oppose. Even more than the arse-blocking issue, I'm troubled by the "ask me first" comment, which shows a basic misunderstanding of GFDL copyright and wiki principles. I'm also nervous about giving the Delete button to someone who, at least until four months ago was a self-declared deletionist. In his answer to Q5 Ironholds admits English isn't his strongest suit, but I find his use of Greengrocers' apostrophes and random capitalization simply embarrassing. Owen×☎ 12:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Please see question 29 in relation to me being a "deletionist". Would you mind pointing out any grammatical errors or "random capitalisation" for me to improve on in future, regardless of RfA's?
Why? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 14:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree with the sentiments expressed by Acalamari. That said, this is neither a pile-on, nor is it a cheap shot oppose as I asked a question along such lines during the Q&A process. In fact, the reason I asked Q12 was that I think Ironholds represents a lot of what's wrong with RfA to begin with. I'm all for trying new things with RfA, and I think we've done that here. The experiment is not counted as successful only if the candidate passes, and we'll have good data regardless of the end result. I rarely oppose these days because I think the project needs more dedicated users with the mop. However, I see an editor who upon failing consistently to earn the community's trust to wield the mop has devised an alternative system in which he presents himself through rose tinted glasses, and tries to limit opposition by indicating that all opposition should be dealt with in the Q&A period. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. The weak is because you had to go through the pain and bothering of answering over 40 questions. That's commendable in and of itself, so I can't full oppose. Now, I didn't read the questions (i don't base my decisions on those, but on contributions themselves), but I did read Acalamari's diffs, and they are very troubling, too much for my tastes. Could certainly be a great admin in the future with some self-assessment though. Wizardman 15:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Acalamari, and would have had most of the same comments had I gotten here before him to comment. I also very much agree with Balloonman. I had noticed his oppose tendencies in the past, and this attempt at an experimental Rfa smacked of an attempt to slide in the back door. -Djsasso (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
And that just smacks of bad faith. He was chosen as a candidate whom had previously run and who was available, so to speak. I very much doubt he was trying to make his way in the back door. I've already commented on Acalamari's oppose, as above. --Izno (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I discussed this on the talk page prior to him running for RfA, it was evident these kind of opposes would come up with people assuming bad faith that Ironholds is using a controversial, experimental RfA to get his foot in the door a little further. I don't believe that's true at all; instead, I see a candidate who wants to improve the project and who was willing to take productive steps in doing so by throwing himself in the firing line of all of us. 47 questions? Wow. You can assume that his voting habits have changed to increase the support votes in his RfA or you can assume the other way like I am, but truth is no one but himself know his intentions. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; don't trust him to be able to civil once he's passed his RFA. fish&karate 12:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral - waiting on responses to questions. - jc37 01:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't mean this to be rude at all, but that is honestly the last kind of neutral vote I would expect in this RfA. :) Protonk (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
He's only answered 43 questions. Axl¤[Talk] 11:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I only count 42. And since one of mine is the 43rd... - jc37 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral per Acalamari. (I may take a switch as constructive consensus builds up and more responses are seen.) Otherwise, candidate, I congratulate you for taking such a bold and innovative twist at the RFA front. --Slgrandson (How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I did support until I read Acalamari's oppose I have decided change to neutral. If you want my support you need a good explianation. Because I really do not give a fuck either way.--Theoneintraining (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I came to support and I think you are a great candidate but those diffs presented by Acalamari show a side that may scare many newbies when an admin acts like that. I like the new format though and I congratulate you on trying such a bold move. Note: I will happily reconsider my vote if I am convinced that the civility problems pointed out above will no longer happen, because other than that, you are a great candidate. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Can't support based on the concerns expressed in this section and oppose section; but I'm not sure I can oppose at this point either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral I was planning on supporting when I came here. However, after reading the comments in the Oppose section, I simply can't do that. For example, this would be unacceptable behavior of an administrator. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 14:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Almost exactly the same views as JulianColton.--LAAFansignreview 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral (Leaning Support). I generally find people who have serious oppose votes to not be taken lightly, but if you consider the overall quality of this editor's work, I'm sure giving him the mop should be a net positive to the community. (And that user page diff is kind of funny, not necessarily a comment to be cause for concern since immediately following he had this page repeatedly vandalized. My question is why did HarryPotter fix the typos?!) - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I would like to point out that not one, not two, but indeed the first seven diffs provided by Acalamari were opposes in RfAs that did not succeed for various reasons. They may seem are a little bitey, but I can make a case that a strong, swift response early in the process is better for the candidates and for the process itself. It's a weak case, but let's face it - we've all seen RfAs that go on way too long. Now, maybe Ironholds doesn't need to be the pit bullfirst responder every time, but it is, after all, a job that needs doing to some degree. I'm willing to be convinced that the diffs given by Acalamari above are isolated. I am going to try to find evidence that these are not the norm so I can be pushed into the support column for this productive editor; if you have this evidence, show me the diffs! Frank | talk 18:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Per Juliancolton. CL — 15:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I admire this candidate for putting themselves up for 47 or more questions, and this candidate does valuable work on the project but the diffs presented give me considerable pause. However, not sufficiently so to actually oppose. There might be a few "lessons learned" from this RfA as to whether the new process needs (some / a hell of a lot of) tweaking. Orderinchaos 07:31, 13 October 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Xymmax is a gnomish contributor, working predominantly at AfD.
The user is civil and we need more more admins.
NB the user sensibly declined an attempted RfA a few months back as premature. Hence the "2" at the end of this one. Dweller (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept. Thank you Dweller for the nomination, and thanks to everyone for taking the time to consider me. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I first registered with Wikipedia in April 2007, and became truly active around November of that year. I enjoy reading Wikipedia, and often would fill down time by chasing links across interesting articles. Eventually I began to reach for the mouse to click the “Edit this page” button, and as you know, it’s all downhill from there. Once I discovered project space, I began to get involved with AfD. For me, this is an area in which I can have a genuine impact (positive I trust!) on the project by helping to save articles that can be made encyclopedic within our policies and guidelines, and removing articles that fail policy. It’s an area that I think allows for some nuance, and I try to apply the policies and guidelines a way that furthers the goal of writing the greatest encyclopedia in history.
In my case, the "unusual" in unusual candidate is a euphemism for having a bit more than 3000 undeleted edits and no GAs or FAs. I have made non-trivial contributions to this article on its way to GA (note there are 2 intervening edits in there) and this one after it all ready made it there, but they are far short of what fairly should be considered "significant" contributions.
I do not envision making much use of the block button, but I am familiar with the policy. I have had rollback since it was made available to non admins, give or take a couple of days, and have not encountered any issues with its use. I do not do a great deal of speedy tagging, but I am familiar with the criteria. My other main space contributions tend to be gnomish – adding project tags, adding references I’ve found, and the like. I do look out for BLP violations, and will act on such articles when I see them.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I will continue to participate in AfD. With the tools, I would be able to perform merges that require combining article histories, and of course deletions. I’ve closed some AfDs, and as best I know none of my closes have been questioned. Still, given the fact that I’ve seen some editors express the opinion that only admins should close AfD, in recent months I’ve chosen to limit my closes to speedy deletes or obvious snows.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:My AfD work, for the reasons I laid out above. I'm particularly gratified when I can help save an article, such as here or here, among others. In addition to participating in the discussions, I help tag AfDs so that projects or those who view the appropriate page are alerted that an article in which they are interested has been nominated.
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: No. I’ve received the odd unpleasant message from an editor that I’ve warned about vandalism, but it’s always quickly been reverted, and not distressed me. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy it and feel it’s important. I have no problem with walking away from an unproductive conversation; it’s been my experience that such matters work themselves out over time as emotions calm down.
4. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. While the "hangon" tag has no binding authority, in the majority of cases I would consider it rude or perhaps even a failure to assume good faith to delete an article on which it had been placed without attempting to contact the article writer first. Obviously, attack pages and vandalism so obvious as to qualify for speedy deletion would be deleted despite the presence of the tag. Otherwise, I would look to both the article talk page and the article creator's page in an effort to see if there might be an easy fix for the article. If the article's author has not provided an explanation, then it would be appropriate to delete, and perhaps userfy if the article's content is appropriate for user space.
5. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. As rollback is a vandalism fighting tool, I would look to see that the editor had been performing anti-vandalism work. I would want to see that the user has been accurate in the vandalism work that they have done - mistakes are understanding understandable, and not problematic if there is proof that the user learned from them. As rollback permits the rapid reversion of content, I would want to see a history free of edit warring. I also would like to see some evidence of familiarity with WP culture - perhaps two months of regular activity should be plenty. Removal would occur for misuse, such as in content disputes.
6. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. Almost never. The strong presumption is that it will be possible to obtain a free photograph of a living person, and therefore a non-free photograph should not be used. Exceptions still would have to meet that the fair use guidelines.
7. Can you comment a little about your article space contributions? What articles have you written or significantly improved?
A.Some of my article work is linked above. I am not a classic content-builder, but I do interact with many articles via my AfD work. Normally, I will simply have an edit or two to those articles to add references that I may have found. One example of this is here (actually that one involved some pruning of advert material as well. Occaisionally this will result in a bit of writing, as with Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes, Illinois. I became involved after an AfD resulted in the merger of another article to this one. The article had been renamed a couple of times, and I rewrote the lead, see here. I was reverted, but after a talk page discussion here we worked out an acceptable compromise. Jeremiah Dominguez is a stub. I came across it with a CSD A7 tag, and looked like this. I removed speedy tag as the article did assert notability. I then quickly sourced it and left it as a stub. Szymon Kołecki is a similar case, it was correctly tagged as unreferenced. I was able to quickly find a reference and leave the artcle as an intact stub as you can see here. Steven N. Samuelian is an article that had some NPOV/BLP issues see here, I found some solid references and rewrote it to this. I sometimes describe my article work as triage, trying to source articles so they meet our inclusion guidelines.
8: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
I'd start with a message to the user telling them that their actions could be perceived as vandalism, and encourage them to take a break - AGF I'd assume a really bad case of wikistress or something similar. If it continues, I'd warn the user with a personalized message linking to the blocking policy. Depending of the circumstances I'd then give an explicit last chance message, then block, with the length depending on the block record.
9:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
No, I'd block the IP (assuming proper warnings), understanding that the block length is shortened for dynamic IPs. The rationale is that if the disruption is coming from a single user, there's no reason to deprive many users of the ability to edit the article when a block should accomplish the purpose of ending the disruption.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Xymmax before commenting.
Before anyone squeaks the block was an accident although not fully clarified in the unblock summary. Yes, I like the refreshing approach here. Sensible user page, a browse of the archives indicates a civil and thoughtful editor. Nothing wrong with specialising at WP:AFD when all your edits seem to me that you won't go crazy with a block or protect button or more importantly make decisions you're not sure about. Sound, calm, sensible, pragmatic and communcative. Seems like a net positive with the extra tools. Pedro : Chat 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Good contributions, civil, careful and helpful? Count me in! Who cares that the candidate does not have many edits? 10 good admin actions a month are better than none after all. I suggest, if I may, the candidate, if already AfD interested, to broaden their horizon by contributing at WP:MFD and other deletion related areas to help out there as well. SoWhy 11:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't really say this was an unusual candidate - he's got experience in a number of admin areas and clearly knows his stuff. He'll be just fine. RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, no reason to believe this would be anything but A Good Thing. Ironholds 12:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
And I said: "What about ‘Breakfast at Tiffany's?" She said, "'I think I remember the film, And as I recall…’" uh, is this the Deep Blue SomethingKaraoke festival? Oh, sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who hits all of the right notes! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Can't see any problems here. Area-specific admins are no bad thing. George The Dragon (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As dweller notes, we do need more admins. This user seems like they will do a fine job if given the position, and so I have little hesitation in offering my support. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Good enough for Dweller, good enough for me. Nick mallory (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You are an admin already. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support- I've seen a lot of Xymmax on AfD, and I have never had cause to doubt this user's intelligence, reasonableness or civility. ReykYO! 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per the (unusually) to-the-point nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support He's been on a lot of AFD and would make a great admin. He also voted Keep on the Robin SimonAFD. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC) I really have to shut the hell up about that AFD, just cos it's MY article. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 19:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Another solid contributor. I see nothing of concern. Wisdom89(T / C) 15:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Xymmax is a fine candidate. Axl¤[Talk] 15:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support. Not as communicative as I'd like nor as much mainspace work as I'd like, but he seems civil and knowledgeable enough, especially in the AFD realm, and we need more admins in that area. Not to mention we need more admins whose username begins with "X", we only have 6. Hmm, there's only 7 of us starting with "U", another small crowd. Useight (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, need more admins interested in deletion. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - meets almost all my requirements , active in XfD, not a rabid deletionist or inclusionist, balanced contribs. --LogicalPremise Ergo? 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Going through the user's contributions, I see a strong grasp of policy from within AfD arguments. Article work, although not as much as I like, extends beyond the remit of vandalism reversion, with examples of copyediting [19][20] in amongst article cleanup, wikification, spam removal and so on. Entries at WP:UAA are also sound as well, displaying a grasp of username policy. user has also contributed in policy discussions on WP:N, exibiting a willingness to help shape policy as well as understand it. Deleted contributions reveal sound CSD tagging, as well as a couple of examples of trying to cleanup and wikify articles as well, before they were ultimately deleted. Although the candidate talks at length of his AfD work, I think his contribs at UAA and CSD, as well as a degree of gnoming work, helps to round this candidate off. No problems with supporting. Gazimoff 17:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks good, but as pointed out above, work on communication. Good Luck!!! America69 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - per the opposes below, specially because of the "not enough article work". For the people who opposed: Adminship is not article writing:P. --macy 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not, but this project is, among other things, about writing an encyclopedia, and it's a valid expectation of an aspiring admin to be interested in that aspect. Because, you know, some of the situations requring admin action (although not many) have something to do with article writing. Everyme 07:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, Pretty much every AfD contribution I've seen from you has been not just okay, but excellent. You really seem to understand the process and policies well, and I can think of few, if any, better people to be working that area as an admin. And given that, you appear to have enough clue that I don't think you'll be wading drunkenly into other, unfamiliar areas waving your admin tools around. ~ mazcat|c 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Seems like this user would be a net positive to the encyclopedia, adminship is not all about how many DYKs, FAs and whatever else you can get, and nor do I believe that this candidate is not adept outside of AfD. Why the hell not?— neuro(talk) 21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Civil and very thoughtful, great AfD work. The tools are not needed to write articles. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, will be a very useful admin in AfD and this careful rewrite of the lead of a controversial article on Lyndon LaRouche convinces me that Xymmax has a reasonable handle on article-writing. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. One does not necessarily need article work to be an admin. Good luck, Xymmax. Malinaccier (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, no evidence that user would abuse the tools, and declining the prior nom in my opinion showed good judgement. We need more admins with good judgement. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC).
Agree with above, seems to have clue and a level head. GlassCobra 11:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems like a sensible choice, no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I like that he declined the first nom. Also, AfD is always in need of good administrators and your contributions there will be great. Lack of article edits is a bit concerning but as I usually state the main thing is trust and willingness to learn. --Banime (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per WP:WTHN. Sure, more article work would be great, but the gnomes are just as important as the people with 12 FAs. :-) –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No, they're not. Everyme 19:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
But does that have anything to do with adminship? Personally, I don't gauge how well someone can make judgement calls and press buttons on their skill as a writer.--KojiDude(C) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is a matter of opinion. Although, it's not exactly a good idea to imply that gnomish activity isn't that important, whether that's what you meant or not. In my opinion, all editorial work is appreciated. No one is better than another. Wisdom89(T / C) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. There's no reason to believe that this user will misuse the tools. Declining the previous RFA showed that they're clueful, which is the most important quality in administrators. We need more admins, and Xymmax will most likely be a good administrator. This nomination wasn't very unusual. Bart133tc@How's my driving? 00:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I see no reason not to. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Great contributions.CMJMEM (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per totally reasonable answers to questions, and a good overall feeling. Also, for the record, I am totally unimpressed with Everyme's responses above. Pretty damn pretentious. Tan | 39 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Gnoming is of course vitally important, but the number of people who are capable of doing such things far far exceeds the number of people capable of and willing to writing, as Julian said, 12 FAs. Saying they are just as important is belittling towards those who put in the exponentially higher effort to contribute not only on a syntactic/grammatical/formatting level but on the highest levels of evaluating sources and structuring an article to FA status. There's really nothing to disagree with me about, since what I said is not opinion but strictly logical truth. Everyme 07:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say you were wrong. I didn't say I disagreed with you. I said I was unimpressed with your responses, and that I think you're pretentious. Tan | 39 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support The answer to Q4 in particular is the just kind of communicative and sensible attitude that makes for a great administrator. Steven Walling(talk) 23:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per some positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support giving a committed editor some extra tools to make this place better is a no-brainer. Vishnava talk 03:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support the block in the log was only applied for a minute (hardly a block at all) and user has made excellent AfD contributions; per my RfA criteriaFoxyLoxyPounce! 08:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. He's probably capable of doing an relatively easy job (being an admin) competently. fish&karate 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Looks like admin tools will be used to help rather than hinder the project. Peter 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Per candidates only comment at first RfA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the way he researches articles at AFDs properly, instead of drive-by voting "per nom". They're a good sign of excellent judgement and thoughtfulness. -- how do you turn this on 02:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I appreciate a good WikiGnome that can contribute usefully. I have no doubts the tools will be used with care. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Once again support for a specialist admin who can do useful things in specific areas whilst not touching others. Mjchesnel (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – Good experience in admin-related areas so s/he will know what to do and good policy knowledge. Will do just fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. No evidence this user is likely to abuse the admin tools. No evidence this user is likely to be abusive or harass other editors. No evidence this user suffers from a fundamental misunderstanding of any policy or guideline. Seems to me that's all that really matters. — Satori Son 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good luck, you've been doing a great job, and I hope to see you become better with the tools. iMatthew (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - can't see why not. jj137(talk) 03:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose - In theory, if you were to stay at AfD and never leave that zone I would support, honestly I would. Your intentions at this point might very well be to stay there. However at some point you will venture elsewhere. Sorry. — Realist2 15:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not like to question opposes, but I really dislike your oppose. Your presupposition is that the candidate is only capable when it comes to AFD. To say that a candidate is immediately inept when they "venture elsewhere" in my opinion is hurtful. The candidate is absolutely capable of learning and branching out their knowledge and tasks as an administrator. Has the position of administrator come to a point where one must be at the "pinnacle of knowledge" in order to pass? If the candidate passes, are we to put a "topic ban" on their administrative actions so that they only work in AFD? God forbid. bibliomaniac15 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No we are not to give topic bans at all, if the candidate succeeds we give him/her the whole package. Unfortunately I see no proof the candidate could handle the whole package. Unless the community accommodates for "specialist tolls/rights" in the future. — Realist2 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a variety of pages explaining to admins how to do this, if the user is clueful enough to close AfDs they would be clueful enough to read the help pages of a specific area before going and waving his tools around the room. FoxyLoxyPounce! 08:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Since April 2007 this user did just ~1000 edits in the mainspace and did almost no article work (cf. answer to Q2). While I don't think there is a need to write a lot of articles and do a lot of mainspace edits, I still think there should be a bit mainspace work - what I see here is not enough, sorry. Another important point is that I don't see any experience in admin related areas besides AFD (cf. answer to Q1). Furthermore, there is no indication how this user would act in conflicts (cf. answer to Q3). From my point of view it's very important for an admin to be able to act calmly in conflict situations. Certainly, there is no need to have done tons of dispute resolution. However there should be some indication that the user has the needed calmness. Finally I don't see any evidence that this user knows the (relevant) policies. I would not oppose for one of this points alone, but altogether I have far too much concerns so that regretfully I can't provide my trust this time. Again, sorry. —αἰτίας•discussion• 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: There was a discussion regarding this vote on my talk page. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not enough article work in my opinion. VG☎ 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose less than a third of edits are to articles and from what I can see Xymmax has only ever created one article. Someone who wants to primarily participate as an admin in AfD, should IMO at least have a reasonable history of article creation. RMHED (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Upon a more detailed look at your contributions, you seem to have the most important quality; common sense. RMHED (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Only for now. Once you have more article work I will support. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A decent history of mainspace contributions, including creation of new content, can reasonably be expected from someone who asks to be trusted with the tools and the role of an admin. Everyme 08:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I see a lack of activity and not enough article work to support. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. He seems level-headed and I've no concrete concerns that lead me to oppose. But I simply can't support a candidate with such low experience of content building. I'm not looking for FA or even GA, but the creation or significant expansion of at least a few articles is really necessary for my support. Admins have tools that sometimes worry content writers, and they should have at least a minimal level of experience of content writing, the examples here are really very minimal. If this RfA fails, I'd encourage the candidate to make some non-AfD related contributions - improve the article on his home town, hobby, school subject whatever. If he does that, I'd probably strongly support next time. If the RfA succeeds, I'd still encourage him to get that experience.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral : I dont see any concerns that push me to Oppose section,but lack of tangible contributions to mainspace is something that makes me stay neutral. I am not a fan of big editcounts but I would like to see more contributions in mainspace too from you.If everybody contributes to AFDs ( read as deleting articles) , who will write articles for Wikipedia ? . Come on, this is encyclopedia , not a recycling machine ! This neutral vote is only to remind you to work more in article writing and not bcoz of any concerns of any possible abuse of tools. Nevertheless Bestwishes and this RFA is more likely to succeed. -- TinuCherian - 07:30, 14 October 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Krm500 (talk·contribs) - I would like to introduce to you Krm500. Krm's first edit was in May of 2006 and he has been editing quite steadily ever since. He is a very large contributer to WP:HOCKEY and can often be found in consensus building discussions, and not once have I seen him lose his cool, despite his participation in highly volatile ones such as the use or non-use of diacritics that often runs rampant through our project. His reaction to these situations have shown me that he has a very cool head and his ability to compromise with people who have completely opposite positions as him, as well as to concede when consensus is against him, shows me that he has the right stuff to be an admin.
His contributions find him mainly working on hockey articles but he also works on many Swedish related pages, can be found creating or helping to push pages and pictures to featured level. He does gnomish type work as well with vandal reverts and other things that help our project keep going. I can't see any reason, why he can't be trusted with the tools and that they will help in his desire to build a better wikipedia. Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thank Djsasso, I'm honoured and I accept this nomination. —Krm500(Communicate!) 02:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: To be honest I can't say that I know what I will end up doing if I'm granted the administrative tools. For starters I will participate in processed that I'm familiar with (AIV, IfD) but I will try to get involved in as much as possible so I can gain more experience and find my niche, where I'm most effective and needed. Along with doing what I have been doing so far at Wikipedia.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm proud over having been continuously active since joining Wikipedia, and with my work at WP:HOCKEY, but I find it hard to think of a single entry that stands out as my best contribution — Hopefully it is yet to come! (I have several projects in the making that I want to get realised)
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: Of course — but I think that I always have tried to resolved disputes with other editors through constructive discussions. The only stress I've experienced has BetacommandBot caused me, which ultimately led to a mental breakdown during an IfD.
4. Do you feel that your lack of experience in the projectspace will disadvantage you as an administrator? What would you do to offset this lack of experience when you become an administrator? (Would you consider post-RfA admin coaching or some other medium to help compensate?)
A. I admit that I haven't actively been partaking in such discussions much, but I feel familiar with all processes and I do not think that it will be to my disadvantage, on the contrary it might be beneficial since I will be damn sure to double check every action I take so that they follow policy and guidelines. To gain experience I would, as previously stated, try to participate in as much work as possible. Also I accepted this nomination knowing that I had several experienced admins that I could ask for guidance.
5. I noticed that you've recently warned three IP users for editing the sandbox; none of the IP edits that led to your warnings referred to any real people by name. If you were an admin, under what circumstances would you block users for editing the sandbox?
A. These are the only two incidents I can find ([21] and [22]). The incident in the first link was preceded by two mainspace edits of similar nature which I had observed at recent changes, I decided to warn him for this edit too hoping he would get the message. I wouldn't block anyone for edits only to the sandbox (under normal circumstances). The other case was a simple level one warning since he had made an offensive edit, I also left a welcome message to him.
Followup No, before those there was this sandbox "vandalism" which led to this level 4 final warning from you, three weeks ago. The IP's previous warnings for vandalism had been seven and eight days earlier, and were based on two removals of a maintenance tag. The IP then vandalized an article—simple graffiti—and was blocked for three months.
A. The IP also blanked the article after his gibberish edit. And I consider blanking the Sandbox as vandalism, other users who intend to use it for good purpouse may not be able to edit it since the explanation is removed. Given the history of such edits, the fact that the IP had two warnings that month I left him a level 4 warning, hoping it would stop. Unfortunately it didn't, two following disruptive edits. Even if I had left a level 3 warning the IP would have made enough to get blocked.
6. Suppose you come across an IP address that had engaged in serious vandalism for months and had been warned and blocked several times before, with blocks ranging from 24 hours to two weeks, and with no constructive contributions to Wikipedia. Suppose you see this IP vandalising again. What would you, as an admin, do and what kind of block, if any, would you issue?
A: I would issue a level 3 or level 4 warning, depending on amount of vandalism at the time, given the history of disruptive edits and several blocks. If disruptive edits continued after a final warning I would have no problems with blocking the IP.
Follow-up question: For roughly how long would you block the IP?
A:Depending on the current amount of vandalism, previous blocks, between 24 hours and a week.
7. Please describe, in your own words, the meaning of an indef block. Also, please describe some circumstances when an indef block would be appropriate.
A: A block without a preset end day, used after consensus among admins. Only to be used in extreme cases, for example when someone has managed to harm Wikipedia, with malice.
8: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
A: I would start with asking him why he is doing it.
9:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
A: If only one IP vandalized the same page over and over again I would warn him, and if he continue to vandalize after an eventual final warning I would give him a 24 hour block. No need to protect an article if only one user is involved in the vandalism.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Krm500 before commenting.
Discussion
General comment concerning "lack of experience" at AIV: Really, for a new admin, the rule for WP:AIV is: "If they’ve had a recent level-4 warning, and they vandalized after it recently, block ‘em. If not, leave it for a more experienced admin. After a short while hanging around watching others, you’ll figure it out, and can start using your judgment little by little." For a new admin, that’s it, that’s AIV. The escalation process really takes almost no time to figure out; my concern would be someone who didn’t know, or care, that there was one. If I had reason to think Krm500 was going to wade into the battle guns blazing and taking no prisoners, I’d understand your concern; a clueless cowboy admin at AIV could do a lot of damage. But Krm doesn’t appear to be clueless, and he doesn’t appear to be a cowboy, so I’d be perfectly satisfied to have someone with only 14 AIV reports (as long as they were good reports) help out at AIV. --barneca (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support
Support as nom. -Djsasso (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks like a solid long-time contributor. Although, I recommend being cautious in areas you have little to no experience in if granted the bit. Wisdom89(T / C) 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Tentatively, to keep this from being closed early due to dubious opposes. — CharlotteWebb 10:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Per Wisdom and Charlotte. naerii 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support candidate has been here for years, loads of civil and clueful dialogue on their talk page, and having read the Opposes I think modesty becomes a nominated candidate - I would worry about a self nom who wasn't sure what they would do with the tools, but this is someone we are persuading to take on some duties that will help the community. ϢereSpielChequers 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per ϢereSpielChequers. Although I certainly wouldn't have minded reading some more detailed question answers. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Communication on talk page is civil and encouraging (though you might want to consider archiving some of the old stuff, ha). Freely admits that he doesn't have vast policy experience at this point, but I think the candidate would be a solid administrative contributor to the areas he concentrates in - he's demonstrated a firm commitment to the HOCKEY area, and I can't see the candidate being anything but responsible with the tools given the amount of time he devotes to that area and his past history of civility and positive collaboration. So the candidate hasn't been admin coached; I don't see that as a negative. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per longtime positive contributions and lack of posts to AN/I. RMHED (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support - need to see more AfD and mediation-type experiences , but I don't think they'll misuse the tools. I'd like to see more ANI work too, but you have time to improve.--LogicalPremise Ergo? 17:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Have worked alongside him for several years now, and seen him to be one of the most calm editers I've come across. Without making a big deal of himself, he has continued to improve the project, and time and time again has shown the skill that is necessary as an admin. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
per Charlotte. I'll review contribs and confirm later, but this has the gut feeling of a good one we're letting get away for not necessarily critical reasons. --barneca (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Confirming my initial instict. Calm, sensible, knows what he's doing, unlikely to get in over his head. --barneca (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So far, the opposes have been pretty bad IMHO. This is a long time editor with good intentions. Mistakes can be fixed. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: Candidate and I've disagreed on a number of points, but he is a thoughtful, able editor who is willing to listen to all viewpoints. From what I can see of the Opposes, they're largely of the fuzzy kind that's poisoned RfA for a long while: what the pluperfect hell does experience in (or achieving) a DYK have to do with whether someone will make a fit admin, and what about it makes having done so a prerequisite without which no one can be fit for the job? RGTraynor 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Opposes are either not worrying or cause to support. Good user. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - The opposes don't really worry me, looks like Krm500 would be a net gain to Wikipedia if promoted. — neuro(talk) 21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: No hesitation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good, stable sport-related and article contributions. A benefit to the project --Flewis(talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - The mainly Hockey experience doesn't bother me as most niche interests need a couple administrators anyway. He seems able to be trusted with the tools, especially after his edits and seeing his initial reply to Djsasso's query of nomination. He can learn anything he doesn't already know, the important thing is trust and willingness to learn. --Banime (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems reliable, I have no concerns that tools would be misused. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Obviously acting in good faith to improve the project. If that one IfD is the most he's "lost it" in all that time, he'll make a fine admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I certainly used the wrong approach in disagreeing with some oppose below, but I'm most likely will limit my participation here with a statement, that over knowing Krm500 for quite some time, I'm sure he'll make a fine admin and I trust him to do a great job. Maxim(talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support seems sensible and knows his way around. A net benefit if he gets more tools to use with little probability of abuse. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Candidate is civil and seems reliable. I trust he will not abuse the tools. – Skyezxmessage 06:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support see nothing that makes me think they can not be trusted. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per the honest answer to Q1; I have no problems with a prospective admin not knowing what area he will be best suited for. I trust this user's judgment enough in any of the admin areas, and to ask for help whenever he needs it. Does fine work around the project. GlassCobra 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support appears sensible and reliable, not likely to abuse the tools and a solid content-based editor. Not everyone knows exactly what they'll do when they hit the ground - unlike content development, adminship tends to be reactive (responding to a situation) rather than proactive. Orderinchaos 06:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: User knows what an mdash is (see answers), obviously someone how knows that will go far ;) Also per my RfA criteriaFoxyLoxyPounce! 08:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - just take your time with stuff you're not familiar with. No reason to presume granting the mop will instantaneously reduce him from a sensible chap to a burbling dolt. fish&karate 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I note that the candidate has undertaken to resolve the edit summary issue, which was my only concern. The basis on allowing a candidate access to the tools is trust, and there is nothing I can find in this candidates statistics that makes me think they would abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC).
Support. Seems trustworthy, and the hockey wikiproject needs him. --Smashvilletalk 18:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust him, he won't abuse the tools, and given the feedback, I'm sure he'll educate himself more about being an admin. Sentriclecub (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I've mulled over this one for a while. In general, I respect the claims made by opposers below that the candidate might not have enough experience for us to judge his use of the tools. I don't agree with the arguments surrounding AIV counting (really, no offense to RCP or vandal blockers, but AIV is not the hardest part of having the tools)--I think that dealing with obvious vandalism is a slightly mechanical task that a candidate with some discretion can accomplish without error. I do not expect this candidate to use the block button in a case of reported vandalism without first checking to see if it was really vandalism and ensuring that some warnings were given. We have bright-lines at AIV and 3RR to make this very easy but even in the case of determining borderline cases I trust this candidate to make the right choice. In re: the sandbox issue. Just because it isn't a reader facing space doesn't make typing "fuck you" in the sandbox an ok action. I'm not interested in jumping into the somewhat beardy discussion of whether or not an invective without a target is a personal attack. That's academic. It is right to revert it and it is right to warn the user about inserting content and contextless profanity into a space designed for new editors. I'm also not convinced by the "you don't need the tools" arguments. Not every candidate will be likeJPG-GR, where they have already undertaken a job that would be made considerably easier with the tools. Most administrators are just article writers who happen to protect pages or block users. This candidate wants to be just that. We really come back to the basic question of "do we trust this candidate to make the right decisions and ask the right questions". I haven't worked with this candidate personally so I can't judge from direct experience. I can, however, make a guess from looking at the answers to questions and a few of his contributions. I think we can trust this candidate. That is what matters (to me). So I'll support. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thank you for answering my question. Malinaccier (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support; been mulling it over for a couple days and will be a net positive. RockManQ(talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose. This is reluctant. Krm500 is clearly a conscientious editor who has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. However, a dig through the contributions reveals a few things. First, experience is a bit one-sided - I know he's interested in hockey, and that's fine - but that's all there is. Save a few random contribs, virtually every edit is to a hockey article. The candidate is lacking experience in many areas (he admits so here), and I prefer a more well-rounded candidate. Secondly, the candidate's adherence to fundamental Wikipedia policy isn't always apparent, as in his creation of this article without any references. Combined with an edit summary problem and other minor yet apparent issues, I feel this candidate isn't quite ready. I always hate the "come back in three months" statements; most of the time it's arbitrary. In this case, one or two months of concentrated policy-arena experience will show me if he possesses the qualities an administrator needs. Tan | 39 04:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate openly admits lack of policy, which is a great part to administration. I'd like to see Krm500 become knowledgeable in this area. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think admitting to a lack of knowledge is different from admitting to a lack of experience, which is what I believe he was saying. -Djsasso (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. He lacks knowledge of policy. Pretty big concern if he's trying to become admin. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok maybe its just interpretation for me, I don't take that as meaning he lacks the knowledge of the policy, but that he lacks the experience working with it, since he said he lacks experience, not lacks knowledge. Anyways its all good. -Djsasso (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I lack experience working with it, but I know how the processes work and I'd say that I understand Wikipedia's policies and guideline quite well. —Krm500(Communicate!) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant Oppose, see my neutral comment. Ironholds 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per candidate's user page. Candidate appears to consider improving their userpage more important than writing a featured article. There are too many social networkers on here to take the risk of supporting one for adminship, sorry George The Dragon (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
KRM's user-page is far from elaborate and has only 38 revisions in 2½ years, accounting for less than 0.6% of the total edit count. There isn't much information but it does indicate that he has written a featured list. I don't see any indication that it is used for social networking and the majority of his 6,374 edits are contributions to articles, not chatting it up with other users, so I don't quite understand your oppose. — CharlotteWebb 10:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's funny you should say that George - you supported my RfA and my user page had several hundred revisions at the time. And it was pretty too. naerii 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It was pretty! But it is the fact that improving the user page is, according to the lists on it, given undue weight George The Dragon (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed he added "Make better user page" to his to-do list nine months ago, so I'm inclined to believe it was sarcasm rather than a major priority. — CharlotteWebb 13:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, my user page is of low priority, I rather spend my time improving other areas of Wikipedia then something as useless as my user page. —Krm500(Communicate!) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I find this oppose absolutely baseless; 51% of Krm500's edits are to the mainspace, while 16% are to his Sandbox, where he builds up new articles. Hardly Myspacer stats. Maxim(talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, lack of policy knowledge evidenced by low level of contributions to Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose As per this comment: "To be honest I can't say that I know what I will end up doing if I'm granted the administrative tools." Ecoleetage (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so but I'd worry more about those who appear to have a pre-set agenda. — CharlotteWebb 13:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
But is there really such a thing as a “pre-set agenda”? If you consider the notion of cosmic inevitability, could one argue that we are all bundling along the space-time continuum on a predetermined odyssey where our input is little more than rubber stamping that which has already been set long before we emerged from the protective safety of the amniotic fluid ? Though, of course, that leads to new questions of whether this “pre-set agenda” was, indeed, pre-set either by a deity or deities beyond our comprehension or whether this is the handiwork of bored extra-terrestrials who build the pyramids some thousands of years ago, as theorized by Erich Von Daniken (not to be confused with Kerry Von Erich – who, as far I know, never postulated on subjects relating to the space-time continuum). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I would be lying if I said what I would end up doing with the administrative rights, but I would do my best to get to know them better and see where most work is needed. I think I would be able to put a lot of work into it as well, since it would be a big responsibility I would work hard to prove that I was deserving of them. —Krm500(Communicate!) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Lack of work with DYK, GA or FA, little evidence of dispute resolution skills. — Realist2 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
He has created a Featured List and has helped to push an image to Featured Image status. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Great, none of those cover DYK, GA or FA though. — Realist2 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Just didn't know if you were aware, to me FA = FL and FI. Not sure why those wouldn't be as good but to each their own. No worries. -Djsasso (talk)
I don't ask for GA's or FA's solely for article writing purposes. I was aware of his FL since I've studied his contributions. Lists don't incorporate the policies I like to see an admin understand via previous application. — Realist2 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Completely reasonable. :) -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Q1. We don't need admins who don't know what they want to do. America69 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
But the reality is, we need more admins outright. If Krm500 deletes a fair use image he uploaded that he decided not to use, or made a history merge, that sames time from another admin who wishes to clear backlogs. Even having new article autopatrol decreases administrative backlog. Please consider this. Maxim(talk) 19:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose If you don't know what you'll do with the tools, how can you be prepared to use them? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose without prejudice. Not quite ready yet...I would think a candidate should at least be able to imagine himself using the tools if he were truly ready. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
@ #9 & #10; I intend to use them if this rfa is successful, but I honestly can not say right now exactly what I will be doing, I'll see where the most work is required and start form there. Regards. —Krm500(Communicate!) 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As I understood your reply, you said you would start off with antivandal work, and see what else needed doing as you gained experience. That sounds a very sensible approach to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Tan's diff (the article creation) and the incident I mentioned in Q#5. I'm not going to support giving the block button to someone who issues a final warning to an IP who edited an article responsibly, then removed a maintenance tag from an article twice, was warned for it three times, and then (a week later) said "fuck you" to the sandbox. I agree with Naerii, who commented in the neutral section, AIV blocking is simple, but it has to be done with attention, and it's one of the two areas of interest indicated in Q#1. And as Ironholds points out, there's not a lot of vandalism fighting here—some earlier stuff (widely dispersed), then less than a hundred user talk warnings using Twinkle, all in the last three weeks—and three of that set of warnings were for "vandalizing" the sandbox. Darkspots (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow. So it's now okay to vandalize the sandbox with "fuck you" (willfully disrupting those using it for legitimate test edits)... as long as you don't violate "BLP"?! I guess the policy treadmill never sleeps. — CharlotteWebb 12:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I would have to say wow as well. A "fuck you" to the sandbox is disruptive editing. That was a legit warning. I doubt there are many admins who would not warn for that. -Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Three things:
When an editor indicates that he wants the tools because he thinks he could help out at AIV, I am entitled to come up with an idea of what his blocking philosophy is, and base my recommendation on that. My oppose is based on a demonstrated lack of policy knowledge and a gut feeling that this editor has a blocking philosophy that I find unacceptable. I also saw a ton of level 3 warnings as the first warning an IP received, before Krm500 started using Twinkle. Opposing based on blocking philosophy is legitimate. Full stop.
Here's an admin who could not disagree with you more: [23]. So there's at least one admin who feels that the sandbox is designed to be a space where people are allowed to do pretty much whatever they feel like. Wonder if there are other people besides Nat and me who feel that our stated policy about the sandbox is reasonable, since that's what it says? BTW, I believe the blocking admin in my link thought the user was actually trying to disrupt the sandbox, repeated edits over time. Not a Level 4 for the first edit in a week (to the sandbox), folks. And the admin in my example was still told not to block for sandbox edits.
Common sense. We tell vandals to go "experiment" in the sandbox. Then we tell them we don't like the way they're "experimenting", here's your level 3 or level 4 warning. That's exactly what Krm500 did here. We're not trying to mold young minds here, or ask for good behavior where it's not necessary for the good of the encyclopedia. Blocking is primarily a tool to keep the main articles of the encyclopedia clear of libel and vandalism, and secondarily (and much more arguably) to create a good environment for editors to work in. Not to keep the sandbox clear of obscene remarks, not in my opinion.
I approached this with an open mind; I want more admins; I regret having to oppose. I don't see an editor here that I trust with the block button. Darkspots (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You are more than able to oppose for any reason you see fit, If you took my remarks to mean you couldn't I do appologize, but at the same time we are more than able to call you out for those oppose reasons. There actually was a conversation just the other day at AIV about how long to consider the warnings for IP accounts and general concensus seemed to be about 3 weeks. So the fact he escalated the warning to a level 4 after a week doesn't seem out of wack with what people think. Experiment and attack in the sandbox are two different things, an edit attacking someone is not valuable whether its in the sandbox or not. I think one of the biggest jobs of an admin is to stop wikipedia from becoming a poisoned work environment, and I would say warning people not to attack in the sandbox helps with that. Note, I never said block. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, when you use the term "legit" it makes it seem like my oppose is "not legit". And you're dead wrong from a policy point of view. Those warnings were not "legit" because they directly contradict policy: Wikipedia:About the sandbox. Not one of these three warnings was for any sort of "attack". None of the reverted edits had any obvious target whatsoever; although they were highly offensive, admins need to block with a cool head. Look, RfA opposes that rely on an analysis of contributions use analogy. We look at a CSD admin nominee based on {{db}} use. AIV is the same way, we make the assumption that bad warnings = bad blocks if we promote. We might be wrong, but what else can we judge by? I very quickly found three warnings I disagreed with out of approximately a hundred. I asked the editor about them in a question, because I don't want to rush into anything. The editor didn't say any one of a number of things I would have been happy to hear—one of those being any understanding of sandbox policy and custom.that's unfair. still didn't like the answer though And the editor was unaware that he had issued a final warning for a sandbox edit that led immediately to a three-month block, about three weeks before. Darkspots (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree then. "fuck you" in my books is an attack. And we can't really fault him for someone later being blocked by a different admin. If anything an admin later blocking seems to be support of their warnings as admin should be checking the users edits before blocking. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
An attack on whom, in this particular case? Free-floating anger isn't covered by WP:NPA. And I follow up when I give level 3 and 4 warnings, don't you? Darkspots (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for inconsistent use of Edit Summary and answer to Q1. No need to wait three months--come back next week with a good idea of what admin work you plan to do and a solid use of Edit Summaries, and I'll gladly support. Owen×☎ 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No offence to your opinion, but I would suggest the candidate does not come back next week. A lot of people will oppose based on that alone next time (I wouldn't personally, but just letting you know). I think at least a couple of months will satisfy most people. -- how do you turn this on 16:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right--many would oppose for just that reason, which is why I pointed out that I, like you, wouldn't oppose. The two issues I mentioned can be fixed by the candidate quickly, and once fixed he'll have my support regardless of the delay till next nomination. Owen×☎ 16:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Concerned that the candidate does not have sufficient experience in areas that they feel most experienced in and which they intend to target. Specifically AIV where the candidate has only posted 14 times, which does not give sufficient exposure to the escalation process for me to be confident in their knowledge. TigerShark (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not experienced enough for me to trust with the tools. Certainly no prejudice for future attempts (after a bit of work in areas that demonstrate a good understanding of policy). Steven Walling(talk) 23:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In consideration of some of the other oppose rationales based on experience, I'd like to clarify what I mean. I do not mean that I am opposing because the candidate has not yet created content that is recognized as DYK, GA, or FA. I mean that the candidate has not yet edited enough in areas related to the application of policy (the job of an administrator) for me to feel comfortable trusting them to do so. Thanks, Steven Walling(talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not ready yet. As our warning templates ask editors to conduct further testing in the WP:SANDBOX, it is both counter productive and confusing to vandal warn them for doing so. (While my struck comment is generally true, the vandal in question was more long term, with an established pattern of returning to vandalize after each set of warnings. It was reasonable to assume this was the same person who had already seen multi warnings.) (Unstruck earlier strike out per Darkspots) Also, it's usually best to start with a a level one warning and work up. I do urge the candidate to gain more experience all the way around. I don't see FA's, GA's and DYK's as essential to adminship, though. They do not anymore guarantee readiness for adminship than anything else. And the candidate should please wait at least 3 months before trying again. The community usually needs that much time for a new assessment. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough experience yet shown by actions elicited by sandbox question/response. I think you'll be ready in a couple of months. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; sorry, not enough demonstrated understanding of the policies, yet, and a few incidents which make me think his judgment needs refining (the sandbox warnings stand especially out). — Coren(talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. As a rule I am not opposed to prospective admins who don't have much of an admin plan in Q1. I guess I don't see why candidates looking to be admins should be required to state that they mostly only want to partake in admin work. Qualified users who pitch in and use the tools only infrequently must surely be better than qualified users denied the tools who won't ever use them, no? But this user's unacceptably low frequency of edit summary, coupled with their shallow breadth of experience in the namespace and in subjects alien to hockey ... branch out a bit and come back in a few months. Ford MF (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I have an over all general positive feeling for the candidate, but would like to see more policy knowledge and proof of expertise. While I like to see niche candidates, I prefer to see niche characters in back of the house areas, not in the article space. Krm will be a fine admin, after gaining some experience elsewhere... He's a candidate that would benefit from some coaching---definite clue, just needs help rounding the edges ---and if he's interested, I'm available.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon 01:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I genuinely believe that another couple of months will help. I'm of the opinion that at the moment you are likely to be more harm than help with admin buttons, but also of the opinion that you can quickly demonstrate a new understanding and prove it through your edits. Not at the moment, but please prove the opposers wrong in the next few weeks. Pedro : Chat 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I do not wish to pile on, I must agree with what has been said above. Try again in a few months! :) Tiptoetytalk 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral, switched to oppose: I've verging on support, but little things like an iffy edit summary usage and short answers to the questions are staying my hand a bit. I'll probably reconsider and come out with support later on unless anything major comes up. Ironholds 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that I can be sloppy with edit summary, I will work on improving that irrespective of how this rfa turns out. Regarding the questions, please ask additional questions if there is anything in particular you (or anyone else) want to know, I'll be happy to answer them. —Krm500(Communicate!) 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Per the opposes I'll be staying still for the moment, but I like to keep my eye on RfA's I've participated in, so we'll see if something changes my mind. Ironholds 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Belay that order, captain, i'm switching to oppose, i'm afraid. As well as the smaller iffy stuff and the diffs tan provided you're going to contribute to areas you're experienced in, like AIV, where you have.. 14 reports? In two and a half years? Ironholds 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The thing is though - reporting to AIV isn't a difficult task that requires judgement, and blocking vandals that are posted there is about as difficult as ... oh I dunno, something really easy, like eating biscuits or .. drawing pictures of stick men. I'd expect my eight year old niece to be able to block vandals. Is a high edit count at AIV really correlated to some kind of enhanced judgement regarding vandals? Is enhanced judgement really needed to know when to block someone who keeps replacing pages with 'i like techno'? naerii 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has their own reasons for opposing so I am not trying to convince you to switch, but it kind of amuses me as I have been here since 2004 and have less AIV reports than him (though for most of the last year I have been an admin so I don't need to report, I can just do). I think lack of AIV reports indicates more that he gets to vandals at the 1st warning more often than the 4th warning. Atleast that was the case with me. -Djsasso (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral. Not compelling answers. I would also like to see evidence of a good understanding of policies & guidelines. Axl¤[Talk] 15:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could ask him a difficult question about policy? (please not what's the difference between a block vs ban though, that's getting pretty old) :) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Seems like a good contributor, but the lack of admin work concerns me.--LAAFansignreview 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - good editor, but not well-rounded enough to be an admin. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)#
Neutral - Sensible, but so-so question answers and what seems to be a questionable understanding and experience in admin work raise concerns. Still, I doubt he would misuse the tools. It's mostly the apparent lack of total and complete understanding. Also, I wouldn't count an edit to the sandbox vandalism, even if it did appear to be bad faith. Better the sandbox than an article. IceUnshattered[ t ] 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral Per this discussion on the user's talk page - I am a little concerned with the user's approach to WP:BLP and I believe that it merits consideration. Not opposing because I feel that it would be biased, but I do feel that it's important for people to know and come to their own interpretations/conclusions. Cheers, CP 21:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
'Neutral no major reason to oppose, but not enough experience to support. iMatthew (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Lazulilasher (talk·contribs) - Lazulilasher is a long time user, his first edit was back in March 2006 and during the intervening time he has made another 6600 edits (his edit rate has fluctuated rather wildly but since June Lazulilasher has made more than 150 edits/month so that should be a non-issue). A great article builder Lazulilasher has worked on one featured article, five good articles, and six DYKs as well as contributing to to the processes that organize such content, WP:GAN, WP:FAC, and WP:PR, at a not insubstantial level.
Lazulilasher's contributions to admin related areas, primarily AfD and vandal fighting (not so much recently though), have also been decent; his participation at AfD and other deletion debates is always well though out and almost always brings something new too the discussion (as opposed to constant "per user:x"ing) and while his contributions to the areas of protection and speedy deletion have not been voluminous, every RFPP and CSD tag (as far as I have been able to determine) has been acted upon. He is also involved in dispute resolution in the past, mostly the unofficial Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Third opinion; valuable experience for a prospective admin.
I have no doubt that making Lazulilasher an administrator would further the goals of this encyclopedia. - Icewedge (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept. Thanks, I must say I am quite flattered. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Optional Statement: I began editing Wikipedia intensely last December, and since I have been involved with various aspects. Why do I do this? Because I love Wikipedia and the collaboration it engenders. It is incredible that you can write a bit about some obscure subject like the Pavillon de Flore and actually find someone else to help you. I firmly support the notion of creating an encyclopaedia that comprises our collective knowledge--available freely, and compiled completely by volunteers. While I have made mistakes, I hope that you find that overall my work benefitted the encyclopedia.
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My edits are erratic throughout the project. I tend to heavily edit articles for a time, then follow with a little xfD work or some such. I expect to continue this type of editing; thus, I will likely continue my article work and perform admin duties slowly. I will help tackle backlogs in the areas I have previously worked in--xfD and maybe help occasionally at AIV. Initially, I will work only with clear-cut cases, in order that I learn more from those who have the most experience.
I would also be able to edit fully protected templates. This is not something that I frequently have an urge to-do; yet, it does occur. Yesterday, I was working on creating a "Paris" taskforce as part of WP:FRANCE. This required editing the template. I created the new taskforce bit, and an admin updated the template for me. Having the ability would make it one-step shorter. I note: this is not something I would be in the habit of doing frequently. I would always make a draft in my userspace to verify that the template worked before editing any high-risk templates (as I did with the France template).
If a large backlog ever developed at CSD I might take a look at it, however I would be extremely careful (the second article I created was tagged for CSD, so I understand the need for caution) Thus, if a backlog developed I would be sure the article met the specified criterion. I would also do my own clean up (deleting pages from my own userspace, etc...)
Honestly, much of my work on en-wiki has occured by chance. I've rarely operated with a long-term plan or "goal", but rather have stumbled upon situations in which I felt I could assist. To me, an administrator should be happy to assist with mundane tasks, something I would be willing to do if given the oppurtunity.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Throughout my wiki-life I have made some mistakes, and (hopefully) contributed usefully here and there. I am most proud of my work on the Louvre article. Although it is not an FA (in fact, it failed an FAC nom in May), I have worked on it extensively since January. The article may never be a FA; however, I have and will continue to improve it. I love when a group of editors come together to work on an article at the same time; it's a great feeling to see your edits ameliorated by others. This happened on numerous occasions, when editors volunteered to research portions or perform a copyedit (I always need a copyeditor's help).
I've been heavily involved with WP:FRANCE, where my goal has been to increase organisation and collaboration. While we are not WP:MILHIST yet, I do feel that we have improved. I was proud of the work I did with the project's redesign.
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: Yes, I have been in conflicts. The most significant regarded the Pied-Noir article. An editor continually added a long-list of criticisms to the article; many items were original research. I reached out to him on his talk page and in the article's Peer Review. Throughout, I worked in conjunction with two other editors. Did I handle it perfectly? I cannot say, but I strived to uphold verifiability and civility throughout.
In the vandalism arena, I once had a conversation with an anonymous editor (here), which ended in a discussion regarding the need for {{fact}} tags en lieu of vandalism (see here. I felt this was a reasonably positive outcome.
I've also been involved in Wikiquette Alerts and have provided Third Opinions. I tend to feel that I have assisted; however, I have not been overly active there recently due to an increased workload at WP:FRANCE.
4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?
A:There are two questions here. The first is: what would I do in the hypothetical? I've been in similar situations, but not one that mirrors exactly. On the surface: if the new user's edits are verifiable according to reliable sources, then my hope would be that consensus would follow. In my experience, new users with excellent sources are always welcome (and encouraged). I would go to the talk page and post my concerns (something like this, "I notice Example (talk·contribs) has added a bit to the X section regarding the subject's actions during the Bourbon Restoration....etc".) I would work to find consensus. Usually, editors are willing to discuss changes if reliable sources are provided (a more difficult question would be: what if two reliable sources conflict?)
The second question is: "Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?" This is more difficult. My gut says: "We are building an encylopedia, we must be verifiable." This is especially true with BLP, quotations, etc. We must endeavour to provide our readers with verifiable sources. If this is a problem and, for whatever reason, consensus is against verifiability and reliability, then steps must be taken to protect the project. In my opinion, a good starting point is: Third Opinion.
5 Wikipedia has a multitude of different policies, which do you personally feel is the most important? Please also provide a reason explaining your choice.
A: As I noted in question #4, and as our first pillar states: we are an enclcyopedia. Therefore, our job is to write verifiable articles. I believe the need to provide fact-checked and reliable work to our readers is paramount. From this, stems policies which help us to achieve our goal.
5b: I would like to ask one more question, if no-one minds. Often, administrators will have to deal with disruptive IPs/Users. Assume that you succeed this RfA, and find yourself in the following predicament. An IP/new User has edited prominent articles in Good Faith, but when another User reverts these additions, the IP/new User reacts in an obscene and violent manner. The IP/new User has no history with vandalism, and recent contributions before this, are of a good quality. Would you place a 'cool down' block for, lets say, 12 hours? What is your stance on the 'cool down' block? Bear in mind, Wikipedia (last time I checked) generally discourages such paths of action, as they often just inflame the situation. But there is a chance that the subject of the block will take the time to calm himself/herself, meaning it can work at times. I look forward to your response :).
A: This is a multi-faceted questions. First, what do you mean by "violently"? Is he threatening violence? Is he grossly disrupting the project? Or is he just upset because he is new, and has not participated in a "bold-revert-discuss" cycle before? There are many variations on this theme. Blocks only meant to "cool-down" are not to be used, but the policy notes that blocks preventive of further disruption can be.
Most likely, he is a new user who is not familiar with our editing process. He may not know that his edit is saved in the page history. I would bring this to his attention, attempt to reason, and urge him to bring his concerns to the talk page. I would reach out, first.
By 'violently' I intended to mean abusive behaviour, ie swearing. Anyway, thanks for your answer. Blooded EdgeSign/Talk 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Lazulilasher before commenting.
Discussion
Support
Support- I've seen this user around and consider them to be reasonable, and will be a net gain to the 'pedia if given the mop. ReykYO! 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support as a Good Thing. The edit count fluctuates wildly, yes, but with GA and FA tags and a respectable number of AIV reports nobody can argue that this indicates either 1) lack of mainspace/AV experience or 2) the possibility of the user being unfamiliar with wiki-policy in those areas. Ironholds 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Who would make such an argument anyway? — Realist2 23:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing i've learnt is that people will make "oppose" comments about anything, regardless of how ridiculous it is. See Andrew Kelly on SoWhy's RfA, for example. Ironholds 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
How could I forget. — Realist2 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I can already tell this will be a pile on. Good luck! America69 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributor. Why not? Malinaccier (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support After reviewing the editor's talk page, I am convined there is little likelihood would abuse/misuse the tools. Editor has made a sufficient number of edits to be comfortable with the level of experience. GA's and FA's (a Triple Crown yet) weigh in favor of support with me, as they are further indicators the editor can participate productively in a collaborative environment and is knowledgeable of policies and guidelines. Also, I like the answers to the questions they indicate good critical thinking and ability to communicate. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Net positive. Will make a great admin. Xclamation point 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Two tickets for Godzilla vs. Megalon, please. Oh, wrong queue...damn, I was looking forward to seeing that flick, too. But while I am here: Support, because I am looking forward to seeing this fine editor become an admin! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Good, I hope you revive French project as well with your tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Interactions with this user have been positive, good contributions = mop in sight. Best of luck, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I trust this user.--ragesoss (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Everything I've seen from this user convinces me to support. Level-headed and mature. Gladys J Cortez 02:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support an excellent editor, and I hope this will gradually encourage him to be around here more,for we need people like this. DGG (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC).
Funny, my room-mate says the exact opposite. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support All of my interactions with Lazulilasher and his answers to the questions so far make me believe he is mop-worthy, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – I notice in particular some of his commentary at AfD discussions. He comes across as thoughtful, clueful, trustworthy. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 03:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely trustworthy, looks like. Prince of Canada t | c 08:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support No reason for concern. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support from neutral (technicality) below - the candidate has responded well to my concern there, and he has a lot of relevant admirable qualities. I did look (in some detail) at his contributions in the dispute resolution process, and I was around in WQA at the time he was involved. His responses have always been helpful in resolving the dispute quickly and effectively. (I could've supported his RFA, solely based on the quality of his responses and the way he handled those disputes.) He's made good contributions in other important areas, whether they are content or admin-related, and he pays quite a bit of attention to some of the finer details others may overlook. I could keep going on and on I think, but in essence, I think I can sum it up with the following line; I'm very confident that he will be a fine admin. Best wishes - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The candidate has won me over through his detailed responses to the questions provided. I have no hesitations in stating he may indeed make a fine administrator. Blooded EdgeSign/Talk 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I've not seen you around before, but anyone who is able to help out at AfD and has time to dedicate themselves to a WikiProject redesign deserves my support. Caulde 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl¤[Talk] 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the answers and can't find any reason not to support. --Banime (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good editor, no doubt they will make a fine admin. — neuro(talk) 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support good editor, can be trusted with the tools. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support -- Excellent. XfD, CSD, AN/I, mediation, lots of article edits, clean user page, no problems, no issues. Perfect. --LogicalPremise Ergo? 18:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have worked with User:Lazulilasher on several articles. He is talented, hard-working, congenial, fair, and trustworthy. I wholeheartedly support this nomination. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. No problems here - Tan | 39 19:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You're one of the users that I go around seeing and say, "That's one of the users who works so well without the tools he may not even need them." You're awesome, seriously. — Ceranthor[FormerlyLordSunday] 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Excellent all around work. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Per the nom, answers to the first three questions, and some quality positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Solid answers to questions + good contribs = support. Steven Walling(talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Aye - no reason no to, good answers as well. Black Kite 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Wow, I'm amazed no one thought of this before. Though I have only worked with this editor over a brief period of time, I have found his contributions to be of excellent quality. His dedication to the citing and verifying of information in articles is an admirable quality, and I believe that he would make an excellent admin. JordanContribs 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. He has sufficient experience in multiple areas. He writes good articles, keeps vandals at bay, works towards defusing conflicts at Wikiquette alerts, and makes substantive comments at AfD. VG☎ 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support No reason to think he'll abuse the tools. rootology (C)(T) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Great editor, deserves the tools. LittleMountain5review! 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support As per track and see no misuse of tools. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support a strong candidate. Spinach Dip 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely. — Realist2 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - nothing alarming here --Flewis(talk) 04:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Experienced, and has seemed like a sensible and pleasant person during my encounters with him. Epbr123 (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks good to me. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems well versed in several important ways....Modernist (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support ex-LOC member, and by extension, a godsend. Oh, and everything else everone else said that was good as well :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Appears to be an excellent communicator, and otherwise unlikely to abuse the bits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. He has experience in admin-related areas and he is unlikely to abuse the tools. AdjustShift (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent candidate, knowledgeable and helpful. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: You have my trust and confidence. -- TinuCherian - 07:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Neutral Note; I'll be voting definitively one way or another in the next couple of days. However, I have a criticism for both the candidate and the nominator (nom.) so I'm leaving my vote here momentarily so they can respond accordingly before I add my actual vote. The candidate appears to have responded to 6 Wikiquette alerts over 6 months, 2 wqas were very brief. The nom. stated it provided valuable experience for being an administrator, and the candidate has said something similar. I find problems with making those statements and leaving it at that in an RFA. For example, you (and parties to a wqa) might "feel" that you have assisted, but there could be major issues how the parties were advised (misrepresentation of policy, poor advice, etc.) Further, where a user has handled a small number of such complaints or requests in this stage of dispute resolution, among others, can it really be considered as a measure of experience in this area? (Future noms/candidates should keep this in mind.) In any case, I exclusively ask both the nom. or candidate in this RFA to please be more specific - how does Lazulilasher's involvement in this WQA demonstrate that the user gathered valuable experience, particularly where the involvement appears to be rather minimal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Switched to support
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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Ameliorate! (talk·contribs) - Ameliorate! has been a Wikipedian since April 2006, and has been editing with increased frequency since May this year. He is an able writer — I have particularly enjoyed reading the articles on Horand von Grafrath, the first German Shephard Dog, and The Trons, a robot band from New Zealand. A number of articles created or significantly expanded by Ameliorate! have been featured in the "Did You Know" section of the main page. He has recently become involved in helping with updates to that page, where admin tools would be useful in allowing him to complete the updating process.
Ameliorate! comments intelligently in AfD and MfD discussions, demonstrating a good knowledge of the relevant inclusion standards, and his deleted contributions show a sound grasp of the speedy deletion criteria. He reverts vandalism and follows up appropriately with warnings. His reports to AIV all seem to have been in order. In addition to this, Ameliorate! runs 3 bots on Wikipedia: AmeliorationBot, which reverts obvious editing tests; AilurophobiaBot, which fixes instances where users have accidentally added pages to categories rather than linking to the category; and AloysiusLiliusBot, which adds dates to maintenance templates.
To summarise, Ameliorate!'s contributions to the project demonstrate skill and experience and include the areas with which admins are regularly involved and I believe he is a good choice to become an administrator on Wikipedia. WJBscribe(talk) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I know Ameliorate! well from his involvement with Wikipedia:Did You Know? (DYK). As with recent RfAs have indicated, DYK is having a shortage of administrators to keep the six-hour cycle going, something that all of us has probably taken for granted. Ameliorate! will be a fine addition to the existing corp of administrators in updating the edit-protected Main DYK template.
There is also something of Ameliorate! that I think is worth highlighting to everyone. Recently, he has taken the initiative to propose solutions in simplifying the maintenance process of DYK, which many of us the DYK regulars feel greatly appreciative of in substantially reducing our workload even if it may not an absolutely perfect one. Amongst his other maintenance contributions, I think we can see more of such initiatives from him in the future for admin-related processes when he gets the feel of the mop as a whole. Continual initiatives for improvement and self-development is the spirit that every administrator should possess in an always work-in-progress encyclopaedia, and I believe Ameliorate! possess both traits that will prove himself to be an asset to Wikipedia.
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am honoured to accept. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Updating T:DYK, keeping an eye on WP:AIV and helping to clear the perennial backlog at CAT:CSD for the most part. I may also delve into closing AFD discussions and performing edit protected requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of tangible content; my contributions to the German Shepherd Dog article and the articles I have created or expanded to have included into WP:DYK, my best of which is probably The Trons. Outside of article work, I am quite proud of my technical work to the DYK process (which Mailer diablo mentioned), in which I devised a system which made it a lot easier and much less time consuming to notify people that their articles have been included in DYK. There are also my three bots, which WJBscribe explained the functions of. I have also done a little bit of "behind the scenes" work, such as creating most of the maintenance categories for September and this month (such as Category:Articles that may contain original research since September 2008, Category:Cleanup from October 2008 etc.)
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 haven't been in any conflicts that I can recall, I have had disagreements and differences of opinion of course but nothing specific that really stands out. When I feel myself getting stressed I tend to disengage for a while and go and do something else. For the most part I dislike "drama" and often myself compromising in favour of the other party to avoid it.
4. Wikipedia has a multitude of different policies, which do you personally feel is the most important? Please also provide a reason explaining your choice.
A: I personally do not feel that any single policy can be singled out as the most important as each individual policy addresses a different issue. For example, the WP:BLP policy addresses the ethical and legal concern of Wikipedia having a negative impact on a person's life because of what was written; from a social-responsibility standpoint BLP is a very important policy, however WP:IAR for example is also a very important policy in the sense that in a project of this nature a user may find themselves unable to make what they feel is a positive contribution because of our policies and guidelines. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability is also a very important policy as it is necessary for Wikipedia to keep a standard of credibility, just as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is important to prevent Wikipedia material becoming biased to certain views/angles. I therefore can't give a definitive answer that sets any of our policies above another, primarily because the importance of certain policies is liable to change based on the circumstances.
5. I would like to ask one more question, if no-one minds. Often, administrators will have to deal with disruptive IPs/Users. Assume that you succeed this RfA, and find yourself in the following predicament. An IP/new User has edited prominent articles in Good Faith, but when another User reverts these additions, the IP/new User reacts in an obscene and violent manner. The IP/new User has no history with vandalism, and recent contributions before this, are of a good quality. Would you place a 'cool down' block for, lets say, 12 hours? What is your stance on the 'cool down' block? Bear in mind, Wikipedia (last time I checked) generally discourages such paths of action, as they often just inflame the situation. But there is a chance that the subject of the block will take the time to calm himself/herself, meaning it can work at times. I look forward to your response :).
A: Blocks should only be given to prevent actual disruption, not to give a user time to cool down. In your hypothetical situation this user, who has contributed positively, is much as likely to abandon Wikipedia as they are to cool down because the block, especially because as a new user they have found their contributions removed and being prevented from editing on top of that, I feel, would most probably only serve to frustrate them. My philosophy is that profanity and obscene behaviour can be easily reverted and ignored but there is no one button that generates positive contributions.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Ameliorate! before commenting.
Per co-nom. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Was literally looking over this users contributions a few days ago thinking about whether to recommend that the user run for RfA. So I guess that's supportJoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The candidate is competent and trustworthy; will be a a net plus, if promoted, I believe. Support. Anthøny✉ 18:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason not to trust this user with adminiship. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Competent administrator-hopeful; helps out a lot at DYK which is great. Caulde 18:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Aye - great user, no red flags, no problem. Black Kite 18:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Nothing even remotely alarming or worrisome. Nice work. Wisdom89(T / C) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much per everyone else. We really do need more DYK admins, other than Victuallers ;). Just joking, there are plenty other great ones! Plus, if WJB wants to nom. you, you can't be all that bad. — Ceranthor[FormerlyLordSunday] 19:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, I already thought he was an admin. RkMnQ (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. No red flags, everything looks good! Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – Very well-rounded editor. I've seen very nice work from this user around DYK, and I'm sure he'll be able to do more as an administrator. Absolutely no problems from what I've seen. Ameliorate! will do just fine. – RyanCross (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support No reason why not really. Great editor. Matty (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support --ditto. ~ Troy (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I trust the nominator's judgment. iMatthew (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Nothing significant pops up after a look at your contribs, seen you around, and trust the noms. Good luck! J.delanoygabsadds 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support After very careful consideration.The user has been since April 2006 but over 11000 edits have been since June 2008 and over 7000 in September 2008 alone.But the user has used Automated or script-assisted edits only for 800 edits.Further the user has shown great commitment as per track and see no misuse of tools.Lastly fully trust the judgement of WJBscribe.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm here to pick up my laundry. Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here -- Support for a great editor. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support having seen contribs as part of AWB approval, and taking into account willingness to take on DYK, I have no qualms here. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Because you're from New Zealand, you must be the coolest. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Great user, will be a good admin. Xclamation point 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Outstanding user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. WTF? I could have sworn that you were an admin since early 2007. I must be confusing you with someone else. bibliomaniac15 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No, not him. I can't understand why I think this. bibliomaniac15 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it User:Joyous! you're thinking of? But, she's been an admin since sometime in 2004. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't even a jokingly cliched support - I truly did assume this contributor already had access to the extra buttons, and was honestly quite surprised to see his name pop up at RfA. Valtoras (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, although with a caution that people who ramp up their activity on Wikipedia so quickly are prone to burnout.-gadfium 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - A candidate with the potential to further ameliorate! the DYK process --Flewis(talk) 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - it is only the fact that this RfA occurred that caused me to realise that Ameliorate! was not an admin already, and ought to become one. Caspian blue's diffs show what a great candidate he is. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Great DYK work, no reason to believe candidate will misuse tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support The candidate has provided well-thought out answers, and I feel he would make a great administrator. Blooded EdgeSign/Talk 13:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support User's openness and good communication suggests can be trusted, and DYK work os great - good 'pedia builder Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, per competence. fish&karate 14:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support No problems here. GlassCobra 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good contributions & answers. Axl¤[Talk] 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Developed great DYK tool, DYK help is always needed. Even if the candidate would burn out quickly it would be worth it to have a short-term net positive. Royalbroil 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Good work and would help a lot at DYK. --Banime (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Very good worker - can't have enough DYK template updaters. Vishnava talk 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I reviewed the diffs listed by Caspian Blue and couldn't see what the problem. Reviewing Ameliorate!'s contributions and answers, those'll work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support- I haven't had much to do with this candidate, but what I have seen has impressed me. In addition, I am unconvinced by Caspian Blue's accusations of incivility- to me they actually demonstrate a sound grasp of policy and a level head even in the face of provocation. ReykYO! 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Per the noms, the answers to the first three questions, and some excellent positive contributions to this project across varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Agree with Reyk - I am encouraged about the candidate's level-headedness after reading Caspian's links. Townlake (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - after viewing the way he dealt with the oppose, and looking through his contribs, I'm perfectly happy to support this candidacy. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support for incredible patience in sorting out DYK microconflicts. NVO (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the candidate and trust him with the tools. The diffs presented below aren't uncivil and the dispute was handled in a calm manner. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per nom and article work. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I've seen you around at DYK. Judging by your contributions and work on article building, you have my support. JordanContribs 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support wholeheartedly, a longtime contributor who can easily be trusted with a mop. RFerreira (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Great work + nomination by WJB = Support! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support They will be really useful at DYK, and no reason to think they will abuse the tools. rootology (C)(T) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for the grave of the first German Shepherd, and...ooh, wrong queue. Support (beat you eco) the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support quality additions to the project Spinach Dip 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per Malinaccier. —αἰτίας•discussion• 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: The username represents what every Wikipedia user should strive to do for the community. Need we use it as a battle cry someday? Also, it brings me back to the good days of studying 4th Form History at S.M.A.... Anyway, best of luck! --Slgrandson (How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - one of those few users over which I have no doubt whatsoever. It's evident from everything he's contributed so far that he's in it for the long haul, and certainly won't abuse the position. Long overdue IMO. – Toon(talk) 22:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per pretty much everyone above. Great editor, pleasure to work with. This flag once was red 10:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support : I have a bot task request for you... :) Can you automate RFA approvals ? If ( RFA candidate = Good ) { default: Approve } ? .... Just Kidding ! -- TinuCherian - 10:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - seems good to me. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Thought I'd already supported actually. Per DYK and previous wholly positive interaction. Pedro : Chat 14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Wonderful contributor, although, is User:Ameliorate a sock of yours? Because if it isn't, you are open to impersonation (a situation potentially magnified with adminship), but besides that, per my RfA criteriaFoxyLoxyPounce! 08:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
No it's not, however, they have been inactive for quite a while. There is a possibility of impersonation, but it requires that the owner of that account becomes active again, has malicious intent and knows that I exist, to impersonate me. That account is actually the reason I have "with the !" in my signature. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - looks like an execllent user. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, looks good. Wizardman 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support No reason to oppose, nor even go neutral, but I would have preferred a sustained amount of edits over a longer period - however, WP is not constructed around my preferences and there is no indication the candidate would abuse the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per answers, experience, general reasonableness, and Caspian blue's reasoning. Tan | 39 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good candidate, net positive. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ben waiting for this. — Jojo • Talk • 16:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I gave Ameliorate account creator rights, the results speak for themselves. Clearly advantagaeous to the project, congratulations. WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support: Ameliorate will revolutionize the DYK concept. KensplanetTalkContributions 14:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose After consideration, oppose vote moved to neutral. Ford MF (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per the candidate's incivility and lack of understanding of policies which showed on T:TDYK.[24][25][26][27] (my responses[28][29]) The user obviously could not assume good faith in not only this case but also in many others. I also have not get any good impression from the user's cynical sarcasm such as on User:Cirt's RFA[30][31][32] and on ANI. I don't want uncivil editors to become admin with tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue--those first two diffs weren't even made by the candidate. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I fix the diffs.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What I was attempting to do was a carrot and stick approach, which has worked quite successfully in the past in getting article creators to fix up some problems with an article that just misses the requirements (such as being a few characters off 5x expansion). When it became apparent that you had taken it as a personal affront, I dropped the issue and confirmed the article. It wasn't bad faith or a misunderstanding of policies, it was that I would have preferred if an article that looked like this didn't get onto the main page, and because your nom missed the requirements (however narrowly) I tried to use that to get you to quell some of my concerns with it. Also that diff is not sarcasm? It was a factual observation that something wasn't quite right (which later evidence supported). ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Carrot and stick? huh, improper comparison again. Do you think commentors like you could be a lord or teacher to DYK nominators? I'm not your horse to bear your hitting nor to be fed by your care. I know you will say like "Oh, your don't get my intention. There seems to be a language barrier. The comparison was to explain..blah, blah..." My DYK experiences are longer than you and I've had two inquiries about Korean sources from Daniel Case and BorgQueen before. Unlike you, they did not act the way you behaved but have been always civil. You're the one who taunted the policies in the case. I did not miss anything except the 2 minute belated nomination. You did not clearly read the provided citations, and falsely accused me in such uncivil tone. That's why I don't believe your judgment as editor as well as ability to be admin with tools.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
None of those diffs are incivil in the slightest. Wisdom89(T / C) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
In the last group of diffs, the first and third are the same edit and the second is from a different user. As with Wisdom89, I really don't see any issues with those edits on the RFA, though I don't have enough DYK experience to judge the others. The only one that could remotely seem uncivil (the fourth one) is certainly not anything even close to serious IMO. Admins are allowed to show emotion. Mr.Z-man 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think so. The candidate accused me of "taunting policies" such as WP:English, WP:V that the interpretation and accusation are totally uncalled for. Besides, the candidate is not an admin. "Admins are allowed to show emotion" --> Do you mean admins are okay to be rude? I've never such heard such implausible defense for candidates like this.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? The first 3 diffs from T:DYK are perfectly, absolutely fine. They fit quite clearly under "discuss content, not contributors" - Just because you take criticism of your work as an attack doesn't mean it is. Not once in the first 3 diffs does Ameliorate! ever refer to you, only to the article. Only in the last diff does Ameliorate! mention you at all. If you think "when I raised the objection you attack me?" is incivil, you really need to read WP:CIVIL. Mr.Z-man 16:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I say "what are you talking about?"? Look at the diffs and my above comments carefully again. I did not say that the candidate's comments at the AFD were toward me. Those are examples of how I feel about him. I said the way of raising criticism is wrong. In the diffs, his behaviors are not absolutely fine for me. I think you're the one who should brush up WP:Civility because you have to be model to Wikipedian since you're admin (very new info for me). The user was not honest about himself on checking the sources and use of "taunting" is not only inappropriate, nor valid criticism to be taken seriously. That only gave a bad impression to the candidate. I think you see what you want to see. You have to accept that everyone can't regard his behaviors as the same as you want to believe.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, from this discussion it appears that you are the only person interpreting the above diffs and the comments therein as incivil. Wisdom89(T / C) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, this discussion has only four people so far including "the candidate" and the "supporters". Just accept the difference of our opinion. People tend to think differently on a same matter. Even if I had not the unpleasant experiences with him, I certainly would cast the "oppose" vote per my usual impression of him. Since I've seen too many uncivil admins on Wikipedia, I just don't want to vote for unsuitable people in my criteria. Although very a few of such admins tend to be summoned to ArbCom or RFC in the end, the procedure taking two or three months is incomparable to just RFAs being held in one week.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You have, it appears, mistaken "flaunt" (which means, I gather, to be flout [over the misuse of "flaunt", I should say, one—at least one as obsessive as I—might reasonably oppose :)]) for "taunt" in the first diff. Whether this affects your analysis (or that of anyone else) of the propriety of the comment—or whether it should—I don't know; I simply offer the observation. Joe 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Caspian, I'm sorry that you feel the need to oppose a candidate over a (civil, I might add) disagreement you had with the candidate and another user whose comments you have used to cast a negative light on the candidate. Being right is not uncivil. Try to put this behind you, at let us get on with our lives. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. Seems intelligent and clueful, and this editor's contributions so far have been outstanding. But the user's edit history is extremely top heavy, with 80% of the user's 11000 edits occurring in the last 8 or 9 weeks, and an enormous number of those edits are repetitive Wikignome tasks like replacing deprecated templates. User seems smart, but I like to see more of a temporal commitment to the project; before this summer, they barely edited at all. I also don't feel the user has participated in enough discussion for me to get a feel of how they'd handle the tools. Contributions at DYK and elsewhere are superb, though. Should this RfA fail, I have no doubt that after some time has passed, I would be able to support this candidate without reservation. Ford MF (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral: Answer to question 3. Bots and automatic edits. Also mainly editing article relating to dogs. — Realist2 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick question; is editing dog articles a bad thing? Cheers, –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Not alone no, but mix all this together and there is 0 proof this candidate can handle pressure and will seemingly, actively hide away from difficult situations or decisions. — Realist2 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, you just mechanically oppose someone who doesn't has a good or featured article? I've seen a huge log of this actions and I assume you're doing it in bad faith. If not, please let me know. greetings, macy 21:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Assume what you like. I'm not wasting my time on this one. — Realist2 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Then, if you weren't wasting your time with this, you shouldn't had to reply =P. macy 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral, a little light on Wikipedia-namespace contribs and deletion-related activity. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral (for now), I agree with Stifle here: I expect someone that wants to close AfD discussions to have more experience in that area. It's not just a clerical position where you count !votes. VG☎ 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably should have worded my answer a little better. I don't intend to close AFD discussions right away, but it is something I may look into at some stage. If I did start closing AFD debates it wouldn't be until I had a bit more experience and I would definitely start off closing discussions where there is a cut-and-dry consensus before making calls on contentious cases. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - this user looks to be on the path of being a great admin. A little more experience in various parts of the project and more mainspace activity will help. - Jameson L. Taitalk ♦ contribs 16:32, 10 October 2008 (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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successfulrequest for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (111/0/0); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 21:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thingg (talk·contribs) - It has been nearly six months since I first nominated Thingg for adminship. He has now nearly a year of service on the project and all of the things I said in my past nomination statement hold true: a prolific recent changes patroller who maintains composure under fire, a contributor to several WikiProjects, a sizeable edit count, and a solid knowledge of wikitext, formatting, and parserFunctions.
Most of the opposition in the first RFA hinged upon Thingg's grasp of our speedy deletion policy. In my review of the last 60 days, I only found one CSD tag that was declined (based on this version of the article with only a very weak assertion of notability as discussed in the AfD for the article). Thingg's main area of focus is in recent changes patrol, and his reports to AIV are always spot-on: it would save the rest of us admins a lot of time if he could perform the blocks himself.
Thingg was recently involved in a situation on the Barack Obama article. The FAQ on the talk page of the article states in no uncertain terms that the instruction of the article is to refer to Obama as "African American" taking lead from the bulk of the reliable sources. This did not stop a POV-pushing SPA sockpuppet account to attempt to modify the lead-in, and per the prevailing consensus, Thingg reverted the changes. An administrator originally saw this as a 3RR violation but later rescinded his block as erroneous, agreeing that the sockpuppet's edits could reasonably be construed as vandalism and thus 3RR exempt. As usual, Thingg maintained incredible composure throughout the entire situation.
An entirely trustworthy fellow who never fails to learn from his mistakes, I have full confidence in Thingg's ability to wield the mop effectively. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
When I noticed the block mentioned by xeno above, I immediately stepped up to ask the blocking admin about it. I was very pleased that Thingg maintained composure, and that the blocking admin came around. It is a credit to them both; 'nuff said.
As you look through Thingg's contributions, you may take note that there is no small amount of Huggling in his history. That gives some editors pause (honestly it makes me dig a little deeper too), so I want to address that issue a bit. This is no Huggle-bot automaton. Here is a page of edits, and right there in the middle of all those standard reverts are edits which were carefully picked out and dealt with individually. Two examples are edits to Mega Man & Bass and Online questionnaires. Instead of just reverting and moving on, these two edits (among others on the page) show particular attention to the content rather than simply reverting what appears to be vandalism without investigation. Here is another one, from among a long string of reverts.
OK, so Thingg's vandal-fighting pedigree is excellent. It is worth noting that Thingg also knows about the other things that make Wikipedia tick. Take a look at this group of edits, which show a bunch of varied contributions - some vandal-fighting, some not. And, picking a random group of edits from four months ago, you can see that this consistent level of contribution to the project has been going on for quite a while. Note the removal of unsourced material and spam links, the spelling fixes, image uploads, table formatting fixes...in other words, Thingg finds time to be an editor as well as a vandal-fighter.
Finally, I'm not one to be concerned with counts, but I do note there's at least one DYK notice currently hanging out on his talk page as well.
I have no reservations: this is a trustworthy, productive, prolific editor who will be an even more positive asset to the project with the mop. Frank | talk 15:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thingg⊕⊗ 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As I do a quite a bit of vandal-fighting and new page patrolling, admin tools would be very useful by allowing me to block persistent vandals myself instead of waiting for another admin to block them. The extra buttons would also come in handy when I come across pages that clearly meet the criteria for speedy deletion as I could simply delete the page rather than add to other admins' workloads by nominating it to be speedily deleted. Another area I have worked in (though I have not done so as frequently in the past few weeks because of real-life time constraints) where admin tools would be helpful is the DYK nominations process where being an admin would allow me to update the DYK template on the Main Page when it is time for a fresh batch of hooks.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My interests on Wikipedia vary widely and I seem to go through "spurts" where I edit heavily in one area and then move on to another one. That being said, I have done a fairly large amout of vandal fighting on a more-or-less steady pace since late February, and this activity probably makes up about 70-75% of my edits. My single best contribution would probably be getting PlayStation 3 to good article and featured article status and helping to keep it at FA status by formatting additions if necessary and removing vandalism and inaccuracies. I also made extensive improvements to PlayStation Portable, though it did not pass it's FAC due to a lack of sufficient referencing and I helped get Wikiproject Xbox started and helped design the project's portal and some of its templates.. Also, I have reviewed quite a few DYK noms, (I'm not sure exactly how many; probably around 300 based on the number of edits I have on that page), though, as stated above, I haven't been as active on there as I once was. However, despite the number of noms I have reviewed (I've also nominated a few pages created by other people), until recently I had never had an article that I created appear in DYK. This is probably because most topics in my main of areas of interest (science and technology) already have articles and I am better at organizing and formatting existing content than creating large amounts of new content. (It's also easier to do this, which probably contributes to my being better at it...) Recently though, I have been writing and improving quite a few small articles on islands in the Bering Sea. Although most of them are relatively short, (for example: Chagulak Island, Baby Islands), one article, Uliaga Island, is a bit longer and became my first self nom DYK.
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: The only recent conflict I have been involved in was the Barack Obama incident mentioned by Xeno and Frank. In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser to stop after the third revert and let someone else take care of it, but unfortunately I did not think of that at the time. I had actually signed off Wikipedia soon after the vandal stopped (it was like 2:00am where I live), so I didn't find out about the block until the next day. I think I handled the situation pretty well and the admin said later that he probably would have given me a warning instead of a block if he saw the situation again. I do have to say though, that I have been and will continue to be much more careful in the future when reverting edits that aren't necessarily vandalism. Other than that incident, I haven't been involved in any really large conflicts except for some rather heated discussions relating to the Blu-ray - HD DVD format war in January and February. Although I do not avoid conflict if I feel the issue being debated is important, the vast majority of heated discussions are trivial at best and I generally do not get involved with them.
Since you said you wanted to work in CAT:CSD, I'll ask a few questions relating to that.
4:: Let's say you come across a new article about The Funky (my)Space Monkeys, a band. The article only notes that they have a myspace page, so it seems like a good A7 candidate. You tag it as A7 and inform the author and the page creator places a {{Hangon}} tag on the page, but that is all. How long would you wait before deleting it? What would you do if the editor makes an implausible but not impossible (and unsourced) edit to the article that makes a claim to the article?
A Well, to answer your question, I'll have to explain a little about how I handle articles like this one. If I come across a new article about a band that is not clearly non-notable, I do a google search to see if anything other than a few Myspace-like pages show up. If nothing does show up, I generally place a speedy tag on the page. If the search reveals some information other than the Myspace variety but I still feel the band is non-notable (ie, if the info is not from a reliable source), I generally PROD the page. So, to answer your question, if no citations are provided and/or I can't find any reliable information about the band, I will probably delete the page regardless of what edits are made to it because there would be no way to verify anything about the band. However, if I feel there is a possibility the band is notable, I will most likely take no action regarding deleting the article. Also, I'd like to say that what I've written above is not what I do/will do in every case where I see an article about a potentially non-notable band as every case is different and there are exceptions to every rule. However, this what I generally do with band-articles that aren't clearly non-notable.
5: What kind of hoax articles can be speedied?
A: Only hoaxes that are blatantly obvious (eg. The South won the American Civil War) can be speedied. Obviously, there is some room for interpretation as to what qualifies as "blatant," so if I have a question about it, I usually PROD it.
6 Content editing: Could you elaborate on your answer to question 2 in a little more detail? For example, could you provide diffs (or series of diffs) that would show your improvements to the articles you listed in your answer? Particularly, diffs to sufficient content additions would be most appreciated.
7. Do you plan to involve yourself in decisions that would significantly affect content editors, particularly in the discretionary rather than direct action? For example, do you plan to institute blocks for general edit warring (discretion blocks, not 3RR ones), incivility, tendentious editing or other disruption that is clearly made by an opinionated rather than vandalizing editor? Also, do you plan to enforce WP:3RR by patrolling WP:AN3 and the arbcom decisions by patrolling WP:AE? Particularly, would you enforce the so called "general sanctions", "civility paroles" or other wide scope measures that the arbcom frequently passes lately with a significant administrator's discretion being allowed?
A: Well, at the present, I don't plan on actively monitoring WP:AN3 or WP:AE, but if I come across or am made aware of a situation where an editor is being disruptive and is refusing to talk about the disagreement, I would be willing to administer a block if I thought it was necessary to end the conflict. I would also be willing to enforce other arbcom restrictions if necessary. However, I would not impose a block unless I felt there was no other way to end the argument.
8. Do you plan to invent and enforce extra-policy restrictions on content editors on your own?
A: I'm not sure I grasp exactly what you are asking, but if you meant "will I single-handedly impose permanent restrictions on editors who have not made clearly disruptive edits," the answer is no because that authority rests with the arbcom, not with individual admins. Is that what you meant?
9. What's your opinion of IRC. Do you use it? Do you plan to use it? If yes, do you plan to join #admins and what do you think about this channel's past, present and, perhaps, future? What in your opinion would constitute the proper and improper use of the IRC channel?
A: I don't really have a particular opinion about IRC because I have never used it. I also don't plan on using in the future at this time, but I may end up using it at some point. A proper use of the IRC channel would be to talk about things that don't need to be documented and to get help from people if you need it. It would also be useful in a rapidly-changing situation where you need to communicate with other users quickly. An improper use would be to surreptitiously organize activities for the wiki and to talk about people behind their backs.
10. Comment on opposes 2, 4, 11, and 28 at your past RfA, please. Giggy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A. #2 was a valid objection to an error I had made when replacing a speedy tag on a page without checking the article first. I was pretty new at NP patrol at the time, and I made a much larger number of mistakes. The first part of #4 was a similar objection to the above and resulted from an incomplete knowledge of the CSD rules and not being careful when placing speedy tags. The second part was an objection to an incorrect fair-use rational I had placed on an image I had uploaded very soon after I joined Wikipedia. I didn't understand fair-use then and I had neglected to fix the rational after I gained a better knowledge of the rules. #11 part one is the same objection as #4 part two and the second part was an astronomically boneheaded placing of a speedy tag on Avenged Sevenfold after it had been vandalized a few times. As for #28, I don't think I have a mechanistic view of the policies, but looking over my cautious answers to the questions, I definitely see that I gave that impression even though I did not intend to. To be honest, looking back at my level of experience in several key areas of Wikipedia, particularly CSD, at that time, it probably was for the best that my first RfA did not succeed as I'm fairly certain I would have made some rather embarrassing mistakes. This is not to say I think I am perfect now as I most certainly am not, but I am definitely more familiar and experienced with the admin areas I'm interested in working in.
11. (copied from previous RfA) A new editor, user:wiwiwejd992728, has made 23 contributions to WP. 10 of those are vandalism, the rest are things like typo or spelling corrections. What do you do? Giggy (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
A. It would depend on how "bad" the vandalism was and when it was made. If the vandalism was of the "eighiehieihgihgie" or similar variety and occurred at the start of the edits followed by a string of constructive edits, I would most likely take no action regarding a black. On the other hand, if the editor made some constructive edits followed by page blankings and "F*** YOU!!!1111"s, then I would almost definitely block them if the edits were recent. Basically, what action I would take would depend totally on what edits were made and when they were made, so I can't really give an entirely accurate answer when speaking in generalities.
12. Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy, or guidline? If not please give an example and tell why.
A. I can't really think of any Wikipedia policies I disagree with. I am not saying that I think Wikipedia is perfect, but for the most part, I think the guidelines in place have been fairly well thought-out and work pretty well.
13. If you came across a user talk page from a newly registered user that said something to the effect of "I am thinking of killing myself." what would you do? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is not policy).
A. hmmm... that's a good question and one I haven't really given much thought as I've never encountered a situation like that. I would probably leave a post on WP:AN mentioning the message and requesting someone with some experience in that area to contact the user because I do not have any experience with counseling suicidal people.
14. What would you like Wikipedia to be in ten years time? Marlith (Talk) 03:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
'A. Wow I'm sorry I missed this one. What would I like Wikipedia to be like in then years? hmmm.... Well, in many ways, I'd like it to be like it is now: lively, active; a fun place, but one where work gets done and we accomplish something useful. I especially hope Wikipedia never loses its sense of "newness" where we still have rules that can be changed and policies that can be adjusted if necessary. One of my greatest fears for this site is that as a community we will fossilize into an unmovable bureaucracy of tradition and hard-fast, set-in-stone policies. Now, I'm not saying I think no rules should stand as any organization must have some sense of stability to be successful, and some policies (such as the five pillars) should never be changed in my opinion, but I think that one of Wikipedia's strengths is its adaptability and freedom of action when working for the good of the project (WP:IAR). I hope that never changes. Another thing I hope stays the same is the ability for truly anyone to edit the majority of pages on this site. I mean, that ability is, in a large part, responsible for the spectacular success of this encyclopedia, and while that ability does contribute to much of the vandalism here, it enables us to keep up with current events rapidly (a huge asset in a lot of cases) and is also (in my humble opinion) one of, if not the defining feature that sets Wikipedia apart from the myriad of copycat projects out there. I also hope that never changes. However, there are a couple of things I would like to see change on Wikipedia over the next decade. The main thing I'd like to see is a much higher average quality level for articles, especially in the area of citations. While we have made a lot of progress in this direction (as evidenced by the constantly increasing number of edits per page and featured articles), we still have a lot of work to do on a lot of articles. I would also like to see large-scale vandalism become a a much less serious issue than it is now. While automated and semi-automated tools have helped a lot in this area, vandalism is still a large problem, and one I hope we can find a way to at least greatly reduce its impact compared to what we deal with today.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Thingg before commenting.
Nothing immediately alarming :) Good luck! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – Yes, I've been waiting for this for a while now, and have always thought Thingg would be a fine administrator. I've been watching his talk page and his edits for a while now, and see most everything constructive. Happy to support. Good luck! -- RyRy (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thingg has an impressive WikiResume, displays great understanding of Wikipedia policy, and has the temperament to be an administrator. Although I have had only minimal direct interaction with Thingg, I am constantly bumping into him at AIV and other places - and all I see is indications of a reasonable, thoughtful editor. Tan | 39 21:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Seen nothing but good things from Thingg: he's always been sensible whenever I've seen him. I was the one who gave him rollback as well, which he has been great with. Acalamari 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - a little soon after his last RfA but what the hell. Garden. 21:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Feels like a lot less than that. Peh, ignore me. Garden. 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support – i've seen this guy around a lot, and he seems to get it. The issues brought up by the opposes last time around seem to have since been dealt with. Yilloslime(t) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - all-round good candidate from my experience. Best we've had in weeks, in my opinion.Caulde 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why your support for this candidate has to spill out into disrepect for other candidates, some of whom are currently standing. I think you have over-stepped the mark. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. By my past nom. Glad to see you back at RfA! Malinaccier (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely. Wisdom89(T / C) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Catherine the Great and I'm in a frisky mood -- I'll take a dozen oysters and a horse, please...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Strong Support for one of Wikipedia's very best editors (truly)! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (edit conflict x2). Only 913 reports to AIV? I've seen Thingg's work and it's always seemed good to me. Seems to have a good handle on policy, and has demonstrated the ever-subjective clue. That's some serious Huggling you got there, but you have other work as well. I think he'll do fine as an admin. Useight (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose :) per he is the perfect candidate with excellent nominations and therefore there must be something wrong with him ;) NuclearWarfarecontact meMy work 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've never interacted with this user, but from his responses to the questions, the nomination, and from the approval of other editors. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've seen Thingg's contributions for quite a while and I know he's an amazing editor and vandal fighter. Definitely will make an amazing administrator as well. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - nothing wrong, at all. iMatthew (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Makes sense. MBisanztalk 22:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support a demonstrated need for the tools and a good demeanor. - Icewedge (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support of course. —αἰτίας•discussion• 22:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support User won't abuse the mop. SchfiftyThree 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
But will he abuse the mob? Everyme 23:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, by the amount of unanimous supports above, I believe he will do alright. SchfiftyThree 23:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support as nom. Thingg taught me so much when I was first starting here and as I said to him at my talk page, it's pretty much a travesty that I was made an admin before he was - let's fix that =) –xeno (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Has objectively worked and overcame the concerns raised during the Previous RFA.Further trust the Judgement of Acalamari.See no chance of the user abusing the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (ec) Per the above and a clear, reasonable answer to the questions. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, albeit a little weakly. Thingg's instability is a small cause for concern for me: I fear his judgement may at times be lacking, or that he may—rarely, I suspect, admittedly—make rash decisions in the course of his work as an administrator. By and large, however, I believe he will bring some improvement to the project through his having the +sysop bit; I do caution him to take a step back if he feels unsettled on the project, but at the root of the matter I trust him and think he will make a decent administrator. Anthøny✉ 00:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Hard working editor with a stable record of contributions and Vandal fighting --Flewis(talk) 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Haven't had the bestinteractions with the candidate in the past, and apparently I'm not the only one with some concerns, as shown by Anthony above. However, I do feel that this will be an overall net gain. GlassCobra 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support I literally, honestly, truly believed you were already an administrator. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Let's get this Thingg started! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was poor. :-) Anthøny✉ 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I kinda thought you were an admin already too. Talk page looks good (You get a lot of pints, don't you!) and contribs...well, as you said, a little Huggly--but I'm not one who considers that a bad thing. Yeah, I'd trust you with the mop. But re: Q5...you might want to go back and peek at WP:SPEEDY--particularly item #2 under "non-criteria". (Did I just give the answer away?)Gladys J Cortez 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I would have said the same thing but it appears that, in the breech, blatant hoaxes that are basically speedied on a regular basis. Within the letter of the law or not, that appears to be the operating precedent. Personally, I don't mind it. The biggest fears for speedying "hoax" articles are misidentification and deletion of a factual account of a notable RL hoax. I find that those are usually unfounded and that an admin who sees a blatantly misinformative article would not be in the wrong in deleting it. Protonk (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
When I saw your reply, I went back and re-read the "non-criteria" section; and lo and behold, it DOES mention that "blatant and obvious" hoaxes can be treated as vandalism and speedy deleted on that basis. Striking out my misinterpretation of policy and noting that I'm clearly not as smart as I'd like to think I am. ;) Gladys J Cortez 03:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - why not. jj137(talk) 03:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Nobody reads these comments, so I'll come forth and say that abortion is the best thing since sliced bread, McCain is a revolutionary step forward in U.S. presidency, and we should work on colonizing Mars because Wal-mart is running out of places to urbanize. Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :) 07:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
o_O Some people read them... GlassCobra 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (AA) per Juliancolton ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support As last time. Pedro : Chat 08:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks like would be a good mop-wielder. Prince of Canada t | c 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support A review of the stats shows no likelihood of mop abuse, and my interactions with the candidate (reviewing/actioning AIV reports) have been good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support per Master of Puppets and that I don't see anything troubling. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Yep, this fellow has the temperament to be an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Really hope this one finally passes. ;) — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Never had a problem with this user. Hard worker who deserves the tools and will use them well. Daniel Case (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support All problems (even the minor ones) raised in the last RfA seem to be addressed. While I would like to see his answers to the remaining questions, it appears irrelevant. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. More Huggly than I personally prefer admins to be, but that's a question of personal style, and to each his own. Editor appears a superb vandal fighter and would be an obvious net gain for the project. Ford MF (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Affirmative. →Christian.И 19:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I've seen Thingg around, Huggling and whatnot, and he's done very well. With a bit of my own investigating, I am pretty ready to believe that Thingg will do well as an admin. IceUnshattered[ t ] 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"What do you mean you are not already an admin?"-Support Not much more to say, I really thought he was an admin and answers and contribs look fine as well. :-) SoWhy 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems to merit trust, despite some past controversy. Steven Walling(talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm...yes. I have no concerns about this user. Xclamation point 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Already-thought-you-owned-a-mop support — seriously, this one kind of surprised me. No problems with what I've seen of this user, and I think he'd definitely make a fine admin with the areas he intends to work in. The first time I really saw him around was about the time when he once helped cleanup after a little mistake of mine at DYK. ;-) Good luck with everything, keep up your good work! Jamie☆S93 01:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Very good editor. --Carioca (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pile on support. Solid editor. Kukiniháblame aquí 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good answers to questions, nothing alarming in the past 500 edits. Answer to question 11 was a little iffy, but it was a pretty general question. Matty (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent contributions and sensible answers. Axl¤[Talk] 10:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I supported last time per candidate's good work which has only improved since then. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support As last time Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: I've seen Thingg around and found his work to be solid. Should make a good admin. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 14:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Seen him around and he does a excellent job. --Patrick (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support A capable candidate doing very good work...Modernist (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pile-On/As-Co-Nom/Of-Course/Thought-You-Were-Already-Support Frank | talk 17:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Great edits and experience over the past 6 months, good answers. --Banime (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I opposed last time, but my concerns are no more. Have fun mopping! Tiptoetytalk 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Per noms and answers to the first three questions. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Thingg is one of the sites most fervent and intelligent administrators, there's no reason not to gie him the flag to go along with it. Valtoras (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Why not? If there's not not, then there should not be anyone not supporting. Marlith (Talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support No problems, huge positives SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support (even if my opinion is redundant at this point). He has accumulated a lot of experience in different areas, and he used the feedback from his previous RfA constructively. I see no reasons for concern. VG☎ 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support I have no concerns trusting them. rootology (C)(T) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support: without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Clearly. Spinach Dip 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Looks like a strong candidate. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
very strong support I like people who i find worthy, know how to use the tools, dont like vandals, and will make constructive edits to wikipedia.Hawkey131 (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Answers look good, and you seem to have the trust of many users.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, good answers to the questions, respectable editing history; seems trustworthy. Dreadstar† 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I would like to see you branch out beyond RCP and new pages patrolling though. Most of that type of patrolling doesn't need the admin toolkit (other than of course administering blocks and making pages disappear). Apteva (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support : Have a stormy admin life :) Ref: Userbox on the candidate's page -- TinuCherian - 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - looks good. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - per nom, and has over 40,000 edits. --Yowuza ZX Wolfie 17:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - Seems to be an almost perfect candidate. Lots of frequent edits, many reverting vandalism. Very good question answering too :-). Good luck. AtheWeatherman (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
Support - definitely ——Possum (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Wooo! You made it into the WP:100! A great candidate, good record, no bad points brung up and I can't find any; per my RfA criteriaFoxyLoxyPounce! 09:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support The reasons I opposed the latest RFA are no longer applicable. CenariumTalk 22:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I supported this user on his previous RfA, but now he has even more experience. ~AH1(TCU) 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'd pushed for article probation on the Obama pages, and although it wasn't ideal for the candidate to be partially sanctioned under it, and partially under 3RR, I'm very happy to trust this user with tools for demonstrating what he learnt from that experience. The candidate also provided a nice answer to question 9. Just as a further point on that answer, users too easily start having doubts whether someone is speaking about them behind their back, or vice versa, just because they use it. Sometimes the doubts are well-founded, while other times it's pure paranoia, and the effects of such doubts which can be damaging to collaborativeness. It can never replace on-wiki consensus building, and certainly, doubts shouldn't replace basic AGF. I hope that this is also something that the candidate will reinforce when his RFA is granted. ;) Best wishes, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. Impressive.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Support - Very impressive contributions. I hope this passes! --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
No-brainer support Nominated by an editor that I have the utmost respect for, co-nominated by another of the same stature, outstanding contributions to the project... what more could I possibly ask for? --Winger84 (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
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.
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert
{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
^Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
user OK. macy 15:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
admin life :) Ref: Userbox on the candidate's page -- Tinu Cherian - 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
