Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

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 nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Everyking	156	84	7	65	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
BQZip01	75	38	10	66	Unsuccessful	01:14, 14 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Gaia Octavia Agrippa	22	28	11	44	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
JamieS93	107	8	4	93	Successful	18:12, 12 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Wadester16	67	4	1	94	Successful	17:00, 12 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Rosiestep	75	2	1	97	Successful	Error parsing end time		no	report
Download	45	39	9	54	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
Rambo's Revenge	70	2	1	97	Successful	12:52, 11 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Laser brain	125	0	1	100	Successful	00:16, 11 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Dinoguy1000	83	1	2	99	Successful	Error parsing end time		no	report

Current time is 01:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Everyking	156	84	7	65	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
BQZip01	75	38	10	66	Unsuccessful	01:14, 14 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Gaia Octavia Agrippa	22	28	11	44	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
JamieS93	107	8	4	93	Successful	18:12, 12 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Wadester16	67	4	1	94	Successful	17:00, 12 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Rosiestep	75	2	1	97	Successful	Error parsing end time		no	report
Download	45	39	9	54	Unsuccessful	Error parsing end time		no	report
Rambo's Revenge	70	2	1	97	Successful	12:52, 11 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Laser brain	125	0	1	100	Successful	00:16, 11 May 2009	0 hours	no	report
Dinoguy1000	83	1	2	99	Successful	Error parsing end time		no	report

Current time is 01:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

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.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.

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 community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N/A	%
KylieTastic	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	374	66	101	85
Kj cheetham	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	350	64	127	85
Ser!	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	91	136	78
Curbon7	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	293	87	161	77
Jlwoodwa	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	95	132	77
Smasongarrison	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	312	98	131	76
UndercoverClassicist	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	307	97	137	76
CoconutOctopus	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	315	110	116	74
Hinnk	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	260	100	181	72
Hilst	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	233	117	191	67
Pbritti	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	126	165	66
Patient Zero	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	130	161	66
Usernamekiran	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	232	127	182	65
Darth Stabro	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	167	205	169	45
North8000	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	108	323	110	25
Vestrian24Bio	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	56	341	144	14

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). 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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

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 the extended confirmed right. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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.

Monitors

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 01:14:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

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

Everyking

Final: (156/84/7); closed as no consensus by Kingturtle at 17:16, 15 May 2009

Nomination

Everyking (talk · contribs) – Today I bring forward Everyking as a candidate for adminship.

Everyking is a distinguished Wikipedian for several reasons. Firstly, he is an exceptionally dedicated and experienced editor, and few can claim to have made as substantial a contribution to the site as he has. A registered user since 2004, he maintains a high level of onsite activity and has accumulated some 120,000 edits in his time here. Above all else, Everyking is a content contributor and article writer; just over 90% of his edits are to the mainspace. This is something to be admired in any editor. This high mainspace to non-mainspace ratio does not and should not devalue Everyking's participation in the maintenance areas of Wikipedia, though. He has thousands of edits to the Wikipedia: space, and performed around 1,300 admin actions during his ~2 years of adminship.

That brings me to my second point. Everyking is a former administrator. After gaining the sysop position in May, 2004, Everyking had his "mop" revoked in the September of 2006 by the Arbitration Committee. Those^† who have hitherto nominated Everyking for re-adminship have made particular note of the fact that Everyking did, in fact, put his tools to sound use while he had them; and I can only re-iterate their asseverations in that regard. His actions were issued with an assiduous deference to Wikipedia policy, he demonstrated a marked diligence and care in his administrative duties, and he was, in general, an asset to the team. The previous is all but undisputed; even the body that saw fit to strip him of his status conceded as much – unanimously.

Naturally, commendation of Everyking's ability with the tools in the past gives rise to the question of why he ever lost them. Everyking lost his tools because it looked as though he was about to make an act of poor discretion. On Wikipedia Review, a forum dedicated to the criticism of Wikipedia, a poster requested access to a deleted revision; and Everyking, not seeing that there was anything particularly sensitive about the revision, agreed to produce it. This was a lapse in judgement – thankfully, however, Everyking realised this before he actually supplied the poster with the revision. Nonetheless, his promise was publicly visible on the Wikipedia Review site, and ArbCom soon heard of it. Everyking's tools were revoked a short time later.

I humbly submit to the community that this is an error from which we should move forward. It was a single mistake made almost three years ago, and it is a small blemish on an otherwise brilliant record, as both an editor and an admin. In fact, it was an almost-mistake – Everyking realised his fault before ArbCom did. Should we really deny such a prolific, dedicated, and experienced editor adminship for a mistake that never even fully eventuated? I leave that to the community. Best of luck, James.

† See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 4 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 2 in particular.

—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. Everyking (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2009 (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: Mainly I would like to be able to deal with vandalism effectively; I was an active vandal fighter back when I had the tools, but I have done very little of it since they were removed, as I feel hamstrung by my inability to rollback, block, delete, and semi-protect. In addition, I would like to be able to handle page moves that currently require me to request an admin's help, and I would like to help out with any miscellaneous tasks I might come across.

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

A: I think my most prolific and valuable work has been to articles on African politics. It's difficult for me to pinpoint certain articles, but on my user page I have a list of the articles I've created during the last year (although that represents only a small sample of my work in the subject area).

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 have been a Wikipedia editor for more than five years, and I have had a number of editing disputes and disagreements with other users. Those disputes, the most significant of which resulted in arbitration, were almost entirely concentrated in my first two years on the site. Lessons learned in the course of those disputes have helped guide me in the time since. I have been involved in very little controversy since 2006, and for the most part I have tried to avoid controversial issues. I have also mostly ceased posting on the Wikipedia Review forum in recent months, as I feel the forum is dominated by views that I don't accept and I no longer feel my time is particularly well-spent by engaging with those viewpoints.

Question from Dlohcierekim .

4. Hello, EveryKing. In the last RFA, many opposed on grounds of drama. What's changed?

A: I think that was a valid concern, given my past record of arbitration cases and history of being involved in controversial issues. To anyone who still has that concern, I want to point to my response to question 3 and note that you will not find any instance in which I have involved myself to a significant degree in a controversy in recent memory. I find that the role I enjoy most on Wikipedia, and the role in which I am most useful and productive, is that of being an article writer, so I have focused on that and largely ignored other matters. Everyking (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Thumperward

5. I opposed last time based on what looks like your complete rejection of the concept of admins weighing consensus on weight of argument rather than weight of numbers, as in the case of this DRV comment (under Crash of the Titans). Quote:

Overturn, closing admin admits to making the decision based on "strength of arguments" rather than assessment of numbers, which in my view invalidates the decision. Everyking (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

and

I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely. You can't evaluate consensus by considering arguments, because consensus reflects the will of a group. Consensus means that people agree. It has nothing to do with who has the better argument per se—weighing arguments is what voters should be doing, not closing admins. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Has this changed?

A: My viewpoint has always been consistent on this: I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers, with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors. I don't believe that giving one person the power to unilaterally decide which side has the best argument is consistent with the broader philosophies underlying Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting some attention. Let me clarify, for the record, that I have never, in the course of five years, closed an AfD, and I will never do so in the future. I have always felt that my well-known viewpoints on those matters could preclude the appearance of neutrality. Everyking (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked to see that my viewpoint on this appears to be deeply unpopular now and gotten me numerous oppose votes. I don't recall that this issue got much attention in the past RfAs, so I was unprepared to address it and did not explain things quite as clearly as I otherwise would have. (Further articulation of my views is in the answer to question 7.) I am, of course, a believer in a "weak admin" philosophy, and if my RfA is successful I intend to only do uncontroversial chores necessary for project upkeep, implementing consensus as reflected in discussions held by others. If people think I would be a bad admin because I would refrain from imposing my opinions on others and would act as merely a janitor, then I will accept the failure of this nom with a mixture of disappointment and confusion. Everyking (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from jc37

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:

• 6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:

• 6a. ...an editor to be blocked?

• A: Repeated vandalism, revert warring, or abuse of other editors.

• 6b. ...a page to be protected?

• A: Protection might be applied in cases of edit warring or special circumstances related to extreme high traffic, although I don't believe this is done very often anymore. Semi-protection can be applied more broadly to vandal-targetted articles.

• 6c. ...a page to be speedily deleted?

• A: Patent nonsense or a simple attack page.

I suppose I should clarify that I am aware that there are other instances in which speedy deletion may be validly used, aside from the two that I mentioned. Those are simply the ones that sprang to mind when I was envisioning the ordinary circumstances in which speedy deletion is used. Everyking (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• 6d. ...the policy to ignore all rules to be applied to a situation?

• A: I believe Wikipedians should work to create and implement good rules, and I think situations in which the rules can be legitimately ignored are quite rare.

• 7. 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: Consensus may be defined as broad agreement among experienced editors—around two-thirds in practice. Of course it may be applied more loosely in ordinary talk page discussions, where the matter is not subject to a formal process.

• 8. 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: Are either of them violating the 3RR? If not, I would warn against edit warring and try to facilitate a solution on the talk page; failing that, I would urge mediation, and in an extreme case consider protecting the article for a limited period.

• 9. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A: I addressed this question above, under Question 1. Everyking (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from I'm Spartacus!

10. You were asked about AFD's above wherein you said that you felt AfD's should be closed purely by the numbers. What about other areas of the project where discussion occurs? Is it all a numbers game to you or should admins ever weigh the strength of argument? If so can you talk about what areas and how they would do so?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe admins should evaluate and implement consensus according to the broad agreement of discussion participants. This means considering whether or not a certain position has a sufficiently large number of people supporting it that it can be said to have consensus support. My view of the role of admins does not include evaluating the strength of arguments when attempting to determine whether a consensus exists. Under certain circumstances it might be acceptable to decide a matter a certain way even if the favored position had only minority or simple majority support, but this could not be defined as consensus, because consensus is about whether people broadly agree, not about whether certain people have better arguments than others.

For example, as an extreme case, an admin could look at an article talk page and see that discussion participants had endorsed moving a BLP to a new title that included an insult directed at the subject. If 8 out of 10 participants endorsed that position, it would have consensus in the context of that talk page, but nevertheless the admin could act according to broader, project-wide consensus and veto that local consensus. He could not, however, claim that the position endorsed by only 2 out of 10 participants had a consensus in the context of the local discussion; that would be a misuse of the term. Everyking (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Frankly, I am struggling with this one. I am a firm believer in restoring the bit to people who have lost it, but I do have some concerns. I've read this RfA and the supports/opposes very carefully. I am looked at the people who are supporting. There are a lot of people whose opinions I highly respect, but there are also a good number of them are names that I simply do not recognize. Enough so that I actually checked the contribution history of them to ensure that there was no funny business going on. Now here is the quandry that I'm facing. Where did these faces come from that I've never seen at RfA? Are the names we are seeing the result of your having been around here since the dawn of time and that these users have known you forever? Or are we seeing the fruit of your involvement at Wikipedia Review? I want to be clear that I am not making an allegation of wrong doing, I am just curious as to why you think there are such a large number of people partaking in your RfA who don't have a history of being here? ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why various users choose to participate in this RfA when they might not participate in other RfAs. I don't ordinarily follow RfA, so I don't know who's considered a "regular" here, and I post on WR infrequently these days. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I am one of these new names you have not seen. I edit when I can but not as much as i used to. I have been here long enough (see) to notice the good that Everyking does for the encyclopedia. For some reason I have his talk page on my watchlist, not even sure why. ( stirke that sentence, apparently i don't, I must have come here because I noticed his name on a talk page) I have nothing to do with wikipedia review, except to read links that are posted at WP from time to time. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Rootology

12. As someone with some argue a contentious past, I put myself up for Recall immediately after my RFA, as seen here, in what I hope is a very, extremely simple method. Before you answer, keep in mind that some people opposed me in the RFA itself for simply saying I was going to open myself to recall, which seemed downright bizarre--but this was I believe in the wake of Elonka unfortunately making a mockery of the process. What are your thoughts on recall, and would you be willing to make yourself open to something along the lines? Or something binding (which I don't know if we can do, but I would myself if we could)? rootology (C)(T) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to have recall procedures, and if this RfA succeeds I will certainly be open to recall. My standard, which I believe should be mandatory for all admins, is that if 10 long-term users ask an admin to step down within the course of a month, the admin should do so. I am a strong believer that users should still be responsible to the community and subject to the community's wishes after passing RfA.

I was asked to explain this in more detail. If my RfA is successful, I will create a user subpage in which users may add their names to a list of users requesting my resignation. Any experienced user, defined as someone with at least 500 edits and three months of editing history, may add their names to the list, provided they cite conduct (editorial or administrative) occurring after my acquisition of the tools. If there are 10 signatures within the course of one calendar month, I will resign my adminship. I strongly doubt that I would ever get a single signature, but the terms of the pledge are straightforward and any steward should feel free to desysop me without waiting for a resignation if the terms are met. I feel all admins should be held to the terms of recall pledges made during RfAs. Everyking (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

13. I also have one definitive set of articles I vowed to recuse myself from use of tools on. Is there any content or policy area you think you might wish to restrict yourself from, from actually using the tools? Note that when I have time, I'm still active as a content person/normal editor on the Obama content and related discussions. rootology (C)(T) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be inappropriate for me to use admin tools in relation to disputes in which I am involved, or disputes occurring on articles where I am an active editor. I think the key is whether a dispute exists; I wouldn't feel restrained from dealing with a simple vandal under any circumstances, or doing uncontroversial upkeep chores, but if there was an actual dispute between established editors, it would be inappropriate for me to use the tools to resolve that if I might be reasonably perceived as biased towards one side. Everyking (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Groomtech

14. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to enforce them?

A: People have different ideas about what constitutes a "right"; I tend to apply the term liberally, so I view editing here as a right that is conditional upon respect for our policies. Let me be clear that I mean "right" in a sense internal to Wikipedia. I do not envision myself enforcing anything beyond the policy against vandalism.

Optional question from EdChem

15. User:Ottava Rima is clearly strongly opposed to your candidacy. Are you aware of some conflict (resolved or not) between you that would explain his or her continued commenting on !votes? I ask because understanding might help others to assess what weight to give to Ottava Rima's views. If this question is out of order or offensive, please feel free to remove it. EdChem (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: Ottava Rima and I interacted on Wikipedia Review last year. He presented numerous off-topic arguments related to religion and society, and I believed his arguments included hate speech, so I called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason. He was subsequently banned with the agreement of almost everyone on the forum. There hasn't been any other conflict or interaction between us. Everyking (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Ottava Rima

16. In your answer above, why would you make claims about hate speech without linking to the thread for people to see? Why would you classify defending one's religion as hate speech? Why would you claim that doing so in a thread marked about the topic would be "off-topic"? Why would you do any of the above when you know that the person you are talking about is involved in this page and would call you on your misleading answer?

A:

Optional question from Zzyzx11

17. In your answer above to question 1, you said that you wanted to become and an admin again because you would like to be able to deal with vandalism effectively and help out with page moves. But to me, after examining your recent contributions for the past month (and it does not help when you rarely enter edit summaries) I do not sense that strong desire. It seems to me you haven't really done some of the "admin stuff you can do without being an admin". Those were some of the things I, and probably many other, did a lot right before being promoted to admin. And I have noticed that you have rollback rights and yet you rarely use it to help fight vandalism. So why have you not done these things recently?

A: As I explained in my answer to question 1, I no longer actively fight vandalism because I feel hamstrung by my inability to block, delete, and semi-protect. That would change if I had the tools. Everyking (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional Question from HJ Mitchell

18. Yours is a name I've come across on occasion but I've yet to have the privilege of working with you so I come to this RfA completely neutral, so I hope this, relatively simple, question will enable you to convince me and others to support you. You say on more than one occasion above that you have tended not to get involved in the more controversial areas of editing. Given that, how would you respond to a relatively inexperienced editor requesting your involvement, as an admin, in, for example, an AfD in which the temperature was rapidly rising or in a dispute over a particular group of articles and their treatment- for argument's sake, I'll use the example of the minor league baseball articles in which there was (and is) a... variety of opinion! Would your response be any different should that editor be one with whom you had collaborated before and who you respected? HJMitchell You rang? 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While I do avoid areas of controversy, as I feel my time is spent more productively working on uncontroversial things, I have plenty of past experience in dealing with controversies. My approach would be to assess the situation, determine whether a compromise solution seemed possible and reasonable, and make a suggestion along those lines, while urging everyone involved to be calm, thoughtful, and respectful of the policies. Everyking (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Everyking
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 2
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 3
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 4
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 5
• Requests for adminship/Everyking 6

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Everyking before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• A lengthy discussion that had gone well-off track with respect to the scope of this page has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5#Discussion started by Ottava Rima (it pertained to Q15). –xeno ^talk 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As Ottava Rima has been asked not to edit this page any longer, it would probably behoove us (as a matter of decorum) to likewise not comment further here about their actions on this RFA as they will be unable to respond directly. –xeno ^talk 21:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ottava seems to object to the above, as evidenced by their attempt to redact it and related thread at my talk page. As I commented at ANI, the above comment was made under the (perhaps faulty) assumption that OR had acquiesced to KC's request not to edit this page. As this does not appear to be the case, govern yourself accordingly. –xeno ^talk 22:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, users should be making a decision based on the arguments, supportive and opposing, as well as Everyking's own behaviour. Hopefully the actions of any third party should not sway the decision making. David D. (Talk) 21:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

Happy to be first. 5th time lucky perhaps? Majorly talk 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. This RFA has the huge advantage of no guessing being required. We already know how he'd use the tools, and there was nothing wrong with it. Quite frankly, the desysopping appears to have been fueled by paranoia. Friday (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC) PS Yes, question 5 is way off base. But, this is a fine philosophical point, and I doubt it would hurt anything. The question of getting the right answer versus doing what's popular comes up in far more important areas then AFD, and editors have vastly differing opinions. Friday (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Yep. –xeno ^talk 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I trust him. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Hopefully this passes this time around. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Changing to oppose based on AFD philosophy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Fully and confidently. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry for piling on but, for me, A5 is just not a good answer at all. Not ready to oppose just yet but I must withdraw my support. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Support. Encyclopedic contributions have always been exemplary, and whatever behavioral problems there are long gone. The desysop was in my view a mistake, since there was no misuse of the admin tools. I disagree slightly with his view on the amount of discretion an admin has on AFD closures in that there is a duty to uphold the verifiability policy, but the times this comes into conflict with consensus are actually very rare. Even so, Everyking rarely (if ever) closes discussions, so I cannot see that mattering. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
5. If the worst anyone can find to say is "inconsistent use of edit summaries", I can't see a problem here. – iridescent 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   It is not the worse anyone can find. We all know why Everyking lost his admin bit. We all know why Everyking was prohibited by ArbCom. We all know that there is a good chance that, when being an admin, Everyking will end up down the same path and Jimbo will have to desysop him to protect the project again. What no one knows is why this user is still allowed here. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava, you know I generally respect your opinions, but I really do think you're wrong here. I've read those WR threads – I even commented in one of them – and while I don't agree with EK, I don't think he says anything particularly unreasonable. He feels that still being subject to special measures for an event that took place three years ago gives him an unfair stigma when it comes to his current work, and regardless of whether one agree with that one can at least understand why he thinks it. – iridescent 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC

   If you want, I can post the threads where he attacks Raul, Jimbo, etc. The really nasty stuff is kept from public view in the "tar pit" and other places. I fought with him there over the matters. He is a wiki anarchist. He hates Jimbo. He hates ArbCom. He has no reason to be here. To give such a person power is to just say "fuck Wikipedia". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Then by all means… fuck Wikipedia. — CharlotteWebb 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I take it that you forgot that we have rules against both trolling and wiki-anarchists? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Majestic plural, surely? My point is you're reading too much into the motives and implications of this, trying to frame it as a political statement—and not a very earth-shattering one I'd add. — CharlotteWebb 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   We as in Wikipedia. I think you are a tad bias when it comes to viewing Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, you made more posts to WR in four months (Jul–Nov 2008) than I have in two years, so I'm guessing the difference is I'm not banned from it. I can see how that might warp your perspective, though I think mine remains more or less the same thank you. — CharlotteWebb 23:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

6. One of the most prolific and productive contributors in the history of the project, and his history of use of administrative tools has been exemplary. That's all that matters. Antandrus (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Net-Positive Agathoclea (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
8. I supported last time and though better edit summary use would be preferable I buy the explanation. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   What explanation? Keepscases (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   While I haven't made up my mind yet on this RfA, I notice that edit summaries still aren't being used, despite the promise.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

9. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   There's a lot of discussion going here, so I'll have a few words here. Everyking is a classic victim of politics in his time. The punishment he has received over that fiasco simply does not fit the crime. He found himself at Wikipedia Review to seek solace when the community turned blind towards his concerns, but we still see his dedication of content contributions to the project. For this we have wasted a lot of potential "superlative administrative activities" he would have otherwise put into. For the numbers vs consensus view, it's a legacy working so that would change when he has a more familiar hand with the current era. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

10. If there was ever an emergency to desysop (I don't think there was) it has long since evaporated. Any less-vilified admin would have been reinstated within 1–4 weeks at most. — CharlotteWebb 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Bedford was far less "vilified" than Everyking and screwed up far less, and he wasn't resysopped, so history does not support you. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Absolutely.  GARDEN  18:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per excellent arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series and as I believe in second chances. My experiences is that Everyking is a helpful and usually wise editor. I have not always agreed with him, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
13. support —DerHexer (Talk) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
14. support P-Real DA deal knows da deal when he sees it i support --P-Real DA deal 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs)

    — P-Real DA deal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

15. Everyone deserves a second chance. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support It's been quite a long time since Everyking's last RFA, even longer since any sort of drama. His record's been very impressive since then, and I trust him to uphold his promise not to close any AFDs. If he wants the tools to whack a couple vandals and help out, I'm more than happy to have him get them back. GlassCobra 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I hate the answer to question 5, but since he hasn't and won't close AfDs, I don't see that as a problem. AniMate^talk 20:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, is known not to misuse tools, and shouldn't have been perma-desysopped for the reason he was desysopped for anyway. Kusma (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. I certainly don't agree with his answer to #5, but I frankly think that the pile-on illustrates the fallacies of those opposing. Their opposition has latched so quickly onto the one answer they didn't like, that they didn't consider the nuances of the response (i.e., he said he is not ever going to close XfDs). Instead of a rational discussion, this has turned into an "OMG-he-like-vote-counting!" pile-on bloodbath. I frankly would consider this as suspect evidence of judgment as a simple vote-counter. His history of contributions shows that Everyking has been a net positive to the project. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Odd, so, if he is a net positive, where does the long time wiki-stalking, harassment, etc, leading to an Arb case and long term enforcement fall into that? Normal "net positives" tend not to have such blatantly outrageous histories, let alone have been desysopped in a manner that makes it clear that he should never have been an admin to begin with, let alone ever become one again. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    That was in 2006. Jeez, are you going to argue every support vote? I think you've made your point quite clearly in the Oppose section already. struck needless snarky bit Yintaɳ  21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry IG, but I disagree. Just because someone doesn't now intend to close discussions, doesn't mean that they won't in the future. Adminship is for life (until removed voluntarily or otherwise), and a year or more from now, who knows what an admin may be interested in doing. I know from personal experience that I've become involved in things I had never imagined that I would, back when I was nominated. - jc37 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Are you asking me to rescind my support for your RfA from 3 years ago? Haha... seriously though, adminship is about trust. I trust him to stick to his word. I think most people here trust that I will not delete the main page (and I've never even promised that I wouldn't). In the unlikely event that he breaks his word, does this break the encyclopedia? No. In more than 95% of cases, the vote count and the consensus come to exactly the same conclusion. Are there exceptions? Sure, but that's why we have deletion review. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

20. Support. I don't agree with Everyking's numbers vs consensus view but I can see where he comes from. His answer to Spartacus' question (7) explains everything quite clearly. The fact that he doesn't agree with this AfD policy does not in any way suggest that he would mess up AfDs, abuse the tools, break the project, or otherwise be a bad admin. The man is entitled to his own opinion, isn't he? His past contributions look fine, not to say impressive, and he's been around for years. Opposing just because of his "wikitically incorrect" answer to question 5 smells of short-sighted GroupThink, if you don't mind me saying so. I believe all current admins can think of a WP policy or guideline they don't agree with. Does that make them bad admins? Of course not. Yintaɳ  21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think his desysop proves that he is quite capable of breaking the project. The Arb case against him only reinforces that fact. His "own opinion" is using a message board to complain about something that was justly deserved and makes it clear that he believes he has many enemies, which would lend itself even more to abuse of the tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've read the desysop thread (we are talking about something that happened three years ago, right?) and I'm not impressed. I've read the Wikipedia Review thread and again I'm not impressed. Is that the worst he's ever done? I didn't know (wannabe)admins weren't allowed to state their opinions on a forum. You obviously don't trust Everyking at all. Fine, your choice, but I do trust him. You don't mind jumping to conclusions about possible tool abuse. Again, your choice. I see no reason for that fear. My vote stands. Yintaɳ  21:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    He has contributed over 1,500 times at WR. Trust me, there is plenty of nasty stuff there. If you want to see most of it, enroll as a member and get access to things like the tarpit. The fact that he whined and attacked ArbCom because he wanted to try and guilt them into removing the "taint" of his previous mistake just to become an admin shows that all he wants is to be an admin, not to help the project. Power hunger combined with a sharp disrespect for Jimbo et al and a hate of ArbCom along with having many long standing grudges is not someone you can just trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    If there's "plenty of nasty stuff" then bring it here. I'm not going to register with a forum that doesn't interest me and dig through 1500 posts. And a "disrespect for Jimbo" doesn't bother me at all. I didn't know we had to adore the man. Again, you're jumping to conclusions. I'm not interested in that. Yintaɳ  22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Support Not bothering to attempt to reconcile the candidate's answer to question five with prevailing policy (although noting that they are not as far apart as some imagine and that it is not at all clear that the candidate misunderstands policy; a disagreement with policy and practice, of course, is no grand evil, especially where he who disagrees is committed, as the candidate, to avoiding the substitution of his views for those of the community) because the candidate avers that he will not partake of the tools vis-à-vis AfD, in the truthfulness of which commitment I have no reason to doubt, I offer that I continue to hold to the body of the position I set forth at RfA 3, believing that the net effect on the project of EK's being sysop(p)ed should be positive. Joe 21:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Everyking has been around for five years. He knows the project inside out, and he paid a heavy price for his mistakes, which he learned from. That editing and admin experience makes him a valuable asset. As for his AfD answer, it really doesn't matter because he has said he won't get involved in it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
23. I nominated last time around, as was pleased to. The answer to question five is irrelevant: Everyking has said that he won't close AfDs, and he never closed AfDs when he was an administrator, and he has stated this many times. I'm disappointed to see people opposing based on Everyking's personal opinion: Everyking is a strong believer in admins separating their personal views from their admin work, so the chances of him abusing the tools is non-existent. Everyking is neither abusive nor a liar. Besides, if he changed he's views simply to appease RfA voters, he would be opposed for that instead. Everyking has been around Wikipedia longer than most active Wikipedians and has been a strong, productive editor in his time here. Give him back the tools. Acalamari 22:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    The opposition mainly seems to be based on Everyking's answer to question 5, so I'll address this some more. First off, it's Everyking's opinion, and we all have opinions: if having an opinion was a reason to bar adminship, then no one, not even anybody in the oppose section, would be an administrator. Even I hold opinions on policies: I myself believe that there should be no fair-use images on Wikipedia, but I don't go around deleting them all based on my opinion because my opinion is not policy: it's the same with Everyking's views on consensus, he holds a strong opinion but follows policy, and recuses himself when he knows it's necessary to. They say that Everyking disagrees with an important policy of Wikipedia (consensus). I'll give an example of why them opposing him because he disagrees with it (but nonetheless respects it) and they disagree with him is wrong. Take flagged revisions: implementing that would change the way people edit Wikipedia. Many members of the community oppose the implementation and others support it: would it be okay for those who are against flagged revisions to start opposing the RfA/Bs and supporting the banning of people who support FR because implementing FR would change the way people contribute to the encyclopedia? No it isn', and it shouldn't be. Besides, if Everyking started closing AfDs or consensus-based discussions despite the numerous times he said he wouldn't close them, he would be jumped on and taken to ArbCom very quickly, as would be the case if I started mass-deleting fair-use images because I don't believe Wikipedia should have them. Finally, to re-iterate what I said above, would you rather Everyking had given a dishonest answer to the question five, those who would be opposing would be supporting, and we'd end up with another lying, thuggish admin? (Everyking is neither a liar nor a thug.) Think about that. Thank you. Acalamari 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    And I'd argue that any person who follows core policies, no matter how diametrically opposed they are philosophically to them, is more 'valuable', especially for when someone has to call shenanigans, is even more valuable. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

24. Support. I see no evidence showing the admin tools would be ever abused. I also find it unnerving that some people are in the mindset that if someone says something negative about Jimbo, Wikipedia, etc., that somehow disqualifies them from being able to be a good admin. Frankly, I'd be more worried about those who do nothing but grovel. At least Everyking is honest about his opinions. Again, I see nothing here or at any of the myriad links posted by others here that indicates Everyking would abuse the admin tools. Nothing. Adminship is no big deal, and if there is no evidence of the tools being abused (or evidence or hint of possible abuse), I see no valid reason to keep those tools out of reach of someone who has been a huge help and much-more-than-just-net benefit to the project. That he's stuck around for three years after The Incident and continued being an excellent contributor says a lot about his character. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Agree with Friday. Mike R (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Don't agree with his answer to Q5, but if he sticks to the activities listed in his Q1 response, I don't envisage any problems. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Supported the last one and havn't been convinced to change my mind.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, what happened to AGF? He has responded by saying he won't involve himself in the Q5 activity and has sought to clarify his views. As someone who this week has been misunderstood once or twice I can understand this. Edits and years of contributions are certainly not in question. --candle•wicke 22:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. My thoughts are not significantly different than last time. Shame on the editors either kneejerk opposing or, it appears in most cases, illiterately opposing on the grounds of Q5. --JayHenry (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he seems to willing to operate according to consensus. Amerique^dialectics 23:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support He's honest about his opinions and he has said that he won't place his opinions above the established set of rules. Does every admin agree with every rule on Wikipedia? Surely not, and that hasn't ever been a problem in and of itself. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    He has made it clear verbally and through action that he will do whatever it takes to get rid of ArbCom mostly because of their ruling against him. How does this justify that he wont place his opinions above the established set of rules? It seems to suggest that he will not honor what ArbCom states, which is very problematic for an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

32. Support There is no reason to suspect that he will misuse administrative tools, none of his critics have said that he did when he had them before. They can always be taken away if he misuses them. I like the fact that he is willing to hold an unpopular opinion but not try to impose it on others or indulge it in a way that offends them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, I have stated such. If you look at the ArbCom finding of facts, he only processed "technical aspects", but the third finding makes it clear that Everyking did not get background information on cases, which meant that any block, deletion, etc, was done without having a clear understanding of the case. This is 100% opposite of what admin are supposed to do, which is abusive. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't want to get in a back-and-forth but that doesn't say he misused administrative tools and itt was almost four years ago, in summer 2005, a very long time ago. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    He was desysopped under a cloud. He has used Wikipedia Review as a soap box to demand the end of ArbCom, Jimbo, Raul, etc, just to get petty revenge for over 3 years. Is that the kind of person that can be trusted? If so, then I fear for Wikipedia, because we might as well just say fuck it to every standard and bit of integrity that we have left. And that is just focusing on his -philosophy- on the matter, not even the incivil manner that he has presented or, or the nastiness like claiming SlimVirgin wasn't the victim when biggest trolls, Poetlister, stalked her. The mere fact that he would defend Poetlister should be enough to never trust him with the ability to edit, let alone be able to judge who should be blocked or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Point of order. I have no opinion on the !vote. I was just wondering if it's considered proper behavior in an RfA for someone to attack so many supporters of the request. Wouldn't this be seen as an attempt to intimidate potential supporters of the RfA? Or, at this point, aggressively beating a dead horse? I think everyone has the point. Robster2001 (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Unlike Everyking's view in question five, we work off of consensus that is not a percentage, and RfA is discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    With all due respect, but this sounds more like endless repetition than discussion. Others might even call it badgering. Yintaɳ  16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

33. Support. I have little to add to comments I made last time. I think it amazing that Everyking remains committed to this project - I feel he has at times been treated rather poorly and am disapointed to see that he remains subject to rather pointless sanctions. It is important to have people around willing to challenge entrenched views. To those opposing due to the answer to question 5 who supported last time: do Everyking's view as to how consensus is assessed really surprise you? As last time, I take him at his word that he does not plan to involve himself in closing deletion discussions. I think it is time he had the tools back so he can be judged on how he uses them now rather than on alleged past mistakes and predictions about the future. WJBscribe (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Yes, the answer to Q5 can raise an eyebrow. However, adminship does not hinge on scoring a 100% grade on a test, and one wacky answer is an inadequate reason for rejecting his bid. Good luck, Everyking! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. His opinion on Q5 does not bother me at all. This is his opinion on how things should work here on Wikipedia, not how he plans on acting. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Per WJBScribe. However, I reserve the right to regret my vote if Everyking starts closing AfDs... :) ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support; the opposes mostly come from old grudges I don't agree with. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Both user:Malinaccier and user:Drawn Some bring up good points here. tempodivalse [☎] 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support clearly dedicated. Will be net positive. A general note is that we have means of reviewing conduct via AN/I and arbcom, which I think will be unneeded in this case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I don't agree with the candidate's position on AFD closings, but I do respect it, as he's clearly given the matter a great deal of thought. His answer to Q5, especially his second followup dated 18:44, 8 May ("I would refrain from imposing my opinions on others and would act as merely a janitor") shows that he understands that his position is not supported by the community at the moment, and his stated intention to steer clear of AFD closings (rather than 'toe the line' and act in a way that doesn't jibe with his own sense of what 'consensus' means) absolutely seals the deal. More than anything, Everyking's comments show that he strongly supports the 'wisdom of crowds' and has an aversion to imposing his own will (as opposed to the will of the community) on anyone. So why so much fear that, once he's gotten the bit, he'll go rogue and start closing AFDs his way? If we're going to refuse to trust anyone who respectfully disagrees with the way any one particular part of the project is currently run, how are we ever going to move forward? -- Vary Talk 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support - not liking the answer to Q5, but I trust his promise that he will not be closing AfD's. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Moving to oppose. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

41. Support. EK is truly dedicated to the encyclopedia, and will not be closing AFDs. No reason to oppose. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Switched from oppose; Malinaccier's comments were convincing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Everybody deserves a second chance. I understand the answer to Q5 (not sure whether I 100% agree or not), and I appreciate Everyking's honesty. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I am glad that regarding the answer to Q5 the clarification (based on the controversy generated here) is a commitment not to close AFDs, there are many other equally thankless tasks requiring constant attention. I would prompt those voting here, however, to consider which is ultimately more neutral? An editor enforcing according to personal perceptions of "quality" of argument (which may not be well informed) or an editor enforcing strictly according to consensus as defined by majority vote? Neither is the optimal solution, but the latter solution is at least transparent and auditable, and as a transparent decision can easily be revisited in the future (with no recriminations). The former is not. PetersV       TALK 02:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Well-qualified. -download ׀ sign! 02:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Smart. Excellent content editor. qp10qp (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, as I have in his previous RFAs.-gadfium 02:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Per Q 7....it's a very thoughtful answer. Even Q5 is fine if you assume both sides present arguments that stay within policy. I disagree with almost everything he says (when he talks about policy changes he's like to see), but he isn't likely to abuse the tools and he does actually have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And that's something that's becoming rarer and rarer these days here. RxS (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support, Nakon 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Captain panda 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support: EK's had his problems, to be sure, but I'm still going to have to go with "net positive" here, especially since his interactions with others have improved (should he keep working on them? Probably. Still.) I also continue to object to how his desysopping was handled in that he had no chance to defend himself, not even after the fact (if the committee had reason for concern about privacy violations, OK, carry out the the emergency desysop, but then have a proper hearing. Not that I really think EK planned to publish any private info.) So, all told, support. Would appreciate not being badgered about this support, by the way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support I read the off-wiki posts, and they seem reasonable. Stuff that happens off-site doesn't concern me as much as all the good he's done on-site. He has been a good, helpful, and productive admin in the past, and likely will be in the future. His initial answer to Q5 was worrisome, but his follow-up responses tell me he's got basically the right idea, even if I would prefer to see less emphasis placed on "raw numbers" (the micro aspect) and more intent on trying to gauge the overall consensus behind the numbers (the macro aspect). But, as he plans not to engage in those particular activities, it's not a worry to me. So, I say give him the tools back and stop trying to dream up scary scenarios in which he might abuse his power. Look instead at what he did with them in the past. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Do you find this reasonable? He states that Jimbo should be attacked with references to his wife when talking about Wikipedia. Bringing in someone's personal relationship to tar someone simply because you don't like them is reasonable conduct? Or this where he attacked SlimVirgin and supported Poetlister, one of our most dangerous sock masters, even after he knew that Poetlister was problematic. Or here where he drags Raul, our FA director and one of our most dedicated editors, through the mud simply because Raul was part of the ruling against him in his ArbCom case. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm still not seeing anything particularly damming in any of those; just a person with an opinion that tends to run counter to typical on-site discussions. That's akin to objecting to a good employee for talking about his job with sympathetic coworkers and former coworkers after hours. How he does on the job is more important. The Jimbo stuff was summarizing a negative article. His phrase "stated--if not shouted" sounded like the frustration one would feel trying to be heard when shouting into a hurricane. I don't (want to) know the sordid details of SlimVirgin and Petlister. But Everyking's comments sounded more like a typical discussion of editing practices and WP:AGF on his part than anything attacking or supportive (this diff, that diff, didn't respond, etc.). As to Raul, there was nothing but a stated opinion about how firmly entrenched admins tend to get here at Wikipedia — something that has been repeated by others as a reason why they don't support adding new admins. It seems once they get in, it's hard to get them out. I don't see it as a personal attack, but a bemoaning of the system, with Raul as an example thereof. So, no. I do not change my support. I think that Everyking can handle the job, has good to offer. As long as he doesn't abuse the tools he is granted, it's supposed to be WP:NOBIGDEAL. Any tool abuse can be dealt with through the normal channels. If the channels don't work, then what he said was about Raul may have been correct, and the normal channels need adjustment so people aren't afraid to support a potentially good admin because of something s/he might do. Finally, I appreciate being notified of your comments so I could respond, but one might think you are trying to stir up contention rather than allowing consensus for or against the nominee naturally. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 15:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (copy edit 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

53. Good enough chap, I think en.wiki would be better off with him having a few extra buttons... no big deal and such ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 07:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Someone who is clearly working to make the encyclopedia better. I see nothing to suggest he would not be a good admin. And yes, I have read the off wiki comments. Diversity of opinion is not such a bad thing. David D. (Talk) 07:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support. His AFD philosophy has nothing to do with his ability to be a good admin in the areas he wishes to focus on; his long dedication to the project and its ideals do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - I supported last time, and I have decided to do so again. I don't generally do idealogical opposes unless I am convinced that they will interfere in effective use of the admin tools, I am not convinced in this case. Nor do I oppose over Wikipedia Review (see also: User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria). I see Everyking as a long-term contributor who previously used the admin tools "superlatively", and the project would likely benefit if the user had the tools back. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - I did last time, and it would by hypocritical for me not to again. Of course, the answer to Q5 is still completely wrong, but since I'm sure EK wouldn't be closing AfDs anyway, that wouldn't be a problem. What EK has failed to take into account, unfortunately, is the that the current problems with co-ordinated voting etc. at deletion discussions recently has gained him a lot more opposes for that answer than would've been the case recently. Black Kite 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support per Varytalk and others who made the same point. -- Noroton (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support. I still maintain that desysopping in the first place was an overreaction. As for Q5/Q7, Everyking is entitled to his own opinions as much as any one of us. I can certainly see his point: WP:CONSENSUS appears to have come to mean something subtly different from simple consensus. But his "weak admin" take is a good one, after all it's supposed to be "no big deal". the wub "?!" 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support I never thought I would do this because I fundamentally disagree with pretty much all of Everyking's wiki-philosophy but I'm appalled by the shallow thinking of some of the oppose votes. Obviously Everyking doesn't reflect the midpoint on community thinking on consensus but how is that going to affect them as an admin? I can't see any situation where their philosophy is going to lead them into a dispute where their skewed thinking on consensus is going to lead them into a rash action. They certainly won't be blocking established users through it and no AFD closed that way is going to survive review at DRV so I simply can't see the harm that giving them the tools will create. Its also fallacious to suggest that being an admin gives you extra weight in a discussion - its the validity of the comment that counts and I strongly dispute that a consensus of average editors is going to be swayed by some of the more crackpot ideas espoused by Everyking. So what does that leave us? An experienced, technically able editor committed to the project who isn't going to misuse the powers that being made an admin will give them but who will be able to contribute to the project in a broader way. I guess that makes me a support although my intention when I came to this discussion was to oppose. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong support. (First time in my life I've ever !voted "strong" support in an RFA.) I'm perplexed by Arbcom's decision, which I find almost inexplicable in view of their reluctance to de-sysop for offences that I find much harder to forgive; and I find this candidate's approach to the admin role admirable. This candidate perceives admins as clerks to the consensus, not judges of it, and Wikipedia badly needs more admins who understand this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    So, a "clerk" to consensus is someone who thinks consensus is 50.1% of a "vote"? And "judges" of consensus are people who weigh responses to see which ones are legitimate and which ones are the result of problems? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Don't put words into my mouth, Ottava Rima.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

62. Support 5 years of activity in any type of project is true dedication, but even more so after being desysopped, and having some views that others don't agree with. Dedication like that gives me the trust that I like to have in an admin. A lapse in judgement 3 years ago is not a problem for me. Having opinions that not every Wikipedian has is a good thing, as long as you work within the rules. Good behaviour in the past year. I see no problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
63. A little light ArbCom reading, and I'm comfortable supporting. Most of the problems some people had/have with Everyking seem to relate more to his opinions and actions as a member of the community (and a fear of something they thought he was going to do with the tools, not what he did do), not his actual actions as an admin. He has remained a member of the community for a long time, so whatever problems were occurring haven't resumed. And we have a long history of his previous admin actions to judge how he would handle the tools; no guesswork. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - I don't particularly like Everyking. He's rude to me elsewhere, but I don't think he was a poor admin before, I don't think he should have been desysopped, and I don't think he'll break the wiki if he gets the bit back. I find his answer to question 5 to be completely backward from the standard, but I also don't foresee him closing AFDs, which are reversible anyway. He's been here for years, does great content work, has been an admin before... he knows what's up. We need more admins who know what they're doing. لennavecia 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Willking1979 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support EK is a really great content editor, and I believe in second chances. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Reluctant support While he deserves a second chance (as does everyone who lost the bit), A5 is rather offputting. Consensus is not a votecount. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
68. I don't find the oppose arguments convincing and am willing to assume good faith and give this editor a second chance. His application of consensus-by-numbers, while inaccurate, is irrelevant because he believes in "weak admins" and as such would not try to propagate his interpretation. Andre (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Some major philosophical differences aside, I think this would be a good thing. Forgiveness is a virtue, and one we're too rarely willing to embrace. Does he disagree with a lot of the governance of this website? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Does he possibly have a view of some forms of consensus that differs from what a lot of people see? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Is he someone that is sometimes willing to air alternate views from the mainstream groupthink? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Was he good in his use of the tools previously? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Absolutely, never, not. Given how much easier it is today to lose the sysop bit for acting bad--even, apparently now, per one running RFAR, the things like Checkuser and Oversight--is giving him the basic tools again good thing? Yes. Is that a good thing? Absolutely, yes. I could be proven wrong. Maybe we all could be. Or maybe, like my own RFA--I'm still sometimes rattling cages, I hope, as much as I was before the RFA--we'll just give another user the tools to help out on the trivial junk that needs doing again. We've honestly nothing to lose, and possibly something to gain. Are those decent odds? Absolutely, yes. rootology (C)(T) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I've never taken an interest in such things before. Three things motivated me. One: I saw on Everyking's talk page this was going on. He reverted some of my edits based on my failure to provide adequate sourcing. I was a bit miffed, as I was in the process of editing, but Everyking was polite, factual, and not prejudicial in his actions or response. He defused conflict before it even began by his general tenor and a clear expression -- in words and action -- that he was motivated by the desire to create verifiable and evenhanded articles. Two: the contentious nature of this page. Despite the constant protestations by Wikipedia that Administrationship is a technical matter, there is a general impression that the "community" (i.e. users who focus their involvement on the administrative aspects of Wikipedia) is nominating someone for sainthood. This seems one more dysfunctional aspect of the sprawling non-writing or researching side of Wikipedia. This is a community I generally avoid. Three: Everyking writes and researches articles, articles that I find valuable, and on topics (contemporary African politics) which I have repeatedly noted as crucial to the relevancy on this encyclopedia. Articles, that if they were not here, would cause people who visit Wikipedia to dismiss the project as a collection of white North American middle class centered minutiae. In short this guy is building Wikipedia: something surprisingly rare amongst the chattering classes which clog this place. That he does it in a calm, evenhanded, and immensely productive fashion would suggest to me he should be given as many tools as possible. T L Miles (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Strongest possible support. Whilst I've misgivings about the answer to Q5, it only becomes an issue should EK go against the norm. Given he's said he won't be closing AfD's, to me, it's not a concern. AfD is an area he can avoid whilst still contributing positively as an admin. I'm also concerned at the conduct in this RfA, which to my untrained eye, seems to have the appearance of a witchhunt at times. Minkythecat (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrading from strong support. Everyking has responded with dignity to the comments by one particular person looking to undermine this RfA by referring to WR, as if that is the be all and end all of Everykings ability and suitability. That speaks volumes for me about Everyking as a person and more about his accuser, especially given the question added today which seems to have been added for no reason other than to make this a trainwreck. Minkythecat (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

72. Strong Support Everyking has made mistakes in the past, but has since improved, and from what I've seen it's time the community forgave him. I'm aware of his posts at WR, and I have no problem with them - as Rootology says above, we shouldn't bar someone from adminship because they disagree with the current political structure of Wikipedia. The issue should be whether they will serve as a good admin, and I believe Everyking will. The only issue here is his answer to Q5, but since he's said he won't close any AFDs that's not a problem - and in any case, I think the opposers have already made it more of an issue than it is. Robofish (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Upgrading to strong support, same reason as Minkythecat above. Everyking's calm response to the vicious personal attacks he has come under during this RFA are the perfect example of why he should be an admin. If he can cope with this, he'll cope fine with anything adminship could throw at him. Robofish (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

73. Support; great long-term contributor who has shown dedication through his persistence. His answer to number 5 strikes me as wrong, but also irrelevant. User is not going to be closing RFAs *ahem* OR AFDs! Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - Everyking has contributed to WP for five years, making over 100k edits. He is dedicated to en.wikipedia, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Everyking has been an asset to this site for many years. He's not going to throw all of his hard work away by doing something stupid. And I don't understand why his answer to A5 is so horrible. Yeah, we say that AFD is not a vote, but numbers do matter. An article will never be kept if a single person is arguing to keep it, even if his arguments are clear, insightful, and grounded in the relevant policies and guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Has worked to try to resolve issues people have, whilst remaining true to his beliefs and desires. Achromatic (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support I have occasionally seen Everyking around Wikipedia. One of those times I was impressed by his willingness to consider assisting an editor, who was on his way out of the project by way of getting banned. By trying to extend a few final courtesies to a rather unpopular editor, Everyking showed a human quality that I really like. To answer question 5 is difficult and complex. There are so many constraints. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, voting is evil etc. etc. On the other hand between equals, in an ideal situation and always assuming WP:AGF, all editors deserve equal treatment, hence Everyking's respect for the numerical evaluation of the vote results. His interpretation of the role of an admin in closing an AFD is rather minimalist. This is a good thing, under ideal conditions. Ordinarily, I wouldn't like an admin to decide the outcome of an AFD based, not on numbers, but the admin's own POV. Of course in a world full of socks and other ills one has to be careful. Everyking's further qualification of his reply assures me that his intent was, obviously, never to allow non-kosher editors to be counted. To make a long story short, Everyking, in my opinion will make an excellent administrator. Dr.K. logos 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
78. I just realised I neglected to place my support in tis section itself. Strong support per my nom. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
79. support based in considerable part on the answer to Q5, which has been challenged by some in the oppose section: I think he is right that the role of an admin is to determine what the community wants, and then do it, not decide what the community ought to want. As for past problems, being open to recall answers them DGG (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support: I am not convinced about the comments on XfD closures, in part because there have been cases where a majority view has triumphed over a minority view that is supported by policy and so there are already too many who take the approach Everyking is suggesting. I am also unconvinced that DRv does much to correct these errors. However, Everyking's undertaking to not make XfD closures is reassuring. In addition, having watched ArbCom for a while and read history, I think that Everyking's case is another where ArbCom's decisions (plural) have resulted in an injustice - and this makes me inclined towards support. The clinching argument that makes this !vote easy for me is that no one has yet presented any real suggestion of misconduct when he was an administrator in the past - including in the findings of the original ArbCom case. In short, the return of the administrator tools to Everyking is overdue. EdChem (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
81. support an asset to this site. MelissaC1993 (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Weak support Not convinced by opposers, see little reason why Everyking cannot make a good admin under close observation (which, let's face it, will be applied scrutinously). Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  08:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Opposers are remarkably unconvincing. --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Everyking is experienced enough to recognise that his standing on consensus is a minority opinion. I trust he won't force it upon others, and I admire his decision to stand by what he said. --Pgallert (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Supportper Friday, that is to say, I don't really have to search much, I already know the editor. Also, I don't think Q5 bothers me much, I already see administrators closing like this, with minimal DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    [1]. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

85. Support, I really can't see a good reason not to. I've never had any negative interactions with Everyking; and he's made excellent contributions to many areas. I do not agree with several of his opinions (including the contentious ones about Arbcom and AfD closes) but I see no reason to believe that those are anything other than opinions. We have many competent admins with strong opinions, and the whole reason they're competent is that that keep their opinions separated from their admin actions. I have seen nothing to suggest Everyking should be any different. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
86. I wasn't going to vote at first, but I have now felt compelled to. First off, is the answer to Q5 wrong? Absolutely. But you know what? I see many opposes just for that, and it got me to thinking. Everyking could have just as easily lied to you guys about his thoughts on that question, so you're opposing because he was honest. That just make absolutely no sense, so you can say that I'm supporting because of the opposition, and maybe I am. As I've stated before, yes he's had problems in the past, but he's a user in good standing, and to deny someone adminship because they took the high road and didn't lie in their answers just makes me disappointed in many of you. He even states he's not going to bother closing AfDs, which I believe if he was willing to say what he said on Q5. Support, and this RfA has knocked off the respect I was regaining for the process. Wizardman 20:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Curiously, it's 88-47 (0.652%) with your saying this. Take away all the people objecting for Everyking having been honest and forthright, and it's 88-24 (0.786%). I guess the honest penalty these days runs you about 13%. rootology (C)(T) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe you mean 65.2% and 78.6%? (What's a couple orders of magnitude between friends, eh.) Mr. Pedantic Number Person (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Pretty sad, isn't it.... Yintaɳ  21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, think of it this way. Him being wrong and honest is 13%. If he was wrong and lied, it would probably be 26-39%. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

87. Support, as per last time around. I don't see the harm, and he's one of the most prolific and dedicated editors. Give him the bit already. --MPerel 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support. Dedicated and committed editor who is very knowledgeable about the rules and policies. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Strongly. It's about time. (Q5 notwithstanding: I disagree with him there, but it's not relevant since he doesn't participate in AFD.) — Dan | talk 01:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. I trust Everyking. Question 5 is not an issue, since he doesn't have any interest in closing AfDs.--ragesoss (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Support Skinny87 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
92. Support. I'm sure he will be an excellent admin again, as he was back when Arbcom wrongfully de-sysoped him. Leithp 10:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support No problems found Arctic ^Fox 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Per Leithp and Cla68. I gladly endorse this candidate and will do so again. Which will be necessary, it seems, since some mofos here are incapable of forgiving and forgetting minor and ancient mistakes.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
95. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, May 11, 2009 (UTC)
96. Strong Support Good user, good knowledge of tools, should be a great admin. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - In general I don't agree with him often, but I also don't believe he will abuse the tools. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support See no evidence that he will abuse the tools. Q5 answer is wrong, but some admins turn "strength of argument" into "arguments I agree with", so this is not significantly worse (though certainly different) than the problems we have now. Toss in the agreement not to close AfDs and we're fine. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
99. Support! Everyking Now, Everyking Tomorrow, Everyking forever! I was opposed toe the desysopping and I feel he has proven he won't abuse the tools. -- ₪ Amused Repose ^Converse! 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
100. Support I find the arguments brought up in the oppose section rather unconvincing - This user wishes to improve (and has shown improvement), definitely deserving a second chance. - Fastily (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
101. Support. I believe in second chances, but responses to this afd give me pause with the "because I said so" atmosphere (from a user with lots of WP:BLP edits) along with this discussion which has the google test being cited over and over. Almost a neutral; the answer to question 1A was the expected one, but in this case it does not sound as hollow coming from this candidate so I bumped it to support. Zab (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Support: I am delighted to see Everyking here. I don't always agree with him and he has made mistakes in the past - who has not? However, I am convinced he has the best intentions for the project at all times. When an editor has been around for as long as he has, taken all the knocks and still supports the project, then Adminship should now be honorary and unopposed. Wikipedia is fortunate such people exist. I have seen too many editors come, be adminned within 5 minutes, without a clue of really what is what, damage the project and then disappear. Everyking fits every requirement I have for an Admin worthy of trust and respect. I think this is the strongest endorsement I have ever mad for a candidate, so I hope it's not also the kiss of death. Giano (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Conditional support I'm hoping he sticks to his word and doesn't try closing AfDs/interpreting consensus. (Moved from oppose) Oh, and let me just say what Ottava's doing is pretty pathetic. AvN 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     By what I am doing, you mean that the candidate is blatantly lying and violating NPA and CIVIL by characterizing the defense of the Catholic Church as hate speech? Or how about him constantly doing this to dozens of people? Yeah, being the target of Everyking's constant attacks, harassment, and the rest sure is pathetic. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Putting your point across in your oppose statement is fine. What you're doing here crosses the line. You don't like Everyking. We get the idea. You should drop it here. AvN 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Read question 15. Everyking made this personal by violating NPA and CIVIL with his lies. He has done this for over 5 years and has attacked many people. This is the kind of person you trust as an admin? Someone so filled with hate that they have to lie about people's character in their attacks? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     I have already read Q 15. Everyking states that his only interactions with you are those on the Wikipedia Review forums. In your oppose you failed to answer WereSpielChequers questions (in my opinion) with comments like However, the really nasty stuff is hidden in the tar pit forums and other places that cannot be seen unless you register. which cannot be verified. I don't see how what he said was a lie, a personal attack, or a violation of WP:CIVIL. Such ambiguity does not help, Ottava. And I have gone through all the diffs you provided. AvN 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     I take it that you glossed right over the fact that he blatantly lied in his characterization when he states: "his arguments included hate speech". There was nothing even close to be construed as "hate speech" and everyone knows it. This is a personal attack. This is a violation of civility. This is Everyking's standard way of acting. Anyone he disagrees with is tarred with lies and attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

104. Support I think the original stripping was unfair, essentially a "conspiring with the enemy" charge which wikipedia shouldn't have (though was understandable). There is no question wikipedia review crossed the line; but there was no alternative forum given for redress of grievances; in other words something like a dual hierarchy or even an office of omnibudsmen. No one has ever questioned that EveryKing has done tremendous tremendous work for the project, even after getting his ferocious beating. To not confirm now is arguing that losing a political struggle is punished for a lifetime and the only alternative after discipline is to leave wikipedia forever. He knows how to be an admin and he has done good work. jbolden1517^Talk 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
105. Support. I don't agree with the answer to question 5 but, since I haven't cornered the market on right and wrong, am happy enough to see another view that gets tossed into the wikipedia mix. Other than that, I see a former admin who bore himself well, a prodigious and long time contributer, and a de-sysopping for what appears to be based on an honest mistake and was a long time ago. This should be easy. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
106. Support - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support (move from oppose). A5 no longer concerns me. --Kbdank71 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
108. Support You've converted me from an oppose to an abso f---ing lutely support for getting through this drama and generally being cool about it. Nja²⁴⁷
109. Support: Mostly per Ottava Rima's oppose. That kind of witch hunt is exactly wrong. We don't all have to agree with Jimbo and his loyal cadre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     It's not the opposers that are running for adminship. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

110. Support had a think about this, but remain supportive as I was on the last RFA last year as I think Everyking's dedication to the project will make a good admin. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
111. I don't agree with you at all on the consensus issue but you were fine with the tolls before. — R² 17:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
112. Weak support Protonk (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
113. Support --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Here we go again. To put up with this 5 times, this guy may be the most committed Wikipedian you've ever seen. SBHarris 20:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
115. Support. Everyking has attacked me frequently over the years, but I'll support him per Ottava Rima's hot aspersions in this RFA, and EK's cool replies to them. Also per EK's independent stance towards the ArbCom. Ottava Rima, I advise you to stop shouting at the opposers. You need to let people express their opinions without your put-downs and denunciations. See especially the talk page. Bishonen | talk 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
116. Support - enough said. Deb (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
117. <<ec>> Support I frankly find it hard to trust based on the WR activity. However, people whose judgment I respect over my own are supporting, people with a longer history with the candidate and the project than I. I read somewhere the candidate is willing to stand for recall. That takes guts. And very frankly, Ottava's shrillness is so grating as to make me want to switch. Advice to the candidate-- forget about who did what in the past. Let it go. Doing good work here is more important, and the community's trust is more valuable than any other matter. Let go. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
118. Support Why is this even a question? 2 years as admin without a hint of misuse of tools, followed by an extraordinary breach of process in desysopping where the desysoppers themselves admit that no harm was done. Ray^Talk 21:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
119. Support I can see no reason to not trust Everyking with the tools despite the protestations of Ottava also per Giano above. BigDunc^Talk 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
120. Support-At over 100,000 edits (mostly in article space), including ~1000 edits with admin tools, Everyking has shown that he knows what he is doing. His desosysopping is a drama show put on but gardners who share delusions with an absurd grudge. Everyking has been on wikipedia for years and having him as an admin again would be a boon to the wikipedian community.Smallman12q (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
121. Support - After all he's done to help Wikipedia, Everyking deserves a second chance 100%. He doesn't deserve the shit Ottava's putting him through, and neither does anybody IMO. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
122. Support - editor seems to have learned lessons from previous mistake, no reason to believe will misuse tools (again (although he didn't actually misuse them last time)). And Ottava Rima's utter misconstrual of the answer to #15 tips me over to strong support.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

     Further comment -- Q5 is a problem, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker. There's always room for debate on WP policies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

123. Support - like last time, the desysoping was despite doing nothing wrong. Your answer to question 5 is somewhat... alarming, but as you do not wish to go about judging consensus, it's not something I see as a problem. You were a good admin, and you will be a good admin. That's it. – Toon^(talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
124. weak support Unlike many of the other supporters, I'm not sure the initial desyssoping was unreasonable. I also think that Raul and Flonight raise very serious issues which must give any sane supporter pause. However, I'm more than willing to give Everyking another shot. He clearly did a very good job as an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
125. Support as much in protest of the abuse of process (I don't have to specify by whom, do I?) as out of a strong opinion on EK. Personally, I think adminship is highly overrated, and this farce is evidence as to why. RfA becomes a playground for axe-grinding in place of any legitimate discussion. Consider this a vote for reforming the whole process. - Robster2001 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
126. Support: Previous mistakes are previous mistakes. No need to keep dragging it through the mud. Are people seriously opposing because he is on WR? Get a life people. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
127. Support. Haven't voted on an RfA in a blue moon, but I'll support this one. Neutrality^talk 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
128. Support: Primarily due to Ottava Rima's oppose.Garyww67 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
129. Support You hold a controversial view regarding AfDs, but you defended it in the face of opposition, and I respect that. Though I disagree with your view, I see some merit in your argument and am impressed by your personal conviction. What your view doesn't suggest is that you would abuse the tools, and that is much more important to me than conforming to the community-accepted view of what an admin should be. Diversity of opinion among admins I believe is valuable and benefits the encyclopedia, and your views certainly differ. I think you'd do a great job. I also believe that you're an editor who learns and grows from mistakes, which is something I look for in candidates. FlyingToaster 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
130. Support The blatant hypocrisy of the opposers is reason enough to support. Besides anybody who receives this level of vitriol from the likes of them must be doing something right. Dance With The Devil (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
131. Support. Every king deserves some tools, doesn't he? As for the unorthodox AFD proposal, if it's implemented in real life, there are appropriate venues for postmortem beating. Some common sense applies: why would a new admin twist the rules blatantly if they know the must pay for the wrong move? NVO (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
132. Support. per Giano and hell yes! Vintagekits (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"
133. Support, unlike many of these other support votes, I think that the desysopping was justified, but I think that enough time has now passed that you've learned your lesson. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC).
134. Support, has paid his dues. deserves a second chance. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 09:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
135. Support. His views may be eccentric, but they are correct. I realise I haven't been around much lately and that my opinion is unlikely to be taken as seriously as it would once have been, but he merits my support. Walton^One 15:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
136. Support The lapse in judgment a very long time ago was a serious one, but I think it is reasonable to assume that it will not happen again. I disagree with his view on consensus, but his view is not entirely wrong, and disagreeing with me should not disqualify him (wink). Finally, I have a certain sympathy with anyone whose RfA is being vehemently opposed for questionable reasons. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
137. Support - coming briefly out of retirement to do this. Great content contributor, and I particularly liked the 'He hates Jimbo. He hates ArbCom.' line (silly). Peter Damian (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
138. Support - experienced, and people can change.--Joshua Issac (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
139. Long ago and far away I opined that the deadminning was fair enough, but was a long time ago. It's even longer ago now than it was at RfA number 4. And EK is still a decent enough bloke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
140. Support Excellent content contributor. Highly unlikely to misuse the administrator tools. Ripberger (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
141. Support Sky will not fall if he gets the tools. Really.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
142. Support This is kind of a "moral support" !vote since this RFA looks like it's going to go down in flames. I agree with various other supporters who argue that he is unlikely to misuse the admin tools. I notice that I supported him on his 3rd RFA so it seems natural to support him again. I do have these reservations and comments though. I am concerned about his critical attitude of ARBCOM. Granted, he feels that he got a raw deal from them but I think that colors his overall assessment and that is not a good thing. An admin needs to espect ARBCOM's decisions and stand ready to enforce them. Contempt for ARBCOM and its decisions is a bad thing. Finally, although I personally think an admin should use judgment when closing an AFD, I fully understand his desire to eschew judgment that might be vulnerable to criticsm and hide behind the safety of the raw numbers. In a somewhat analogous situation, the bureaucrats were harshly excoriated for granting Carnildo the admin bit when his RFA (#3) didn't muster the requisite level of support. It is the perversity of Wikipedia that sometimes we want it to be a democracy and sometimes we don't. Pity the poor editor who gets on the wrong side of the bandwagon. --Richard (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
143. Support Per Joshua Issac, Everyone needs a second chance in life. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
144. Icewedge (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
145. Support, Always have, always will. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
146. Support, 120,000 edits, over 90% of them to the mainspace. Former admin. De-sysop didnt make sense. Enuff said. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
147. Moral Support This RfA is almost certain to fail. That being said, I don't find many of the opposes compelling. Most of the stuff that people are pointing to are over 3 years old. If the issues were ongoing/current, then they would consitute an obvious oppose, but 3+ years old? There are then allegations about "hate speech" and comments about the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, without references, it is impossible to validate the merits of that criticism. Unfortunately, while I generally respect Ottava, when he gets going on a crusade, I find that his objectivity tends to go out the window---which makes it impossible for me to accept his assessment of the conflict. The fact that people are not citing more recent problems is an indicator that issues are not ongoing. Raul's criticism is extremely concerning, but it is still old. Yes, Q5 is of some concern, but he says that he never closed and AFD and doesn't intend to. While I might not accept this from a candidate with no admin history, the fact that he didn't close AfD's while an admin and hasn't since shows a lack of desire to do so. He also indicated that this view of consensus is not to be applied to all of wikipedia.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
148. Not that I very much care to have Everyking as an admin, but the punishment was way out of proportion with the crime and should be overturned. --B (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
149. per Agathoclea. Rettetast (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
150. SupportPretty good admin and AFD tends to be a regulars only thing due to the hastle of finding the closeing templates.Geni 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
151. Support; have opposed in the past, but has done enough to earn the trust of the community. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
152. Support; Looking at the diffs, I'm not convinced he is evil incarnate. Has Everyking made some dumb moves - yes. But, I see improvement. I don't demand perfection. Regarding Q5, I'm not thrilled, but I think it is closer to reality than most of us are willing to admit. Actually, I was going to sit out, but after seeing the hoopla, I decided to investigate. After cutting out the temper tantrums, nothing seems as bad as made out to be. As far as "too much drama", that seems to be coming from others, not Everyking. King Pickle (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
153. Support - Dureo (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
154. Strong Support Usually I'm an IP editor, but I'm logging in for this. As with Rootology, this is someone who has paid any dues they owed. Jim boon (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
155. Support. Neither past problems, nor impolitic statements on Wikipedia Review, nor being wrong about how to determine "consensus" at AfD are sufficient reasons to oppose, either separately or together, because none of them suggest to me a likelihood of misusing the tools. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
156. Support - should never have been de-sysopped in the first place. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose. I supported the 4th one but I have to oppose this one now. Not for the reasons of the desysop or anything. But I'm someone who believes that edit summaries are very important in communicating with other users and to allow them to understand what someone was doing. I think this is especially important for admins whose actions often need explaining (for example, if one removes a tag (like a speedy one), one should explain to everyone why they did so). I supported last time because I hoped he would improve this behvaviour, but it has become even worse, with not even 10% of all edits. I know there are some users and admins who believe they are not needed but I think they are. So I regret to have to oppose this RFA but I don't want any more admins where other users have to read every diff to understand what they did. Regards SoWhy 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Never - His constant attacks on those like Jimbo, Foundation members, and other things at Wikipedia Review that are extremely incivil and slanderous show that he has not changed nor can ever be trusted. He should be banned, not given power. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   These are serious charges, can you supply diffs please. ϢereSpielChequers 15:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Diffs aren't necessary, as he keeps his comments off site to hide from easy view. However, he is quite open there. Anyone who bothers supporting better read this first. Let Everyking speak 100% for himself, and you will see that he is 100% unfit to be an admin and should never, never, be allowed near ops, let alone still be allowed on this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   While there are a lot of dubious characters in that thread, everything said by Everyking (as opposed to some of the others replying to him) looks perfectly reasonable. 92.14.223.132 (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Note to avoid confusion; in case it's not clear from the edit history this IP is me Iridescent 2 (talk)

   Except where he was obsessing over a guy that he caused major problems with, impugning those like Raul, attacking Arbcom, and then saying he needs this just so he can become an admin again, showing that all he cares about is the bit? Yeah, a winning combination there. He has 1,500 edits at Wikipedia Review. Just do a little search and you will see how reasonable he is. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here is the post which he makes it clear that he wants to do all this to get power again. Real trustworthy going to Wikipedia Review, complaining a lot about what he screwed up majorly doing, showing that you haven't improved, and demanding that it is overturned so you can become an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Here is another comment in response to ArbCom not removing everything about the time he wikistalked someone, disrupted a lot, etc, in hopes that he wont have it on his record for when he runs for Admin, a position in which he could block the users he has unresolved matters with. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I've checked those links and I don't see anything uncivil let alone banworthy. I'm not going to trawl through the other 1500 posts, the norm in RFA is for the person alleging incivility to produce evidence. ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   It is not "ban worthiness". It is about him keeping grudges and making it clear that he wants to turn this into a battleground over something that happened four years ago. Then there is the nastiness hidden away from unregistered view. Register and go to the tarpit. Everyking makes his hatred of Jimbo, ArbCom, and the rest very clear. So clear that even the moderators at WR make fun of him for his obsession. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Ottava, if we had links or diffs showing in your words but with my emphasis "His constant attacks on those like Jimbo, Foundation members, and other things at Wikipedia Review that are extremely incivil and slanderous show that he has not changed nor can ever be trusted. He should be banned". Then I would oppose, thats why I've checked every link you've put in this thread. If by saying "It is not ban worthiness". you are now retracting your "He should be banned" comment then you should strike it out, and if you can't supply links to incivil comments by the candidate then I suggest you strike out that allegation as well. Yes this link shows that Everyking wants to make changes on Wikipedia that I might not agree with. But as long as he remains civil and complies with current policy he is free to propose changes to it. If this was an election to choose a policy drafting committee then Everyking's views on the role of Jimbo would be relevant, but RFA is a process to appoint admins to administer in accordance with policy not to develop and change that policy; so I don't see the relevance of the links you've given. ϢereSpielChequers 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Let me clarify - why you should oppose is not over "ban worthiness" but his inability to be trusted in any regard. Bans require a higher level than adminship requests. Anyway, I linked above where Everyking was making references to Jimbo's wife as part of discussions about Jimbo as an WMF person. This is a personal attack and completely unnecessary. Here it is again. I can never support anyone bringing in someone's spouse into a wikipedia based discussion. Not only does that violate the basis of NPA (comment on actions not people), it also shows a level of discourse that ignores discussion in general. Then you have comments that show his pure hatred towards Wikipedia processes. However, the really nasty stuff is hidden in the tar pit forums and other places that cannot be seen unless you register. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Dear Ottava, thanks for the clarification, but you still have neither struck your "He should be banned" comment nor provided diffs that IMHO would justify it. NPA (comment on actions not people) is not a Universal Internet rule but site specific, it is the rule here on Wikipedia, but the Wikipedia Review is not part of Wikipedia or subject to our rules. So if you think Everyking has broken the rules on Wikipedia Review then raise it there not here. One of your links did include Everyking quoting a fellow editors ex-wife criticising her former husband; but that reference was on Wikipedia Review and therefore not Wikipedia based so not relevant to this RFA. More importantly it was most definitely not attacking that former spouse, but quoting that former spouse's publicly quoted criticism of a certain editor. I have not found any diff indicating that Everyking has been "bringing in someone's spouse into a wikipedia based discussion", and I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that insinuation or back it up with a diff. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose per answer to question 5. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Answer to question 5 is... simply incorrect, and I could not trust you to close an AFD with that outlook. Majorly talk 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Eh, did you miss the part where he said he doesn't close AFDs… — CharlotteWebb 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Switched from support. While I respect your opinion, the answer to question #5 is blatantly incorrect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   The answer to 6C is also incomplete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose - Changed from Support above..per Majorly. A very dangerous way to approach AFD closing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per ideology behind Q5. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm honestly not trying to badger you but I simply don't understand how an ideology can be a problem. Don't actions count? Yintaɳ  22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I see nothing wrong with questioning an oppose; in fact it's a good thing. As for my oppose, I've struck it out because the user has made it clear that he will not be closing AfDs. But I see it that ideology predicts actions. That's why the ideology is important. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose after reading the contents of above links. TheDestitutionOfOrganizedReligion (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Per Q5. — neuro^(talk) 17:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Abstain per Acalamari, who makes a decent point. — neuro^(talk) 22:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I did that too quickly. Q5 is not just about AfD, it indicates odd views about consensus in general, and I can not support an administrator that believes it is incorrect to adhere to a core policy. — neuro^(talk) 22:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose - Even without Q5 (which violates one of our core policies - WP:CON), the answers to the other questions leave me to doubt about trusting the user's usage of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship. The answer to 6d (or lack thereof - there is a difference between how often, and upon what circumstance), in particular, considering the user's previous desysopping. - jc37 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   (indenting per sheffieldsteel. comments remain as food for thought.) I've never been happy with people going off-wiki to complain about on wiki decisions. Is the ArbCom "restraining order still in place? Rhetorical question only of personal/morbid curiosity. I could not support a novice who counts numbers. Perhaps this was OK in the past. Not OK today. Not OK despite this user's impressive record. struck unrelated to request Has been out of the loop to long. Consensus changes and I've no confidence candidate has kept up. Saw no recent tool related activity. Please, you are doing great work without the tools. Let's not change that. Dlohcierekim 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Further rationale-- In the candidate's last 1500 edits in the "Wikipedia" name space, going back to Oct. 25, 2006, I find no reports to AIV, the area of expressed interest for the tools. If the candidate would remedy this over the next 3-4 months with say 1500+ vandalism reversion edits and 100+ reports to WP:AIV, and 100% use of edit summaries, I could see myself supporting, assuming no further episodes of drama. Dlohcierekim 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry to be harsh, but you've got to be kidding. EK has perhaps more good vandalism work and proper use of the rollback tool than anyone else living. By all accounts his actual use of the tools (blocking, rollback, etc) for vandalism was beyond exemplary. Find other rationale if you like, but that one doesn't hold up to inspection. Lack of AIV reprts in the last 1500 edits for someone with over 100,000 article edits over 5 years is a particularly poor metric. - Taxman ^Talk 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, Taxman. No prob. Though I do think you misunderstood what I wrote. Cheers,

9. Oppose - The idea behind Q5 doesn't sit well with me. Even given that Everyking would "never" close an AfD, consensus doesn't only apply to AfD. It doesn't matter what one thinks of consensus; what matters is that is how things are run around here. Giving the admin bit to an editor who doesn't find that compelling would not benefit the project, and might well harm it. I don't suppose it's any consolation to mention that this oppose is difficult given Everyking's contributions to the project, but I can't get past the Q5 answer.  Frank  |  talk  17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Never per my previous rationales on his RfAs, per personal interactions, per the answer to Q5, per Ottava Rima. I have no doubt that people can change, but I also have no evidence that I can trust Everyking. -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    While I was happy to support in the past, I have to oppose due to your answer to Q5. I understand that you said you won't be closing AFD's, which is fine, but at that DRV, when it was pointed out that it is not a vote, and that strength of argument should be taken into account, your response was "I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely." I'm concerned about what other notions you may reject, especially if they are related to what you would be doing as an admin. --Kbdank71 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC) move to support. --Kbdank71 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Oppose I think the philosophy displayed in Q5 is dead wrong, and actually represents one of the greatest threats to this project... that being the plague. While it is unreasonable and dangerous to expect admins to be the arbiters of truth, we most certainly can be the ones to wade into discussions and call bull shit when necessary. I realize the question was specific to AFD, but you answered it more broadly. Application of "by the numbers" thinking across Wikipedia undermines the project by undermining the admin corps. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Agreed with pretty much everything above, especially answers to 5 and 6c. - Dank (push to talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    To the supporters: I'm listening. His answer to Q5 implies that in a close vote at AfD, any IP that walks in the door should be able to be the deciding vote, but the closing admin should never be. Doesn't that tell you something about how he weighs the relevant merits of the average admin vs. the average anonymous user? Isn't this view of admins consistent with his statements at Wikipedia Review? Having a low view of admins doesn't make him a bad person, but I really don't want any more sour admins, they make life difficult for all of us. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've struggled with whether or not to respond to the supporters who say the opposers are shallow, knee-jerk, etc, but I think it's important not to respond. The fundamental issue for me is whether he's one of us, or whether he edits here but has baggage, in the form of unpleasant experiences and unfortunate friends, that are going to have a harmful effect. Ottava's Wikipedia Review diffs are troubling for me. But I'm not going to push this; if the big question is whether he's one of us, that can be answered by having enough people whose opinions I value make a strong defense that he is in fact one of us. I don't think the large editcount answers the question; there are plenty of people whose edits are here but whose drinking buddies are elsewhere. I don't see what I'm looking for yet from the supporters, but I'll come back to this one every day. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hi Dan, I think his question answers do address your point about admin discretion. In particular his statement "with admin discretion allowable only for cases of possible sockpuppets and new editors." to me looks like an answer to your concern that "His answer to Q5 implies that in a close vote at AfD, any IP that walks in the door should be able to be the deciding vote, but the closing admin should never be." ϢereSpielChequers 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose Sorry, but per Majorly. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose, also per Q5. I'm not really concerned that there will be some kind of disaster at AfD due to this editor should they be given the mop again, as they have stated in no uncertain terms that they are disinterested in closing AfD discussions. Nevertheless, the candidate's answer demonstrates a misunderstanding of consensus, and an administrator should never, ever operate "by the numbers". The philosophy of "majority rule" being embodied by the candidate's answer is alone enough to compel me to oppose. Shereth 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose Per Question 5. Hiberniantears says it best. This sounds like abandoning attempts at rationality in favour of mob rule. --Folantin (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose per the Q5 concerns brought up above. Completely at odds with WP:CON and definitely not the approach an admin should take into any situation. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong oppose due to I believe AfDs should be closed according to numbers. Even stronger oppose per this. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, so that thing that happened ALMOST 3 YEARS AGO? I find that particularly strange coming from a user who's barely been here for 3 months. the wub "?!" 11:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't see why it should matter that a person who's only being editing for three months shouldn't have the same concerns as somebody who has been here for several years, but as I repeatedly say when asked about it, I've been reading Wikipedia for five years. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Err... oppose? Honestly, answer to Q5 is just wrong. Consensus appears more than just at AfD, so even he said he never closed AfD for last 5 years, he could have negative influences on areas outside of AfD. Oh yeah, throw in the drama part carried over from his 4th RfA as part of my oppose. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think "too many administrators" is a good reason to oppose. Instead, you should vote on whether Everyking "has what it takes" to be an administrator, not whether we have too many administrators or not. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose per answer to Q5. JPG-GR (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Ottava Rima and Kicking222. We three make a trio worthy of Homeward Bound. Anyway, I consider the WR diffs and Mike's argument compelling. James, you do spectacular work in content contribution, I think we should keep it that way. Having been a sysop you should be well acquainted with the concept of a mop and bucket, not a badge and gun. I don't see that familiarity, nor have I ever in regard to your approach to adminship both in 2005 and now. Seriously though, fantastic work in general. Keegan^talk 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose per the arguments presented by those above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong oppose mostly per Q5. XFDs are not votes, and every admin candidate should know that. Also incivility towards others as well as the tendency to take stuff off-wiki (i.e. to Wikipedia Review) is also of a blaring concern. MuZemike 07:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Answers to queries, and generally the history of the user. Sorry. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to support.

24. I was going to support this time around, but then I saw his response to question 5 and felt like this would potentially encourage vote stacking by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at deletion discussions. TML (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per question 5 - that attitude towards consensus is awful. Skinny87 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) Having rethought the matter, and the fact that EK has stated he won't be dealing with AfDs, and also due to OR's incessant baiting and badgering, moving to Support. Skinny87 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

25. Oppose. I expect an admin to have an understanding of how consensus works. Even if he doesn't go to AfD, the idea doesn't sit well with me that someone with such a numbers-based view of decision making would be given more authority. What about WP:VOTE and WP:DEMOCRACY? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Q5, XfD are discussions not votes.--Giants27 ^T/C 11:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose mostly because of the answer to question 5. Deli nk (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose. This user means well, but has a history of lapses of horrifyingly bad judgement. Rebecca (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per answer to question 5. That's not how consensus works here. Timmeh! 14:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Rebecca puts it succinctly above. Skomorokh 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose per AfD philosophy (Q5). That's just wrong. AvN 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Realized my mistake. Moving to support. AvN 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

31. Oppose per Q5 --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Too confrontational. Starts pointless fights with ArbCom and Jimbo. Also, answers to the questions (not just #5) indicate that he either 1) doesn't know policies and community norms very well, 2) hasn't kept up on changes during the past few years, or 3) greatly disagrees with current consensus. 3 is not necessarily a problem, but then he should explain his reasoning more. Also, not being an admin is not a punishment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Per your answer to question 5. I don't agree with your beliefs, and your promise not to do tasks that you have unconventional beliefs in makes me wonder why you're requesting the tools at all. Why do you want them if you're hardly going to be doing any admin work?--Patton^t/c 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose EK has made many positive contribution to WP. But WP adminship is not a reward for dedication or high edit counts. The users needs to have the skills and temperament that enable them to do the job well. 1) Would not be comfortable with EK closing consensus discussion which is part of an admin job. 2) Reread the threads on WR and still do not think that EK understands why taking actions towards Wikipeians that could have a negative real life consequence are absolutely wrong. So I don't trust him to have access to information that may be used against people in real life. 3) He is holding grudges against people that he perceives are in conflict with them and openly makes ABF comments against them. I don't want to risk additional conflicts when the situation is stable now so I prefer that EK stay in his role as an editor now. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose I'm willing to forgive and forget when it comes to being de-sysopped, but the answer to Q5 is 100% wrong. Anyone with your level of experience who thinks AFDs are closed based on votes and not consensus is not trustworthy as an administrator. Steven Walling (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I haven't !voted here yet, and honestly don't know how I will, but I find your comment lacking. I think your choice of words is wrong, the fact that he doesn't judge consensus the way most expect it to does not impact his trustworthiness. In fact, if he lacked the integrity to give a truthful answer, he could have lied about his answer and answered that question the way the community wanted, instead he gave a truthful answer knowing that it would be the root of some heartache. I think a better way to put would be "does not understand the principles of consensus expected here at WP" or something along those lines. His answer does not imply somebody who is untrustworthy.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Not to imply anything, but, as the old saying goes, an honest crook is still a crook. Truthfulness does not equal trustworthiness. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has about right, but I'd put it another way. Trustworthiness for an admin isn't primarily about moral trustworthiness, like honesty. It's about whether or not I trust you to have the good judgement and sufficient knowledge to carry out your duties with a minimum of harm to the project. In that sense, I find the candidate to be deeply untrustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

36. Oppose as a >3rd RfA. If by thrice you don't succeed.... Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Can I interest you in a recent example when the third attempt was successful? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Or a 5th attempt---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

37. Oppose - per everything he has ever posted on WR (and per Ottava, above). ~ Ameliorate! 08:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - per Q13. While pledges aren't binding, it would have been nice if you had promised not to use the tools on articles regarding Ashley Simpson. With the elephant in the room, it seems pretty obvious that we shouldn't have to wait for me to mention it. Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Neutral per my talk page, OR's incessant badgering.

    That would be like demanding he promise to stop beating his wife, unless you have evidence that he's done this in the past. I can't find any [2]. — CharlotteWebb 12:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    No log entries doesn't mean no edits to the page, where I count at least 55 in the last 1000. However, I was unable to find a problem with those edits after sifting through the first 15 or 20. The talk page shows some discussion about naming of the page, but nothing untoward that I could see.  Frank  |  talk  13:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hipocrite didn't make any mention of edits to the articles, though; he mentioned log actions on them. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I guess I shouldn't be commenting on this, because I'm missing the purported elephant in the room.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose - Although I supported his previous RfA I'm opposing this one. The repeated RfA attempts give the impression that he really, really wants to be an admin, which sets off my radar (as does the statement that he will be open to recall). There are other concerns as well which have been stated above. Some of the WR comments show an abiding bitterness and propensity to nurse a grudge that are in my opinion less than optimal traits for an admin. (I'm not concerned about his views on Jimbo and the Foundation and in fact often agree with him.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Switching to abstain due to concern over Ottava Rima's endless hounding. I know it's illogical to base my vote on what someone besides the candidate has done, but I don't care. Enough already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

38. Oppose - as per Ottava Rima comments ..and his views on consensus and offline comments on wikireview (Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
39. Oppose - Regretfully. I cannot support any candidate who claims to be open to recall. Recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgus and can be retracted or ignored post-RFA. Skinwalker (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    So basically you're saying he's a liar? Yintaɳ  21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, I've stopped beating my wife. Lying has nothing to do with my concerns. Recall promises typify candidates who have an unbecoming willingness to please during RFA, as Boris mentions above. Additionally, I question the judgement of a potential admin who commits to a process that is so broken. Skinwalker (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Of course pledges can be ignored later but assuming good faith, I expect Everyking to keep his word. Your rationale gave me the impression you assumed he wouldn't. If I was wrong, I apologize. And give my regards to the mrs ;-) Yintaɳ  23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

40. Oppose - I recognize and appreciate Everyking being honest and forthright in his answer to Q5, but the approach described in the answer is still wrong. Per Q5 and other concerns mentioned above. Kcowolf (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Wikipedia will be swamped with stuff with no RS soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, where does this concern arise from? I haven't seen anyone else mention it. the wub "?!" 08:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    his AFD behaviour YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

42. EK often jumps into situtations without properly investigating them, which was the direct cause of his desysopping. He has a history of harassing others, including but not limited to myself, Renee (who quit Wikipedia over it), Calton, and Phil Sandifer. On WikipediaReview he suggested a way to harass Phil in real life would be to contact the police about Phil's fictional writings on his website, which someone then did. Categorically should not be an admin. Raul654 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Raul, I respect your work with the FAs and Main page, but are you sure you're telling the full story here? Cla68 (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    The whole story? Far from it. That would take up a great many pages, and frankly I don't want to waste any more time dealing with EK than I have to. My comments above are just the tip of the iceberg where EK is concerned. His let's-call-the-police-on-Phil comment on WikipediaReview was one particularly egregious example of his (well-established) tendency harass other people. But the full story of his actions would include mention of his other bad behaviors, such as his habit of misstating-after-the-fact the content of conversations (claiming I had promised to help him appeal his ban, when I did no such thing. He did it so frequently, in fact, that it got to the point where every IRC conversation he initiated with me, in order to appeal the arbcom decisions, I started by giving him legalese disclaimer that notwithstanding anything else said in the conversation, I made absolutely no promises that I would do anything for him). Another particularly irritating habit of his was to criticize admins who was acting correctly, based on his own uneducated reading of a situation. When confronted by this, he would claim he was fully knowledgeable of the situation, when the facts and his own words contradicted this claim.

    So to answer your question - no, I am not telling the whole story here. But suffice it to say, there is *plenty* in EK's history here that should give pause to anyone considering supporting this request. If anyone here does want to delve that deeply into it, it would be a good idea for them to read the Everyking arbitration pages. Raul654 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Quick note -- after double checking, EK's WR comment was to report Phil as a potential danger to his university - not the police, as I said above. And within a few days of his posting that comment on WR, someone did similiar to what he suggested and reported Phil to the police based on trumped up claims about fictional stories on his website. Raul654 (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    The full story would be to post what Phil actually wrote, since removed, to allow people to see for themselves if reporting it to the authorities, which Everyking didn't do, was a prudent call. Cla68 (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Absolutely illogical moot point. I could fill up this page with a hundred kilobytes worth of blue links to authors, artists, and musicians whose theme in some of the works would merit what you think would be a prudent concern. And they would all be wrong. And you cannot blame the context of the story on the real life authoritative action, it was absolutely provoked by said post on WR. Try to raise the pot with your bluff in blaming Phil as though it was his own fault he was harrassed, but a spade is a spade. What happened actually happened for the reasons Raul linked to above, and no revision of history will excuse it. Keegan^talk 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Baloney. It would be much more honest for you all to say that you were opposing Everyking because you don't like him than to keep humiliating Phil by bringing up that incident that I assume Phil is wishing everyone would forget about. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Whether or not I like EK is utterly irrelavant to this discussion. What is relavant is the fact that EK cannot be trusted, for reasons described (in very summary fashion) above. Morever, I don't see anything about that incident for Phil to be humiliated about -- in my view, he came out smelling like a rose. (And I say this having met Phil in real life). 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    I guess I have a hard time understanding why you think someone raising a concern on a public forum is "dishonest" or "untrustworthy." Did Phil write the statement(s) in question or not? Did the campus cops read and it and find cause for concern or not? The answer to both is apparently yes. So where's the "untrustworthiness" on Everyking's part? Cla68 (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    If you believe EK made that suggestion out of a feeling of concern for the safety the people at Phil's University, and not as a means of getting payback stemming from their on-wiki feud, then I have a bridge to sell you. And making vindictive complaints to the police is *most certainly* not a characteristic we should look for in potential admins. Raul654 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    If it's just a personal feud, then who's the one prolonging it by bringing this up everytime Everyking accepts an RfA nomination? Cla68 (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    The purpose of RFA is to determine if someone has the character and judgement to be an admin. This event shows pretty conclusively that EK fails on both counts. And that makes it extremely relavant to the people here who are weighing in on that question. Raul654 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Lets not forget the reason why Cla68 is defending Everyking. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    In some ways things have changed greatly since the "BADSITES Wars" of a couple of years ago... back then, the anti-WR clique was fighting fervently to ban people from linking to WR in any context for any purpose, while nowadays links to WR are often made by those same people, as above. In other ways, nothing has changed at all; there are still attempts at "guilt by association" aimed at people for the mere fact of participation on that site. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    By association, you mean a close friendship with users like Poetlister to the point of defending the individual against others even after it was revealed that they had multiple sock puppet accounts and pulled some nasty harassment against others? Or do you merely mean that he is associated and has been with a group of people who hate Wikipedia and possibly feed them information while admining? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

43. Oppose Moved from support per FloNight (talk · contribs) and Raul654 (talk · contribs), among others. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose. Per DougsTech. Caden ^{is cool} 08:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    #[3]. NonvocalScream (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Abstain. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

45. Oppose There has been enough drama. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we all can contribute. For that, we don't all need to be administrators, particularly not those who have been a focus for issues in the past. Adminship is not an award, and not having it is not a punishment. Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose, hard-working Wikipedian, but does not have the temperament (or judgment) for adminship. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose Even (for the moment) setting aside past poor judgements, incivility, and constant drama, the questions here (particularly Q5) show me an editor far, far out-of-step with current community standards and expectations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose per Q5. Not weighing arguments is absurd. Plus, anyone running this many times irks me. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose Sorry to react to content on an external site (Wikipedia Review), but the candidate's posts there give the impression of a temperament I wouldn't want in an admin. N p holmes (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose per Q5. Several projects tend to react vehemently towards the inclusion of cited material that opposes the general viewpoint of their project. To decided consensus without weighing the value of the information added would turn nearly all discussions into polls and would harm arbitration in matter ranging from talk pages, AfD, and nearly all facets of wikipedia that require consensus among editors with differing viewpoints. Whether or not the admin claims he or she will use his or her tools should not affect the discussing to grant them. Likewise, I feel the editor has brough the WR discussions into relevence, though I would normally discount anything not on wikipedia, and I feel that the methodology presented in his arguments there runs contrary to many principles I would look for in an effective admin. Mrathel (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose Among other concerns, the answer to Q5 is worrying, and determination of consensus is by no means restricted to AfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC) I do not want to be associated with Ottava Rima's actions here. Consider this a switch to neutral. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

51. I've observed too many problems over the years that lead me to oppose this, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Answer to question 5 is an automatic oppose. We aren't a democracy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Weak Oppose To me there is a limit on what I can forgive, and considering the length of his block log, I would take some more time on what I can forgive. 3 arbitration requests are a bit much for me also.--Iner22 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Oppose. The candidate carries a lot of history with him. He has a long list of fine contributions but also drama and controversy. --maclean 19:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Oppose per Q5 and block log.  Sandstein  21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Oppose. Too many concerns. R. Baley (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Oppose. Per question 5. I don't think you're ready for the mop and its powers. Wikipediarules2221 23:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Oppose too much drama. --Stephen 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Oppose Not until him and Ottava Rima make peace. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Oppose Block log is too long.--Rockfang (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Oppose Given his record, I can think of few people who are worse suited for getting the tools who arn't already banned. Jtrainor (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Oppose Adminship always has been a big deal, desyopping via ArbCom has been a "bigger deal" and re-adminship has been a bigger bigger deal. (what is the biggest deal? That is Wikipedia).--Caspian blue 17:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
63. The "hate speech" comment above in response to Q15 demonstrates extremely poor judgement, and indicates to me an unacceptable intolerance of alternative viewpoints, whether they are "right" or "wrong". To suggest that another editor is attempting to stir up religious or homophobic hatred requires some serious evidence that I have not seen from the discussions surrounding Ottava's ban from WR, which was not unanimously agreed it appears, and seemed rather petulant. Everyking's part in that, and his attempt to resuscitate that ill feeling with his "hate speech" remark in this RfA, is beyond the pale. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Half-cocked hilarity has long been a staple of the EveryKing brand, at least as it pertains to administrative threads. A fine and diligent enough article writer, it's a pity he doesn't take the time to find citations before commenting on noticeboards and the like. The absolute deal-clincher here is his failure to grasp the concept of artistic expression in the case of Phil Sandifer (see Raul's oppose, #42 at the time of this writing). This speaks towards an unnervingly juvenile "revenge" mentality, or perhaps a complete lack of wit. Or, and perhaps most likely, it could just be yet another case of EK deciding to throw in another half-baked, uninformed two cents before making even the most rudimentary of investigations into the matter at hand. He can continue to think aloud and work on articles without the tools, and I'm quite wary of the potential for tool-related half-cocked hilarity. Badger Drink (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Addendum: I would just like to posit that only the most cursory of examinations (a running theme, sadly) would conclude that votes have anything to do with consensus. Polls conducted in a much more professional nature than the average Wikipedia version routinely find a majority of respondents have faith in the most daft of notions. Should public policy operate as if said notions are valid? Absolutely not. This same basic principle can (and should) be carried down and applied to the Wikipedia level. To borrow an ancient and crusty Wikipedia meme: Ten devoted Pokemon fans loudly insisting that Karen deserves an article because she's the hottest, she's part of the Pokemon universe which is quite notable, and because other anime characters get their own pages can not, do not, and should never override the four or five neutral bystanders who agree the whole silly thing needs to be merged. Badger Drink (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

65. On balance, per Malleus above. Likely to cause too much grief IMO to outway benefits. Net negative with +sysop. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose Per Malleus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
67. I didn't want to comment here, but I'm not comfortable that a daring bureaucrat wouldn't promote given the current numbers, so here I am. Q5 is a problem. I know many commenters here are not worried, because Everyking won't be closing AfDs. The problem is that the answer in Q5 is not his approach to AfD. It's his approach to consensus. Admins make rulings on consensus in places other than AfD. Plus, I remain unconvinced that the past issues have gone away. seresin ( ¡? )  22:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Re Q5-- well said. Dlohcierekim 23:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

68. Oppose we need the return of another self-obsessed old-hand drama-queen like Everyking about as much as we need an ice-cream research department. Even in general, no one who's been a sysop before should ever be restored by RfA, the track record of such resysopping is extremely poor and, on average, the sound to noise ratio upon their return is way too high. This is true particularly of EK. Take Q5, I'm untroubled by the AfD closing, but the idiosyncratic answer shows that either by good-faith naivete or trollish attention seeking, Everyking will always be divisive and disruptive. There's really plenty more fish in the sea for RfAs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Too controversial at the moment. Sorry. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Still? ResMar 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Were it not for Ottavagate, I'd probably not oppose. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

70. Oppose Mostly because of Q5 and that's enough for me. Regardless of whether or not the user says he won't ever close an Afd, he still will have that power to do so and I am uncomfortable with even having the power to do so based on the answer to Q5. The answer also speaks to intentions when it comes to other sorts of !votes such as file deletion, consensus discussions, etc. outside of Afds. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Oppose Because of the answer to Q5 and what it says about the nominee's lack of understanding of how things work here and the responsibilities and judgement required of an admin, per Oppose #42 for what it says about past behaviour and other comments which make it difficult to give trust to the nominee: if he wants to do good work, the admin bit isn't necessary. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Even if the candidate doesn't work in AfD, I'm still not comfortable with the logic he has behind question five. If Everyking feels that numbers decide the outcome of that specfic process, then I can't trust him with the tools. — Σxplicit 06:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Noting especially that the nominator's explanation of how the tools were originally lost is rather deficient. The deleted content incident was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, the latest in a string of poor decisions and problematic actions. While I do believe Everyking's manner and approach are much improved from that time, I do not believe the substantive issues (especially his dealing with disagreement) are corrected such that I could support this RFA. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 09:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Oppose: Not all dissent is the same. Some dissenters are on principle, some are on pride, and some are on personality. I regard Everyking as an illustration of how Wikipedia has gone wrong, because he was treated atrociously by a group of people who are largely gone, now. They, however, spoke as the voices of power, as the people with "clue," as the people who were "important to the project," and they swarmed. After enough time, they managed to create the image in Everyking they desired. However, Everyking stayed that way. He has, in my observation, remained reflexively and emotionally reactive, not philosophically. At this point, he has advocated actions and principles that would be against practice and usage, in my view. N.b. I speak for myself alone, so no one needs to ask me for footnotes. Geogre (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Oppose, partly because of an apparent lack of understanding of why it's necessary for XfD (and by extension WP) to operate according to consensus, and partly because of the WR threads that indicate a temperament unsuited to dealing with the idiots we sometimes have to deal with. EyeSerene^talk 12:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose Q5 Vodello (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Oppose - This is an interesting one. On the one hand, this user appears to be devoted to the project and seems to have put in a lot of useful work. On the other hand, we have Q5 (which, even if the user never closes XfDs, indicates to me a troublingly incorrect view of what consensus means), the block log, and the insane amount of drama that seems imminent if this user becomes an admin again. It's a matter of risk versus reward: I think that the risk to the project of this user's adminship outweighs the potential benefit of an admin who will occasionally block a vandal or perform housekeeping. The article work has apparently been solid, why not just keep at that? Oren0 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Oppose due to the wrong-headed answer to Q5 and the continued drama. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Oppose. He's an archetype of wrongheadedness, and I see nothing that's changed that over the years. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Oppose. Regardless of other problems, Q5 is a killer. Nevard (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Oppose per Q5. This user has an interpretation of consensus that isn't befitting of administrators. ThemFromSpace 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Oppose: Complete lack of interest in promoting someone with an affinity for aggressive, drama-inducing behaviour and an unwillingness to be communicative through edit summaries. The number of RfAs alone leave a bad taste in the mouth, but the opposes here say enough otherwise. Everyking is still valued and capable within the project, without being an administrator, and I have to wonder if there isn't a tinge of power lust in his requests. I'm not suggesting it's true, just that it is how Everyking comes across to me. Maedin\^talk 07:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
83. I'm sorry Everyking, I first came here to support but I think that although we need admins with the best of the project at heart (and I don't doubt you are one of these people), we also need people that are not too controversial. Each of your actions as an admin will be scrutinized and dissected and I think it the end it will be a burden to the project. -- Luk ^talk 08:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Oppose regretfully. I really do appreciate all the great contributions that Everyking has made; but, Pedro, Flonight, Malleus, and others (along with the answer to Q5, and the WR drama) push me away from my default support. The kicker for me though is the answer to Q-17. It just gives me the impression of "If I can't play with the big red truck, I don't want to play at all". That's just not a mindset I'm comfortable with in what I expect from an editor who has access to block, delete, and protect functions. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Per Question 5, but not wishing to pile on. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral again, per question 5, but very impressed otherwise. Incredible vandal fighting! I will be doing more research and hoping that Everyking revisits the question that is causing all of the comments. Not to late to go back to the books and reformulate an answer. I for one would consider it a positive trait for a candidate in error to correct oneself when challenged. And if you find that you are correct with Q5, elaborate, and show us your reasoning, provide links. Good luck! --Preceding unsigned comment 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   indenting, now supporting He has promised he will not interpret consensus as an admin, and there are years of history to back that up, so it seems somewhat irrational to oppose solely based on the fact that you disagree with his opinion on how consensus should be determined. We aren't the Borg; no need to insist on total assimilation. I was going to use a 1984 reference, but I've heard those are passé, so I'll go with Star Trek instead (next best thing). Indeed, a careful reading of his expanded answer to Q5, and particularly of his answer to Q7, show that while he's at the far end of the spectrum, he hasn't gone infrared yet.

   Many of the opposers who based their reasoning solely on Q5 should add more reasons if they really don't want Everyking to be sysopped. If a brave bureaucrat follows the methodology that these very opposers are espousing to its logical conclusion, he could legitimately ignore the numbers, and discount these votes when determining consensus (which would be sort of deliciously ironic).

   I have not looked into Everyking's history in enough detail to support or oppose, so I'll stick this observation down here for now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   And on the other hand, one good argument can outweigh the rest. And so that same "brave bureaucrat" could deny on that alone.

   It all comes down to community trust.

   And if the candidate indicates that they don't ideologically follow a Foundation principle, then I think that anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that the candidate should be trusted to be in the position to act upon that. (As admins often are who close discussions, due to having extra tools such as the ability to delete.) As I mentioned to IG above, just because someone states that they don't "intend" to close discussions, that doesn't mean that after a certain amount of time they won't be closing discussions. - jc37 10:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   But DRV will overturn the close immediately and no harm will be done and Everyking knows that so they won't be closed AFDs because they are not stupid whatever else they are. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   The "community trust" should hinge on whether we believe he will keep his promise to not interpret consensus as an admin.

   I have not seen anyone here suggest he would break his promise, and his deletion, protection and block logs show his main interest was boring WP:MOP work.

   As a result, his views on consensus are for the most part irrelevant, except to demonstrate that he is putting honesty ahead of politics, and is willing to not use his tools in areas that he knows his views may be seen as an improper rationale for his actions.

   John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   His Arb Case suggests that he was involved in an adminlike position of authority in many discussions in which his failure to bother reading the discussions caused a problem. The answer to number five would reinforce that this is a current problem. So, it is greater than just "votes", as he treats all discussion as votes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

3. I'm willing to go along with the candidate's argument that he thinks AfD's ought to be closed based on numbers along, but that he recognises that the community rejects this philosophy and that he will therefore refrain from working deletion discussions closure duty if elected an administrator. Furthermore, he is a not unappealing candidates in a number of other respects—namely sizable experience with the project. However, the prospect that the candidate could, at some juncture after being appointed, begin to close AfD's worries me; and, unless he agrees to be desysopped by a steward if he closes an AfD, I cannot support his candidacy. A de facto restriction on his closing AfD's is simply not good enough for me. AGK 15:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's certainly fair—obviously if this nom passes it will only be because many of my supporters thought I would not close AfDs, and if I broke my promise I shouldn't have adminship anymore. So it's certainly acceptable to me to say that a steward should desysop me if I ever closed an AfD. I'm not sure if there's a way we can formalize that, but if so I'm perfectly fine with it. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually that's pretty silly and I'm not sure any steward would fulfill a request on that basis (or at least I'd hope not). It's not like it would it would make a significant practical difference. If Everyking suddenly decided he did want to start closing AFDs or CFDs or TFDs or whatever, desysopping him would not stop that (though it would slow him down in certain cases). — CharlotteWebb 08:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, C.W. My concern is with his philosophy of judging deletions by sheer numbers. He can't delete if he has been desysopped. AGK 18:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral. Everyking is all-around a good user, but Question 5 shows a misinterpretation of consensus that prevents me from supporting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral per the answer to Q5. Don't want to burden the user with too many opposes for this, as I do not think that he should be penalized for it. Razorflame 15:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Q5. If arguments are invalid per policy and practice, they have considerably less weight. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral I have read this entire page. I was wondering if Everyking was a young person who might have made some mistakes on Wikipedia in his early days but perhaps grew up since then. As a Catholic who works on Catholic pages and has endured my share of dealing with negative opinions and anti-Catholic POV's from editors whose hatred for the Church is evident, I can sympathize with Ottava Rima's position. I certainly don't need another admin with a chip on his shoulder for the Church! Raul654 has also provided some very condemning evidence to rout this candidate's chances of adminship. It would be easier to support if I knew there would be some kind of review of this persons adminship at a later date to ensure that he does not embark on negative activities and abuse his power. I have often felt that many admins abuse their power making it hard for article creators like me to function. Lately, I have met some decent admins so I can't say they are all bad but there are certainly MANY admins whose powers should be revoked immediately. If Wikipedia wants decent articles on subjects that Readers want to see, like controversial subjects, it needs a review process for existing admins to weed out those who use their power to harrass legitimate editors just trying to put referenced facts on a page. They also need to weed out those admins who do nothing to help a legitimate editor when it is clear they are being harrassed by someone who should be blocked. NancyHeise ^talk 16:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

   They also need to weed out those admins who do nothing to help a legitimate editor when it is clear they are being harrassed by someone who should be blocked.

   ...but there are certainly MANY admins whose powers should be revoked immediately.

   It would really help if you did more than make blank statements that no one can act on. Like naming the admins. This should be obvious. AvN 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

   If you have a beef with any editor, including admins, there is a dispute resolution process, including seeking input at WP:AN/I. The folks there like sifting through to find a consensus. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:49, 15 May 2009 (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.

BQZip01

Final (75/38/10); Ended 01:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC) – closed as no consensus by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

BQZip01 (talk · contribs)

As an editor who witnessed first hand his ability to encourage improvement and participation of "newer" editors, I an honored to nominate BQZip01 for adminship here on Wikipedia. He first hit these pages in early 2007 and since then has accumulated over 13,000 edits and, as was noted at his last RFAs, has worked on several Featured Articles and garnered a decent number of accolades. Following on his first requests for adminship I believe he has continued to improve and become an even better editor... one who continues making terrific contributions to the project. He has roll-back rights, which shows the trust of his peers. He is a frequent contributor at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion and shows understanding of the processes and procedures that keep wiki running smoothly. I was there first-hand for some of the disagreements of last year. No need to rehash, but only note that valuable lessons were learned by all involved which helped us become better editors. BQ's experience and abilities are of tremendous benefit to the entire project. If handed the mop, he will make wiki proud. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by TomStar81

BQZip01 is one of those people you can not help but admire, even if you disagree with him on a matter. Since his arrival to Wikipedia in 2007 BQZip01 has learned the ropes very quickly, and he also strives to learn from past mistakes. His activity in the files for deletion process is a blessing, and his well thought out rationals behind a support or oppose position are a much needed yet often absent point of our encyclopedia. He was trusted enough to gain rollback rights in January 2008, and I was and remain grateful for his input during the Illinois affair (the FAC and subsequent afd for USS Illinois (BB-65)) a little over a year ago. Beyond his contributions to the FFD process BQ has eight featured articles and one good article under his belt, which demonstrates a clear understanding of the article improvement process, and I can not remember a time when he was not polite to others; even in instances in which BQZip01 and I have disagreed on a matter he has always stood firmly and fairly to his position. When all of these qualities are combined, I believe that Wikipedia will have an outstanding administrator in BQZip01, and I therefore offer this co-nomination for BQzip01. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Henrik

I'm not one of those people who think adminship is no big deal: It's no privilege, but a great deal of responsibility. I first encountered BQZip01 over at a long past disagreement back in 2007 at one of those hot political topics of the day. Neither I nor him were at the center of the conflict, but at the time, I thought him to be a good example of the kind of person I would not like to an administrator: Somewhat argumentative with a bit of a temper. I even watchlisted his future RfA, making a mental note to oppose. It seems it had slipped my mind by the time he got around to running, so I never did. But I have kept watching his contributions occasionally over the months and years that have passed. Over time, I realized that my initial judgment was hasty: BQZip has matured into a very good Wikipedian, calm, thoughtful and deliberative and one that has definitely learned from his earlier mistakes. In addition to his featured articles, he does a lot of impressive work in deletion discussions, and has given time to help a troubled new user which was my second direct encounter with BQZip where he left a very pleasant impression when he was not only helpful but also gracefully bowed to consensus. It's time. People grow. Let's give him the mop already. henrik•talk 19:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination — BQZip01 — ^talk

Optional Statement by nominee

This is NOT what Jimbo Wales meant when he said to "ignore all rules."

Personal beliefs:

1. I am an inclusionist, so that means I generally lean towards keeping things within Wikipedia rather than delete. That said, stuff on Wikipedia needs to have a purpose within an encyclopedia (or at least on a user page). If it has no use, then it needs to go. Copyrighted materials need to be appropriately used in accordance with Fair Use and WP policies/guidelines or removed.
2. Just because something hasn't been done in a certain way before doesn't mean someone is wrong to do something non-standard. If something needs to be standard, then it needs to have consensus-support and be appropriately codified in a policy or guideline. It is inappropriate to malign/chastise someone because they have done something non-standard. Effectively "We don't do it that way" with no policy or guideline to back it up can result in a conflict and should be avoided. Such actions should be brought up on the related talk page and, if consensus decides that the particular method chosen can/shouldn't be used, then it should be premitted/removed (respectively).
3. Policies and guidelines are crafted slowly over time and are the "rules" by which content is kept in check on Wikipedia. Doing something that is explicitly in accordance with one of these policies/guidelines and then quoting the appropriate reason you did such an action is inherently appropriate. It is not "wikilawyering"; it is following the procedures/content rules of Wikipedia. If the rules need to be changed, then change them. If clarification is needed, then clarification needs to be added. Common sense dictates that not every situation should be expounded in-depth upon, but common sense is not common and policies/guidelines should be spelled out as much as possible to prevent problems down the road.
4. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. That means that semi-protection and full protection should be used as little as possible. In general, IP users should be able to contribute to the encyclopedia without registering for an account as much as is reasonably possible.
5. We are all humans here (except the bots...and those are controlled by humans...in general...). Everyone makes mistakes. People, if genuinely remorseful, should not have things held against them long-term. We type things we don't exactly mean and the lack of specificity in the English language doesn't help. In short, I don't hold grudges and neither should anyone else. Indefinite blocks should be used in limited circumstances and those should have the ability to be repealed after a set amount of time. That said, some people do things that warrant removal from Wikipedia altogether and consensus bans from the site should be upheld barring exceptional circumstances.

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work in the XfD arena where I will close discussions that are already complete and act upon the WP:CONSENSUS obtained while appropriately applying policy. Specifically, there seems to be a perpetual backlog in WP:FfD (though that seems to ebb and flow sporadically) & I intend to clear that out as necessary; this is not to say I will use such tools to take any arbitrary action, only that which is in accordance with policy (on a related note, 99% of my feedback since in WP:FFD has been implemented, so at least I'm "on board" with other admins). On top of that, I'll work on other backlogs as needed on other XfD pages.

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

A: I feel my best contributions to Wikipedia are within the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire articles and helping User:MichaelQSchmidt understand the purpose of Wikipedia. Both articles were promoted to featured article status and featured on the main page. User:MichaelQSchmidt was an interesting case-study in WP:AGF and the importance of mentorship. Mr. Schmidt is an actor in Hollywood whose publicist put some stuff on Wikipedia without his direct knowledge. This led to tension due to WP:COI and WP:OWN...and the publicist wasn't exactly the most tactful in his discussions. I arrived in the midst of the discussion at about the same time Mr. Schmidt did. I tried to diffuse the situation by explaining the rules, and at the time Mr. Schmdit felt unhappy that the article was even on Wikipedia. I explained to him that notability of the person is what determined placement on Wikipedia, not the quality of the work, nor the editor who placed it there, and certainly not the wishes of the subject. Once the situation settled down I went through the article line-by-line and beefed up/tweaked it until it met our standards. It wasn't a long article, but it was adequate and appropriate. I stuck with Mr. Schmidt, despite continued problems, because I recognized his intent to "do the right thing" even if he didn't understand Wikipedia policy. To date, the article about Mr. Schmidt has survived 3 AFDs with the last being a "snow Keep". But what is more important is that he has taken the situation to heart and is now becoming a serious force in the art of rescuing articles on Wikipedia, He is also now a respected editor who himself now shares guidance. This is my personal keynote experience on Wikipedia for WP:AGF and I am extremely glad I helped him out as he has become a significant asset to Wikipedia.

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 have been involved in conflicts in the past and stress certainly lends itself to anything where you are trying to reach an objective (such as improving an article). I intend to deal with conflicts in one of two ways:

1. Ignore it. Ignoring senseless vandalism and just fixing it often takes care of the problem.
2. Confront it if it is disruptive to Wikipedia. Should I personally be involved in a disagreement, I will not use admin rights to block a user and will submit it to the appropriate page for community feedback and let another administrator make that sort of determination.

3a. What about User:Cumulus Clouds?

A:I have had a significant dispute with this user (now deceased and account inactivated). First let me state that I am sorry for his loss and have no desire to malign the deceased, however, the impact of such a dispute between myself and this individual was an impact in my previous RfA and I think it bears mentioning here. Short version: Per ArbCom, removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive. With this guidance, I felt that his repeated removal of such sources, changing what sources stated, twisting/intentionally misquoting what I said to vilify me, etc. were disruptive to Wikipedia. His tendentious/disruptive edits generally ceased shortly after the RfC and seeing that was all I ever wanted, I consider this a closed subject. However, I probably should have reacted better, I wish I could have that chance again.

3b. Any other issues we should know about?

A: In the interests of full disclosure...

1. Another indefinite-blocked user has decided to use this situation with CC as a personal rallying cry to protest his indef block (done at my request) and has left death threats, accusations of murder, and other inflammatory, insulting, demeaning, and inappropriate nonsense on my talk/user pages, bypassed semi-protection by creating new accounts with benign edit histories...and then repeating the same disruptive behavior. As stated above, removal of such information (these comments did require Oversight involvement) and simply ignoring it for the most part seems to have avoided any serious drama.
2. Lastly, User:SandyGeorgia and I had a dispute in the past (like a year and a half ago). Whether or not my point was valid, the manner in which I went about only fanned the flames and it actively derailed any useful discussion. I think I've learned from that and haven't repeated such behavior again. I was a young Wikipedian then and I've learned from that experience.

Optional question from Skomorokh

4. Could you give an account, in your own words, of why your previous requests at this venue were unsuccessful, and why editors who opposed in the past ought not to be concerned this time?

A. There are a host of reasons for which the past nominations did not succeed. The first one was mostly due to a misunderstanding (on my part) where my actions were construed as canvassing. After better understanding such policy, I understand how it could have been interpreted that way. The second was a little more complicated, but several socks of a now-indef blocked user, interjected problematic comments/lies. There were also problems with people who felt I hadn't waited long enough. While I disagree with waiting three months to reapply as being a reasonable reason for opposition (an arbitrary, uncodified criteria is not appropriate IMHO), I also understand that the impression given was not positive and certainly understand opposition based on that. Accordingly, I waited to reapply only after waiting a substantial period of time (and only then after being nominated by another user). Lastly, some people felt I was being argumentative when I was trying to be thorough. That can certainly make for long and tendentious reading (if you'd like you can certainly see for yourself in the previous discussions). As I said, my intent was to be thorough, not argumentative; accordingly, I will refrain from responding to any opposition below other than requests for clarification. Additionally, there were disputes between myself and other users that were not resolved and the associated WP:DRAMA, I'm sure, left a bad taste on the palettes of my fellow Wikipedians. All I can say is that I have done everything I can to put those interactions behind me and learn from my mistakes.

I believe those who opposed should not be concerned this time as my demeanor has significantly improved since last time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from Steve Crossin

5. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A. Upon the request of an admin, I got involved with User:Axmann8 and his interactions on Wikipedia (which had been quite disruptive). I find it quite useful to give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they begin contributing to Wikipedia and, despite previous interactions on Wikipedia and openly being a skinhead, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so I did my best to work with him. He quickly backed down from certain confrontations and seemed to better understand our policies, once I showed him (which, considering the vastness of Wikipedia, I think we can all agree that even veterans of Wikipedia may not be aware of certain policies). This new persona seemed to be doing fine for about a week, but, unfortunately, did not last and inappropriate comments by this user were followed by an indefinite block. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from CIreland

6. It is a common occurence at WP:RFPP that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?

A: I would look at the situation at hand and see what the reversion is. If it is vandalism, I would simply revert it myself and place an appropriate warning on their user page. If it were a short-term dispute on content (such as 3 reverts each), I would encourage all parties to discuss it on the talk page first and decline to protect the page (noting to all parties the implications of WP:3RR). If it is a long-term issue with people gaming the system by repeatedly reverting 3 times and then stopping to avoid a block for WP:3RR or similar situation, I would carefully consider the version of the page which was being temporarily protected erring on the side of neutrality. But it doesn't really stop there. I would then try to do what I can to create a possible solution amicable to all parties by discussing it on the talk page and guiding parties down a more appropriate path of dispute resolution than edit warring. It should also be noted that no matter what version is protected, it will undoubtedly be the the wrong version — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

7. You have said that you would help at WP:FFD. Could you explain or give some examples of what constitutes an "invalid fair-use claim" that would permit deletion using WP:CSD#I7?

A: Absolutely. A copyrighted image of a living person whose prior image does not have any significance. An example of this would be a current sports figure's publicity photo with an inappropriate fair use tag. Additionally, quoting from WP:CSD:

1. Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately.
2. Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{subst:rfu}} may be deleted after two days, if no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability.
3. Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{subst:dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged, if a full and valid fair-use use rationale is not added.

If further clarification is needed, feel free to ask! — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Currently, the BLPs are policed much like any other article (with people simply watching them), but, because of the potential for very real harm (professionally, physically, legally. etc), we must be vigilant and make sure they meet our standards. As long as we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we are going to get the nut jobs, fringe groups, oddballs, etc. that view some individuals with disdain or ridicule. Without protecting pages, there is currently no system by which we can stop such inputs across Wikipedia. That said, we generally do a good job of rapidly fixing inaccuracies and quickly deleting problematic material. The real problem is that Wikipedia is so vast; with 7,035,293 articles, it is becoming increasingly difficult to cover them all. In short, the problem is no more significant than other issues. If someone is hell-bent on writing something malicious, they are going to do it. As soon as they do it, we should remove it and warn them accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I hesitate to provide feedback on a system for which there is not a definition (it is still in the works), so, I'll decline to talk much about flagged revisions other than generalities. I think the idea of protecting articles isn't necessary. If there is a problem, it can be addressed through other means that already exist (revert, page protection, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom, etc.). Patrolled revisions are simply another implementation of flagged revisions. I don't think blanket page protection is the way to go because it takes the discretion from Wikipedians. While situations like the Seigenthaler incident are certainly problems, they are largely isolated problems. All of that taken into account, I will certainly abide by consensus and do what I can to help users understand what the potentially new processes do and how to use them within Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: As I stated earlier, I am an inclusionist. I believe in keeping the article, in general. That also means that such an article meets other criteria for inclusion. It cannot contain unsubstantiated rumors, demeaning material, etc. Those components should be removed on sight regardless of the status of a keep or delete decision. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

8d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: I'd give consideration to their desires and do what I can to alleviate their concerns, but in the end, it is about what meets our criteria for inclusion. If there are false/unsubstantiated claims, they should be removed. If they are more than simple vandalism ("George Bush eats poop"=simple vandalism; "Johnny Smith killed 14 people in the Springfield Southside Mall"=defamation/slander), consideration should be made to remove such an edit from the edit history. If, after removal of problem material(s), they meet all of our criteria for inclusion, they should be retained as an article on Wikipedia. If problems continue to arise, other venues already exist to fix such problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Significance is in the eye of the beholder. Some people think this speck is pretty significant. Others may view it as a minor point of a much more significant topic. They are both wrong. The question is: Is it notable and can it be verified?

Questions from Rootology

I see allusions and concerns from the edits in this RFA and some of the linked comments, in the opposes, that you may have or do have nationalistic tendencies, toward the United States and it's defense on the encyclopedia. I see you're in the Air Force, and a pilot to boot--I thank you absolutely for your service (and like every AF pilot I meet I'm a little jealous, since my eyesight precluded me from that ;)). However, would you say

9a. Would you describe yourself as a nationalist/nationalistic editor? We typically see this more overtly with "other nations" (especially of late with Eastern Europe and Israeli topics), at least when it's hauled before WP:RFAR and other WP:DR venues, but any such edits in defense of any nation aren't appropriate, since our own love of our nation--I'm sure I love the United States just as much as you do--has to be buried and hidden in the face of WP:NPOV for every single edit we make to the article space, with never a single exception. We all fail from time to time--it's inevitable, but how we trend in this is what matters, and one measure of our worth to this website. The closer we walk the line to love NPOV more than our own nations and homelands, the more valuable we are to this website; the further we walk from NPOV, the more worthless we are, and the more likely we shouldn't even be allowed to edit, let alone be admins.

How would you characterize your editing in this regard, through today? rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I would categorize my interests as being focused on things in the US (especially those related to the Air Force and Texas A&M University). However, that doesn't mean we should keep nationalist and nation-centric content if it violates WP:NPOV. Positive things about countries need to be balanced by (appropriate) negative things and they need to be content that would be found in an encyclopedia. That means that, for example, while I believe the F-22 is a superior fighter aircraft to just about everything out there, it doesn't mean we should push that POV. We can point to concrete statistics (thrust-to-weight ratio, ability to supercruise, and others) to show the differences between jets, but personal beliefs are not appropriate as they are WP:OR/WP:POV that isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. (I realize the topic is about nationalistic tendencies, but comparisons between the Raptor, the Eurofighter, and various Russian aircraft have been points of contention for some time on Wikipedia with nationalistic bias on all sides). Everything should be appropriately cited by reliable sources. I concur that the further we walk away from NPOV, the worse we are for Wikipedia. To clarify, I have approximately 100 pilot hours, but I am a navigator, so I don't fly the plane directly...but I do fly and I am in the military. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

9b. If you were confronted with a situation where you found yourself seeing someone adding extremely to utterly negative--but impeccably sourced and 100% WP:BLP compliant--information to a living person such as Barack Obama, John McCain, or about US Government personell--what would you, or wouldn't you do, keeping again in mind that while you're here, for anything you actually "click" or write, our local rules have to take 100% precedence at all times per our internal policies over any commitments, obligations, or views you hold "outside" of Wikipedia? I apologize if this feels like a loaded question--I really don't mean it to be. rootology (C)(T) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A:Ooooooooh. A loaded question. :-P Well, I'll give it a crack. If information is "impeccably sourced and 100% WP:BLP compliant" I would fight to make sure that information was as neutrally phrased as possible, but included. Something can be negative while still neutrally phrased. It also has to pass other content criteria (like is it relevant to the article). As an example, let's say George W. Bush threw out the first pitch at a pro baseball game, but threw the ball so badly the catcher had to pick it up out of the dugout. Baseball article after baseball article is written about the incident for about a week. If someone then insists on adding a paragraph about the event because they think it is meets all BLP criteria (despite sources galore that are critical of him), they are wrong. It is not notable within the context of an Encyclopedia. In short, within the context of Wikipedia, there are different rules as to what I can and cannot do in real life. If there is a potential conflict between the two, I will refrain from getting involved as much as possible. If there is something in which I cannot act due to professional, legal, moral, or other obligations by which I can no longer act as an administrator, I will resign as an admin. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from a dynamic IP editor

10a. One of your nominators actually received an Oppose !vote from you during his RFA. It even sidetracked to being about you for a short period. But what was interesting was that in your Oppose, you actually focused on a technicality, He missed the fact that an IP address 'Hypothetical Situation: Say IP 156.33.0.11' in the question belonged to the US Sentate (I assume he was supposed to run an IP check, as 'US Senate' was stated nowhere in the question) You stated: 'Your lack of knowledge in that area could be a major issue.' So my first question:

Using your own support/oppose criteria, would a technicality, of say not being able to set the scheduled end and time date of your own RFA be a valid reason to Oppose?

A:

10b. Attention to detail in the areas that you want to admin is imperative. You spent over a month drafting your RFA #4 to the point that Your transclusion should have been solid. I was surprised to find that your opening paragraph was from a prior RfA[4].

How can you reassure us that critical work will not be botched up if you were to be entrusted in critical admin matters?

A:

10c. Many remarks from others in this and past RFA's seem to allude to you being self centered, self promoting or not able to understand or care about the views of others. It seems that since RFA #3 your edits have focused on removing this stigma.

Is this a sincere change in your temperament or is the same BQZip01 in there just dying yo get back out? Please use this as an example in your answer.

A:

10d.You have a habit, as seen in this RFA of trying to paint the perfect picture. You have gone back and modified your answers 'for clarity' after the fact, even after others respond to it. This is without the use of strikeout or 'update' statements. Additionally you have been answering the 'difficult' comments on the commenter's talk page instead of here at the RFA. As an Admin, it is of utmost importance to keep discussions easy for all to follow.

Do you feel that your habit in revising your edits and dispersing your answers is an effective method of communication?

A:

10e. Concerning IP Communication on your talk page: There are tools for reverting and oversighting. A candidate for admin should have developed a thick skin, and I believe that page protection is a temporary solution to protect the fragile and the bombarded. I do not see an unmanageable amount of reverted or oversighted edits. Some might say this insistence is the manifestation of the stubbornness, as seen in your many past conflicts. The question is not why to protect, or how bad a vandals comment may sound but:

Why do you feel that you cannot handle the vandalism?

A:

10f. Your 'thank you' notes linking to this RFA, while the RFA is still open, could cause concern that it gives even the appearance of canvassing. Using AGF, the conclusion is that it is not. Given the inevitable possibility for the appearance of an issue:

Why not wait as is standard, for the RFA to close, before sending out such a large amount of communications that link back to here?

A: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.114.188 (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In accordance with, "Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if supported by evidence.", I am declining to answer question 10 in its entirety because they are severely loaded questions and are from an IP address of an indef blocked user/sockpuppeteer. Please note that this individual appears to live in the Washington D.C. area and other comments have been added below from WP:SPAs located in the same area. (clarification: the location of all IP edits and apparently User Accounts come from the same area).

That said, I will comment on the questions and some of their content though:

10a.: I indeed did oppose TomStar on his 3rd nomination. My opposition was that he planned to block an IP address without consideration for its status as a sensitive IP address and required follow-on actions. He learned from his mistakes and has become a fine admin. Later he came to me to offer a nomination as an admin.

10b. Insinuating that I somehow was cheating or stacking the deck for an RfA is ludicrous (note the wikilink to cold deck in the "question"). It was a draft, ergo, it was incomplete and I was working on the phrasing/reviewing how best to answer potential questions as TomStar, Franamax, and others advised (and I agreed). Extremely careful consideration of words used in an RfA is important as the slightest thing can be misconstrued. To form this RfA, I copied (almost verbatim) from my previous RfA; Mistakenly, I included comments of another user that were not part of this RfA. Accordingly, I removed them. I cannot guarantee that I will not mess up again; I'm human...but then again, so are all the other admins. Mistakes do happen in Wikipedia, sometimes with colossal consequences, but there is very little that cannot be fixed. If I am of the opinion that, if my view largely differs from others in an XfD debate, I will follow User:Quadell's example and simply comment and allow another administrator to make the call; this way, my opinions are appropriately expressed, yet, I am not taking unilateral action. Furthermore, since I would then be involved, it would also be somewhat improper to delete it (that is a personal view, not a Wikipedia Policy)

10c. If I work on something and they meet the criteria for Featured XYZ status, I'll nominate it. I fail to see anything wrong with making Wikipedia better.

10d. (See initial response)

10e. I'm sorry you feel that page protection is only for the "fragile and the bombarded". Wikipedia policy is that semi-protection is for many other reasons. In short, this whole situation is about a single, determined indef blocked user who has taken it upon themselves to issue death threats and make accusations of serious felonies (murder). I believe that you are this person. Appropriately, such comments were oversighted. Given that this user is creating multiple accounts in multiple locations, making innocuous edits followed by the aforementioned behavior to bypass the block, etc, I believe such protection is appropriate until such a time as such harassment stops.

10f. Thank you notes were issued at the exact same rate as were notes for appreciation for feedback regarding oppose votes (i.e. as soon as I saw them). If I were canvassing, I could hardly do it in a worse manner. Canvassing is "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process...":

1. It would be quite futile to send a message to inform someone about a community discussion in which they already participated.
2. I fail to see how saying "thank you" to someone who already supported me can influence anything

So by definition alone, I was not canvassing anyone. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

11. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: I do not believe that Wikipedians have legal rights beyond those given in their host countries. Wikipedia is not a government entity and it does not have the power to grant such rights to anyone. Within Wikipedia, there are things that should be done and we should uphold those standards of behavior. We do so through various means: popular pressure, administrative actions, WP:RfC, WP:ArbCom, etc.

Not so optional extra questions from Rootology

12. What is the deal with this edit to this RFA, and why did you seem to go out of your way to attack an IP editor that asked some fairly 'hard' questions, but not even I don't think as 'hard' as my own could have been? And--especially answer this--what "banned user" is this supposedly, and what is the purpose of pointing out where they appear to live?? rootology (C)(T) 21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I believe this particular editor is the same one who has made death threats against myself and accusations of murder, User:TomPhan. This particular user has gone to great lengths to continually harass and defame me. Accordingly, I have no desire to answer loaded questions such as these from a user who has been effectively banned. My point in noting the location of this individual is that it remains constant I am quite confident that a checkuser will eventually prove these issues well beyond a shadow of a doubt. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

13. The IP editor you 'went after' asked specifically about the talk protection, on your talk page. In practice, no admin's talk page should be indefinitely protected, especially if they plan to employ any tools that could require an IP to talk to them. Will you unprotect your talk page if promoted? rootology (C)(T) 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A: I'm sorry you feel I "went after" him. I'd also like to clear a few things up. My page is not protected, but semi-protected. The protection policy on Wikipedia states,

User pages and subpages may be semi-protected, but not fully protected, at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption. User talk pages are usually not semi-protected except in response to severe or continued vandalism. Users whose talk page are semi-protected for lengthy or indefinite periods of time should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users.

I believe I have followed this to a T. My page has a red banner at the top with a wikilink to such a page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up questions from a dynamic IP editor From 10 above

14. for my 10a above, I think you went off on a tangent so I will ask directly:

Are you going to adjust the End stop date and time for your RFA or will you continue to leave it in error and have someone else fix it for you?

A couple of notes: I am a dynamic IP with ISP Comcast in Richmond Va. If you feel I have done something bad in these questions or am tied to threats that you refer to, please contact my ISP. I am sure they will take any corrective action needed. On 'Tough Questions', a word of advice: Sometimes at RFA, people will ask tough questions, not for the textbook answer, but to test the character of the editor. You have answered my questions conserning your character, thank you. 71.62.114.188 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no errors. If I've missed something, please feel free to fix it...anyone... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

When you transcluded the RFA, it had no end date nor tally [5]. This was added by NuclearWarfare, but s/he scheduled it to end a day early (no doubt a harmless mistake, being that UTC had already flipped over to the next day). Now fixed. –xeno ^talk 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to NW for the fix and to xeno for the explanation. I obviously missed that in the copy & paste and the single digit error later. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from Kafka Liz

15. Looking through your contributions since this RfA began, I couldn't help but notice that you have created a page where all the opposes to this RfA are juxtaposed with a series of user accounts that have made oversight-worthy attacks against you, and also with a series of IPs perpetuating a silly edit war at BQ. What, in your view, is the connection between these three groups? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A: There is no connection, of which I am aware, between the first two groups and the last set of people. It's a sandbox. The first two groups, I believe are sockpuppets of indef blocked User:TomPhan whose contributions are not welcome on Wikipedia until such a time as the block is lifted. I am waiting until after this RfA to file a checkuser accordingly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the possible connection between the first two groups, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to juxtapose all oppose votes with these attackers/vandals... It certainly sends the suggestion that you equate the various opposes with these oversighted attacks, or at least see them as related, a view I'm not at all comfortable with. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Better? As for "juxtaposition", I'm not entirely sure which one you meant, but definition #4 applies best. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Opptional question from Ottawa4ever

16. If a wikipedia page were made a a home page for a popular product (Ie an aggressive marketing campaign changes their website to redirect to wikipedias stub article). Under what criteria would you protect the page? thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A: There are several issues posed within this question.

1. Why would a company make such a choice? On a professional level, I would immediately be suspect of the PR department of the company and quickly check my stock portfolio to make sure I wasn't invested in the company...(I'm kidding!) Seriously though, I would first verify that this was indeed a product and not something made up. If something doesn't even exist, it stands a much higher chance of not being notable outside of any other context. Who knows? It may just be an attempt at a new marketing campaign of a very notable product and Wikipedia may be getting the big scoop...of course, Wikinews may be a more appropriate location for such inputs...
2. I would make sure the article was about a notable subject. The Wii is certainly an appropriate topic, but my son's Thomas the Tank Engine Magnetic Train set and Tunnel isn't.
3. I would make sure the article was appropriately sourced using primarily third-party references (where applicable). If it isn't, but it is possible to make it so, I would consider doing what I could to beef up the article or perhaps enlist help in finding such references. Regardless of whether I/others found sources, I would also ask the creator of the article for appropriate references and assist, if necessary.
4. If it failed the above 3 steps, I would recommend first moving such information to Wikinews (if verifiable and simply not notable) and then nominate it for deletion as failing to be non-notable. If it met the criteria for inclusion, I'd leave the page alone unless there was further disruption. If there were disruption to the point that semi-page protection is appropriate, I would put it on WP:RFPP if I were previously involved (as in actions previously stated). If I were not involved and I saw an inordinate quantity of disruption, I would seriously consider semi-page protection. I would not use full protection unless long-time registered users were involved.

If you'll notice, none of these steps pertain to the existence of another website redirecting to a Wikipedia page. That's because the internet allows such links and there is nothing we can do about someone linking to our page. However, if the page is deleted and repeatedly recreated, we should consider salting the article to prevent further problems. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/BQZip01
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 2
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 3
• Requests for adminship/BQZip01 4

• Links for BQZip01: BQZip01 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for BQZip01 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/BQZip01 before commenting.

Discussion

• From your answer to Q4 Q2: "…Notability of the person is what determined placement on Wikipedia…, and certainly not the wishes of the subject." Really? What about someone barely notable enough but they don't want the hassle of policing the article on themselves – do they get no say?
  Dispute resolution: Can you come up with another example besides user:Axmann8?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  I think you are referring to Q3 Q2? If so, notability is one criteria of what determines inclusion/exclusion on Wikipedia. It is not the responsibility of the subject to maintain such a page or police it; that is the responsibility of Wikipedians. Should anything violate WP:BLP, it should be removed on sight! My point with respect to this was that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion/removal, even if you are the subject. Their voice counts as much as any other Wikipedian/anonymous user.

  Another example would be here as alluded to in the Neutral section. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• BQZip, please stop editing your answers and replying on user's talk pages, it makes conversations like the one in Oppose #3 difficult. This is, in part, a test, and the answer that you give before you get feedback about how good an answer it was is the answer that most of us want to see. It's also kind of a PITA to have to look through the history to see who said what when. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  ...and FWIW, immediately thanking people from their support on their talk pages may be interpreted as canvassing; I'd advise against it. –xeno ^talk 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  P.S. Btw, I just meant that warning in this RFA, not in general; sometimes candidates say harmless things on talk pages while the RFA is going on, but it's too much in this case, and parts of your answers are getting scattered around the wiki. Let's see it all in one place so that we're all having the same conversation, please. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  The edited answers were for clarification. I will make sure that future "additions" are more clearly annotated. As for thanking people for their support, I also thanked everyone who participated, not just those who support me; accordingly, I'm not entirely sure how WP:CANVASS applies here, but I'll certainly cease it if it is causing a negative opinion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

...and in the interests of still thanking everyone for their inputs, I'd just like to say "thank you" to everyone for your feedback. It is appreciated and I will do what I can to alleviate your concerns and I thank you for your inputs and time/effort. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll make this statement here rather than the talk page, in regards to question 10 (and 12/13) above. As far as I'm aware, BQ has been consistently harassed over time by a third party, possible known to himself. I have myself seen this a few times and objected or reverted. At least one edit was well worthy of at least deletion. I'm glad I haven't seen any edits that needed to be subsequently oversighted, I think that kind of thing is the most low and scurrilous form of attack on any editor here. When I started reading question 10, I was thinking "geez BQ, I hope you're not going to respond to this crap" - and I was pleased to see BQ's mature response just below. People, harassment is real. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And to confirm BQ's response to 10b, yes indeed, BQ did contact me (transparently) on my talk page and I chose to respond privately with my comments. BQ read those comments, reconsidered his statements and chose to revise them. You can read that in either of two ways: either he's a snivelling revisionist who will do anything to pass an RFA (and I'd note instead that BQ leans a little more to being a "stand-up guy", which is actually pretty obvious); or you can decide that BQ actually listens to and reflects on feedback and tries to change the way he acts in response. Your choice.

Support

1. It's finally transcluded. Great! Clueful user, does good work. Support. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Of course, great work. -download ׀ sign! 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Sure. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 01:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 01:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Unless someone can find something irresponsible, disruptive, or uncivil that this user did since his last RfA, I see no reason not to trust this user with the tools. He has also done good article work. Timmeh! 01:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Although I started as a neutral the last time around, the candidate has some really impressive things since like a spot on argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of Eve Online (2nd nomination). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. I got to know BQZip a bit during one of the Michael Q Schmidt AfD discussions--where things got hot and tempers flared, and Zip kept a much cooler head than I did, I'm embarrassed to admit. And by the way, MQS, nice to see you co-nominating this editor--plus, I'm happy to see I'm proven wrong and your notability is firmly established ;) In my experience with this editor, which has been somewhat limited, I admit, I found them to be level-headed and agreeable, and a firm believer in WP guidelines--and we firmly disagreed in that discussion. Good luck, Zip. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support – very knowledgeable user and an excellent content editor. He knows the rules well and is more than able to apply them while using the admin tools. MuZemike 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - He's been around, he knows what he's doing, he's not going to break the Wiki. Why not? — neuro^(talk) 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support I am happy to support this editor's candidacy. Good luck! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support – Great user, trustworthy. American Eagle (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I've reviewed your past contributions and feel like you know what you're doing. I would feel comfortable having you as an admin. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 04:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
13. co-Nom support. We know what we're getting with this one. I'm more inclined to trust a user which has shown some bad sides and learned from mistakes than a candidate that has never built articles or been in serious disputes. I have complete faith in this user. henrik•talk 05:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support, worked with this editor before, has a good grasp of the policies and a good head on his shoulders. Will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Icewedge (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support, I have been a major contributor of military topic articles including compiling the List of C-130 Hercules crashes and writing the initial version of the 56th Fighter Group, and over the past few years I have known BQZip to be a dedicated and reasonable voice in several tempestuous issues on the Wiki. I deeply respect his dedicated efforts to the improvement of multiple Wikipedia articles, and recognize his dispassionate voice in helping resolve several edit wars over the duration of his Wiki involvement. I would also add, apropos to nothing, that he is a member of our armed forces, and as such, has a professional approach to articles of military history that only a person who has served in the service of his country's defense can properly appreciate. It is one thing to be an armchair quarterback when discussing military topics, but quite another when you are committed to laying down your life for the good of the nation. I hold him in the highest esteem, and can only lend my highest recommendation that he be confirmed by the Wiki community for this position. Mark Sublette (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support, appears to know what he is doing. Agathoclea (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support, I can't see any good reason to oppose. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
19. Support, although the opposes are absolutely right about the importance of understanding fair use policy if you're going to be involved in image deletion. I am supporting in spite of those concerns because the general quality of the user's work still leads me to trust him with the tools. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Tempered Support per IFD work and Henrik's nom statement assurance that the issues that caused me to strike my support in the last RFA are resolved. I like that the user sought input from former opposers. This shows a willingness to grow and learn. I urge him to tread softly, and to remember, "When in doubt, don't. Better to seek the wisdom of colleagues than to learn from one's own mistakes." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    The taunting thing. It's OK to think that, to even mention it on IRC. One should not put it on a talk page where it might inflame a situation. Tread more softly, please. Dlohcierekim 13:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

22. Weak support After rereading his questions and personal belifs (which I congrat him on, i wish other canidates would do that), i decided to move my position to a state of weak support. Although his past RFA's and their opposition reasons still raise a concern, I belive that the maturity and the potential of this user has increased dramatically scince the last RFA, to the point that I belive he would be a usefull asset if he wants to. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support clearly dedicated and should be net positive. Any issues can be raised in appropriate venues (AN/I or arbcom) which act as safety valves. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support More info later. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have to go to a dinner, but part of my support stems from this thought: "Holy shit, the primary person listed in the response to Q3 is nominating him for RfA." More later. Also, I urge NVO to rethink his support. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

25. A review of contributions reveals nothing to concern me and some very intelligent contributions; and BQZip01 clearly has Wikipedia's best interests at heart even if I don't always agree with his opinions. I'm sufficiently confident that he'd use admin tools sensibly - some of the opposes do have valid points, but none which worry me to the extent that I'm unwilling to support. Good luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support on the basis of his willingness to take a stand on disputed positions. I agree with him 100% about taking into account of the wishes of subjects of articles, and I point out that there is no policy saying otherwise: whether to do so is optional, there being no consensus. I agree with him that fair-use content should be used as extensively as the Foundation will let us. I nonetheless respect the consensus of the present NFCC rules, and enforce them, and I'm sure he would also. I don't think of him as particularly radical about article inclusion. He's learned to do things right. Mostofthe opposes are about earlier times when he didn;t , not current matters. DGG (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support as I can see no valid reason for opposing. BQZip01 has shown considerable improvement since the previous noms, and I don't see any indication that the tools would be misused. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - he's had problems in the past, but I'm convinced BQZip01 has learned from previous mistakes and now has the good sense and temperament to be an administrator. I remember regretting my oppose on his last RFA after seeing his editing elsewhere; I'm happy to have the chance to support this time. Robofish (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    One piece of advice for him, however - one of the most valuable attributes of a good admin is a thick skin. That means not getting offended when other users accuse you of things, like canvassing ([6]) - as an admin, you'll face a lot worse criticism than that. Having said that, I'm glad to see that in the case I just linked, you withdrew your complaint when WQA dismissed it rather than trying to escalate things further. Robofish (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

29. Support - "I am an inclusionist", read no further. Give him the light saber. NVO (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - I trust him with the tools. I believe he will make a fine administrator. Landon1980 (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support dedicated editor, I think he will do a fine job. Ikip (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support seems to care about wikipedia and honest about, well, everything. I think he'll make a fine no-nonsense admin. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support  Believe this user has evolved and matured, without losing the fire. Contributions are excellent and numerous. --StaniStani  00:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support fully as co-nominator. Sheesh. How could I forget to chime in here. Just as BQ has "watched" over me in my formative times on Wiki, I have myself been watching him in order to learn. To those opposing because of concerns from the distant past, I might suggest looking to the present and the future. BQ shows a decent understanding of the ins and outs of wikidom, a willingness to listen and learn, an even-handedness in discussions, and is a terrirfic conselor to new users. He has had his baptism of fire and his steel is well tempered. Too many adminitrators?? Nope. Not nearly enough to handle the many mops. We need BQ. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Very well stated...statement. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. Okay, I think I can make the call now. The two things that concern me most at this point are the "taunting" from Oppose #2 and the "slander" incident in Oppose #8, and those two things aren't enough to withhold the mop for me. (This seems to be one of those rare cases where long-term semi-protection of the talk page, without a separate talk page for IPs, has been justified.) Also, I've eased up just a little recently in what I'm looking for at RFA (as long as someone looks like they're here to get some work done, and BQZip is a solid worker), in part because we really need the admins to match our growth. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I'm agreed with the opposition that there really should have been a clear discussion of when and how IPs were going to be able to communicate when he's an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Copied from my talk page:

    Thanks for helping usher the process. I noticed that you stated "I'm agreed with the opposition that there really should have been a clear discussion of when and how IPs were going to be able to communicate when he's an admin.". If you'll be so kind as to pose a related question, I'll be happy to answer it and hopefully clear up any confusion. Alternatively, I can always add an addendum to my personal beliefs.

    Short version is that I have no problem with criticism whatsoever. However, my talk page and user pages were protected due to death threats and accusations of murder. These edits were not meant as simple harassment, but as an attempt to publicly malign/discredit/defame me. Proof? Despite my e-mail having been available since I became aware of this feature of Wikipedia, I have not received a single hate-mail.

    So on a related matter, I have put a disclaimer at the top of my page stating that new users should contact me via e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    As I mentioned, I think that all the information that people want to know should be on the RFA page, and this is something some people want to know, so I'll copy this over there and continue the conversation there if you like. Best of luck, and I think you'll make a good admin. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the kind words Dank. Since it seems there are some who are opposing based significantly (if not solely) upon this issue, it's obviously of some considerable concern. I'll be happy to take feedback on this one and, accordingly, I've created an IP/new user-only page. I have no problem in creating one and trying it out. I'll never know until I try. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

38. Support We need admins who appreciate the trials content creators go through sometimes. Nick mallory (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Not persuaded by the opposes, my impression is that he will make a fine admin. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Those who are passionate about some of the topics they edit but nevertheless give proper weighting to policy and consensus can make fine mediators, as this editor has already demonstrated. Looks like BQzip01 would contribute solidly as an administrator in a number of areas. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support -- Gggh (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support This guy has been nit-picked to death, and I'm unconvinced. Get in there mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. BQZip01 has been one of the people who has been there with me thick and thin throughout my Wikipedia editing experience. It would be a huge conflict of interest for me vote any opinion on his adminship. But he has been there for me when have needed him, and has been a huge asset to all the stuff we have worked on together. Thus, I want to voice my support for him. Oldag07 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I have decided to change my position from comment to support. So long as you all know that I have biases, than I should have the right to voice vote in this process.Oldag07 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed, nicely done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

44. Assume the presence of a belly-button. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support We need more balls-out admins. Amerique^dialectics 23:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Good answers to the questions. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Kaaveh (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support, particularly after reading his reply to Q B (2). So he's got attitude. So have a lot of admins. I don't think he will self destruct, but if he does, fire him. It happens every day in the real world. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. I'm impressed with the work this user has done. Something irks me about this user however, but I'm willing to write that down to a lack of familiarity and discourse with the user rather than a bad temperament. Good Luck :) ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. He would do a fine job.  Ahodges7   ^talk 15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. The candidate demonstrates in his answers a willingness to be supportive of WikiPedia policies (4A is a good "learning from my mistakes"). The former RfAs also indicate a persistance that cannot come from frustration, so I have no reason to think adminship would be mishandled. Zab (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Nothing to add that hasn't been said above. A solid contributor who knows his stuff. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - My principal interaction with this user has been the sports logo discussion, which was generally a trainwreck. However, among all of the administrators and users that were involved and all the bickering, Zip was the voice in the middle and constantly proposing compromises. The demeanor shown in that discussion by this user tells me all I need to know about this user's fitness to be an admin. Oren0 (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong Support as Co-nom sorry for the long delay in getting here, I've been digging myself out from under a rather large pile of paperwork for a variety of different classes. At any rate, like I said above in my co-nom, I whole heartedly believe BQZip will make an excelent admin. I therefore offer my support and my best wishes to him during this rfa. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - BQZip01's article work is A++. I analyzed his edits, and the project will benefit if he becomes an admin. AdjustShift (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support The previous ongoing history with CC left a bad taste in my mouth when I learned of it, but many people here have had downright nasty spats with people and turned out to be fine admins. I like his answers to my questions. rootology (C)(T) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Going oppose, see below. rootology (C)(T) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

56. Support Good understanding of policy, no problems with civility jumped out at me, and good judgement. I appreciate your efforts to be thourough and methodical (which some people seem to think this is a disadvantage??). I think some people are pushing a grudge regarding some of your past, but you've effectively moved on and provided a reasonable response to any concerns I have had. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Excellent contributor, knowledgeable of policies, balanced in view, and showed a slavish dedication to build consensus in fair-use RFC (which failed only because there really is no middle-ground acceptable to both sides). Oppose arguments don't hold much weight in my opinion. Strikehold (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support Has a very balanced view and is always open to discussion. He has contributed quite a bit, and while he has a number of failed RFAs, that doesn't mean that he hasn't improved as an editor. I also support his inclusion POV regarding articles as I have found an increasing number of well sourced articles up for AFD. Smallman12q (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Pakatuan wo Pakalawiran. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Excellent candidate who possesses the unique ability to learn from mistakes. Great work! FlyingToaster 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support After all the thoughtful consideration that BQZip01 has put into this RfA, he will be better prepared for the responsibility of the mop than most new admins. --Orlady (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Reading through the discourse above, and reviewing this user's history, I am definitely impressed, especially with a view of the users he has taken under his wing and supported. He would be an asset to Wikipedia.Ks64q2 (talk)
63. Support I believe he would do well and should be trusted. maclean 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support on balance, I say "yes". BQZip has been through many hoops and has apparently learned from his mistakes; admin areas in which he is inexperienced can be developed or left to those more interested. I see nothing to convince me that, if given the mop, he would misuse it. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support What i like in the response to 16 is the immediate inclination and encouragement to help improve the article. And a good thought process through the situation Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support —Travis^talk 02:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support someone who has the heart of a true wikipedian. Ilovetimanderic (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Clearly learned from past mistakes. Justin talk 14:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Understands there are huge differences between trademark law and copyright law and doesn't confuse the two. A very important issue and it would nice to have more admins who understood this. jbolden1517^Talk 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support He has helped me be a better Wikipedia contributor by giving me useful advice and criticism. He has a balanced insight and is open to constructive discussion. Shatner1 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Interesting. You've never written anything on his talk page, nor he on yours. You've never edited a talk page of an article where he has commented, or vice versa. What little contact between you appears on two AfDs (1 and 2), where neither of you addressed each other. Could you please explain to us where he gave you useful advice and criticism? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    I meant he has helped me by his actions. I did not mean for it to sound like he has personally counselled me. I appreciate his example. Shatner1 (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yet, you haven't worked together. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

71. Support per Rodhullandemu. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
72. (Added/moved by BQZip01 IAW wishes stated below in the oppose section) Move to Support. CADEN ^{is cool} 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Weak Support per neutral below. Moving from there on a gut feeling. Wizardman 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Non-free images can be a real problem, and we need more admins focused in on this. Users answers to questions indicates he gets it and has the requisite maturity. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support - He is an asset to Wikipedia, no reason for me to oppose. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No need for another tenured admin with potential civility temperament and judgement issues. Viridae^Talk 02:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Civility issues? Mind showing me a diff? Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   It should have been temperament not civility. Viridae^Talk 22:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Review of recent edits finds past RfAs concerns are still unresolved. Hard working and very strong willed editor that makes significant improvements to the encyclopedia when focused on content. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Per your request to alleviate my concerns: (Item 1) Q 3a and 3b appeared on the initial version of the page, which I haven't seen before. I deducted that this must have come form here, which seems fair. What surprised me though with respect to the concerns of your RfA 1 was all of the communications linked to it. (Item 2) Sampling diffs, I found that taunting a user after a block summed up the concerns of your RfA 3. --Preceding unsigned comment 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   BQZip has solicited feedback from those who opposed his earlier RFAs, and asked them how he could improve and what he could do to alleviate their concerns in earlier rounds. To me, this shows humility, and a willingness to learn from those who disagree with you. henrik•talk 05:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   #Don't know about other issues, but as soon as he equated image policy on Wikipedia with fair use, that knocked him out of my book. WP:NFCC is deliberately stricter than fair use. The mistake suggests a lack of understanding about our policies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Are you referring to "Copyrighted materials need to be appropriately used in accordance with Fair Use and WP policies/guidelines or removed", and if so, what's wrong with that sentence? - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 12:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, yes, I'm lost here too. Indeed, simply saying they need to be used in accordance with fair use alone would be technically wrong (though I would personally say auto-opposing over that was harsh); but clearly saying that fair use, the NFCC and any other relevant guidelines must all come into play seems perfectly accurate to me. Would you mind clarifying if that sentence is what you're opposing over, or if there's some other incident I'm unaware of? ~ mazca ^t|c 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   The candidate added the wikilinks after my oppose, and you can see a comment he made on my talk page. I'm willing to let it slide that it was just a mistake, but I'm keeping my oppose for now until I review the user further. Fair use doesn't really matter much in terms of images, at least, because NFCC applies a much more stringent standard to begin with. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ah, fair enough. Thanks for elaborating. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm assuming good faith that the previous answer was simply an oversight by the user and moving to neutral (see my comments there, leaving all this up here for clarity due to comments in the oppose section). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation. I can understand your rationale better now. You might want to make it less polemic though. AvN 07:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   DougsTech, as you know, I support people's "right" to oppose, but as someone who has adamantly defended your "right" to these opposes in many discussions, could you please reconsider on this one? Last time I didn't start out supporting BQZip01, but here is a case where the candidate has shown clear and real improvement from the previous RfA and I truly believe should be given a shot. I respect and believe you are entitled to oppose and I understand your feelings as to why you oppose as you do, but I do nevertheless entreat you to reconsider at least these one time as it's an instance where the candidate has grown as an editor and it's just the kind of things where we should encourage. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   As a solid neutral on this, can I just ask that please everyone let DougsTech make their own judgement without comment by others, and let this RFA wend its own way? The closing 'crat is well able to balance the arguments. Franamax (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed. My only comment is that it's not worth commenting on- the bureaucrats know what they're doing, and they know how to treat such a vote. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose, it's a few months since I last actively encountered this user, but what I saw at the time still doesn't allow me any confidence in the soundness of his judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   FutPerf, do you have specifics? Or are you offering a general impression (which is fine too). Franamax (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose, weakly per David Fuchs on image use policy but more strongly on the rapid user talk page response which I find a bit intimidating. It may well be "damned if you clarify, damned if you don't", but for me I'd rather such clarifications remain confined to the RfA page. Lastly, per [7], he does not seem to understand (at least back in early January) that Arbcom does not arbitrate policy disputes which also makes me reluctant to support. Kimchi.sg (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Could you please clarify why you believe ArbCom doesn't arbitrate policy disputes? I can't find anything that states that. It certainly states that they don't deal with "content" disputes... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   This depends on what you mean by "policy dispute" as they routinely handle disputes over whether or not a policy has been violated (read "conduct dispute"), and what should be done about it, but avoid disputes over what the policy should say (as that would in fact be a dispute over the content of a policy page). — CharlotteWebb 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Exactly my thoughts, Charlotte, but I'd like to make sure I understand Kimchi's POV on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose per David Fuchs. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Also, it's impossible for new or unregistered users to contact him as his talk page is indefinitely semiprotected without a subpage for non-autoconfirmed users to post on. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   your own talk p. is pretty intimidating also, even I hesitate to get through the fences you've set up there. DGG (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   While we're on the point, yours is inaccessible to users on slow connections, cellphones, and old/text browsers due to your refusal to archive it. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oh come on guys, is it really necessary to start criticizing each others talk pages? Indef semi-protection is indeed a valid concern, so it's not something to bring up, DGG. Xclamation point 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to neutral due to making some efforts to address the issues. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose per answer to Q#3: AIV is not for reporting content disputes/disagreements. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose For reasons (1)BQZ's position on fair use on Wikipedia is that if it's legal, it's ok. BQZ does not understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia. See 06:04 20 December 2008 comment from him here. The crux of that debate was weather it was permissible to allow hundreds of uses of a single fair use image or not. He staunchly supported such use. I do not wish to start this debate again in this venue. I do wish to state I found his opinion to be completely unacceptable given our mission. This position of his is further highlighted by his response to a voter on this RfA. See [8]. In particular, he fails to understand that our polices are more restrictive than fair use. We don't need to consider fair use law. It's irrelevant if we follow policy, since if the policy is followed it would be legal under fair use anyway. (2) BQZ believes polls = consensus. See "a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus" and various comments by him here regarding polling. Unacceptable. A 63-1 decision in favor of keeping something can still violate consensus to delete, and a poll will NEVER get past that. This is very disturbing with regards to potential work in deletion closures. BQZ fails to understand Wikipedia:POLLS#Polling_discourages_consensus. (3) BQZ unduly pressured me to participate in his polls, insisting that silence = consensus when I refused to participate in his polls. (4) Tossing "slander" out in accusations and going to WP:WQA See here. Bwilkins' 12:22, 9 January 2009 comment regarding BQZ's behavior was spot on. This candidate lacks the maturity and comportment required of an administrator. I further agree with other's comments above that he equates fair use law with Wikipedia policy (if it's legal, it's ok). Lastly, his lack of understanding of consensus building is quite troubling, given his Q1 answer that he intends to work in XfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   I hate to attack an oppose, but I don't believe that this is a faithful representation of what happened in that RFCC discussion. When you say that Zip "does not understand the free content mission of the encyclopedia," what you're really saying is that he doesn't agree with your overly strict (compared to the rest of the community, as has been demonstrated time and again) interpretation of Wikipedia's fair use policies. You paint Zip's position as being extreme, leaving out the fact that several administrators (including myself) in that discussion advocated for far more use of those logos than he did. Zip was a centrist voice proposing compromises in that discusion. Oren0 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   I would disagree with that. While he did propose and eventually accept compromises, it was rather obvious that he was strongly in favor of using, or even requiring, team logos in articles about individual games. In the 2nd poll he started, all 3 options that he provided involved using the team logos. I would hardly call opposing that an overly strict interpretation. I found that many of his arguments basically came down to wikilawyering; particularly arguments that since the MoS strongly recommends all articles start with an image, that that justifies using a non-free logo, and repeated arguments over the fact that WP:NFCC didn't explicitly define terms like "minimal" despite people telling him repeatedly that minimal usage was mainly a side issue. At times it felt like I was arguing at a wall. Mr.Z-man 05:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   There is significant debate on the usage of logos on articles and what "minimal use" means (Is it a minimum number of images hosted on Wikipedia? A minimum number of images per article? A minimum number of such images on a group of articles? etc). My opinion regarding fair use images are that if it's legal, it's ok to legally use them, but that doesn't mean they should be on here because we, as a community, have decided to use a stricter standard of WP:NFCC, which is intentionally more restrictive than Fair Use laws here in the U.S.; the distinction being that we do not permit the full gambit of Fair Use content.

   Polls≠Consensus, but they can help us to see where we are. They do not replace discussion, but augment it...a perfect example is WP:RfA. I fail to see how "a 63-1 decision in favor of keeping something can still violate consensus to delete" unless some serious shenanigans are involved.

   People participate in discussions of their own free will. We cannot force them to opine on every single subject. By the same token, if the vast majority of users participating in a discussion (properly exposed to the community), "...silence can imply consent...". We can only base conclusions of discussions based on the inputs of people who decide to contribute to a discussion, not those who choose not to participate. If 10,000 people say "We should do XYZ," a lone dissenter should not be able to claim, "Well, the other 80,000 people who came on Wikipedia today didn't say anything, so there is no consensus." There is no pressure to participate in any discussion in which I am or am not involved in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, there is not significant debate about minimal use of logos, unless you count that RFC. That was just another faulty argument you used, but never did provide any evidence of these other widespread problems. RFA is hardly the best example for a poll augmenting a discussion. RFA is the closest thing we have to a vote that we don't actually call a vote; I believe its the only !vote that we admit the results are usually based on percentages. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I would call 100+ people weighing in on an RfC that ran well past 1MB in text pretty significant. The straw poll was not binding, but served to clarify there was not a consensus to act in any particular way. Arbcom elections and RfB are other examples of voting. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   So because you and a few other people kept the debate alive for several months is justification for debating it for several months? I meant evidence of other people having the same issue in other areas of Wikipedia. The fact is that the vast majority of people have no issue with using an interpretation of NFCC that's consistent with the vast majority of articles. Repeated arguments that because you had a problem with it that tons of other people had a problem with it, with no evidence to back it up, were unconvincing then, and they were unconvincing now. I'm not sure which straw poll you were talking about (I think you started 4 or 5), but some of them clearly showed that your positions (at least your initial positions) were not supported by the community. Arbcom elections are blatantly a vote and RFB is RFA with different percentages; I'm not sure what the purpose of mentioning them is... Mr.Z-man 06:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose I opposed BQZip01’s second request for adminship for many reasons, but chiefly over his overly argumentative and inflexible attitude. I will not rehash here the arguments made by myself and others: they are easy enough to find by following the above link. In any case, his behavior at that time made a strong enough negative impression that when I saw him running again, I thought I ought to weigh in. After reviewing BQZip01’s contributions over the past several months, I admit that he seems to have reigned in his aggression considerably. That said, I still have concerns: his initial draft of an answer to question 3 [9] regarding the events with User:Cumulus Clouds, written just over a month ago, to me shows the same inability to walk away from arguments. The much-edited final answer still shows him rehashing the same arguments and still laying the bulk of the blame on an editor who is dead and cannot reply. As I recall, neither party in that dispute acted impeccably, but BQZip01’s steadfast refusal to admit a share of the blame – “probably should have reacted better” doesn’t quite cut it – is disturbing. In sum: I am not confident that this user has genuinely resolved the issues of temperament and problems working with others that concerned me in the first place. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Kafka, what you are saying here would seem to justify a neutral, not an oppose. DGG (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, I feel strongly that this user is not ready to be an admin. There has been some improvement, but not enough to allay my concerns. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   I hate to be argumentative on this one Kafka Liz, but the "initial draft" answer you and others continue to point out which showed nothing had changed...was exactly that: my verbatim answer from the last RfA!!! Of course nothing changed; it was the exact same. I copied the last one and used it as a template to work from pulling out things that weren't phrased well or didn't convey exactly what I meant or changed in my feelings/actions/mind's eye, etc. This is why it was a draft and not the final product. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hi, BQZip01. I'm afraid I can't find the text from the dif I cited above anywhere in your previous RfAs. It appears to have been written on 6 April 2009. I understand that it was a draft, but I have similar concerns regarding the answer in its final edit. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose. Per his positions during the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. I believe that Wikipedia must tread carefully with respect to trademarked images, even though current policy is poorly written (as it focuses strongly around copyright issues only). I do not think any administrator should look for opportunities to exploit holes or weaknesses in policy, but should be conservative, in the interests of protecting this encyclopedia. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   For the sake of clarification, I truly believe I've done nothing "to exploit holes or weaknesses in policy" but correctly interpreted policy and guidelines that already exist. To summarize, their is a dispute as to how to handle logos. Of these, there are three basic types: Copyrighted logos, trademark logos eligible for copyright, and trademarks not eligible for copyright. Fair use cleanly applies to the copyrighted logos and WP:NFCC also applies (example). Wikipedia treats logos eligible for copyright, but are trademarked, as copyrighted images under WP:NFCC and I support such an interpretation as it can be extremely difficult to differentiate whether a copyright applies; it's better to err on the side of caution in such a case (example). Lastly, there are those logos which are not eligible for copyright and consist entirely of letters and simple geometric shapes, and thus, are public domain images (example. Wikipedia however makes an appropriate disclaimer and cautions people to use such images appropriately (for example, just because something is public domain, it doesn't mean it should/can be used to imply endorsement or to profit from or can be used in every context imaginable). — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose: Temperament problems as well as five previous failed RFA. South Bay (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Three shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. Five is right out. –xeno ^talk 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    EEEwwww! I count 4 total with this one. But let us not go to Camelot, it's too silly there. Dlohcierekim 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    BQZip01 is the admin we need. He will not back down [10] . He is very experienced at all forms of discussion: RFC, ArbCom, you name it! He even says he's talked to the lawyers at the foundation on the above use issues. He will fight to achieve a compromise that meets his goals. Sure hes been nice leading up to this RFA, but when it counts, he will fight the good fight. MTurkeyGroupie (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Anything to declare? Skomorokh 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I have no idea who this person is, but it isn't me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Weak oppose Primarily on the issue of protection of articles. I support flagged revisions, and that is quite antithetical to his position. I am an 85% "inclusionist" (even saving some articles) so this is not a major issue in itself. Collect (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose, per the concerns outlined above by Hammersoft. Nakon 06:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Very Very Strong Oppose. Per reply to question 3a and per User:Kafka above. Candidate has not learned a single thing. The fact that he clearly refuses to take blame for his part in that dispute and the fact that he continues to blame a deceased editor who can no longer defend himself, is not only disturbing but it also reveals why he can't be trusted with the mop. BQZip01 is not what an admin should be. That's my honest opinion. Take it or leave it boys and girls. Caden ^{is cool} 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Move to Support. CADEN ^{is cool} 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    He is in a catch-22 in what he is doing politically the only thing he can do. How much should someone take the blame and apologize? If he tells you he feels terrible 10-15 times in a row, he looks like he is thin skinned, and indecisive, and a poor leader: something not needed in an admin either. Oldag07 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    BQZIP01 has resolved this issue for the future. A good amount of flap was started over what some called an attack pages with CC and 3E in the past. BQ has developed THIS for use when preparing his next RFC/ArbCom/etc case. Hopefully the drama, can be kept to a minimum.73 86 Hike (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Note This is the second comment from someone who has a single edit within their entire history. The reason I created such a template was not for my personal use, but for anyone to use should they feel such a page is necessary to make their intentions clear (One specific example where such a template could be used). — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry but I don't buy it not even for one second. Dig through his history and you will see that he put User:Cumulus Clouds through unnecessary grief to the point that it looked like stalking. Just my humble opinion. I can't trust BQZIP01 and do not feel he is fit to be an admin. Caden ^{is cool} 16:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

13. Actions and attitudes held by this user make me unable to trust him with any position of power. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well said Ottava. I agree. Caden ^{is cool} 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Switched from neutral, per their response to my neutral. Now opposing as not becoming an administrator will assist the user avoid the harassment that often falls upon administrators, and also because having one's talk page indefinitely semi-protected is entirely inappropriate for administrators. –xeno ^talk 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Switching back to neutral, but I'm still concerned this user may tend to let himself be victimized; I'd suggest dialing back the language regarding the semi-protection per DENY.

    See Support #37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Still not enough, I'm afraid. Admins need to have thick skin. Do you know this person who is threatening you? Do they know you? Your real name? Where you live? What you look like? If the answer to all these questions in "no", then I would urge you to grow thicker skin, unprotect your talk page, and embrace RBI. –xeno ^talk 03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    The answer to some of these questions is yes. I do not know the name of the individual who is doing this. That said, it is your prerogative to choose as you so feel. Have a pleasant day. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) This was in response to Xeno's oppose, now moved.

    I shouldn't have been so terse; I think it's highly desirable for IPs to be able to post directly on the admin's talk page, but in cases of persistent harassment that blocking has failed to stop, a separate talk page for IPs might be suitable until the harrassment cools down. I'm not happy that this candidate has no proposal to deal with IPs other than by email, but in this case, that doesn't outweigh for me what we'd lose by not promoting this diligent worker. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose not suitable temperment for admin. We have many strong-willed and mouthy admins - some of the best of them in fact fit that category IMHO - there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but one has to have a sense of the limit and not stray (too far) beyond it. But one has to be open to criticism and one of the most important places for that to occur is one's talk page - to protect it, forecloses conversation, criticism, opportunity to be contacted by editors (as is highly recommended in situations such as WP:DRV) for redress, etc. The more you are willing to work close to the line, the more you need to be able to receive the criticism (rightly or wrongly your due) that comes with that. Since you are unwilling, I think we should not enable you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    See Support #37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

15. Oppose Per several of the opposes above, escpically per Xeno. America69 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    See Support #37. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose per each of the answers to my questions, and I have concerns from other opposers as well. لennavecia 20:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose I don't think this user has the temperament to be an admin. Some of the behavior in this request alone make me doubt his suitability. AniMate^talk 03:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Several reasons: 1) Those outlined by Hammersoft with regard to fair use policies and the sports logos RFC. 2) One thing I cannot stand is the "inclusionist vs. deletionist" battle. Any editor who is truly a complete inclusionist or a complete deletionist would likely be banned as a troll for pushing views so totally out of line with community norms. The fact that the user feels the need to self-identify as an inclusionist in his opening statement is rather disconcerting. Combined with what I recall from the logos RFC, I would not trust him at all to fairly close FFDs or other XFDs. 3) The answer to question 8a, specifically "the [BLP] problem is no more significant than other issues." Mr.Z-man 04:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose for now. I could ignore the past blemishes and support BQZip01, except there is something that comes through as… slightly immature in actions perhaps? Maybe it is just a bit of defensiveness due to the past attacks he's received. Whatever it is, it's not something I expect or want to feel coming from an admin. This is something that I think can only be overcome with some more time, another 6 months perhaps? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Last thing we need is another self-labelled inclusionist/deletionist admin. (On the deletionist/inclusionist axis, I'd accept this or this but not an outright deletionist or inclusionist stance.)

    In an admin, I'm looking for a more balanced and subtle viewpoint than "deletionist" or "inclusionist".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Please note that I said "that means I generally lean towards keeping things within Wikipedia rather than delete," not that I believe everything should be included. The rest of my statement describes my feelings more. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's still a stance other than the "Servant of the consensus" that I'm looking for.

    Advance to strong oppose for excessive badgering of opposers.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose. Looking back at the user's interactions with other editors, and based on the comments above and the prior RFAs, I don't think this user has the temperament needed to be an effective administrator. Deli nk (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose on concerns about temperament, augmented by personal beliefs 2 and 3 in the Optional Statement, which seems designed to justify actions that I wouldn't approve of. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose. I have been aware of BQZip01 for some time and followed his last two RfAs as a casual observer. I had had no first-hand experience of his much-discussed judgement issues until a few months after his third RfA, when he commented at an RfC ostensibly devoted to one editor's handling of image policy. BQZip01 signed off on an unfocused laundry list of complaints motivated not by policy but a personal grudge stemming from a nationalist POV push.[11] The fact that he had not taken the time to get to acquaint himself with the underlying issue but seeming followed a policy of my enemy's enemy troubled me. Nationalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia, and such issues need to be handled with more thought and better judgement. This issue, taken together with BQZip01's heavy-handedness and enthusiasm for argument, convinces me that he ought to spend his time creating and improving articles rather than mediating others. Aramgar (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
24. While I commend BQZip01 for attempts to create a policy on sports team logos {see here}, I have to say Oppose per Jennavecia. Willking1979 (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Not much I can add to the other opposes, I feel the temperament isn't quite there. What concerns me is self labelling as an inclusionist early in his personal beliefs and stating intends to work on XfD's. Yes, the XfD part is qualified, but still leaves me feeling uneasy. Minkythecat (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose Concerns about candidates seeming inability to observe his actions from the perspective of another, and why there might be objections to his chosen courses. Achromatic (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose. A few issues with demeanor, not really professional acting and perhaps too argumentative to be an administrator. These things are important because (and I find myself saying this a lot to the candidates I rarely oppose) as an administrator, you will be representing all of Wikipedia and how you act will reflect upon the site as a whole. Malinaccier (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose --Michael (Talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose as a >3rd RfA. If by thrice you don't succeed.... Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose per Optional Statement #4 (more admins who would have problems with semiprotection of BLPs is, in my opinion, a bad thing) and per the problem commented on by Dank at 18:40, 7 May 2009 (tweaking the answers to a test because they're "polling" badly is not a good idea). Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    For clarity, I never said I had a problem with semi-protection, only that it should be applied as little as possible and not every time there is a problem. This is a far cry from having any problem with protecting BLPs. If there is a problem, it should be dealt with appropriately. As for the other answer that I modified, the only thing I did was add links so my answer was more clear. The visible text and context of the answer never changed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I support permanent semiprotection of all BLPs, so unless you will give your support for that without hesitation I will regretfully have to oppose your candidacy. A statement that you want semiprotection used as little as possible looks to me like a statement that you don't support permanent semiprotection of BLPs. My stand on this is that semiprotection is a powerful anti-vandal tool, which should be used frequently, both for BLPs and for other hot-spot articles. If you don't agree, that's certainly your right, but I disagree with that stance enough to oppose your candidacy. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    ...and that is your right. If every BLP were semi-protected, it certainly would cut down on vandalism and potentially problematic edits. That option comes with a cost, though, as it prevents new users from editing such articles even if there aren't any problems. Current policy doesn't explicitly support that point of view and, while I don't think it is the best option, should consensus change, I would support it as it would be a policy. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the feedback! — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Obviously, you are free to support or oppose candidates on whatever grounds you feel appropriate. However, I don't think it is reasonable to have a litmus test for admins that they support a proposed policy that has not gained consensus. Using RfA as a venue for implementing non-agreed policies seems inappropriate to me. Bongomatic 03:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

31. Oppose per temperament and other issues outlined above. Plus, too many previous RfAs for my liking, and I hate oppose badgering. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose Changed from support. I wanted to support, but I'm not comfortable with that now, at this time. I feel that BQZip...

    1) Is too hung up on defense of their actions. Not every question demands a detailed, policy-driven response to justify what was done.

    2) Per this and the answer to question #12 above. So this IP asks questions that in the dirty tradition of RFA are relatively mild, and BQZip has deemed that this is a previously harassing IP, going so far as to -- why? -- repeatedly point out where the IP "lives" physically. That strikes me as harassing in and of itself. I'm not happy with that. If there is a socking issue, take it to RFCU or drag over a Checkuser. Provide evidence. The burden of evidence is not lessened here. If it was a sock (or IP sock) of banned user, we could remove the questions. The mysterious user in question is not named.

    3) BQZip seems like a nice enough guy, but far too combatative. Wikipedia is never, ever, about winning.

    4) The more I learn of the massive battles and RFCs with Cumulous Clouds, and the pointless and relentless warfare there, the less happy I am to support. This isn't specific to BQZip; I have low tolerance for any professional gamers on here.

    Sorry. rootology (C)(T) 17:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

33. Oppose per the pathetic BQ edit warring --Stephen 21:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Your call, but that was almost a year and a half ago. My attempts were to revert someone trying to push an agenda, namely to marginalize anything related to me/articles to which I contributed/and strictly to agitate me. By definition, it was vandalism and the page was semi-protected upon my request because of a sockpuppeteer using multiple accounts and an IP randomizer to avoid a violation of WP:3RR. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

34. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC) with regret.
35. Oppose Rootology sums it up for me. This is ironic, since I opposed Rootology's RfA for essentially the same reasons. I would add that I have no issues as such with the user's editing style; I think the more the merrier with smart people who err on the side of not backing off where the truth is concerned. But that's not the temperament we want where admins are concerned. Ray^Talk 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Per Ottava Rima. I'm unable to trust the candidate at this time. — Σxplicit 04:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose, sorry. I find BQZip01 too argumentative, too defensive, and I see his sig way too often in this Oppose section. Yintaɳ  00:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Sorry, but this, this, and this are canvassing. --B (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

    Canvassing, which I define as anything remotely pushing a 'vote in favor of me' agenda, is very much absent from this example; it appears the goal here is to make a good faith effort to inform those who commented that they are running out of time to officially weigh in the matter. To be fair, this is a frquent occurance in article writing as well, users have to be reminded to return to thier comments in consensus based activity and update them as time goes by so that addressed issues can be struck and older or newer issues can be rasied. To me, this seems more like an effort to encourage those who already commented but were on the fence to offer any last thoughts on the rfa before its closure. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I greatly appreciated his attitude, willingness and eagerness to compromise here. That said, the past RfAs give me enough pause that I'm not really to support yet. seresin ( ¡? )  01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
2. The candidate's answer to question four does not show a great deal of self-awareness or insight. I'm not sure they understand the significant opposition to their previous RfAs, or how to ameliorate concerns of inappropriate conduct or poor-decision making. I view these sorts of skills as of crucial importance in an administrator. I have not researched the candidate, so I will not pass judgement for now. Skomorokh 01:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   I am leaning more to the support side, but his past RFA opposition reasons concern me. His maturity level and usefullness to wikipedia has improved however, so I my change this vote to support later. I have not completley decided yet. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to Weak support ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. For several reasons, not least of which that I've begun commenting on various !votes, I'll declare myself avowedly neutral! I may expand at length, or maybe not. Neutral. Franamax (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm a little dismayed to see Kafka Liz and Caden basing an oppose largely on the CC conflict, an editor who is no longer present on this site. Following a related conflict, CC went out of his way to compliment another editor (MQS - the nominator) on his subsequent good contributions. There is simply no way to tell if CC wouldn't offer the same endorsement to BQ here and now. There is no way to know that now. And equally, it's not fair to assess the motives and actions of an editor no longer at the site, nor offer exculpatory factors for a current editor when the other one can no longer comment. I for one won't do it. All I can say is that there's more to the story... Franamax (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hi Franamax. I'm sorry if I've been unclear - my oppose may have its roots in the CC conflict, but it is based more on current - or perhaps I should say ongoing - behaviour, in my opinion. What CC might or might not do now is both unknowable and, to my mind, irrelevant: he is not the one under consideration for adminship. Part of my point is that it seems at best unfair for BQZip01 to list this user's perceived wrongs when he cannot reply, while making no concessions about his own role in the dispute. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   Kafka Liz is right. User:Cumulus Clouds is not the one running for adminship, it's BQZip01. Regardless, I find it appalling that BQZip01 continues to put all of the blame on CC. I also find it rather pathetic that he will not take responsibilty for his very active role. Franamax you are free to feel dismayed all you wish over my oppose but I did my homework digging through BQ's long history and I stand by that. You are however correct when you say that "there's more to the story" because there is so much more to it. But the short version of the story in my opinion goes like this...Cumulus Clouds was stalked, harassed, bullied and put through hell on wiki by an aggressive editor who was out to win at any costs. This is what I believe happened. I'm not comfortable with a candidate like that who I feel would only abuse the tools to get even, if given the chance. I'm sorry if you or anybody else don't like it but this is how I feel about the matter. Caden ^{is cool} 12:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not interested in getting a "win at any costs" and I have no idea where you get the idea that I would abuse any tools provided to me. I've stated the exact opposite. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

4. I'm concerned that this user seems to be unable to adequately handle harassment and disruption from trolls, his talk page having been indefinitely semi-protected for three months now [12]. He has no visible alternate talk page for IPs to contact him in good faith. Obviously, administrators need to be easily reachable by all users regardless of their auto-confirmed status. –xeno ^talk 14:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC) switched to oppose now back to neutral per user making an IP-talk subpage, but I still have concerns as noted after my indented oppose above.

   Respectfully, the edits to my user page went beyond simple harassment to death threats and accusations of murder (addressed above). If someone wishes to contact me, they can do on the related talk page or via e-mail. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   To address such concerns, I have placed a more visible notice at the top of my talk page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I investigated this myself, finding it curious that BQZ feels protection should be used very lightly (see "Personal Beliefs" section near the top of this RfA) and that his talk page was semi-protected. It seemed hypocritical. But, the more I investigated this point the more it became apparent that the waters on this are at least muddy, if not poisonous. Obviously I can't see the deleted edits to verify. I chose not to comment on this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral per above. One (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral, good attitude by showing that he is willing to change. But not ready yet. Needs more time to develop as a person.  Marlith (Talk)  19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Neutral. While his AfD comments aren't exactly what I'd like from an admin, he does have solid audited content work, which goes a long way in convincing me a user is here to improve the 'pedia and can learn. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Comment - I noted Opposer # 2's comment that BQZip01's taunting of a user after a block, summed up his RfA 3. I clicked on the taunting link and coincidentally saw who had placed the block. It was a non-admin, a user who has previously masqueraded as an admin to intimidate a different editor. Funny what these RfA's unearth. (No reflection on BQZip01 who wouldn't have known). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I apologize for not researching as fully as I should. I try to ensure that everyone receives a fair comment from me after I carefully review the candidates history. The fact of who the sanctioned editor was, or that the 'block' was by an impostor is irrelevant. What is relevant is that: 1) CTMBAP vandalized a page BQZip01 contributes to. 2) BQZip01 saw that the editor had been apparently blocked. 3) BQZip01 then left an edit which I thought was less than productive. BQZip01 was kind enough to explain it to me. Unfortunately, he commented partially on my talk page and then on this page, but then removed it for some reason. I am fine with it, it is not an issue, I believe BQZip01 is an outstanding contributor. I will monitor the discussion with an open mind. My Oppose comment, at this point in the RfA, stands. --Preceding unsigned comment 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Huh! My comment wasn't criticism of you or BQZip01, simply an observation that RfAs can reveal anomalies, such as a user masquerading as an admin. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I really want to support due to the logo thing and my AGF principles, but some of the opposes really concern me. I just don't know if I can trust him. Leaning support, but we'll see. Wizardman 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral User has good intentions but diffs and reasons brought up in the oppose section are causes for question. Perhaps in a few months and some more experience. Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral I would probably support but his hounding of the oppose !voters here leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. This supports the notion that this user doesn't have the temperment needed for the tools. It's not enough to oppose over but its enough to not support. ThemFromSpace 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral I am concerened over the user behaviour with IPs, and being very quick to throw a sock acquisation out on the floor and then proceed to answer the questions anyway. Just doesnt sit right to me.Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC) moved to support per response to 16Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

10. Moved from oppose; still some causes for concern but user has made a good-faith attempt to resolve the issues during this RFA. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2009 (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.

Gaia Octavia Agrippa

Voice your opinion (talk page) (22/28/11); Closed Tue, 12 May 2009 20:09:29 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Nomination

Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs) – I would consider myself a wikignome working quietly away to improve wikipedia behind the scenes. I am regularly involved in anti-vandalism using Huggle, and would like to further this being able to block persistent vandals. I also get myself involved in Articles for deletion, on occasion and would like to further my involvement by being able to delete pages. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I have noticed is that many/most of those that have chosen to oppose, have done so based purely on the answers to the questions. Obviously when I next apply, I will have to make sure that I write perfect answers for these questions. Or even copy them from 100% pass RfAs! (just kidding). But I would appreciate, especially from those that oppose, more detailed reasons, so that I can improve myself, rather than "per bad answers to questions". Thank you. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:35, 8 May 2009 (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: I intend to take part in page deletion and user/ip blocking.

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

A: As a wikignome I haven't made massive edits to wikipedia. However, I would say my best contributions are when I generate a random page a get it up to B-class standard by adding references, links, headings, and most commonly, infoboxes.

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: There have been a number of occasions in the past when I have been involved in conflicts of some kind. When this happens I take it off the article and onto the others talk page and try to resolve our dispute civilly.

Additional optional questions from user:Tempodivalse:

4. Under what circumstances would you block an established editor to Wikipedia?

A: If they had regularly been vandalizing Wikipedia and/or causing general trouble such as incivility. It wouldn't matter to me if they had written 100 FA, if they have vandalized enough to get blocked (i.e. to the best of my knowledge that is 5 vandalisms or vandalizing after their final warning.). Also if the use multiple accounts inappropriately, for example sockpuppeting to add extra votes to a discussion, but not if they use a bot account or an account to log in on insecure computers, this could lead to them getting blocked.

5. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you particularly agree with? Conversely, are there any policies you particularly disagree with?

A: I particularly agree with wikipedia's policy on vandalism, and the warning system used against vandals, because they are cleanly cut and easily enforced. I have some issues with wikipedia's policy on Naming conventions, because it is my belief that articles should be named the official name of the subject matter, with well know alternatives listed in the introduction and redirected to the article.

6. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an administrator, you will sooner or later come across a situation where you will need to judge consensus in order to take a certain action, like in a content dispute, etc.

A: It is my belief that a consensus is reached when the majority of voters/participants have agreed on the outcome, after a reasonable amount of time, and without any major objections. I am aware that wikipedia itself finds it hard to define consensus, and therefore it is up to those involved to decide when one has been reached.

Consensus is not the majority of votes, it is weighing up the arguments and coming to a conclusion that can be supported by policy.

Optional question from Dank

7. Point us to a conversation where you did a good job of explaining or supporting a policy or guideline; or if you prefer, point us to a conversation where you made a good argument against a policy or guideline.

A: Unfortunately I cannot find any conversations. However I do remember having a discussion with a user about abusing multiple accounts, after which I was compelled to report them, and forthwith got them blocked.

Additional optional question from The Earwig:

8. 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 here and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A: I would unblock the ip, but keep a constant eye on them for at least a week to check that they are staying on track. I would also advise the user to get an account. If they make only constructive edits over that week then I would offer to help them become a better wikipedian through adopting them or offering gentle guidance. If however they vandalise again I would re-block them.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

9. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: I honestly don't know if wikipedians have any rights. But I think that it is most probably one of the following: users have the same rights as they do in the real world according to the country they live in, or the rights of the country that the main server is in, or that they have no rights because everything they put on wikipedia immedialy becomes free content.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Gaia Octavia Agrippa before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I really like the answer to Q3, support.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Awards, good argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cutler Beckett, and as candidate has never been blocked. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Interesting. Dlohcierekim 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Support Good answers to questions show a good level of knowledge in policy matters, can be trusted. tempodivalse [☎] 20:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support No reason not to. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per above. One (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Support I do not agree with this user's positions on singular "they", usage of quotation marks, and spacing between sentences. Keepscases (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Out of interest, how does my postion on the above things mean I wouldn't be a good admin? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Support Adminship is no big deal; I see no reason to believe this user would use tools incorrectly. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Moral Support I look forward to the next time. Please heed my advice and reapply. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Moral Support. This RFA was probably a bit premature, but I don't really see any serious issues with the candidate; she lacks experience, but her intentions are good and she's on the right track. Assuming this RFA fails, I would advise her to gain more experience in 'admin areas' such as AFD and AIV before applying again; most voters here want to see evidence that she knows what she's doing in those areas before they can support. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps I don't need to say this, but "Gaia Octavia" is feminine. The masculine form would be "Gaius Octavius". Looie496 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oops, my apologies - I've corrected the pronouns. I actually used to study Latin, so I really shouldn't have made that mistake. X( Robofish (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

10. Moral Support. The less than stellar start to her RfA might be an indicator of a need for a more informative nomination. The adminable accomplishments abound with this candidate, but with her modesty, require a bit of research to uncover. Outstanding vandal fighter. Please address the concerns below and return with a bold pronouncement of your accomplishments. --Preceding unsigned comment 02:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Moral support. Candidate would probably have passed on first run a few years back; It's unfortunate that filling up the job application form matters just as much as his/her contributions. I really do hope to see him/her back here in a few months, with more experience by then. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Granting the admin bit should not rest on the candidate's ability to wax poetic or verbose in their responses. Being concise is a virtue in many cases. Adminship is no big deal, and I see nothing which indicates this editor would abuse the tools. Rather, it appears the tools would be put to good use. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Weak Support - technically meets my standards, but I'm not 100 % happy about the AfD work. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong moral support From my interactions with Gaia Octavia Agrippa at Milhist, I know her to be a steady, reliable editor who will make a great admin once she has more experience under her belt.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Real Support. The candidate has a history of civil interactions with other contributors, and has shown extreme willingness to help out new editors. This indicates possession of fundamental traits that, to me, are more important than policy knowledge. decltype (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Weak support. I see no indication that the user would abuse their tools or do something terribly wrong, so why the hell not? The answers are not impressive, though, (although I support the answer to their most recent question from me) so I am not extremely supportive of them. The Earwig ^{(Talk | Contributions)} 20:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Why not. I would trust that if the user is successful that they would carefully evaluate their understanding of consensus. I can certainly recall discussions about perfectly notable articles which I've been in where if it were a vote I'd be a little worried if this user was closing the discussion. But this has been pointed out and I'm willing to assume said user will study points raised by other editors be it win or lose. --candle•wicke 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - trustworthy editor. Nothing wrong with brevity. PhilKnight (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - The awnsers appeared to be given truthfully and properly, certain factors are made due to human opinion and social incidents but these could not effect constructive editing or administritive (is this even a word) actions but possibly increase them due to certain views could be used, like in most places in the pedia, as benifits for the article at hand (if this makes any sense). Also she has only had 56 edits reverted and/or deleted meaning that the majority of the edits made were in some way constructive and helpful. My only original concern was the lack of proof that guidence had been given to/or with any given user, but other users appear to remember such times so this is a removed concern, and with the responsibilities I am sure that she will make an effort to guide people and be a good admin. Sorry for the novel I just wrote. 'The Ninjalemming' 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Weak support, I generally don't care about answers to questions if the editor seems good. Wizardman 19:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support- She is good. She has adopted me and knows a lot about Wikipedia. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Absolutely no reason to oppose. Though his answers are short, they are to the point and proves he knows what he's talking about. Never been blocked, very civil, and I see a youthful glow a good thing :)--(NGG) 03:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    Again, Gaia is a girl, of the female persation, likes men etc. Oh well, doesn't really matter. =) or does it 'The Ninjalemming' 08:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Answers to questions are not impressive, and I see little sign of preparation to become an admin -- a bit of Huggling, a few AfD noms, hardly anything more. I could support after a few months more of experience with admin-related matters. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - While I applaud the user's boldness to request adminship, I do not think they are ready. They have virtually no contributions in both Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces; despite the user wanting to work in both deletion and blocking, there are no edits to AIV to speak of (5 according to X!'s counter, no AFD nominations, no edits to policy talk pages. The only recent speedy tagging was a G7 to a page where the creator replaced the content with an external URL (would have been an A3) and in March a A1 to foreign language material. The answer to Q4 is hazy - we do not block established users any other way than all other vandals: If they break the rules and a block is needed to stop them, we block them. They don't need to do it regularly to be blocked, they just need to continue after being given warnings to stop. Answer to Q6 sounds like the user believes that consensus is more of a vote than a !vote (see comment in neutral). So, to sum it up, I believe this user means well, I really do. But I do not think they grasp policy enough for the mop just yet. Regards SoWhy 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per SoWhy. Additionally, with Wikignome users that most of the community is not familiar with, it's especially important to have detailed answers to the questions, which this candidate does not supply. Qs 1 and 6 are exceedingly vague, and Q7 reveals that this user has not had enough interaction with others to demonstrably prove that he/she has the proper temperament for the tools. GlassCobra 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Per non-impressive answers to questions. -download ׀ sign! 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose per SoWhy and GlassCobra. The answers to the questions in general weren't that great. Timmeh! 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Don't see a pressing need for tools or experience in preparation for using them, no audited content work. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Per answer to my question, #7. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Tentative oppose - I dislike both the manner and nature of the answers to the questions, and I find that guestbooks are minor violations of WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but violations nonetheless. I am willing to be convinced the other way, though, as all of these concerns can be allayed. — neuro^(talk) 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose Concern about experience, and answers to the questions. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose per SoWhy. The user means well but I do not think they are ready yet. Frehley 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Cirt. Ironholds (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose per all but one in this section. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 01:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Vague answers to questions.  Marlith (Talk)  02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose over concerns about the answers given above and the issue of experience. I'm not looking for a dozen FAs or a thousand vandals taken down but the contributions to date seem only somewhat substantial. Perhaps in six months after more thought on the process, but not yet. - Dravecky (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - I don't like to "per editor" people, but SoWhy sums up exactly what i'm thinking here. Good luck, Matty (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose, next to no experience in deletion, and that's one of the main areas in which you plan to work. Stifle (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose - I held off voting for a while, as I remember seeing your name and was trying to remember where I saw it, and now remember seeing it in Editor Reviews. The review you had had stated that you should work on deletion some more before requesting adminship, and you seem to not have done much of that.--Iner22 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Wishes to block users and IPs but has little contribution to WP:AIV. Very ambiguous answers to questions; I'm worried how the answer to seven appears to contradict three, I don't like four or six either. I do not believe the user ready. Sorry.  GARDEN  20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose. More experience with WP:CSD; I don't agree with this edit summary particularly, but the WP:CLUB tag ok. It appears as if the candidate is applying with an undertone of frustration, which looking at the contributions of the user makes sense, but the short answers 1A and 4A reflect a bit of impatience. I do not think trust is an issue here, nor is the ability to "use" the tools. The issue is when the tools should be used, something the candidate can surely improve. Zab (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Are you sure you got the right link there? That's a completely standard edit summary (from Huggle). And what do you mean by WP:CLUB tag? decltype (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    If thats the standard edit summary (so you see what I mean then), then this criteria did not match the page at the revision as I see it. Huggle cannot be held responsible for its built-in summaries. This in no way reflects on the "intentions" of the action, just room for improvement before being trusted with atomic tools. I think wikipedia benefits from the candidate continuing to utilize the WP:CSD until more experience is gained. Zab (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Honestly, no, I don't see any divergence between the edit summary and the tag. Besides, professional gaming is still largely unknown to the masses, and articles get created on a daily basis on teams that are utterly unimportant and insignificant, so I do not consider this a grave error. But you are entitled to your opinion, of course. decltype (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose - Answers to questions are not good enough.--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Per Unionhawk and download. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose, per inadequate answers to the questions. Nakon 06:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong Oppose The answers are totally inadequate to become admin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz26 (talk • contribs)
25. Oppose Per the answers to the questions. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Gives the impression of being a kid. Friday (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    This is one of the strangest opposes I have seen. Also I am not a "kid", and I apologise if I give that impression. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    It's probably the guestbook, hidden page, etc. I don't take issue with them, but users like Friday will. Keepscases (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    How does '[giving] the impression of being a kid' indicate that it would not be wise to give this user the tools? — neuro^(talk) 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

27. Strong oppose per three things. First, rather lackluster answers to the questions. Second, not enough experience in the deletion field; that is, you need to have more experience in XFDs and more participation in the deletion process as a whole. You can build experience and knowledge in this by participating in XFDs, utilizing proposed deletion, watching Special:NewPages for pages that fall under the criteria for speedy deletion (this is where most speedy deletions happen), and participating in deletion review. Third, while wikignomery can be a good thing, you need to build knowledge in the article building process—be a good content editor. Build up and improve existing articles and cleanup substandard articles. This will definitely help you familiarize yourself with the basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines that admins need to understand well in order to utilize the tools. Hopefully, this helps, especially if you wish to go for RFA again. MuZemike 18:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    per the responses to the questions. They provide no insight in the ability to be able to utilize the tools effectively. MuZemike 02:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

28. Regretful Oppose User has good intentions but skimpy answers to questions indicate a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia policies. Perhaps in a few months and more experience Sorry - Fastily (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I can't see any reason to not support but I tend to put a lot of weight on the answers to the questions and these responses are, um, spotty. Some 'meat' in the answers (a diff here and there and a little passion in the 'greatest contributions' would be nice). Meanwhile, I'm parking in the neutral section. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to Moral Support'Grave concerns related to understanding of consensus not being a vote. Dlohcierekim 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I said in my answer that it was majority of voters/participants implying that it could be a straight vote or a discussion on a talk-page. But please correct me if I am wrong. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Consensus is not necessarily the majority of participants agreeing, it's where the best (policy) reasons for a decision lay. 10 people can argue to keep an article at AFD because they are interested in the subject and still the one !vote to delete can be consensus if it is backed by policy. Regards SoWhy 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes. Exactly It is not a majority vote. Consensus traditionally hovers in the 75% range, but it is about weighing arguments rather than counting votes. If a consensus is not reached in an AFD discussion, the default is "Keep," though there is some debate as to whether this should be true in BLP's. Expanding rationale.I see no CSD taggings in deleted contribs. I would like to see more CSD experience. Reported vandal who had stopped after final warning. I would like to see more AIV experience. Since others have cited the answers in Support, I must say I find the answers lackluster and leaving me with serious doubts. Dlohcierekim 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. I've come across Gaia a few times in her Wikignoming and appreciate her contributions; however, I am largely unimpressed with her answers to the questions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral per RegentsPark and KuyaBriBri. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral No reason to oppose, but I cannot yet support.--John (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral I am in agreement with John on this candidacy. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
6. I'm with John (talk · contribs) here. There's nothing to suggest that the candidate would misuse the tools, but I can't quite support at this time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
7. You have a bit of improvement to do, but this is nothing that will stop you from passing a future RfA. If you have addressed all the concerns here in about six months, please run again and have another go. Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
8. The answers to the questions above concern me, I would tend to sway to oppose, but wikignomes may be neccesary in the future, especially with the upgoing rates of vandilism. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral, avoiding pile-on. While mindless repetition of policy is not a requirement, answers show a paucity of engagement with them. Alas, one of the most important things an admin can do is put his or her finger on relevant explanation of policy in order to keep things running smoothly around here; not sure there's enough of that in this candidate at this time.  Frank  |  talk  19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Comment In response to Gaia Octavia Agrippa's request for more specific answers, my comment is that that is our concern. I don't expect perfect answers, but these questions, your contributions, and your stats are the only way we have to know you if we haven't personally interacted with you in the past. Your answers are very brief and to the point, but they also don't tell us much about you. What is your thought process? How are you likely to perform as an admin? You may be a person who evaluates everything on a case-by-case basis, so it is difficult to speak in generalities about possible future events. If that's the case, let us know. After reading most RfA Q&A's, I've got at least some kind of a mental image of the person created in my head (and probably completely unlike the real person), but at least I have some feeling about the person. After reading, and now re-reading your answers, you are still mostly a blank slate. Maybe a general sense of a quiet gnome working away, not causing any drama, and just trying to do a good job well out of the limelight. That's an admin nominee I would gladly support! But if that's you, please try to express that, or whatever it is that you are. We can't see you, hear you, or interact except through a screen and a keyboard. You've got to give us more before we can feel comfortable giving you more. At least, that's how I see it. I hope that helps. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 05:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral. I see ~50% of her edits are in the mainspace (plus point to me), and only around 1000 of her edits were automated (another plus point to me). However, what I don't yet see is evidence of dispute resolution skills, nor do I yet see evidence of a clear understanding of policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:40, 11 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

JamieS93

Final: (107/8/4); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

JamieS93 (talk · contribs) – Jamie is a well-rounded editor who first began her editing stint in November 2007, initially working on articles relating to Christian music. She is patient, friendly, and civil - welcoming and offering assistance to editors who are unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia, and is proficient in explaining its policies and guidelines to newcomers.

She has collaborated with other editors in improving 4 articles to Good Article (GA) standards, and has created or substantially improved 20 articles to be featured on Did You Know? (DYK). Jamie is a very active reviewer in the DYK process, in particular vetting article candidates and helping to ensure that they meet the criteria to be on the Main Page. DYK could always use more admins in helping to update the DYK cycle, and I believe that Jamie is ready to take on this task alongside with the existing crew of volunteers. In addition, she is also noted for her participation in reviewing and polishing potential GA candidates from time to time.

How Jamie's first RfA ended up is something that no candidate should ever be subjected to. What truly impressed me was her ability to consider the opposes with good grace, and subsequently how she utilised them as valuable feedback in working on her perceived shortcomings of experience at that point of time. Jamie's continued dedication towards the project and self-development as an editor, in terms of proficiency, judgment and maturity of thought - shows that granting her this extra responsibility would be a wise choice for the project.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Royalbroil

I have been fortunate to know Jamie from her earliest edits on Wikipedia. In fact, I welcomed her here (diff). I have been able to watch her editing abilities and demeanor, since we have worked on some of the same Christian music articles as part of WikiProject Christian music. She has been consistently good at explaining guidelines/policies and her viewpoint. Jamie has recently been getting questions from newer contributors who ask her the type of questions that admins and very experienced editors receive (1, 2). Our paths also frequently cross at Did You Know (DYK) and she has shown the same excellent abilities to work well with others. Jamie will be an asset to DYK; we can always use more help.

I want to comment on the concerns brought up in her failed first RFA. One is her age. I couldn't believe it when I found out that she was less than 18 years old. She doesn't act immature and I believe that someone's actions should be the basis for supporting or opposing. People mature at different rates; she must be one of the people who act mature earlier than others. I have seen plenty of admins under 18 who have made tremendous, mature contributions after getting the mop. Another concern was that she was highlighted for her mainspace contributions. She now has four GAs to her credit, two articles on hurricanes and two on music, but I don't think that her mainspace contributions should be the reason to give her the mop. A contributor doesn't need the mop to work in mainspace! The main reason to give her the mop is because she can do great help for DYK. Another concern was lack of experience. She has been working an additional 9 months since her RFA failed. During that time, she has gained experience with editing, working with others, and preparing DYK sets. I think it's time for her to get the mop. Royalbroil 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks to my nominators. :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:08, 5 May 2009 (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 an administrator, I'd primarily work at Did You Know, where the tools would be very helpful in moving updates along or fixing errors in the protected queues. Many times I've seen the need for administrative DYK tasks to be done, so I would like to step up and help in this area now that I've had a lot of experience there. I would also keep an eye on WP:ERRORS and the edit requests category for protected pages, and handle some semi-protection requests at WP:RPP. I've had a good 13+ months of ongoing speedy deletion experience, using careful discretion with each tagging, and would like to help with those CAT:SD requests.

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

A: Some of my best contributions on Wikipedia would be my continued involvement with the Did You Know (DYK) process. My first article submission was in June, and since then I've been highly participating in approving hooks and organizing Main Page updates. I'm also fairly happy with my work in the mainspace, too. My most notable articles are not completely standout, but it's still an area where I feel competent. Since my last RfA I've had a few article improvements, including Ayiesha Woods, Give Me Your Eyes (GA), Hurricane Bud (2006) (GA), Tropical Storm Norma (2005), and Sanctus Real. I've also had 20 of my own created/expanded articles promoted at DYK, as mentioned in the nom statement.

I really have a heart for our new editors, and I believe helping people is a strength of mine. I truly love it whenever I have an opportunity to assist a newbie with the interworkings on Wikipedia. WP:BITE is something that I believe is important, although often ignored. Our guidelines can be confusing, and I've read the comments of many users off-wiki who felt unwelcome and got ticked off because their questions were left unanswered or responded to curtly. In my opinion, experienced editors should be kindly taking some time to provide explanations to new editors, or at least help to the best of their ability—that's what I strive to do.

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: My first RfA in August 2008 was really a conflict of its own. It became more drama-filled than I expected. I did my best to remain cool, though, and let the process run its course. Besides the RfA, I've had differences of opinion with others (i.e., 1). However, I have avoided fights or real conflicts by keeping down drama and not looking to pick fights. In the past I've handled difference of opinion by civilly discussing the issue with the editor(s). If there's a miscommunication, I try to explain the situation or at least my perspective. If somebody objects to my view or action, or consensus is contrary to my opinion, I'm willing to adapt to that. Whatever is for the best of Wikipedia in any given situation, I'll go with that. :)

Optional Question from User:I'm Spartacus!

4. I'll be honest with you, I've been keeping a little bit of an eye on you since your first RfA and was just thinking about looking at your edits closer for a potential nom. But I have few questions I would like to have answered A) what lessons did you learn from your first nom/RfA? B) What is the biggest difference between Jamie from August and the Jamie from today?

A. A) I really learned a lot from that experience. I didn't exactly rush into my last RfA, but I certainly didn't give it as much forethought. At that time, I didn't know as much about drama and how to watch for it. I wasn't as savvy and didn't see the little warning signs with accepting that nomination. Also, my lack of knowing some of the basic policy came to the surface, which caught me by surprise – that was kind of humbling. I now have learned more in-depth what people want to see, and this time I've done more self-examination, as my nominators have, too. I'm sure that I gained more from my RfA than what's coming to mind, but I know that I've often reflected on the experience and the comments I received.

B) One of the biggest differences I've seen in myself is the way I handle interactions with others. In past times I was less experienced and, to be honest, I was always kind of nervous with conflict and worried that I wasn't expressing myself correctly. In recent times, I've found myself to be more confident and calm when my action may be disputed, etc. I don't think that I did a bad job back then, per se, but I certainly wasn't as comfortable, as I see in retrospect. Recently, I feel a lot more calm in the face of somebody objecting to my action – problems don't faze me like they used to, and now I've found myself looking at an issue more calmly and just working towards resolving it. I wasn't about to delete the main page if my last RfA had passed, but I believe it was probably for the better that I didn't become an admin in August. I was just less experienced, period. I've also read many things since that time, and been involved in more discussions, which has caused me to be overall more knowledgeable in a variety of different ways. Jamie^☆S93 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Cunard

5a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Your answers will also help other voters determine how good your CSD knowledge is. Would you speedy delete Emptoris, Inc. (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?

A: No, I would not speedy delete the article. While it is promotional, the article is not solely an advertisement, and there is other useful and neutral information in the article. If the article was obviously promotional, however (i.e., this recently-deleted page), it would qualify for the G11 criterion. Jamie^☆S93 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: Does the article meet A7? In other words, are there any sentences in the article that indicate that the company is important/notable and would exempt this article from speedy deletion? Cunard (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A: The article doesn't qualify for A7 because it does give indication of the company's notability – particularily, the first sentence in the second paragraph stood out to me: "In January 2008, the company reported approximately 20% growth in revenues in FY 2008, a rate twice the industry average, and transactions with 145 companies over the course of the year, the vast majority with Global 2000 companies." I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'm not aware of how notable that is, but that statement alone would disqualify the article from speedy deletion. The CSD criteria asks for a pretty low standard of notability, not proving with reliable sources (these concerns should be taken to AfD), but rather giving some indication that the subject holds significance. This article passes that threshold, although additional research may show that it's still not notable for the WP:CORP notability standards. As I said, that kind of debate belongs at AfD, and speedy deletion is generally meant to root out the obvious cases. Jamie^☆S93 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5b. Share verification bureau (permalink) is tagged for speedy deletion by an IP. The IP gives only the {{db}} tag but no criterion. Would you speedy delete the article? (Choose from: A7, G3, G11). Would your decision be different if a new-page patroller or an admin tagged it for deletion?

A: This is slightly more difficult. The article is severely non-neutral, but seeing through that, presents a topic that may have have potential - it might be marginally notable. G11 is meant for highly promotional articles, which is the opposite of this page. The subject's notability is definitely questionable, but not enough to be speedy deleted per A7. The G3 criterion is closer, but still not there because this is a real case with a company (per the court case link), instead of "vandalism/hoax". Deleting it as an attack page (G10) is a viable possibility, although I would not make that action myself. In conclusion, I don't think that this should be speedy deleted for any of the criteria, or even the possible {{db|reason}} possibility. Because this is not a BLP, which would present a more serious problem, the best option would be to take the article to AfD for reasons of notability, and if the article can be salvaged or not.

Would it make a difference who tagged the article? Partially, but not really. An IP address may be less experienced or an SPA who comes from a POV, but I'm not going to assume that. The point is, the plain {{db}} tag is best used with the reason parameter, and an experienced editor or admin should know about the template's customizing. So, if the editor provided no reason, or explanatory edit summary, there is no strong reason to delete it on-spot. I would decline the speedy tag, and bring the article to AfD after researching the topic some. That would be the safest option. Jamie^☆S93 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11).

A: This article I would not delete, as it seems alright and does not meet any of the criteria that you mentioned. A7 - this only applies to people/groups/companies/bands/clubs, and specifically does not cover the notability of software. The article is not an advertisement (G11), and deleting it per G1 is, well, very off the mark. In my view, CSD should not used to track down articles in an attempt to squeeze them into a certain category so they can be deleted ASAP. Looking at the CSD criteria, the "Cabal (software)" page is really in decent shape and is not worthy of on-sight deletion. If an article may qualify to be deleted, it should be either prodded or, if the case is not completely straightforward, taken to AfD. Jamie^☆S93 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5d. You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?

A: I would not speedy delete the page, and instead salvage it. To clear any confusion, I'm not an inclusionist, and WP:BLP is a very important issue, but this does not call for deletion. I would decline the speedy deletion request and then remove the unsourced accusation. If the article meets the notability guidelines, as you mentioned, it should be alright to keep. I would also watch the article in case more libelous statements are added. Jamie^☆S93 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. I would have done the same. Cunard (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5e. David Fuchs (talk · contribs) (Oppose #2) is unimpressed with your AfD rationales. In your previous RFA, Icewedge (talk · contribs) opposed you for always "jumping on the bandwagon". Looking through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 5 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 6, are there any AfDs (that do not have an obvious consensus) you might vote on? I'm looking for votes like this keep vote (which led to the nominator withdrawing the AfD discussion) or this delete vote (which expanded on the user's rationale for deletion instead of only citing the nominator's).

A: AfD is a good place to express original thought in a discussion about an article's quality, within the premise of guidelines and policy. However, I don't think that my participation there is completely necessary in order to work elsewhere in Wikipedia as an administrator. In my answer to the first question, I didn't mention anything about closing AfDs with admin tools – that's because I don't plan on working there. I haven't been participating in AfDs in recent times, because I've just naturally drifted into other areas. And whenever I return to AfD to make a comment or two, I tend to feel unfamiliar with the process there. I've come to a conclusion for myself: AfD just isn't my thing as much. Others will disagree on this point, each to his own opinion, but I don't believe that my lack of AfD participation is entirely pertinent to adminly duties elsewhere. I think I've gained some of that article-discussing experience from other venues where I feel more at home, such as the DYK nominations page. That's my view on the matter. Best, Jamie^☆S93 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, AfD is not a "discussion about an article's quality". AfD is a discussion about an article's potential. Even if the article has no sources and is written using peacock words, the article may still be salvageable. The main question of most AfD discussions is: does the topic of the article meet WP:GNG? Since you're not planning on closing AfDs, I could care less about your AfD experience. However, since you are planning to be active at CAT:CSD, I hope you keep in mind an article's potential before hitting the delete button. Take an extra second to check an article's history, or another five seconds to do a Google/Google News search before sending it to the digital dustbin. Your work in CSD'ing articles for the past few months has been almost perfect. I hope you keep this up when you gain the sysop flag. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel like WP:POTENTIAL is one of the things that I hold most important. :-) Many admins and newpage patrollers take an article at face value, but I've never quite felt comfortable with that. Before tagging a band for A7, for instance, I oftentimes do a quick Google/News search. There might be notable facts or reliable sources about the subject, but they simple haven't been added to the article yet. In some cases, if I'm fairly sure of the band's notability, I'll add those sources proving notability and cleanup the article to save it from (speedy) deletion. That also helps with preventing newbies from feeling bitten, if they have genuinely written a salvageable article about a notable topic. I appreciate your input. Jamie^☆S93 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from GlassCobra (partially stolen from Jennavecia)

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If I get the bit, I'll do my best to use it wisely and gain insight from others along the way. If push comes to shove and I feel that my trust has been lost, I would be wiling to give up adminship if that occurs. I don't have a self-made criteria, though, such as AOR from past times, but instead, intuition.

There is a very large step change between a questionable administrative action and being desysopped. It doesn't happen overnight. To put it simply, I am always open to others' opinions on my actions, and I believe that's the key to avoiding some of these further issues. That's what keeps me accountable. If an editor with good reason objects to something I did, I'll be more than willing to pause and discuss views, and consider repealing my decision. If this crescendoes to the next level: say, there are a few experienced editors who agree that I've been taking inappropriate admin actions around a certain topic. At that point, I'd stop using the tools in that area, and from there would discuss the issue with them. I believe that escalated problems, and having to give up adminship, is avoidable if an administrator keeps a smooth sail by remaining civil and welcoming to constructive criticism. In the end, though, I'm not clinging onto the tools, I just wish to help. :-) Jamie^☆S93 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

7. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?

A. This would probably depend on the individual situation. In general, I would first go to the blocking administrator and tell them my concerns/disagreement. Let's say that my reason for wanting to unblock the editor is something not too controversial, though, and easily re-blockable (i.e., "let's give this editor another chance"). In this case, I may just take the action myself – blocks are cheap and easily remade if the need arises. I would make sure to let the admin know of my decision. From there, I would carefully watch the situation and keep an eye on the editor. Please note, I don't plan on working with un/blocking, so the scenario that I may unblock the user myself probably wouldn't happen. :-) Jamie^☆S93 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?

A. I haven't clicked on WP:BLP today, so this is basically going by memory. Biographies of living people is one area in the mainspace that must be treated with extra sensitivity. All articles should follow the three core content policies: WP:NEU, WP:V, and WP:OR. The difference, however, is that people's current reputations are on the line. If there's an unsourced statement in a BLP, especially dubious or negative claims, it must be removed before references are found to back up the fact. BLPs require strong, reliable sourcing and no original conclusions and research. It is crucial that negative, or otherwise, facts be presented neutrally, both in wording and balance. These biographies need to be held at a stricter level, because the possible legal trouble is serious; we ask for a high standard with LP articles to fight off libel. Wikipedia is one of the top viewed websites worldwide, and there is so much potential for a few false claims to damage a living person.

WP:BLP should never be ignored or disregarded. This isn't a formatting style quibble, which could be occasionally ignored. It's a legal and responsibility issue, which should be respected (at all times). Jamie^☆S93 22:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

9a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I don't think our BLPs are in a complete crisis, but still, the ever-present possibility of having libel and untruth lingering around articles about living persons is sometimes disheartening. I agree with the people who have introduced these BLP proposals (mentioned below) – in general, something needs to be done to get our mass of BLPs into better shape. However, I don't think the proposals really nail the "perfect" solution yet. Due to Wikipedia's being so highly viewed and referenced to, it is an ongoing risk of potential damage that could be done to an LP's reputation from a false tidbit somebody decided to write once. Still, with all that being said, I think we're doing okay with the high-profile bios (many have watchlisted them), and not so great with those more unknown pages which are subject to unsourced info. Again, this is not exactly a crisis, but I quite understand the people who pronounce that it is - we should try hard to maintain and watch for WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NEU. Those three are crucial, and it's detrimental when they are disregarded with a BLP. Jamie^☆S93 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I've been back and forth on these issues, and in the end, I must say that I don't hold any strong opinions about these proposals. I believe that they are all well-intentioned, and may work to one degree, but have the potential to go downhill and might not be a net positive. For instance, flagged revisions. That would really help to prevent new vandalism from appearing on BLP articles, sure, but one of our biggest issues is the existing information within those articles at the moment. Also, I'm afraid that the system of "flaggers" would pose a problem with hierarchy among editors - this we do not need to encourage. Another problem with flagged revs is the frequent misunderstandings between users that would arise; I'm afraid that we'd have a lot of turned-off newbies. Say a new user makes an acceptable change to an article, but someone of a different expertise doesn't understand the subject and decides not to promote the revision. If people feel like they are always being inspected and temporarily barred from helping the website, productivity would inevitably go down. In an ideal world, it might work nicely. However, I lean on the side of objecting to flagged revs.

In conclusion, though, I'm fine with it if any of these proposals get established. I don't strongly support or object to any of them, except for one: full use of semi-protection on BLPs. I tend to believe this is overkill and is not the way to go. Liberal use may be beneficial, however, as well as flagged protection. Still, whatever ends up happening, I'll probably keep helping on here just the same. Jamie^☆S93 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: "Keep" is the current default for all discussions lacking consensus, and I believe it should stay that way. The "default" in a situation is typically the option that leaves things (the article) unchanged. However that would be the default only, and BLP AFDs should be otherwise viewed case-by-case, but generally following that default. For instance, plenty of biographies are AfD'd for non-notability; in these situations, changing the normal closure for "no consensus" is illogical. However, say a BLP is being nominated mostly for a neutrality/spam concern. About half of the editors in the discussion say "keep and cleanup for POV", and the other half think it's past the point of revival, saying "delete, no good revision" or "in violation of WP:BLP". In this kind of case, the even "no consensus" result should probably be "delete". Again, this is not the norm (lots of AfDs are for notability alone, and may not be in violation of WP:BLP), but it's these exceptions to the rule where admins have to apply their better judgement and sometimes make a slightly different decision. AfDs about BLPs should still default to keep, but viewed overall more carefully. Jamie^☆S93 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: Given that the identity is proven, and this argument is valid, I would give strong consideration towards the person's concern. After all, the whole point of WP:BLP is to protect our individuals from potentially untrue or POV statements. In this case, it sounds like we're getting a confirmation of libel, straight from the horse's mouth. If this person was clearly notable per the AfD's consensus, and only had a couple of unsourced statements, I would instead choose to remove the sentences that were in violation of WP:BLP and ask the subject if there were any other issues present. However, under other conditions I believe I would delete the article. For instance, if the discussion lacked clear consensus and the person was only marginally notable, this would change my opinion. It pushes a "no consensus" to a certain "delete", since the individual says there are false claims - as I inferred in question 9c, this alone should cause the admin to close "no consensus" as delete. Jamie^☆S93 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9e. So how do you feel about cool-down blocks? What about the Bush doctrine? Can you give an example of mutation increasing the information content of a genome? — CharlotteWebb 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A: Hmm. I could offer this as an answer to the entire question, which covers all bases. Or, I could choose an alternate path - the first part of your question may actually deserve a serious response. ;) The current policy, which was derived from a consensus, states that cool down blocks should not be used. And I agree with that consensus. The sole purpose of blocks is to prevent damage on Wikipedia, whether it be to article content (vandalism, BLP violations, etc.) or editors (personal attacks, repeated incivility). When somebody is upset and getting a hot head, they shouldn't be blocked for that reason alone. If they haven't breached the etiquette policies, WP:NPA and WP:CIV, blocking them temporarily from editing will be viewed as a snide action and only serve to frustrate the editor further. Somebody losing their cool and causing some drama is not grounds for blocking, because no major damage is occurring (ANI may reach a dangerous length, however). If a hot-headed user gets blocked for attacking individual editors or groups of people after warnings, then it's not "cool down" anymore, but instead a preventative measure. Jamie^☆S93 13:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm tempted to oppose on the basis that none of the above questions "deserve a serious response". — CharlotteWebb 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:Seddon

10 Did you ever vandalise wikipedia before coming a full time editor?

A: No, I never did, and certainly never since. I never had a thought to vandalize Wikipedia even before I knew much about the website. A couple of years back I remember seeing section edit buttons with curiosity, but felt vague concern and apprehension for the website - "what, I can actually "save" something on this page that I am reading, instantly?" I've actually never made anonymous edits, either (except by accident). Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

11 Write a sentance with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?

A: Aiming to operate in a sensible, civil manner, while placing readers first and happily helping newbies. There, 16 words. :-) Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

12 What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?

A: I listen to a variety of styles, and classical compositions are not a predominant choice for me. Whenever I listen to classical music on the radio, however, I usually have no idea what the piece is called. Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

13 An edit war breaks out, how do you deal with it? Please explore typical outcomes possible

A: Assuming that I'm not involved with it (I've never been in an edit war) or a related party myself, I usually don't voluntarily get involved with edit wars. However, recently I witnessed this case where a reverting dispute was breaking out. I viewed the situation and thought that if I were an administrator, I would fully protect the article for about a week, and tell the users at the talkpage that they must discuss the issue and reach a consensus before the article is unprotected again. And that's what an admin did soon afterward. Also, in an edit warring case, the next step would be to see if anybody violated (I presume, doing so without any warnings) or came close to 3RR - I would warn those respective users.

In general, if an edit war involves multiple autoconfirmed editors who make about two reverts each, then protecting the article for some time is the primary action to take. Another hypothetical case: one editor repeatedly adds biased content to an article, and two or more editors in good standing are on the contrary side, reverting his work. This is less of a content dispute (if it's clearly not neutral), but instead, a removal of POV material. This would not call for protecting the article itself. Instead, the user should either be warned about 3RR and rules about neutrality, or blocked temporarily if he has continued his actions after warning.

As my hypothetical situation mentions above, handling edit wars often involves blocking, if one or more of the involved editors have exceeded three reverts in 24 hours (or showing otherwise aggressive warring behavior). Some cases are more straightforward, and others are not. So, I would not readily jump into these disputes, especially in the beginning of my adminship run. I hope that answer is sufficient, since there are a lot of possibilities within the scope of the term "edit warring". Jamie^☆S93 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

14 Do you trust content dispute resolution on Wikipedia?

A:

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: In the broadest sense, yes. All Wikipedians have "rights" that you could simply label as human rights – these are inherent to the person's life (hopefully), and are unrelated to Wikipedia. On here we do have rules and guidelines, however; they protect individuals from giving or receiving bad conduct with one another, and ultimately attempt to keep this organization of articles running well. In the end, I respect others and will take (admin) actions that are reasonable and within consensus. Jamie^☆S93 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

---

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/JamieS93
• Requests for adminship/JamieS93 2

• Links for JamieS93: JamieS93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for JamieS93 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JamieS93 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have a question for Cunard - could you clarify the usage of "choose from" in questions 5b and 5c, mainly 5b? It seems a bit restrictive if my answers are basically confined to choosing one of those specified criteria, unless I'm not understanding that right. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For those questions, "choose from" means that you are restricted to using the specified criteria to speedy delete the article. But if you think that another CSD criterion applies, feel free to list it in your answer. If you think that the article does not meet any of the CSD criteria, please explain why. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have been contacted by IMatthew (talk · contribs) privately, currently ill and not able to post, who wishes to express his support and good wishes, and is sad that he cannot do it himself. Just for the record more than anything. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting us know about that - his support has been accepted. :) Jamie^☆S93 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. A good candidate who I'm confident will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per nomination. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per nom's and as per last time. Dlohcierekim 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   switch to strong. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm scratchin' my head wondering how a high schooler is more likely to go off the rails than an older person, at least without giving signs of it during the run up to the RFA. Will she block Mr. Wales? Delete the main page? Protect dozens of pages with the content, "nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nayaa"? I mean really. 3 little buttons that mean so much. If anything, the candidate has handled herself with quiet dignity and grace in this RFA. On a more general note, this is Wikipedia. We don't attract "average" people, or at least the average one's don't wrack up the editing record needed to run in the first place. So, she's an above average person/teenager/editor to begin with. I just don't see how she's gonna magically be able to wield the mop on birthday xx when she could not before. And I've seen no indication she is not now ready. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Struck above as I did not mean to be insensitive. Apologies. Dlohcierekim 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Good work at DYK, not only reviewing nominations, but also preparing updates and alerting admins when an update's needed. Shubinator (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Very good interactions lead me to believe that Jamie is a thoughtful and friendly user who will do well with extra tools. (Not to mention the four edit conflicts.)  GARDEN  18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. JamieS93 is a wonderful user who I believe will make an excellent administrator. She should have passed RfA last time around. Acalamari 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Of course. Mature, intelligent, dedicated; all traits I look for in admin candidates. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Hell yes. Synergy 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support JamieS93 will make an awesome admin.--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Good experience, seems like a good asset to Wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support JamieS93 is both civil and helpful, and has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I'm glad to see she plans on working at CSD, and think she will be valuable there. All my interactions with her have been very positive and, while I'm too familiar with her namespace contributions, lead me to default support. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per User:JamieS93/Awards and User:JamieS93/DYKs in addition to the candidate being a Good Article contributor who has never been blocked. Thus, candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support No reservations at all. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Should have passed last time, of course. Majorly talk 19:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Sufficient improvement since last RfA, I support this time around. — R² 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Looks good to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Net positive.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak Support Satisfied with her answer to my question and her last RfA failed, in part, for actions outside of her control. Like I said, I've been watching her for a few months and thinking, "she just might be ready for a nom now."---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to weak support: Jenna makes some valid arguments in the oppose section. AS for maturity, I do see signs of maturity throughout this and her last RfA. Last time her RfA was hampered by an over active defense---which ended up hurting Jamie as much as issues related to Jamie herself. Throughout the last RfA and this one, she has responded very positively and politely to the opposes---even commending them for their strength of argument. An immature person does not tell somebody that they made a strong argument against them---especially during the RfA. They may respond afterwards, but Jamie has shown the ability to listen to harsh criticism, take it in, and adapt. I think that is about as good of a sign of maturity as we are likely to find.I don't want to ressurect the dead, so keep in mind I'm commenting on Jamie's behavior, not others. As far as I'm concerned the behaviors involved by the other party have been dealt with and are in the past.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Plus one.Keeper | 76 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong support Of course! No second thought that Jamie will use the tools wisely, actively, and with solid judgement. A fine candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. The two things I opposed for last time (uninsightful bandwagoning AfD votes and some dubious AIV reports) seem to have been rectified - while neither of those areas are exactly high-activity ones for you, what you have done in the last few months there seems vastly improved and generally very good. I've seen no other red flags on a review of your contributions, so I have no reason to oppose this time! Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Same as last time. Come back on IRC! :P Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Of course, Juliancolton sums it up.--Res2216firestar 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support — Jake Wartenberg // ER 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support; good answers to questions and an overall qualified candidate. From one young Wikipedia administrator to a prospective one, I'm confident that you'll do well. :-) One (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. She's always impressed me by how assiduous she is. -- Mentifisto 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support again. Great contribs, very mature, net positive. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
28. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Weak Support. What? Me supporting when there are CSD issues? It's a strange world we live it apparently. Yes, the mistakes WSC mentions are stupid. As IS! says on the talk page, getting it right matters here more than otherwise because attack pages get deleted much faster and thus should not be mistagged. But I will have faith that you will learn from your mistakes and read up on the related essays on the topic to avoid such mistakes in future. The same goes for the G1 of course, that was simply incorrect (even if someone deleted it) but 6 months ago is long past and I doubt you will do it again after getting a mild "beating" for it here. But the last really declined speedy is from January (even if it was another incorrect G1[13] (looks more like a A7 to me or, as Bearian (talk · contribs) correctly guessed, a userpage created in article space)). So, Support for the reasons I had last time, for those above and for your overall great contributions. Weak for the concerns raised by WSC and the flaws in your grasp of CSD. Regards SoWhy 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Point taken, and yes, I am keeping this in mind (as I have with WSC's oppose). I remember that case from January – I wasn't watching close enough that it was a userpage created in the wrong namespace – and I really regretted placing a G1 on the page. With all areas of admin duty, I plan on starting slowly, especially the mistake-prone CSD area where I try to take much care. Your comments are appreciated. :-) Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

31. Support She seems very mature, and I see no reason she'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support – Great user, fully trusted by me, will do finely. American Eagle (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Good work. -download ׀ sign! 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - CSD is not the be all and end all of adminship. The most important thing is that the user at hand learns from their mistakes, and I trust Jamie to do such. — neuro^(talk) 22:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong Support as co-nom. Royalbroil 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong Support per "prematurely mature", and per the noms. I've followed Jamie's progression for a bit now (silently), and have noticed an ability to listen, observe, and to use common sense and good judgment in her actions. I couldn't ask for more from anyone in the admin. corps. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support You seem like a calm, mature person despite your age. A reasonable amount of time has past since your CSD mistakes so I'm pretty sure you've learned better since then. So far your answers to the questions have been good enough and they show how you've improved over time. Overall, a good candidate who would be a great help as an admin. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support She seems a very good genuine person who'll be a credit to the project with a few more buttons at her disposal and I'm sure she'll ask for help from more experienced admins where needed at the start. Nick mallory (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per Majorly. bibliomaniac15 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Your'e a good user, and yes, you've made a few mistakes regarding CSD/AFD, but really. Haven't we all made a mistake before? If there's anyone on Wikipedia who has never made a mistake, we should promote them to admin just for that...wait no. Having never made a mistake is similar to never getting sick until a certain time, it will be worse when it does happen. Additionally, supporting to counteract the inevitable ageism vote. If you supported AnonDiss's RFA/B, no reason to oppose here because of age. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - I know Jamie since my newbiehood on WP. She is civil, helpful, and her article work is good. AdjustShift (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Strong suppoert YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support as a good contributor, helpful editor, and has proven she can learn from both adversity and mistakes. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per last time. Over the last 8 months, Jamie has grown even more experienced with Wikipedia and the DYK process. I enjoyed reading her answers to all of the questions, particularly 5a and 5e. As long as she uses discretion when deleting the articles at CAT:CSD, I have no reservations with her receiving the tools. Best of luck, Cunard (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong Support - zomfg the first day back on Wiki from finals week and I see JamieS93 on here... OF COURSE I'll support! Awesome editor - would love to have to the admin staff. :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, same as last time. No evidence that user will abuse the tools, and by my observation a lot more mature and level-headed than a great many older editors here that should know better. Just the sort of characteristics that I want to see in an admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
51. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
52. No reason not to. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support The famed "No reason not to" helps me here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Looks good and impressive answers to the speedy deletion questions. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I would prefer Wikipedia be run as a meritocracy instead of a whatever-form-of-government-is-run-by-only-elders (I'm going to make up the term Presbytocracy). I think declining based on age as the only factor is almost as ridiculous as DougsTech's opposes. JamieS93 has improved drastically since her last RfA and would make a fine admin. Valley2city^‽ 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support – TheLeftorium 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - This is an out of exam wikibreak support thanks to a pre-emptive entry on my watchlist. I think JamieS93 would make a good admin and that is why I supported his her [sorry, I keep forgetting your a girl] request last time, and I am doing so again this time. The opposition are not convincing per User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Minor correction, his her request---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well spotted, it is good to see more girls becoming admins. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

60. Weak support. Some issues, but overall not too bad. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. I can see no validity in any of the oppose arguments, particularly not the one-liners. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support: Great work at DYK. Law _{type! snype?} 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support: Lucifer (Talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support: If the worst that can be said about someone is "OMG she's still in high school", then she gets my vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate; I see no issues or concerns. I have reviewed all of the opposers' rationales carefully and they are uniformly and in some cases shockingly without any merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Would you care to be more specific? Ought you not to be commenting on the candidate, not on those whose honestly held opinions you consider to be "shocking"? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    The first oppose, apparently based on the candidate's having allegedly speedy-tagged three blatantly speedyable articles with the wrong code numbers (e.g., as vandalism rather than attack, or as irredeemable nonsense rather than who-knows-what) seems to me a classic example of exalting form over substance; the second oppose, based partly on the candidate's having waited "only" eight months since her last RfA before running again, which is well over the time expected, and partly on her having closed an AfD as withdrawn after the nominator accepted a suggestion to merge, which was a correct close, seems unsupported; the fourth oppose, a rote incantation of the counterfactual statement that we already have too many administrators, is valueless; and the other opposes are based exclusively or primarily on the candidate's age, which is a poor basis for opposing (and disqualifying high schoolers from adminship would probably knock out 15% or so of the administrator corps). To avoid distraction, anyone should feel free to move this thread and any responses to talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I see. In that case I find your support far more shocking than any of the opposes. I quote from your own talk page: "... there are certain things that the younger editors should be especially careful about, and there are a few types of mistakes [sic] that they make more often than some other editors". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Newyorkbrad: Your statement hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and rings like unto bullion. For extra credit, consider capitalizing every word: I Have Reviewed All of the Opposers' Rationales Carefully And They Are Uniformly And in Some Cases Shockingly Without Any Merit.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

66. Strong Support. I supported last time, and I am happy to support this time! Best of luck :). Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support. My age related comment is from the other end of the spectrum: The editor's potential. Jamie has overcome the concerns of her first RfA, she exceeds the qualities that she looks for when commenting at the RfA of others, and she has earned the communities trust. --Preceding unsigned comment 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
68. support The candidate looks well rounded and ready. The main oppose concerns are apparently a) that they used what is arguably not the best CSD tag in a few cases and b) that the user is too young. In regard to a, I simply don't find the concern serious although I agree that it is important to tag possible attack pages as attack pages in preference to other CSD tags(since attack pages will get deleted faster). In regards to b- I dislike age based judgements of editors. If an editor appears to be mature enough then the editor likely is mature enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've now struck my oppose, but it isn't just that attack pages will on average get quicker admin attention, its also the message communicated to whoever made that attack. Someone whose articles are being deleted as non-notable needs helpful advice, someone who keeps creating attack pages needs a block; and the templates that the CSD tagger is prompted to put on the author's talk page reflect that. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I quite agree. Jamie^☆S93 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support Amazing. One of the best to-be admins I've seen. Good luck in your sysop work. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 04:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Seems unintentional and AGF, but duplicate !vote was recorded. Therefore indenting and striking. Valley2city^‽ 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, I didn't notice that :) ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    No problem, I've done it too. Valley2city^‽ 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

69. Support. good 'pedia builder Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Strong Support as I think this editor would be an excellent asset as an admin. I see nothing which would indicate potential abuse of the tools, and a plethora of indicators the tools would be put to frequent and good use. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - JamieS93 should have passed RFA last time, and would have done so but for circumstances beyond her control. Better late than never, I say. Robofish (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - I did not !vote last time (but would have been neutral). I see a lot of good things from this editor and a real growth, especially with DYK's and rollback rights. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - per noms. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - This is a support to off-set Friday's ageist !vote. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Not likely to cause damage, or become an inconvenience through misuse of the tools. Impresive contribution record indicates solid knowledge of policy and clearly has addresed many concerns from RFA 1. Unlikely to be rude, bullying or think admins are in anyway "better" than non-admins. I'm tempted to support per "editor is female" to spite some of the oposition but I won't. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I'd always be inclined to support female editors over their testosterone-fuelled male equivalents. I simply wish that the admin package didn't include the block button, as I tried to explain to JamieS93. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Some truth to what you say, I suppose. I'm reading a SF story in IASFM about a society that sends its women out to fight wars with the idea that they will be less blood thirsty and glory seeking. 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

76. Support Would make a great admin. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 05:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Looks like a reasonable person with a cool head and should make a good admin. I was planning on !!voting because of the age thing but I mulled over the recent adult drama events and concluded that I was wrong. That using age as a predictor of maturity is wrong in this setting. In addition to things like age there are other physical characteristics, intrinsic psychological and emotional factors, as well as socio-economic and cultural factors that determine the maturity level of a person and we, on wikipedia, have little, if any, access to these other characteristics. Therefore, while age may be a reasonable heuristic in the real world (such as when employing a person) where access to other information about a person is better (school grades, recommendation letters, face-to-face interviews), using age in an environment where all we can see of a person is the words they type unreasonably overweights that single factor. Far better to focus entirely on the typed words. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong support. The oppose votes, if anything, lean me to support a bit more. Wizardman 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support No issues that stand out, and no negative memories. America69 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Great contributions. Good understanding of policy. Finding out that she is a minor only increases my respect for her. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Not the the BLP views are identical to my own opinions, but they are well within the bounds of consensus here. Incidentally, I have often downgraded what could be called attack pages to some lesser reason when deleting them, in order to WP:DENY the vandal satisfaction. DGG (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Strong support Spotted at DYK. I don't think age is an issue. And I see many other familiar signatures from DYK assuming good faith as well. They can't all be wrong, can they? Also, I'm now beginning to consider maturity when faced with Doug as a good example of a decent admin in waiting... ;) --candle•wicke 23:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I really would encourage you to avoid such personal remarks. Others may be inclined to view them as an indicator of your own maturity. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

84. Strong support IMO maturity should be judged individually on content and not on basis of a number. I say this because I personally have met many high school students who are more mature and indeed more worldly than people twice and even three times their age. Jamie provides me with more than enough evidence to indicate that she is part of the future of wikipedia - and the evidence displayed in her edits (as opposed to her biological age) - particularly the front line work that DYK is, is more than enough to win my strong support.--VS ^talk 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
85. Support, not that familiar with the candidate, and I don't even like DYK as it exists, but the nom by Mailer Diablo and comments by various other supporters, particularly Newyorkbrad, convince me to support. Quite unconvinced by the opposes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
86. Support - I do not care how old you are, because based on my review of your last 600-700 edits you seem very mature. People need not associate one's age with their level of maturity, as that can be very misleading. You seem to have a good understanding of policy and appear to work well with others, both very important qualities for an admin to have. You also do very good work in the Christian music area of the project. Good luck with the mop, not to jinx you, but this will clearly succeed. I trust you will be a very good admin. Landon1980 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support I was surprised when I saw in the Oppose section that Jamie is a high school student. She sounds much more poised and mature than many people I know 10 years older. I think she will do well with the tools, and it is good to have a variety of ages, genders, and other diversities on the admin team. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support This user has the experience, knowledge, maturity, and temperament to be a good administrator here. Deli nk (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support User has been around since Nov 2007 and track and contributions are good and see no concerns.User has used rollback very well and has substantial content contributins.Also as per Mailer Diablo and Newyorkbrad. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Support, and always have supported from the start. — RyanCross (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Strong Support - I have known Jamie since she joined Wikipedia, hardworking and trustworthy, and people that oppose based on age are immature themselves and should be taken to a secluded place and shot..enuf said!!.. good luck..--Warpath (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Do you know what the word "immature" means? It means making comments like you just did here, demonstrating that you have either never had access to a dictionary or that you are a complete dick. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I wonder if either comment is helpful? Please let Jamie's RfA be now - she deserves her chance without further provocation by anyone.--VS ^talk 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes Malleus, it takes one to know one, anyways, please take all this drama to my talkpage where I'll be more than happy to explain what I said above in complete detail :)..--Warpath (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    It requires no explanation. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

92. Support - Royalbroil and Mailer? That's good enough for me (and DYK work). ~ Ameliorate! 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support No problems here. Razorflame 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support — JoJo • Talk • 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
95. A thousand times, yes! —Animum (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
96. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
97. Strong Support. Good answers to questions. Very good content contributions too. This is the best candidate I've seen in a long time. Jamie is exactly what an admin should be. Caden ^{is cool} 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
99. Strong support Worked with me in Spotlight, great article contributions evidenced by a number of DYKs, very good with new page patrolling/speedy deletion, extremely civil. I would have nominated her last time, but she did not canvass in the least bit (in fact, I didn't even know it was going on until later). Mm40 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
100. 100 Support! Trustworthy editor with a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. Great answers to the questions also. FlyingToaster 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
101. IT'S OVER 100!!! Trustworthy, I see no reason to oppose. Until It Sleeps 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Support. Candidate will do fine with the tools. — Σxplicit 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
104. Fine. Prodego ^talk 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
105. Support: I thought the way that Jamie's first RfA went was a huge shame. I watched it develop and felt truly sorry that so much unnecessary drama was hauled in where it didn't belong. I did, however, think that Jamie handled it admirably. Since then, I've seen her around and at DYK and I'm confident that she will make an excellent admin. She is clearly intelligent, thoughtful, and dedicated. Maedin\^talk 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
106. Strong support: If I judge from the help she gave me at the René Dagron DYK she would be a very helpful, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and extremely polite admin. What else could one ask from an admin? Or from anyone for that matter? Dr.K. logos 14:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. Quite ridiculously helpful, kind, knowledgeable, and resourceful. I have no doubt she'll use the tools wisely given the common sense and judgment evident throughout her contributions.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

:Weak Oppose I'm sorry Jamie, I really hate to oppose and rarely do so, but you did say that CAT:SD was one place where you were offering to wield the mop. These two attacks were both less than a months ago (you tagged the first as vandalism and the second as non-notable). Also I don't think that this was a G1 (though it was from last December). I'm not bothered by your age and I'm happy to see the clean block log, diverse contributions and civil talk page. But I don't think your CSD tagging is yet up to scratch. I'm sorry, and if this fails I hope to be able to support next time. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose per question answers, SoWhy and NewYorkBrad ϢereSpielChequers 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The user has made strides in good content work, which I applaud, but reading through the previous RfA (which I do feel was derailed for some minor reasons) I'm not comfortable supporting when it's been (in my opinion) a relatively short period of time since the last RfA. In addition, my concerns about AfD's are not assuaged by a look at recent XfD activity. Non-admin closures to SNOW pages does not demonstrate judgement, poor or no, but this kind of close is definitely not what we need. The user has actually commented very little on AfDs, and when she does I am rather unimpressed with the rationales. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Dear David, the candidate's last RFA is now just over 8 months ago, which is really quite a long gap between RFAs. Both of my RFAs took place in those intervening 8 months and I'm not the only editor who ran twice in that interval, so may I ask if are you really sure you want to oppose for that reason? ϢereSpielChequers 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's not the only reason, and if I wasn't sure I wouldn't register an oppose in the first place. Cheers. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Evidence has not been presented to offset concerns from the first RFA, less than one year ago. This editor is still a young kid, so I'd want to see evidence of unusual maturity beyond her years. All I see here is a bunch of hand-waving and people claiming the first RFA was really awful. Friday (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Have you any dif's showing the candidate is not able to use the tools constructively due to age or lack thereof? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect Friday, if there is a lot of "hand-waving", perhaps there's good reason for it. You ask for a evidence of unusual maturity, so I offer this diff from this very page. In my humble opinion, I believe this response is indicative of an editor that is rational enough to accept constructive criticism, intelligent enough to evaluate the input, strong enough to respond lucidly, and mature enough to proceed in a cautious and judicious manner. — Ched :  ?  02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Friday, I think you are looking at this the wrong way — you are asking for evidence of unusual maturity, perhaps you should be looking for evidence of a lack of unusual maturity. I don't how defaulting to a negative assumption is best practise. — neuro^(talk) 03:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You've got that logically all backwards. Why would we assume the unusual? It's as sensible to assume that Jamie's unusually mature as it is to assume that I'm an unusually brilliant economist, or that I'm unusually obese, or that I've taken an unusual number of trips to outer space. We're opening a door to absurdity if we translate assume good faith to assume unusual things as long as they'd be pleasant assumptions. You can't argue with me, in fact -- you owe it to your own theory to assume that I'm an unusually brilliant logician (the reason, in fact, that I am a polyastral astronaut). After all, Neuro, there is but trifling evidence that I've never flown on the space shuttle. --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   As you said, there is evidence that you've never been to outer space. On the other hand, there is evidence that Jamie is indeed abnormally mature for her age. As such, I'm not sure I understand your logic—but I could be completely missing the point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   JayHenry was saying that there was trifling evidence that he's never been to space to prove the logical fallacy that Neurolysis was introducing. Considering that Friday says he hasn't seen evidence that Jamie is unusually mature, if you could provide some of the evidence that you've mentioned, it may help to sway him. GlassCobra 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You have misunderstood me. No, I do not think that you are a polyastral astronaut. If you were to claim it, however, I would not doubt it without good reason. The mere fact that Jamie is going through RfA is enough a statement from Jamie for my liking, and it has me believing that she believes that is mature enough to handle the bit, and that is good enough for me — I have no reason to doubt her own judgment. — neuro^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   We get plenty of kids coming to run the gauntlet prematurely. Do you trust all their judgments simply because they've decided to come try for admin? Friday is saying that he has not seen evidence to show exceptional maturity. (Also, I'm the President of Sri Lanka. :P) GlassCobra 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   My friends call me Barry. (And Jay's response is perfectly logical. We don't assume abnormality, it requires proof. The circular reasoning whereby Jamie is mature because she believes she is mature, because we trust her judgment because she trusts her judgment... Well, anyway. I don't oppose people for age reasons, but sometimes the people who protest such opposition don't do themselves favors.) Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ok... not to sound harsh - but this is not a reason to oppose this candidate, but the RfA process. Can you provide a reason why this particular candidate, not just the process, should not become an administrator? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   DougsTech generally says this at every candidate's RfA. And the community has decided to stay quiet and leave him to his opinion. Jamie^☆S93 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah and somebody has to oppose. Can you imagine the scandal that would erupt if a RfA passed with zero opposes?! The first question that would be raised would be "where was Doug"? ;) --candle•wicke 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I just don't think this kind of comment is helpful; there's one RfA right now with no opposes, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ahem, no need to cite such rare examples. But I meant no harm and I apologise if it was misread that way. --candle•wicke 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think your comment was entirely fair. No candidate can be perfect. Unless the editor happens to be an omnipitent and omniscient being. Seddσn ^talk 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, there are too many admins, but how many pf those actually care for the wiki?..answer, just a few dozen. Most people that come on WP just aspire to become admins and once they have achieved that, they leave, literally citing school, education, personal reasons which is sad because these are the same people that oppose policies of de-adminship based on inactivity and thus the wiki never moves forward and we end up with the same old expalantion that their is too many admins, when infact there is hardly any active.--Warpath (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Sorry, but I can't support anyone still at high school. If there was a subset of buttons available to help you in your excellent work at DYK then I'd have no hesitation in supporting, but unfortunately there isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   What makes you think someone in high school would be less able to handle the tools than an adult? Timmeh! 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose the thinking that we have had high schoolers for some time that are admins and at least one 'crat is discarded as passé. Oh well. Any dif's that might change my opinion of this particular user would be appreciated. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   The same reason that I wouldn't lend a minor my car, no matter how good a driver they appeared to be. Please don't anyone else bother to pick up this so-called "agism" banner, it falls on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind Dlohcierekim, simply stating my opinion. That's what this section's for isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's a bad analogy IMO, but I'll play along. What if you had personally seen that minor drive safely every day for over a year? Timmeh! 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Malleus' concern is a valid one. I disagree with it, but it's valid nonetheless. If possible, could we keep any age-related discussion confined to the talk page? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   moving unseemliness to talk page. Dlohcierekim 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Friday and Malleus. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose I cannot support candidates I know to be underage. This is primarily because admins are often privy to sensitive information regarding BLP matters, deleted revisions, OTRS, etc - the operative phrase is "personally identifiable information" in the Wikimedia privacy policy. For example, arbcom cannot have members who are minors. Skinwalker (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Struck my vote per NYB. Skinwalker (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   FYI, administrator access to deleted revisions is specifically excluded from the age requirement under the applicable board resolution, and OTRS access does not result from administrator status. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose - User mentions DYK as one of their areas to work in. To be a DYK is a different set of attributes and requirements to be a CSD, AFD, etc, admin. You work on the mainpage and you select things that can have great ramifications. This requires a high level of maturity, an intimate understanding of the selection process, and an understanding of templates. I have no confidence that this user can perform the job adequately, and I cannot support in any way as they have expressed their intentions in this area and I think that it will be a harm to the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   And note - any admin can work at DYK, but not every admin would be good. I don't trust the user enough, especially with this being an area of expressed interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I have a few concerns. First, I think there's a bit of pandering in her answers. This is, of course, only my opinion, so don't jump my rump about it. In particular, the answers to my (asked by GlassCobra) BLP questions, seem noncommittal. That to me is probably my biggest concern. We need help in the area of BLP, not editors who are sort of indifferent about the whole thing. However, minors are not the best to be handing such sensitive matters anyway. The more time I spend as an admin, the more I realize just how many unseemly things come across my screen, and there is much I don't think Jamie would do well to handle. As others have justifiably pointed out, Jamie is young. Requests for examples of extraordinary maturity have been met with arguments, not diffs. Unfortunately, we can't assume all teenagers here are AnonymousDissidents. There has been too many examples of problematic admins with poor histories (in this RFA even) who make it obvious that caution is necessary when promoting young admins. Do I think Jamie would have the sort of meltdown that we've seen in some others? Not at all, but I don't feel that adminship would benefit Jamie. Net positive? Maybe for the project, but I think Jamie would be better off as an editor, not an admin. I have additional concerns regarding the areas she plans to work and the diffs posted above showing some questionable edits in those areas. لennavecia 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose - This RfA is on the road to success, so this weak oppose is intended mainly to get Jamie's attention -- to encourage her future improvement. I have "seen" Jamie at DYK and have been positively impressed by her productivity and good nature. I had no inkling that she was young, and in fact I find her to be far more mature in her behavior than many Wikipedians who are apparently a good deal older. I think she has demonstrated the personal maturity necessary for the admin role -- including the good judgment to stay away from matters she doesn't understand. I have, however, been vaguely bothered by an apparent high tolerance for bad writing, both in sources (for example, illustrated by this DKY nom, which she rescued nicely after the issue was discussed) and (as indicated by the fact that she has inserted them into hook sets) in poorly worded hooks nominated by others. Now that I know that she is young, I recognize this (particularly the tolerance for meaningless blather found in music reviews) as youthful inexperience, and I hope Jamie will recognize that this is an area for future growth. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Point taken. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As scanning through Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JamieS93, I'm not convinced that the concern over the candidate's "maturity" issue is cleared this time. So I remain here for a while.--Caspian blue 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   In all honesty, I think a fair amount of the concern last time stemmed from an overly vigorous defense that ended up painting Jamie in a negative light.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Per Caspian blue. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral per above. Nakon 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral There is the odd issue raised in the oppose section that for the time being is holding me back from supporting but i get the feeling too many of those oppose votes are motivated by other reasons than the quality of the candidate or even thier age so I refuse to be seen as possibly being part of that so for the time being, neutral. Seddσn ^talk 03:37, 9 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Wadester16

Final: (67/4/1); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Wadester16 (talk · contribs) – Wadester16's last RfA in February failed largely due to a lack of experience, though it was certainly close. I voted for him last time, and I still feel he would be an excellent admin. Since his previous request, he has exhibited the maturity, intelligence, and judgment we look for in our administrators. I've been "coaching" him for a couple months now, though it was more like a long-term test; throughout the course of the coaching period, his decisions were consistently accurate. Unlike many other candidates, this editor has a strong need for the tools, as evidenced by the dozens of deletion requests I've received. :)

Most of Wadester's work revolves around images, both here and at Commons, where he has accumulated 7,600 and 1,400 edits, respectively. He is well-known throughout the WP:FPC community, and is one of most active participants at WP:VPC. As an added bonus, he's an excellent photographer! (Some of his images are listed at User:Wadester16/Gallery.) Even so, he has written 5 DYKs, all of which are well-written and properly sourced. As a member of numerous WikiProjects, he collaborates well with other editors, and knows what it takes to get the job done.

I think we can easily trust this editor with a few extra buttons, and I'm confident you'll agree. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words, JC. I accept. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 17:02, 5 May 2009 (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: I do a lot of work around here on images. I have moved dozens of public domain and {{movetocommons}} images to Commons and typically end up flooding Juliancolton's talk page with deletion requests. Having admin tools would greatly facilitate this task and make me more efficient for the project. For one, I transferred every eligible featured picture to Commons that wasn't already there (some unnecessarily had a local copy and a Commons copy). This meant that after deletion took place, I had to replace the local FP template (and many times {{picture of the day}}) on the local image page so it was correctly listed here at en:wiki (see the list of transferred FPs). It became a grueling task because I didn't have the tools to delete.

In addition to image transfers, I would take part in page protection and vandal fighting, and I have completed some admin coaching relating to these subjects. I also plan to take part in granting rollback rights. I have had rollback since 3 February 2009 and am very aware of the level of trust expected of a user granted rollback.

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

A: My image work, by far. I have a large gallery of images—most of which are used in articles—and a number of FPs and VPs under my belt. I also have a significant presence at featured picture candidates and valued picture candidates, having become a closer at both places since my last RfA (see the complete list of closures; this was not done to show off at my RfA, but to receive permission to use MER-C's FPC closer). I also recently co-wrote a Signpost Dispatch with MER-C.

In an effort to not repeat myself, I will allow you to sift through my first RfA for my contributions prior to that. Since my previous RfA, I have been a major contributor to New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 (just recently nominated at GAN), Scott Murphy (politician), and Jim Tedisco. On these pages, I've tried to keep references updated and formatted correctly, in addition to keeping content updated, clear, and relevant. I also recently started the article Vevo, which looks like it will be a very popular website in the future (trivial, but fun).

I have since taken on an Adoptee and am in the midst of helping a college class in its effort to improve an article about its home institution.

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: You'll want to see my first RfA for the overview of my most notable disagreement. Since then, I've met some resistance to changing images at United States. Another minor argument came about from an FPC of a penis. I removed the image from the nom, leaving only a link, which apparently upset one user. I thought it was practical, feeling that FPC should be safe for work and family.

Like I said last time, I'm don't bring much drama with me and I can typically deal with a situation well. I recently offered insight into a very lame edit war. I had a strong opinion, but to keep from adding too much to the lame war, I aimed to only leave small, to-the-point comments (this discussion essentially flows to the end of the talk page).

Not-so-optional question from Wadester16

4. What's changed since your last RfA?

A: My last RfA failed because I was too general. I was underprepared for the RfA experience and becoming an admin, so I aimed to please the most users. My CSD work seemed to be my ultimate downfall, and fairly so. I have only done limited CSD work since, but they all seemed to have been deleted based on my suggestion or based on a very similar criteria. I don't plan on doing much with CSD or AfD, though I may work my way into UAA eventually (I remember reporting at least 2 usernames in the past and I have a pretty good understanding of the policy). I made an effort to take part in the areas I claimed I would during my last RfA, but frankly, some of them are just plain boring to me. I might as well stick to what insterests me to keep me here longer and make me the most productive I can possibly be.

And like I said, image work will be my main niche. I have ≈1400 edits at Commons, am trusted, and have rollback there, so adding the tools that come with the mop here will hopefully allow me to be as efficient as possible with my image work. That said, I don't consider myself a "Commons user". I do work at Commons for the benefit of en:wiki and other wikis (I do image work at the es:wiki on occasion as well). I see this all adding up to the general well-being of the English WP. I'm also knowledgeable about copyright (2 recent examples), but always ask if I'm unsure.

I have to say that my last RfA was a very positive experience overall. It was nice to hear that my work was appreciated and also to hear respectful constructive criticism. You've probably noticed that I've become more active at RfA, which I was not previously (a typical edit; note: I do pass my RfA criteria :) ). In general, I have branched out a lot more since my last RfA and feel I am much more experienced, diversified, and confident with the wiki. Oh, and I still promise to be a net positive and to not blow up the wiki. :-)

Optional questions from Cunard

5a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Would you speedy delete Emptoris, Inc. (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?

A: I would not speedy delete this article. A quick Google search shows that the company is plenty notable. In addition, news stories like [14], [15], and [16] give me reason to think an article here is deserved. That said, the article lacks any references and could be rewritten to sound less ad-like (though it's definitely not the worst ad-like article I've ever read). To its credit, the article is categorized, has an infobox, and has multiple sources out there that can be used for its development. Not even sure I'd vote delete in an AfD, to be honest.

5b. Share verification bureau (permalink) is tagged for speedy deletion by an IP. The IP gives only the {{db}} tag but no criterion. Would you speedy delete the article? (Choose from: A7, G3, G11). Would your decision be different if a new-page patroller or an admin tagged it for deletion?

A: This article has absolutely no respect for NPOV and is coming extremely close to libel, IMO. Stating what is said in the article would be fine as long as it is reported neutrally and with many sources backing the claims up. Currently, it is a defamatory article that almost appears to be written by someone that may have been disenfranchised by the company. There's not one news story listed on Google News and the top hit of a Google search brings up the WP article (the second is one of the sources in the article). G11 isn't for this, because this article isn't promoting anything; it's defaming something. I wouldn't go with A7 because I think this meets notability, but in the wrong way. I guess G3 is best, even though it's not exactly vandalism, but it seems to be the best choice.

5c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11).

A: I wouldn't speedy delete this article.

5d. You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?

A: How about I just delete that sentence? If it's not verifiable after a search online, it's probably not true. That said, unless it's verifiable, it can't be there. But the rest seems okay and the {{db}} was for attacks. Remove that sentence and there's no longer an attack. A stub template would be applicable too. :-)

But just to be clear, I don't really plan on doing much/any CSD work; I find it boring.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I admittedly don't really do a whole lot of work on BLPs. I did work on Scott Murphy (politician) and James Tedisco due to the local special election. Other than that my experience is limited. From my personal experience, I would say there's not too much of a problem with BLPs and when I work on them, I just use common sense. Strong statements must be backed up by strong sources (multiple, preferably), while neutral statements can be used while one waits for a source. For example. in Scott Murphy (politician), it states he graduated from David H. Hickman High School in Missouri. There's no citation, but for the time being, I'm AGF that it's true. Nothing bad comes from including this information.

6b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

For high-profile BLPs, I am in favor of flagged revisions. Anything from a US Congressman and up the hierarchy would be a good idea, including many celebrities, IMO. I don't think flagging is feasible in general currently, due to lack of resources (bodies, namely), but BLP flagging could work well if it was limited to high-profile BLPs. It would limit the amount of libelous content and hopefully not kill anybody off unnecessarily.

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

Not sure how I feel about limiting to trusted users only (or users granted the power from admins). I initially thought any user that can edit a semi-protected page should be allowed to patrol, but maybe a level just a bit higher than that is necessary. Otherwise, my answer is essentially identical to the one above.

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Liberal use; not everyone needs protection and it probably should be made case-by-case, but with a default reaction of semi-protect if requested.

6c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I think it has to do with the content. If the AfD is about notability, a no consensus should still revert to keep (why not?). If the content is only defamatory, then that's a completely different story.

6d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: Of course their argument is to be heard, but if the content is true (eh-hem, verifiable, from high-quality sources), and is a main aspect of their notability, then sure it belongs. Obviously the person's comments are inherently biased to begin with, but would it be fair to remove the entire Watergate section from Nixon's article if he asked us to (i.e. if he were still breathing)? No. The person in question became notable and has no right or power to change that and if this "negative" thing happened, then it happened. Too bad.

As a minor example, take John E. Sweeney, my former Congressman. He lost his last election because his wife filed a report against him with the police regarding domestic violence. Since losing the race, he has gotten two DWIs (one while a younger woman was sitting on his lap while driving), refused to pay a taxi fare, and got to see his replacement in Congress get promoted to the Senate; I know, seems too much to be a true story, but it is. If he made his way here and complained about that content, he'd be laughed at (at least by me) because it was covered in the Times Union (Albany) and even the New York Times. Granted his article will never go to AfD (he's obviously notable), but if that were raised, I'd hear him out... and then tell him he's wrong, placing many ^{[1][2][3][4][5]} after my statement of, "You're wrong."

Once notable, a living person no longer has control over their reputation or public image; rather they only have the power to influence it. And they best be careful lest they ruin it.

Follow-up: So you believe Richard Nixon and a former congressman are marginally notable individuals? I did specify that in my question.

Heh, no I don't. But marginally notable is still notable and the base argument still stands: if the notable occurrence is true, relevant, and verifiable, then it stays. Note that you didn't indicate the reason for the AfD. Is it for questionable notability? That would influence my answer further. I'm AGF that the individual is already notable enough to warrant an article.

Further follow-up: The specific reason for the AFD is irrelevant. What you overlooked is that the claims the subject is upset about were false, so there is no if in regard to that aspect of the discussion. What I read in your answer is that marginally notable is still notable, and for the notable, their reputation or public image is out of their control and they should accept it. I'm reading that your response to a notable person, marginal or otherwise, would be to laugh at him, "tell him he's wrong", then spam him with references. Am I reading this correctly?

No, I was saying I'd laugh at that one person; my disgraced, former Congressman. But I was being facetious anyway. But back to the serious part of the answer: maybe I'm missing something. I'm saying that if the statements are relevant and verifiable by reliable sources, then yes, the subject has a say, but fails to control their reputation, and I would not delete on those grounds. If the statement is questionable, then yes, it should probably be removed (especially if unsourced). At that point, I would see if the subject of the article still feels the article should be deleted. I mean, yea, the subject can make their claim, but if they're just trying to clean their reputation for the sake of their future and/or reputation, then no, they can't do that and I wouldn't weigh much to the user's comments, mainly because of POV and COI. Is this what you're looking for?

Okay. Let me word it differently. There were comments in the hypothetical BLP that were lies. Maybe that's more clear than false, which I thought was clear enough being the opposite of true. Actually, we'll just let this end here. The fact that you couldn't understand the question, even after clarification, is enough of an answer in itself.

See, I see false and lie being very different. A lie is a fallacy somebody purposefully and maliciously adds to make a point or affect a person's reputation (in a BLP). Something in an article that is false could very well not have been added out of spite, but because someone legitimately thought it was true, but didn't reference it (i.e. AGF). I thought I made it clear, though, that if there were a false statement, I would aim to remove it, and examine the article that way in making the AfD decision, and if the main reason for the AfD was that statement, then the AfD is no longer really warranted. And with reference to your use of the word "spamming", I don't think that telling someone they're incorrect and proving it with a number of reliable/verifiable sources is spamming. It's stating a fact and backing it up with facts, which is exactly what WP is about, no? But please don't forget: I didn't accept this nom to be a CSD and AfDer.

Additional optional questions from Nakon

7. You said in Q1 that you plan on working at WP:PERM to assign rollback rights. What would your criteria be for granting or denying this permission? What, in your opinion, shows that a user "demonstrates an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting"

A: A few hundred edits and evidence of fighting vandalism to some extent. I'd also like to see use of warnings and not just blatant reverting without acknowledgement. No blocks within at least the past few weeks and no pressing, legitimate complaints (about anything) on the requester's talk page. Basically a show of trustworthiness.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: This isn't really a concept I've ever sat down and thought about. For the most part, I'd say Wikipedians have the right to be members of this community without fear of harassment, personal attacks, being outted, etc. We also have the right to vanish. I'd say the way I'd protect those rights is by taking action against users that violate those rights: i.e. warnings, blocks, etc. for offending parties.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Wadester16
• Requests for adminship/Wadester16 2

• Links for Wadester16: Wadester16 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Wadester16 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Wadester16 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js Edit counters posted as Wadester is slacking on his own RfA ;) ~ mazca ^t|c 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. →Nagy 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. ever more solid than last time I supported. Really like the answer to number 4, above. (and I generally don't read the Q&A). Shoulda passed last time. Keeper | 76 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes! Great image work. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Wadester does good work in the file area. The file area is in need of more help by users who has the buttons, but with experience in licensing/files, etc. I speak as an admin working in the file area. My interactions with Wadester has been OK, and it has shown he has enough clue for the extra buttons. I think he will be fine. --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - as I did last time.  Frank  |  talk  18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. Last time you were "good enough" for me to support, though I had a few reservations. With a few months more experience and a better view of what you'll be doing with admin tools I am very happy to support again. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support The last time I assumed you'd be a good admin, this time I don't have to make that assumption! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. If I didn't support last time I was either away or very, very drunk.  GARDEN  18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Don't worry, you're safe. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Phew!  GARDEN  18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

11. I supported Wadester16's previous RfA, as I believed back then that he would make a good admin. Acalamari 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Synergy 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per work with images. I'm disappointed in that user did not gain more experience in CSD and AIV. I would recommend gaining much more experience in those areas before blocking vandals or deleting CSD's. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Change to strong support Dlohcierekim 01:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Response to oppose-- meets my standards for a specialist admin The candidate proposes to use the tools in working with images, where he has knowledge, and will be a net positive in those areas.] Dlohcierekim 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

14. Support I did last time. Nothing's changed that. Ray^Talk 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. (e/c) Support. I first came across Wadester16 yesterday here. No reason to oppose. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I supported the last time. We need more admins working images. --NrDg 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. I've seen this editor in action at FPC and was impressed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support No issues I can see. Good luck. America69 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Enthusiastic support. Wadester may not work in every area, but as far as I'm concerned, he has no weaknesses; he knows what he wants to do and does a lot of it, and he participates intelligently at RFA and elsewhere. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support per User:Wadester16/Awards and as candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I've seen this user around in many areas of the project, seems helpful and can be trusted. Will make an excellent sysop. tempodivalse [☎] 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Seems sensible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Per above.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support based on overall record and comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Majorly talk 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Fully qualified candidate. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per above. One (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Seems to have a clue. Contributions look fine. Support. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support per nom. Won't misuse the tools. Timmeh! 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Bsimmons666 (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per nom. -download ׀ sign! 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Strong support - About bloody time, too. ;) — neuro^(talk) 22:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Aww, I'm late to the party. Wish I had noticed this before. — Jake Wartenberg // ER 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
35. I had this RfA watchlisted for some reason... perhaps to support? :) I supported last time around, and Wade has only improved since then. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
36. WP:AGF --Caspian blue 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Dependable as a person.  Marlith (Talk)  04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support In depth, well-thought-out answers to my CSD questions. You have improved greatly in your knowledge of CSD since your last RFA. For Q5d, I agree completely that that one sentence shouldn't mean the demise of the article. For Q5b, my wording is a little awkward; I meant that if the article didn't meet any of the criteria I listed, the article shouldn't be speedy deleted and should either be listed at AfD or left alone. However, {{db-attack}} is also a valid choice, even though I would have used AfD since this non-BLP article isn't too disparaging. Since CSD is not your thing, good luck with the tools in the other areas of Wikipedia! Cunard (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support --Noodle snacks (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support as I trust Juliancolton's judgment that the candidate is ready and per Cunard. Candidate seems to have improved on their CSD knowledge and seems to be both more informed and more careful in that area. Disagree with Q5b though, although I guess some admins will probably have deleted the page for equal reasons (I tagged it for PROD btw). Good answers to the other CSD questions and I think that if the candidate ever considers venturing into CSD, he will be mature enough to ask for advice of one of the CSD-savvy admins like Pedro or "the artist formely known as Balloonman". Regards SoWhy 06:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
43. M&E gives his seal of approval. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Supported then and supporting now. FlyingToaster 15:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. If Julian thinks you're ready, you're ready. The drastic improvement over the past few months also indicates to me this fact. Valley2city^‽ 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Per your nominator, who has worked closely with you the past few months. On your first RfA, the community told you to that you that you lacked experience and to come back when you were ready. You have clearly worked hard on meeting the communities request and I would suggest that you are now fully qualified. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. He's the person I run to everytime I have a question or dont know how to do anything and even though I probably bother him with that stuff way too much, he always has time to look something over, come up with a thoughtful insight, and get back to me quickly.Camelbinky (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Good knowledge of policy and experience with image work. --J^mundo 04:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Good answers to the questions, I think he will be an asset to wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support tentatively. work suggests a greater-than-even chance can be trusted and hence a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support as this editor has the potential to do a lot of good work more efficiently by using the tools. I see no indication the tools would be abused, and as adminship is no big deal, support. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - experienced enough, admits to mistakes, good interaction with him. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support. Wizardman 16:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong support. I found the honesty in this move exceptional. --candle•wicke 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Man this user is pretty amazing to me. He is BOLD, he's straight forward, has excellent image work and is an excellent photographer and can be very useful, good vandal fighter, and good civility. But I would like to see you have written at least one GA or FA.--(NGG) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    My first GAN was posted the other day. I believe NuclearWarfare is taking on the challenge. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hot dog and hot damn. Didn't see that coming.--(NGG) 10:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

57. Support Nakon 03:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Recognize him from some of his fine work at Commons where I am more active with images than here. I don't see any red flags or indicators of disruptive behaviors. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support as an adoptee. ƒingers^on_Roids 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support I can trust him. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support User has been around since Aug 2006 and see no concerns as per track and do see concerns raised in previous RFA overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Looks fine, seems like a helpful editor. AlexiusHoratius 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. Why not? — Σxplicit 02:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support I'm familiar with Wadester16 as I see him around at FPC a lot. I think he will make a good admin. Maedin\^talk 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose I would like to see more experience and a greater diversity of contributions. A lot of your edits are in the last few months. Your contributions look good and dont' require the bit, so I hope you'll keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   In case it means anything to you... ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, that was very honest of you. :) I like that. That's definitely worth a support. --candle•wicke 22:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I know that I'm going to be jumped on by quite a few people for opposing this, but I am uneasy to lend my support. It has only been about three months since Wadester's last RfA, and while this does not normally bother me, several other issues combined with this do make a large difference. Wadester says he, "made an effort to take part in the areas I claimed I would during my last RfA," which to me means that he has been working hard to pass RfA and pacify past opposers rather than to be a good administrator. This next bit might be sort of a stretch, but I feel I should bring it up anyway. You've been going around RfA and placing a "toolbox" for editors to use when considering users, and while I think this is a good idea, I question your motives behind posting this on each and every request--it looks most like a way to boost your edit count to Namespace pages and to get your name out to regular RfA voters. I am willing to assume good faith on this issue, but when I compare this to what I have already talked about, it just adds to my suspicions. There's no problem with wanting to become an administrator, but when you spend most of your time working to pass an upcoming RfA I become hesitant to lend my support even when one of the editors I trust the most has nominated you. This RfA was posted several months too early and I really do not know how well you have learned since your last one, especially when it looks as if most of your editing is geared toward passing. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is not meant as a quarrel with the oppose, but as an effort to understand it, or specifically the first part of it. You express concern that the candidate has spent time in the months since his last RfA working on areas where he was faulted previously for lacking experience. Is the suggestion here that the candidate would be more qualified for RfA #2 today if he had not worked on these areas? If we tell candidates "you are weak in (for example) XfD experience, and before you run again you should gain more experience in that area", and then we criticize them for working on XfD, just what is or was the candidate supposed to do? There can be little doubt that if he had avoided XfD, he would have been opposed strongly for "no effort to cure issues from last RfA." It seems to me that if others accepted this rationale, a true "Catch-22" situation for candidates might be created. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, I am saying that his comments make him sound like he improved upon these areas merely to pass RfA, not to improve on the areas he was lacking. As a strong supporter of Admin Coaching, I understand your viewpoint that by attempting to legitimately improve upon weaknesses through coaching and being opposed for it is unfair and a "Catch-22." The difference between this case and others where the editor is trying to improve lies mainly with the several points I saw and addressed. Like I hoped I made clear, none of the points I made would be enough to result in less than a support if I saw them alone, but when you put them all together I cannot help but see a user who failed at RfA, did his best to please the RfA regs and opposers, and ran three months later without learning anything. Editors who do this might appear to know all the policies down pat, but they do not know how to use discretion, allow reasonable exceptions to guidelines, and generally use WP:IAR effectively. This "wisdom" is important to making users feel more welcome at Wikipedia and giving the website a more positive image. I hope this has helped you to understand :). Malinaccier (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, it certainly helped me understand your point here, so thanks (although my own support stands). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. I agree with Malinaccier. We've had admin who jumped hoops and the rest just to pass RfA, but were not really qualified. Although I want people to be good at admin coaching, I want them to get something out it that is substance, and not just use it as a checklist to pass RfA. We have enough gaming RfA, and if we have people like MyWikiBiz stating that he is keeping a clean account, and another stating that he has three admin account, I think we need to make sure that we just don't pass people who are simply checklist admins. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Per DougsTech. Caden ^{is cool} 08:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning to support leaning to Oppose. I am sorry to do this as candidate is one of the more likeable users in Wikipedia but his BLP answer in which he cited the article on John E. Sweeney concerns me. This is one of the worst articles I have read and I have just placed a tag on it. If candidate sees nothing wrong with the article then this may indicate problems with the treatment of BLP issues down the road. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I've never worked on the article, save for this. I was more referencing the man than the article in a complete hypothetical (it would never be AfD'ed). That said, your !vote is your !vote. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:57, 8 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rosiestep

Voice your opinion (talk page) (75/2/1); Closed Mon, 11 May 2009 21:03:11 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Nomination

Rosiestep (talk · contribs) – Hello all, for my fourth nomination, I'd like to present Rosiestep. Rosie is a dedicated editor who has had her account since June 2007, and has racked up an extremely impressive 22000 edits, with over 17000 of those in the mainspace. Rosie is one of our most prolific article creators, with an astonishing 1,849 articles (167 in 2007, 850 in 2008, and 832 so far in 2009), 74 of which have been featured on our main page at DYK. Rosie does a large amount of work at DYK besides her submissions, including aiding other editors and verifying hooks for accuracy. Though she is most passionate about mainspace work and ventures less frequently into namespace, her contributions at AfD are always backed by a clear understanding of policy and large amounts of evidence, such as here, here, and here.

Rosie does a great amount of maintenance work: copyediting, tagging articles with {{coord missing}}, using Nickj's link suggestion tool to reduce the number of orphaned articles and increase connectivity, categorizing articles, as well as placing appropriate templates on talk pages for the various WikiProjects that she works with. She also does a lot of helpful interwiki work; she has working knowledge of both French and Spanish, and frequently translates articles from both the French and Spanish wikis, as well as the Asturian and German wikis, to here to fill gaps in our compendium. She also imports various details from those wikis to expand articles that already exist on this wiki, including information and images, such as here and here. On top of everything, she also has never been blocked, and has a 100% edit summary rate for both major and minor edits.

Rosie is a member of WikiProjects Anthroponymy, Arctic, Biography, Canadian Territories, Geography, and Military history; however, her work allows her to interact with many other projects as well. She participated in MILHIST's article assessment drive last year, and currently has 25 articles entered in their quality contest. She is a selfless, friendly user who has given a large amount of time and energy to this project, and would only benefit from gaining the tools to continue enabling this site to run more smoothly. GlassCobra 20:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by FlyingToaster - As GlassCobra has said, Rosiestep is an excellent all-around editor. I'd like to draw attention to the fact that she does not draw attention to herself; Rosiestep contributes consistently and prolifically without a need for praise. In fact, many people (such as myself) have been trying to get her to RfA for some time now.

What comes from Rosiestep's experience is a solid understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. While Rosie focuses mainly in the mainspace, her many interactions with other users are consistently polite, positive, and demonstrate a thorough understanding of policy.

Rosie's experience, selfless mainspace works, and important edits in the many thankless tasks which keep Wikipedia together make her an excellent candidate for adminship. FlyingToaster 01:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the nomination; I accept. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (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: After WP:NAS, initially, I expect to work in two areas. My participation at WP:DYK? will expand from article review, comment, and verification to also include assisting with the queue process. In addition to commenting and voting at WP:AfD, I'll also close uncontentious nominations. In the future, I'll consider supporting other community needs bearing in mind that I won't use a new tool without studying it first... and note, I'm not bashful about asking for instructions or assistance if I don't understand something.

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

A: My best contributions are a body of work: the approximately 1000 geography articles I created. These are concentrated in Canada, Greece, and Spain. Article examples include bays (Darnley Bay/Franklin Bay), capes (Cape Hay/Cape Graham Moore), civil parishes (Caleao/Puerto de Vega), hills (Gold Hill (Nevada County, California)), inlets (Berlinguet Inlet, islands (Clarence Islands/Dorset Island, Grey Goose Island), lakes (Qamanirjuaq Lake/Garry Lake), parks (Natural Park of Fuentes del Narcea, Degaña, and Ibias/Redes Natural Park), peninsulas (Bell Peninsula/Kent Peninsula), plains (Great Plain of the Koukdjuak), rivers (Hornaday River/Navia River), roads (Foote's Crossing Road), ice shelves (Markham Ice Shelf/M'Clintock Ice Shelf), sounds (Smith Sound (Trinity Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador), Digges Sound), straits (Barrow Strait, Simpson Strait), villages (Brooman Point Village), and wildlife sanctuaries (Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary, McConnell River Migratory Bird Sanctuary}. I'm also of my DYK contribution variety.

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 had much conflict, but recently, I encountered some differences of opinion while creating Spanish civil parish articles: an issue regarding notability with User talk:Auslli#Asturian parishes, as well as an issue regarding alternate Asturian language village name spellings with User talk:Orhere#Please stop removing Asturian language that I took to WT:SPAIN#Asturian language name for clarification. In general, I tend not to stress over others' edits -- I write and "let go". If there are several editors involved, I'll repond more commonly on the article's Talk page (such as here Talk:Arctic shrinkage#Title?). In the future, I'll continue to be respectful with fellow editors when dealing with conflicts and other stressful situations.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

4a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I do not do a lot of work with BLPs; this is not my area of expertise. I'm aware there are many discussion strings about the BLP situation: I've read a few, but not most, of them. That said, my view of the current BLP situation is that there are legal and ethical issues with BLPs making it a unique area within wikipedia. It appears that there are three BLP subsets which need varying degrees of attention and maintenance. Subset1 (e.g. a head of state from an English speaking country): requires high vigilance; they require constant maintenance; there are significant and constant problems, and we're aware of them. Subset2 (e.g. an almost unknown retired player on an almost unknown pro team from a non-English speaking country): we’re doing a sufficient job in their maintenance and protection; there are no problems. Subset3 (those who fall somewhere in between): can be the biggest concern as we’re not always sure who they are; because they aren't on the main radar, they can either be a minor issue or a major problem. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

4b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Flagged revisions: I'm not ready to support them. Flagged protection and Patrolled revisions: cautiously optimistic about a 2 month trial on a small subset of BLPs. Semi-protection: should be applied judiciously, rather than across-the-board for all BLPs. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

4c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Sorry, neither: I don’t believe defaulting (to keep or to delete) is appropriate for BLP AFDs resulting in “no consensus”. Instead, I believe the particular circumstances of each BLP AFD should determine the decision of keep vs. delete in “no consensus” situations. Some of the reasons that stall me from a default decision have to do with: Is the BLP on a minor, or a victim of a crime, or an accused person who has not come yet to trial? Has notability been established on a transwiki? Did we check all variations of how the name might be spelled? Is there a spoiler(s), a sockpuppet(s), or someone with a "personal agenda" !voting? And what don't I know about this particular AFD, that I should know, and if I knew it, I would decide differently? So, imagining that I’m an admin, I will not initially close these types of AFDs, but I will discuss them with trusted admins in order to shape my understanding of this particular subgroup. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

4d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: A lot, especially during my “inexperienced admin” phase. But no matter how experienced I am, I believe the importance of handling BLPs with respect and integrity can’t be over-stated (without regard to how marginally notable the person may be). As this would be one of those contentious AFDs, I’d initially seek input from trusted, experienced admins before I would take action on closing this AFD subset. At the least, I would want to have the following information: Did the individual address the citations within the article that support the false claims? Is there an issue with language that can be resolved through appropriate translation (for example, does he think the “claim” states one thing, when it actually says something else)? Does he have concerns with only parts of the article, and they aren’t well-sourced, and he wants these removed, vs. the entire article?

Additional question from Toddst1:

5. 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 and why? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).

A: I’d treat the claim seriously and as an emergency. I’d re-review WP:SUICIDE for guidance and I’d follow its recommendations which currently are: place {{Suicide response}} on the editor’s talk page, post a notice at WP:AN, and contact WMF. I'd discuss "Block user, lock pages" with other admins before taking action. In conjunction with other admins/editors/the Foundation, I’d assure an authority was contacted. I would do these things because the rationale for following these instructions seems logical, and, as I’m not a trained mental health professional, I’m not in a position to assess the user’s state of mind. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rosiestep before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Good article work; will make a good admin. However, I have concerns that most of your recent edits are adding {{coord missing}} and notices to talk pages. -download ׀ sign! 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. I've seen Rosiestep around a lot. I think that she's a great user and I'm pleased she's running for adminship. Acalamari 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Will make good admin. --Abce2|Howdy! 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support She has excellent contributions and I am positive the tools would be put to good use. Tavix |  Talk  01:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I see no reason she'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 02:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Don't step on my roses. :( — neuro^(talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support as nom. GlassCobra 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Good contributions. Looks like a trustworthy candidate for adminship. Good Luck. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Holy ****... looking through his contributions, he is the best mainspace contributor I have seen in a long, long while.  Marlith (Talk)  02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    The candidate is female. :) GlassCobra 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in the candidate has no blocks nor any memorable negative interactions with me. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
14. I don't feel like being extensive so I'm just gonna give you a link: Why the hell not.--(NGG) 03:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. From looking at their contributions, I see no problems, and I am very impressed by his contributions. I've never had any negative experiences, and I'm happy to support. Xclamation point 03:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. So far, this looks very solid; the AfD arguments (in the nom and below) seem fine to me, and the article work is overwhelming. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 03:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support as co-nom. FlyingToaster 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - Prolific content creation and DYK (even though the latter is something I am rarely impressed by). This is coupled with a solid knowledge of policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Article creation is quite impressive. I looked at a sampling and she has created not stubs but substantial articles. I support your candidacy but please keep building the encyclopedia aspect if your RfA passes. Valley2city^‽ 04:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Net positive. We need more admins. Dlohcierekim 05:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. 1849 new articles? Extensive content contributions? Lots of DYK work? Yes, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
22. Support. Skilled editor with good understanding of WP policies. - Darwinek (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support GO! GO! GO! PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. I've always found Rosie to be friendly, helpful and sensible, with a good grasp of policy, but I didn't know until now about her prolific content creation, and that's another plus in her favor. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Article work is A+. AdjustShift (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support; solid contributions. One (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Why the hell not?--Unionhawk ^Talk 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support per GlassCobra and FlyingToaster nomination. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support; very impressed with her work at DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Hell yeah Clueful, hardworking, diplomatic, creates great content and polite and friendly to boot. Too good for adminhood, but let's do it to her anyway. Paxse (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Looks good I checked out the AfD diffs below and they seemed okay. Pointing to policy pages is okay with me if the logic is reasonable and it's not just knee jerk (which happens way too off and often shows a misunderstanding of what the policies actually say). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per GC and Flying. Also, I'd like to point out that Fuchs' view on AfDs and RfA candidates is amiss. Judging someone on how they participate in an AfD does not give you an idea on how they would close them. They are obvious distinctions not relevant to a candidate (much like a crat commenting as an editor, it doesn't provide a detailed rationale to suggest they would be impartial to closing). Synergy 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support I've seen this editor's work in Canadian geography and think she will use the tools well. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support 1849 articles created? 74 DYKs? Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
36. You're a great editor, so I have no problem supporting, but I encourage you to take into account David Fuch's oppose and see if you can better yourself at AfD. But through your work, I see clue, and have no problem supporting. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support No reason not to. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
38. WP:AGF--Caspian blue 02:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support No reason not to. We need more admins who've actually created lots of articles on real subjects and helped build the project. Good luck. Nick mallory (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Spotted Rosiestep as potential admin material as early as July of last year and suggested the idea on her talk, so naturally I support. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - good article work, has grasp of policy, does not seem like the candidate to rush into areas where she has not much experience. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. I remember, she used to give cookies out to everyone who created a legitimate page. She appears to me as extremely kind, and her work otherwise seems stellar. Ceranthor 21:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Other than the fact that Flying toaster had to fix a misspelled word in one of Rosiestep's articles in 2008...I see a picture perfect editor. Responsible, polite, productive, drama free, with a valid need for Sysop tools.--Preceding unsigned comment 21:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Nothing wrong with this candidate at all. I looked at the diffs brought up by David Fuchs, but they were nothing terribly bad, so I can see no reason not to support. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
49. 'Support -love this editor. She is as kind and thoughtful as one gets. I have no concerns about her. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
50. 'Support clear net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Strong support - one of the best I've seen in a while; huge number of high-quality edits, safe. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Strong Support as an editor with a strong grasp of what Wikipedia is all about. She works well with others, does nothing but improve the coverage of the encyclopedia, and there is no indication the tools would be abused. Twiddle that bit! :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Great Editor as per track and see no concerns the project will gain with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
54. No reason given anywhere not to, so why not? Majorly talk 23:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Strong Support Along with Jamie, Rosiestep is also a very good canidate, and i would not hesitate to vote for her. Good mainspace work, and should make a great sysop. Good luck. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Great editor. DYK admin help is always needed because it frequently gets delayed when no admins are around. Royalbroil 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support, no major concerns. Nakon 06:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Strong user, steady contributions, probably won't go nuts with the extra buttons, more than ready for adminship. -- Gggh (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support I've had plenty of interact with this editor in Milhist and have seen nothing but good. I'm also sure that she's got enough common sense to recongnise controversial actions in AfD, CSD etc a mile off and will avoid tackling tackling them until she feels comfortable that she has the experience to do so.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Strong support. Wizardman 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support should do fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Levelheaded and calm will make a fine administrator. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong support. Wow (on the content). DYK will benefit greatly. --candle•wicke 00:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
64. DVD 03:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support I sense that Rosie is expedient, but careful, which explains the possible "alphabet soup" answers in AfDs. If there is a clear policy or guideline about something, and that article doesn't match, why waste time restating the obvious, when there is so much more work to still be done. Am I right, Rosie? Alphabet soup doesn't bother me, as long as they are linked to so that newbies can easily follow them, and even for experienced editors who occasionally forget what a particular combination means. :-) As to too many DYKers (or admins in general)… That's like saying there are too many templaters, FfDers, etc. Until every queue is regularly empty and admins start getting in trouble for not having enough to do, I don't think there can be "too many" if they are of the right mettle. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, quite right. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

    I must say I don't understand these objections either. We frequently have RFA opposes on the basis that the nominee has not cited policy when participating in AFD's - but to oppose because they have cited policy? Seems like it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    The fact is that some AFD's are very straightforward and require only a nod to policy. I went through quite a few of Rosie's AFD contributions and she clearly adds more commentary when necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

66. Support. A definite net positive. — Σxplicit 00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support No problems here and a net positive. Razorflame 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Prolific, willing to get second opinions and plays nice with others. -- Banjeboi 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Having spent the last year learning mediawiki as a collaborative tool, I understand the complexities of managing content administration. User:Rosiestep will be an invaluable administrator. I request User:Rosiestep for adminship. --Michaelmmillican (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC) user:Michaelmmillican

    Indenting: user has made only two edits. FlyingToaster 07:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support Rosie would make a great admin. Seanplusplus Seanplusplus (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)\>

    Indenting: user has made very few edits. FlyingToaster 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

69. Holy Shit, a user with more DYKs than me who isn't Ecoleetage. Seriously though, looks excellent. Strong support. FT, you are not to indent my post :PIronholds (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting: user is British. FlyingToaster 09:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

70. Strong Support, a highly experience user, tons of edits, deserves admin rights, good luck to you Arctic ^Fox 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - candidate is thoughtful and has clue. لennavecia 13:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - Judging by contributions, would be good admin. SD5 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Looks like a strong candidate. AlexiusHoratius 16:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support clean block log, good CSD tagging civil and experienced. ϢereSpielChequers 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Parker1297 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Sure you didn't mean too many trolls currently? Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 22:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   That is entirely unnecessary. Mind your backhanded offense, and consider relevant essays regarding dealing with what you perceive to be trolling and how to deal with it. Keegan^talk 07:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Striking the comment and sorry about it; I had not gotten any sleep the night before, and I was a bit grouchy (though this is no excuse). I do feel that it is trolling, but it's no excuse for me to be incivil. Sorry again. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you. Keegan^talk 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I couldn't help noting that there are 1 admin to 582 users, another interesting fact for the people who think we don't have enough administrators Arctic ^Fox 11:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Per my general wish for more audited content work in candidates, as well as other concerns. Her supposed areas for admin work will be DYK and AfD... I dunno, it just seems like lots of DYK people have been coming through here chomping for the bit, but it's just not striking me as an area we really need people. I wouldn't oppose over that (I'm sure we can always use one more), I'm just not exactly enthused by her AfD comments, which don't strike me as the most thoughtful [17][18][19][20]. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   The candidate is female. :) — neuro^(talk) 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I swear I read and recognized that, and still typed in 'he'. Stupid misogynist me :) refactored, my apologies. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. My interactions with the nominee have always been positive and I think she is clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia. But the AfD diffs David Fuchs pointed out do concern me a little, there seems to be an over-reliance on alphabet soup in a lot of the !votes. I personally am not a fan of "fails/meets WP:___" !votes, but RfA is not the right place for me to push my beliefs on that kind of stuff, and I haven't looked super-closely at the nominee's AfD activity other than the diffs from David Fuchs, so staying neutral for now. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:11, 5 May 2009 (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.

Download

Final (talk page) (45/39/9); Closed Mon, 11 May 2009 22:42:06 (UTC) by Avi (talk)

Nomination

Download (talk · contribs) – Download is a highly active user I noticed in my wikiwork who has an excellent track record as an editor. After reviewing his history, I have decided to nominate him for adminship.

Download has been an editor since April 2008 and has amassed over 22,000 edits in that time. He has been active in many areas of the wiki, including AIV, CSD, and the user adoption program. Further, he has written and contributed to several articles, including a GA, Linkin Park. Also he has been an active member of the Math Wikiproject and contributes to community discussions.

If selected as an administrator, I believe he will continue his AIV efforts and assist in the other administrative tasks. Download has the requisite knowledge and has shown the skills necessary to be an admin, which is why I am nominating him today. MBisanz ^talk 20:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by GT5162 - Download has a lot of experience in many areas of Wikipedia. He is a very polite, mature and helpful user who has helped many less experienced users by adopting them and creating his adoptee's classroom to help new users learn about Wikipedia and encourage them to contribute.

If this RfA succeeds, he will no doubt use his administrator rights for the benefit of the encyclopedia. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by MC10 - Download is a good-natured user. He apoligizes for his mistakes, has an Adoptee's classroom, has a majority of edits to mainspace, and helped out in the community. He also commonly participates in AFDs, WP:AIV, etc. Also, Download constantly fights vandalism, and will continue to do so, as he states in question 1. By making him an admin, he will further fight vandalism, commit to the connmunity, and be a plus to the admins. MC10 | Sign here! 04:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the kind words; I accept. -download ׀ sign! 22:21, 4 May 2009 (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: Having done work in a wide range of areas on Wikipedia, I plan on working in a variety of admin's areas. Having done a lot of work with Huggle and Lupin's anti-vandal tool to combat vandalism, I'd start with WP:AIV - there's always a need for more admins there. I'd also work in WP:RPE and WP:RFPP, watching both pages and dropping by once in a while to appropriately fulfill or deny requests. In the future, I might go in to deletion and sock puppet investigations when I have more experience as an admin. In addition, I'm currently learning JavaScript, so I will try to help any projects that require knowledge in that field. Finally, I'd check Category:Wikipedians looking for help from administrators for users who are in need of admin help.

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

A: I'm quite proud of my 100 and more reports to WP:AIV, and my numerous typo corrections using WP:AWB. I've also had, and will continue, a successful adoption program, in which I've adopted several adoptees and taught them the basics of Wikipedia and how to stay away from vandalism. Recently I've also taken to creating articles I've found at WP:Requested articles, creating a plethora of articles (though I'm embarrassed to say that most are stubs). I tend to create articles in the mathematics and music fields, as they are my area of interest and expertise. One of my current projects is helping one of my adoptees create the Vatican City portal, which I hope will turn out to be great.

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've had a few conflicts with either way about notability and what should and should not be included in the article. I tended to be the inclusionist, and usually opted for content, such as Washington State Mathematics Championship, to remain on Wikipedia. On the corresponding deletion debate, our friend Uncle G showed us we were both wrong on our thoughts about notability; notability is not subjective. From past experiences, I've learned to take the issue to the corresponding talk page and discuss it rather than immediately reverting. In addition, I've learned to stay away from topics in which I have a conflict of interest.

A few users have also commented on my miscorrections using WP:AWB to articles; I had been miscorrecting the titles of French literature, as shown in this edit. In those cases, I apologized and tried to keep on the alert and stop making those mistakes. I will definitely be more careful in the future, whether or not am an administrator.

4. Question from Ched

Noticing your "Say no to flagged revisions" graphic, I'd like to ask; what your reasoning for being opposed to this? (there's no right or wrong answer for my purposes, I'm just curious about your line of thinking here)

A: Although I didn't get to the voting for the trial in time, my reasoning was that it would be futile to flag every single revision to Wikipedia. There simply wouldn't be that many users up to the task. Having automatic flagging, say every 24 hours, only complicates the task. We already have software such as Huggle and Twinkle which are able to patrol recent changes and revert or tag for deletion when necessary. As for adding false information that is not discernable by the patrollers, I believe it could be combatted by those who have the pages watched. Another line of thought is that the implementation of Flagged Revisions might discourage anonymous or new users to refrain from editing. After all, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and any changes made appear immediately. -download ׀ sign! 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to flag "every single revision" as it is easy to check the cumulative effect of several edits. — CharlotteWebb 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

An few strictly optional questions from user:Tempodivalse:

5. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content dispute, et cetera.

A: Consensus is when editors come to a conclusion about an editor, a proposal, etc. They don't necessarily need to agree; for example, even if an article met A7, an article's creator and fans would still opt for it to be kept. However, if an editor had an extremely good reason to explain how their thinking went, it'd probably weigh the strength of his/her's judgement. AfD's and others are not a vote; therefore, if editors piled on one point of view, I wouldn't always follow them if the other point of view had good justification. "Wikipedia runs by consensus, not by strength in numbers. In conclusion, I believe consensus is when editors justify their opinions about the topic, and the others are swayed towards or away a single opinion in their line of thought. Hope that makes sense. -download ׀ sign! 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you particularly agree with? Conversely, are there any policies you particularly disagree with?

A: Over my time on Wikipedia, I've strongly supported the three-revert rule. It doesn't hurt to talk it over on a talk page and reach consensus rather than edit-warring. In addition, it saves memory and bandwidth that could go towards something useful. Verifiability is also a policy I agree with. I do not, however, agree with WP:NOR. Original research can be a very useful source in some cases, especially interviews. One might not be able to find information regarding a person or subject without conducting an interview. For example, The New Mikemoral and I were working on the article Farid Suleman. However, we could barely find any personal information about the subject and resorted to sending letters to Citadel Broadcasting for more information. Though replies never came, original research could potentially be a very important resource for topics.

Question from Steve Crossin

7. Administrators, on a day-to-day basis, will likely have to resolve a dispute between one or more editors, in some form. What past experience do you have in dispute resolution? (MedCab, RFCs.) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A. One particular example was a dispute regarding whether Math Champion should be banned at WP:ANI. Math Champion had been jokingly vandalizing user pages, including mine. I discussed this situation with him, and he later apologized at the page and promised to stop vandalizing. He's now a good editor, doing vandalism reverting with Huggle. An adoptee, Axmann8, had gotten blocked multiple times for violating WP:SOAP and adding political propoganda to pages. I'll admit I didn't have much to do in the role of reaching consensus with his community banning as I did not approve of his editing; however, I tried to teach him about Wikipedia policies and how to avoid getting blocked in the future. -download ׀ sign! 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from Ceranthor

8. I asked this question at another RFA, and I think it should become traditional. What do you think constitutes the difference between a major edit and a minor edit?

A. In my view, major edits are those that add substantial content to the page. This doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, but should be something that gives more information to the reader. Minor edits are typo fixes, vandalism reverts, stub-tagging, etc. These don't have much of an effect to the reader; however, tagging them as minor edits would be useful to bots and users who scan the history of the page. I myself, and probably some other editors out there, use minor edits minimally as checking the box is a little bit troublesome. -download ׀ sign! 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

9. Can you name any articles which you have contributed to substantially, and how you benefited them?

A. I'll admit that I'm not much of a writer. I do, however, write a lot of stubs. I have WP:Requested articles and subpages watched, and try to fulfill requests there. Recent articles I've written are Gnomenreigen, Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Amadinda, and others. As for larger articles, I've done some work with articles regarding the Bellevue School District, but I will no longer do so as I have a conflict of interest. In these articles, I added significant amounts of content. I've also done work on Igor Panarin, where I at first expanded and sourced information. -download ׀ sign! 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from either way

10.Could you explain the rationale behind this edit? I'm just curious why you would edit an archive three months later to reword something.

A. I really did not like the way I phrased that response, and could not refrain from editing it. There's no policy against editing a comment from long ago, so in conclusion, I could not stop from rephrasing it.

No policy, perhaps, but there is a behavioural guideline. — neuro^(talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from Unionhawk

11. What makes you think that more admins are needed at AIV? Currently, there is only one unresolved report at AIV.

A. Well, admins are retiring at an ever-increasing rate, as shown in the discussion at WT:RfA and previous discussions. In addition, more and more anonymous IPs and users are using Wikipedia each day, at a high rate. Some of these accounts will be tempted to take advantage of the "anyone can edit" feature and vandalize. -download ׀ sign! 16:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

12. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: Yes, non-admin editors have, in my opinion, as many rights as admins. They can make mistakes, and learn from them, while admins are pressured to set an example for other editors. Non-admin editors should not be considered lower than admins, and in disputes, admins should not use their power to pressure other editors. As in admin, I would treat admins and non-admin editors equally in disputes, and avoid using my influence to overwhelm other users. -download ׀ sign! 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So just to clarify then, you see "admins" as being a different class of creature to "Wikipedians"? Groomtech (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Admins only have much more of a responsibility than non-admin editors, and shouldn't be treated as a big deal. -download ׀ sign! 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should reconsider your answer. It shows very clearly that you view "Wikipedians" as disparate from "admins". seresin ( ¡? )  21:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had interpreted the question wrong, and thought by Wikipedians Groomtech meant non-admin editors. I've edited my answer. Thanks -download ׀ sign! 22:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Yintan

13. To Q3 above you answer "I've had a few conflicts with either way about notability and what should and should not be included in the article" yet in this RfC you accuse him of nothing less than WikiHounding, causing trouble, "hanging around" at this RFA, and "pushing for oppose votes". You also say you're "extremely stressed and tired because of this repeated harrassment". I'd say that's not just "a few conflicts". Could you explain this difference to me?

A: At first, I did not want to stir up trouble with either way. I was aware that he was following my edits and trying to cause trouble with me; however, I tried to avoid it and make uncontroversial edits. However, when Neutralhomer and FMAFan1990 both complained about his behavior at ANI, I decided to testify as well. -download ׀ sign! 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Download before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• While I don't personally consider heavy article work to be an important criterion for adminship, I did notice something strange - in the nomination statement, Download's contributions to Linkin Park are specifically mentioned: but upon looking these up all I can see are two Huggle reverts and one edit in October in which he adds the word "guitar". Have I missed something here? ~ mazca ^t|c 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's all a bit fuzzy to me as I haven't had any thoughts related to this topic for a long while. Looking at my userpage, I added it to my "Significant Contributions" list somewhere between December and January. I was also confused while looking at userpage previously as to why I couldn't find the content I added to Linkin Park. I do remember that I did contribute a bit to articles about their songs. -download ׀ sign! 00:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I checked to see if the candidate was an admin or not. --Caspian blue 22:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Very friendly user, who will be an asset with the mop. Good luck.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support by default. I've noticed Download around in a lot of different areas. Always adds insight to discussions. Over a year and 20,000 edits? Of course I'm going to support. I trust download to use the tools wisely. ;) — Ched :  ?  22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Weak support I think this thread sums it up: knowledge of policy is not as great as I'd usually expect, but very coachable when he/she makes mistakes.--chaser - t 23:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC) can't support in light of the AFDs Either way has provided below.--chaser - t 03:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Even though I'm not an editor who believes the count makes the editor, I am truly baffled by the number of this users edit equaling over 22,000 in just a few months. I'm sorry but that completely blows me away. Also, from my experience with this editor, he is nice, civil, and well mannered. And though the user page argument is good, you must also look and see that he has over 13,077 of those edits are to the main space. Without a doubt deserves mop.--(NGG) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Somebody could easily rack up 25,000 edits in a month with Huggle or AWB; surely there's more to adminship than the edit count? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   According to these stats, 66.82% of Download's edits are automated tools. I repeat that, 66.82%. That is alarmingly high! either way (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I do plan on working at WP:AIV, which is why I've tried to get more experience with vandalism reverting and reporting. -download ׀ sign! 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   None the less, just because a editor has a large amount on automated edits reverting vandalism doesn't mean that should take for the quality. Reverting vandalism or adding content, both are good work to me. Also, like I said, It's not like I believe the count makes the editor, it's just the number stunned me.--(NGG) 23:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Both good work, yes, but hardly comparable. The point Julian was trying to make isn't that the edits are worthless, it is that with automated tools you can rack them up with little or no thought in a tiny period of time and not have the experience and knowledge yet that such a high number would suggest. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes I see your point. His automated edits amass to over 15,000.--(NGG) 23:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Indeed. Noting that he only had 22,586 edits to start with (with 13,000 in the mainspace) that does leave things rather thin on the ground. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   And about 32.5% of the edits overall are from AWB. Assuming that all of his edits with AWB were in the main space, that's 56% of his mainspace edits. either way (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Support – I've seen this user everywhere, s/he is very helpful and friendly, and would no-doubt be a net positive the the project as admin. No major concerns here. TheAE talk/sign 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support As nominator. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Good answers to questions, seems to understand policy and can be trusted. No concerns. tempodivalse [☎] 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support As nom. MC10 | Sign here! 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Answers are satisfactory, seems to have a better knowledge of policy than the opposers seem to suggest. This probably won't pass now, but you will hopefully be an admin one day. Ceranthor 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — Overall, a great guy who has the best interests of the project in mind. Martin's opposing point brings up what I consider a valid argument, but I don't want to oppose an otherwise solid candidate over lack of "wiki-maturity" (to use Martin's word, I can't think of another term that fits better into context) — especially considering the lack of administrators lately. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Appears competent and collegial. I don't see anything especially worrying in the oppose arguments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Friendly and civil user. Would be good in conflict resolution.  Marlith (Talk)  02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Friendly and helpful. I reviewed the opposes as of this writing, and I don't find anything seriously contrary to the spirit of policy. A little confusion on the fine points of copyright law is not exactly uncommon among our admins. As he's not planning to work in CSD or AfD closure right away, I see no issues. Ray^Talk 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per my comments in Wikipedia:Editor review/download. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Download is a civil, patient, pleasant and intelligent editor. Attempts by his opposers to disqualify him based on isolated AfD arguments smells of mean spirited overkill. I have no problems with his contributions. Good luck, Download! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    These "isolated AFD arguments" are about articles he's created or helped to create. They represent a bulk of his editing contributions as of late. I wouldn't consider them "isolated." either way (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    I know you wouldn't -- I have noticed your presence in these AfDs. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

15. Support. I've seen Download around and he does good work. I'm not concerned with the opposes here as he seems to be a net positive. Valley2city^‽ 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support, but could use admin coaching. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    You seem to have misunderstood how it works; admin coaching is a process for users who want to be admins. Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    In any case, I will most definitely consider finding an admin coach after this RfA ends (I'm planning on letting it go its full length as I want as much advice as possible). -download ׀ sign! 04:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    I should have phrased my vote differently. I meant he should not use all of the powers given to him until he has learned how to use them. Like admin coaching but post-adminship. I would have liked to see that Download had been coached before the RFA but per below, he should receive his adminship now. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

17. Offset spurious oppose. Hope to see this user try again with more experience. Dlohcierekim 05:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wait, are you opposing or are you supporting? —Mythdon t/c 05:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    I believe the editor is supporting with the intention of mitigating the harmful effect of a particular oppose !vote on the candidacy because he feels that !vote was spurious, i.e. lacking in merit. Skomorokh 10:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Indeed. Having thought it through, adding specialist admin rationale as I believe will be a benefit in the requested area. Would urge some remediation in copyvio issues. Rewrite from scratch. Dlohcierekim 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Support - Good user. On a different note I like your bubble tea template. PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:15, 5 May 2009
19. Support Net positive, opposes are well meaning but not convincing to me. Even if Download fails here, I think he will get through next time. Why not have him now? He won't block Jimbo or delete the main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support as co-nom. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Download has been a great benefit to Wikipedia, from helping users in wiki text and adopting users to updating and monitoring several Wikipedia pages daily and reverting vandalism. He also helped me out when I needed to know Wikipedia guidelines. He used his rollback privileges maturely, and I believe that him as a sysop will be a great asset and benefit to Wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Definately, I see that download is extremely active and so would make a great admin. SD5 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - the opposes raise some valid concerns, however looking at the links provided, I'm impressed by the civil way you've handled criticism. If this request isn't successful, hopefully you'll try again in 6-8 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak support. Have good sense in general, but needs to be more careful with following guidelines and policies. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - nothing more to say FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - I see nothing wrong with Download being an admin....full support. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 7, 2009 @ 01:40
28. Support Per TheAE. I thought s/he was already an admin. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support as per Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC). Provided sound advice and formal support to me as a new user in a considered and balanced manner. Is making a positive contribution. Clearly has strenghts (e.g. high volume simple edits, good sound technical editing knowledge) and weakness (?limited article contributions, some concerns about focus on his local/knowledge base). Support as per the criteria There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA. No risk here. He will be a positive addition to the admin group Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Fair reasoning, but it seems redundant to say support per your own rationale ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC). I didnt use my own rationale. Quote is directly from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship Earlypsychosis (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

30. Support tentatively - clearly dedicated, as long as is careful should be okay. Note that we do have safety valves to discuss admin behaviour at WP:AN/I or even arbcom. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Weak Support. While there appear to be some minor issues with misunderstanding of exact details, I think there should be no problems as there is no indication the tools would be abused. Adminship is no big deal, so as long as Download is careful and ask questions before doing things about which he is unsure, I don't foresee any problems. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support - great editor. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support helps a lot of people by adopting them. --Editpower100 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support: Fabulous editor. South Bay (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak support. The opposes are concerning, but I see them as more he'd misuse the tools rather than abuse them, worst case scenario. He'll grow as he learns the position, I don't think he's gonna try a controversial unblock in his first month or anything like that. Wizardman 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Very weak support I have only met him once, when he signed my guestbook. I signed his in return, and was rewarded with a barnstar "reading the small print" and making a pun with the word download. I have seen no signs that he will abuse the tools, but this social aspect makes me a bit uncomfortable. Thanks, gENIUS101 21:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support. I believe that the editor genuinely wants to assist WikiPedia and that he generally takes his time in making decisions. I am not impressed by the huge edit counts only because I had a very hard time finding decent examples to list in my support. A small part of me says that the candidate is looking to improve the gene pool of the wikipedia admins so to speak, but I do not think he is applying out of frustration. Zab (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support. Another one I've spotted around. Since this is supposedly no big deal I see no reason to oppose. It would be inappropriate to assume users ought to act like robots and even robots are likely to make mistakes. --candle•wicke 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. After reviewing this user's work here, I believe that he is ready to be given the tools. I don't see how he'll abuse them, and even if he accidentally misuses them early in his adminship, I'm sure that certain mistakes can quickly be fixed and that he can learn from them. I highly doubt he'll do something stupid with them, so I'm willing to let him have a chance. He appears to meet all of the expected criteria for an admin, and has stayed away from areas that are controversial.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 17:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
40. This doesn't look like it's going to pass this time around, but don't let that discourage you, and I'd like to add my support. You're a good user, and after addressing the concerns raised in the oppose section, you should be ready for adminship in a few months time. Good luck. Acalamari 23:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - the diffs raised by opposing editors show me that Download is occasionally less than perfect, but he seems entirely trustworthy. He has consistently avoided aggression, aimed to protect the content of wikipedia, and tried to reach consensus in those diffs. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I agree with you. We need more expirienced anti-vandalism users as admins.--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - Have only had good interactions with download. Would become a great admin :) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 20:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. Knows what he's doing, seems to have a sound understanding of WP Policy and would be assisting in the much needed nitty gritty. I think he'd do a good job. HJMitchell You rang? 14:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. This user would make a great sysop,very trusted.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This user is unquestionably a net positive benefit to Wikipedia. He is friendly, welcoming, and readily admits to mistakes. These are the makings of a great admin. I have concerns however about whether he has reached the level of required wiki-maturity yet. There are a lot of edits to his userspace, making me wonder about whether he views this as some kind a social club. There is evidence of some inappropriate behaviour here and there; nothing too alarming. I find the comment "... adopted several adoptees and taught them ... how to stay away from vandalism" really quite odd: it should go without saying that you are not coaching vandals! Anyhow, keep up the good work and don't be discouraged however this nomination goes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   To explain my high amounts of editsto the userspace, other than those to my userpage, is that I have question pages for my adoptees in my userspace. I've had several adoptees which accounts for quite a lot of those edits in the userspace. I won't be discouraged, as advice is always welcome for improvement. -download ׀ sign! 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Quite a lot, yes, but of the last 500 edits to the userspace you have made (and this includes edits to other people's userpages/whatever) I count 121 edits to your userpage, awards page or guestbook. Significantly these 500 userspace edits are in the last month and a half; 17 March through to 4 May. I count 157 to your adoptees pages; you spend almost as much time fiddling with your userpage and assorted other things as you do contacting/helping the five users you were adopting throughout that period. The does rather undermine your "my adoptees explain the amount of time I spend on my userspace" point. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I really have no idea why I made so many edits to my userpage during that period, but thanks for my advice; I'll work on it. -download ׀ sign! 23:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough, but 60% of his edits are to articles and about a tenth of those are to userspace. In the broad scheme...--chaser - t 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Just to play devil's advocate, I've got 4432 edits to the User namespace (350 to User:EVula alone, but also 49 to User:EVula/fun, which is decidedly not encyclopedic). Just because someone spends time in userspace doesn't mean that they're not mature... though I suppose an argument could be made that I'm not, either. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per the userspace edits and his answer to question four. He seemed to have grasped completely the wrong end of the stick in regards to the poll; firstly the flagged revisions trial is solely for BLPs, and secondly the edits do appear instantaneously to the user who makes them. Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. User does not have a good grasp on basic copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines and policies as expressed through his arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Mathematics Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math is Cool Championships. He continuously asserts that there is notability, yet, provides no sources. Download also edits consistently in areas where he has a conflict of interest which may be an issue when adding admin tools into the mix. either way (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think that this thread shows a lot of what concerns me about this user and his lack of knowledge, as well as his conflict of interest-based editing (he was advocating keeping a list of names in the article that included his own name). This took place just a few weeks ago; way too soon to show a major change. either way (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   However, the list had proper sources, and the competitions listed are considered notable by me and others. I now try to stay away from COI editing, which is why I have not made a major edit to the article for two or so weeks. -download ׀ sign! 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   "Me and others" didn't provide sources to prove notability. You just kept saying "it's notable, it's notable" even when presented with counter examples. You never provide sources to prove notability. You just insist it exists. Take any of the AFDs I've listed in my oppose. Here's one of your !votes: "Keep High news coverage. -download | sign! 04:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" (the article has zero sources and you provided none to back up that claim). either way (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Download isn't going to work in the AFD section anytime soon, so this shouldn't be a problem. MC10 | Sign here! 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Great, but an admin still needs to know the basic policies of Wikipedia. These AFDs involve articles he has created or helped to create with his adoptees. We don't want admins who violate policy and guidelines, regardless of their involvement with AFD or not. either way (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   This response to a question above shows a horrible lack of good faith. I was "trying to cause trouble"? That attitude is a clear example of why you are not close to being ready to be an administrator. either way (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   WP:HARRASS applies more than WP:AGF here. When multiple users ask you to stop following them around, you should stop, especially as an admin. -download ׀ sign! 02:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but you should be assuming good faith until given evidence to the contrary. Every action I have taken has been a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that others are upset that their edits have been (justifiably) called into question does not create a situation where I am acting in bad faith. either way (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I applaud your efforts to benefit Wikipedia; however, you were asked to stop your behavior multiple times by editors in good standing but have not stopped. If I was in your position, I would immediately stop when three editors voice their concerns. -download ׀ sign! 03:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   I still don't see how this excuses you from assuming good faith. either way (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Weak Oppose Download has had his account since April '08, yes, but he's really only been active since the beginning of this year, with the vast majority of his edits coming in the last three months. That, combined with the evidence from Juliancolton and Either way, lead me to believe that this user still needs more time before being granted the bit. However, I look forward to seeing this editor again and supporting. GlassCobra 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Sorry, I hate to do this, but I feel uneasy about supporting. This worries me a bit, as well as AWB issues like this, RC patrol issues like this, heavy userspace editing and lack of recent editing activity (before a few months ago), and issues with core policies as demonstrated by the diffs Either way (talk · contribs) has presented. I also wasn't satisfied that you have the adequate skills in dispute resolution to be an admin, and your answer to my question didn't sway my opinion there. Sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Though user is helpful and civil, I with the help of others found that theres is no proof that User is familiar with guidelines and policies because 68.83 percent(over 15,000/22,000+)of his edits are automated. Also per eitherway.--(NGG) 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. I'm sorry but I must Oppose. I was involved in a discussion regarding an article Download created:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor. My observation is that Download is polite and well-meaning and tenacious but doesn't fully understand some basics such as copyright, reliable references, verifiability, notability, original research, and synthesis, which are crucial to the encyclopedia. In the end I don't trust him to use administrator tools to close a deletion discussion or address copyright violation notices, to give two examples, at this time. I would certainly be willing to change my opinion later. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose The recent AFD with the copyright issue shows a lack of understanding with policy. I would recommend that you hold off a bit on the AWB edits and focus on trying things by hand for a bit. When you slow down and look at things by hand it forces you to think about policies and gets you familiar with these sort of things. Get involved in some typical admin areas AIV, RFPP, AFD, UAA, etc. and get a feel for how things are done. Your heart is in the right place and you seem to have good intentions, I just think you need a bit more time to get a grasp of policy. If I might make a suggestion, why not seek out another admin who would be willing to be an admin coach for you? Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I will certainly consider that. Thanks, -download ׀ sign! 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Download doesn't plan on working in AFD yet. MC10 | Sign here! 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

9. Weak Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor. The user does not know what a copyvio is, and though has a good intent, I'm not sure the user knows such things good enough to be an admin. The above people put forth valid points that I cannot ignore, although I've seen download around a lot and have been pleased with some of the user's contributions. Tavix |  Talk  02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    1. Says the user who nominated Child Of Midnight not a few weeks ago. Tell me, how many more do we have now then we did then?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
       1. We have 838 as of Thursday, 01:14(UTC) ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
          1. That wasn't my question, please read it before responding further.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    2. Also, please explain your ideal admin-to-article ratio.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Do not feed the trolls. Daedalus I have to believe that this isn't the first time you have seen this. Just ignore him. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Regretful oppose Download is friendly and helpful, and my interactions with him have been positive, but the issues raised about the recent AfD make me feel he's not quite ready for the mop; copyvio in particular is very serious and I think admins need to be pretty unapologetic about removing it. I will almost certainly support if you run again in several months and can show that you've gained some more knowledge of this and related content policies. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Also (and this is only a minor quibble), I'm not sure about this edit... no need to get into the whole HK/PRC yada yada here, but basically it seems you introduced a possible error (the PRC doesn't have the same government as HK, so their responses to swine flu are not necessarily the same and can't be interchanged like that) in response to a minor wording issue (listing HK among "countries") that could have been solved by changing the wording elsewhere in the sentence. Again, not a major thing, and I wouldn't oppose over it if it were the only thing...just figured I should mention it since this RfA is probably a good opportunity for constructive criticism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Thank you for the suggestion. I guess I should have just changed the wording. -download ׀ sign! 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose. I've always liked your comments, and I like what I see of your work and dedication. My sense is you got serious about Wikipedia starting around December, and 6 months of serious work is sort of a minimum requirement for me. If you don't pass this time around, try WP:ER 3 months from now. Please get a better grasp on WP:COI. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 03:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose Have concerns after reading above about issues including copyright, notability, and verifiability guidelines, and WP:AFD, WP:COI issues. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Per cluefulness concerns brought up by others. I also get a niggling sense of immaturity here. Friday (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Opppose: poor understanding of Wikipedia policy shown at the linked AFDs. I suggest brushing up on your policy knowledge, specifically areas such as WP:Notability and WP:Copyright, before submitting another RFA in future. Robofish (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Also, in the answer to question 6: 'Original research can be a very useful source in some cases'. I respect your opinion, but WP:Verifiability is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia, and WP:NOR exists for a very good reason; not just to stop people adding hoaxes and the like, but because it's one of the essential parts of what Wikipedia is. Until you appreciate that, I don't think you can be an administrator. Robofish (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose largely due to dissatisfaction with Q9 and Q10. Would prefer that an admin have more experience writing articles. I'm also concerned with the arguments brought up by MSGJ and either way. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose Lack of clue - "Original research can be a very useful source in some cases." No, it can't. Hipocrite (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Regretfully. Much of the opposers raise points that both worry and lend me to believe the user is not ready for the tools. I do however believe that, after learning some more about core policies and guidelines, that they'll be blocking and deleting in around half a year.  GARDEN  18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Oppose Per the comment posted by Friday above. I'm sorry, and I would likely support in a few months. America69 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Does not understand notability policies evidenced by comments at AFD. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. There are too many issues that make me think you are not yet going to be a net positive as an admin. Come back soon. Majorly talk 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose. As demonstrated by the AfDs given by either way, Download does not understand core wikipedia policies. Rami R 14:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose - Sorry, but I don't have a good feeling about this. The links that Either way provided above are problematic, particularly regarding copyright and verifiability issues. I am also greatly concerned by the answer to question 6. No original research is a core content policy, and the answer reads like the user was prepared to ignore it if Citadel Broadcasting had responded. If information has not been published in reliable sources, it shouldn't be included in an article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose per above concerns with your grasp on such policies as WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. An admin needs to know these like the back of his hand. ThemFromSpace 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose for now. Candidate seems polite, but needs to better understand how Wikipedia works before being given the tools. To be clear, a combination of clue and policy knowledge is needed. I would suggest spending less time fighting vandals and more time discussing content disputes with those involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Outstanding contributor especially in vandal fighting. Thousands of quick thinking automated edits to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to mop up with the stronger tools, you will need to show the community how you make decisions that require research and a firm grasp on policy. Please continue to do what you do best. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose posts such as this show concern about how user will handle stressful situations as an admin. Not talking the evil age word, but maturity does not appear to be there. Also arguments at AfD (as referenced above) do not show clear understanding of policy. StarM 01:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Reply - Download is showing concern for another admin, who is also troubling me and a few others (I've gone as far as to declare any more reverts of my edits by him vandalism). FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    By threatening to retire because he doesn't like a long standing admin's actions? He's going to get a lot worse shit than that as an admin and threatening to reture is not the way to handle it. Calling admins' actions "vandalism" isn't either. Look at User_talk:Yourname for just a tiny idea of what admins get to deal with. Adminship requires maturity that is not present/coming across here. StarM 01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I must have phrased it poorly. I should have meant that I had considered retiring due to his harrassment, but I have no intentions to retire now; I'm way too addicted to Wikipedia. -download ׀ sign! 01:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    That is not better. seresin ( ¡? )  02:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

28. The answer to Q6 WRT original research is pretty ridiculous. This comment is also poor—it demonstrates, among other things, that he clearly misunderstands canvassing. The edit from the same conversation provided by StarM above also reflects poorly on the candidate. As noted by Friday and StarMf, maturity seems to be lacking. seresin ( ¡? )  01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I like the candidate as both an editor and a friend, but I am unwilling to support this request at this time due to numerous issues which have been brought up. It is clear to me that the candidate is not ready for the extra responsibilities of adminship at this particular point in time, but I more than happy to support a future request on the assumption that the kinds of issues being brought up have been resolved by then. You will face an awful lot more in the way of abuse or whatever than you claim to have recieved by Either way, and even in that situation you claim that you have "seriously considered retiring". I find this to indicate that you could not handle the sort of people you will be dealing with on a frequent, if not daily basis. This reply to Seresin is also very concering, and fails to allay the concerns brought up in the previous diff. I also find this to be of particular concern — it illustrates that among other things, the candidate does not understand the nature and actions that pertain to canvassing, and also that (it appears) only believes that support !voters should be allowed to comment on opposes, and not the other way around. This is completely against the nature of RfA being a discussion (whether it is or not is irrelevant, it should be, and this goes against that ideal). As for the comment that "Download doesn't plan on working in AFD yet", adminship does not come in parts, it comes as one complete package. Once you have it you can (and I'm not saying that you will) disregard absolutely anything that has been said here, and work at whichever administrative areas that you wish to work at. This, of course, includes AfD, and whilst I am willing to believe that if the candidate says that they will not work at AfD until they are ready that they will not work there until they believe that they are ready, the very nature of this request for adminship gives me a slight concern about that judgment, and I'd like for Download to be reassessed at that point. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven ways to greet a neighbor also brings some concern, as it seems to indicate that Download does not, at this point in time, understand core policies pertaining to copyright violations (and what one is, it would appear) and notability. I would also like to know what makes you feel more 'ready for adminship' now than a month ago, when you told GT5162 that you wanted to perform more non-admin work and that you wanted to gain more experience prior to going through the RfA process. In summary, I am usually willing to support good-faith editors (which Download undeniably is) outright, but simply cannot support this particular request for adminship due to the numerous concerning issues brought to light during it. Best of luck at any future requests, assuming that you allay the concerns brought up during this request (and ones which may crop up at a later point in time), I look forward to supporting your next request for adminship, assuming that you will wish to run for adminship again. — neuro^(talk) 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose, user is "way too addicted to Wikipedia". Nakon 06:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Just far, far too many problems. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose. Download does not have a good enough understanding of deletion policy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose. It's quite apparent to me this candidate is not yet ready.

    As an aside: RFAs like this irritate me, because they highlight the fundamental issues with our current RFA process. I don't feel I can support someone unless I can see evidence of very high standards of conduct, because admins have tenure. Many editors feel as I do. Therefore RFA is very difficult to pass. But the fact that RFA is so hard to pass, then justifies the fact that admins have tenure. The whole thing's a horrible vicious circle.

    If it were easier to remove adminship, I'd vote "support" more often (as would many others), and we'd actually have more admins (and more active ones).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

34. Oppose. Unfortunately, the candidate doesn't seem to quite grasp some of out policies, including the concern of original research. There are times to ignore all rules, but this just isn't the case. — Σxplicit 00:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose We have WP:NOR and WP:V for a reason. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose From what I have seen of the user they just don't seem to understand core issues like copyright. -Djsasso (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Strong oppose His comments here show an unacceptable lack of maturity and clue. Yintaɳ  22:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
38. No, sorry, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Either way. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Changing to strong oppose per his answer to the question in which he says "I was aware that he was following my edits and trying to cause trouble with me..." That is a remarkable assumption of bad faith that I would not expect from a potential administrator. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

39. Oppose per lack of understanding of copyright issues shown at the "Seven Ways" AFD. This user does not yet have the breadth of experience needed. I42 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. This was very odd, and a bit inappropriate. Neutral for now, though this is only a temporary position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Martin's oppose furthers my position. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral for now thanks to the userspace thing; I can be swayed either way, really. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC) move to oppose. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   I haven't made up my mind yet. Normally I'll default support, but there are a few diffs and concerns I've seen that make me pause and think. I'll wait until my question is answered before deciding. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Moving to weak oppose, sorry. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Userspaces are not toxic. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 01:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well no, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - Good user, both friendly and a good person to collaborate with. User knows what they are doing, but I'm not sure whether they are ready to take on the responsibilities just yet. — neuro^(talk) 02:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose. — neuro^(talk) 08:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral No terribly bad signs but the answers to questions 6 and 10 worry me. Looie496 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral Seems like a helpful and productive user (Edits to spaces outside mainspace don't bother me). I worry at the responses to the questions, though. Q4 doesn't seem off when you consider that Download may not have been referring to the very specific trial we are conducting but instead referring to the idea of flagged revisions in general. Q6 is the editor's opinion on a policy, so I am hesitant to declare it "wrong". I will say that it appears to be coming from a troubling set of assumptions. I think you need to spend some time looking over core admin and content policies. Feel free to ask for help! Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral, a good user who has made many useful contributions, and I believe that they wouldn't deliberately misuse the tools, but the AFD discussed in Tavix' oppose worries me a little. An admin should be able to spot and deal with a copyvio appropriately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
6. Neutral; arguments for support and opposition leave me in the middle on this user's RfA. One (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Mostly OK, but nominating an article for AFD and !voting to keep it is a bit muddled. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
8. I think you just need a bit more time on Wikipedia to get more experience and to reach the height of your maturity. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
9. I think you have the potential to persuade me to support in the future, but not at this time - I'd like to see how you will address the feedback you've been given here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Rambo's Revenge

Final (70/2/1); Ended 12:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC). – Closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident^Talk.

Nomination

Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) – Rambo has been an editor since 2007 and in that time has accomplished an impressive amount of work, which drew my attention to him in making this nomination.

Rambo has 15 featured credits and participates in the DYK/ITN aspects of the main page. He appears to contribute mainly in media and awards articles, which shows a good knowledge of our inclusion policies. Further, from his deleted edits, I see a knowledge and use of CSD criterion.

I believe that if selected, Rambo will continue his content work and help clean up things with the admin tools that he would otherwise need to ask an administrator to do. I believe he will continue to be an asset to the project. MBisanz ^talk 06:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much. I accept. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (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: I would intend to hep out in areas where I have noticed only a few admins doing nearly all of the work. For example WP:RM, and WP:ITN/C. I will also try to monitor CAT:EP, a place where, in the past, I wished admins patrolled more regularly. There are a lot of requests for template changes there, and I have coded a few templates in the past so I would feel happy working there. By my own admission I have not done an awful lot of work at XfD, but I believe I have a pretty good grasp of deletion policies. I have recently become a PD reviewer on Commons (a new initiative) so I'll hopefully start becoming more involved at IfD in the future. That said, I would be willing to learn and help out wherever the community requires. If I were to be given the tools, I would definitely spend some time at admin school, tread carefully at first, and try not to make any big mistakes!

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

A: I was very pleased to improve and promote five The O.C. based lists, to get my first (and thus far only) featured topic. My only experience in FAC with Premiere (The O.C.) was also a challenging but rewarding one. Other things I'm proud of are doing thorough reviews at FLC, like this one. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to do this for as many candidates as I would like.

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: At an FLC of mine an oppose was given over the transclusion of episode lists. I initially strongly disagreed with the reasoning because everything else at the time used transclusion. However, I must admit I did not assume good faith on Bignole's part, as I had previously got into a dispute with him after opposing at his Smallville FTC. However, I discussed it with him and some other WP:TV and FL contributors, took on board comments from all parties, and we comprimised. I would like to think that my attitude has greatly improved since our first interaction. Another possible conflict was when I opposed an FLC based on a bug that was (at the time) unfixable. It was seen as an unactionable oppose and some editors encouraged me to retract opposition on something unactionable. I felt it was still a valid reason, so I gathered input on the validity of the oppose and together a solution was reached. (The bug has since been fixed).

4.Optional question from user:Caspian blue

A: Is there any particular reason for you to choose your screen name as Rambo's Revenge? Is it related to the character, Rambo? (because the "revenge" in your name looks to me you can be a block-happy admin. ^^;;)

Unfortunately I don't bare much resemblance to the action hero. "Rambo" is loosely derived from my actual name. I'm quite happy to explain via email if you wish, but for now I don't fancy posting my real name in such public place. The "Revenge" part is because, over the years, I found that the majority of sites I tried to sign up on would already have "Rambo" taken. On this occasion instead of tagging a number on the end I added a word. I can't remember why, I don't think I was feeling in any way vindictive, I probably just liked the way it sounded.

Rambo's Revenge Forgiveness 22:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think BLPs are extremely difficult to monitor. The concerns are that for a little known person (obviously notable) who recieves low traffic, any vandalism can sit there for weeks/months. This has the potential to be damaging to the subject. Here, the more obvious vandalism isn't the harmful stuff (because readers will know it is false). It is the subtle vandalism that needs added scrutiny, because a reader may read vandalism that has been integrated into the article (i.e. not obviously) and believe it to be true. People have started to become more aware of the sensitive issues for BLPs, and new projects like WP:WPBLP and the possibility of Flagged revisions for BLPs mean that people are definitely trying to get on top of the situation.

5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I agree with liberal use of semi-protection, however I believe semi-protection for all is not the right decision and would significantly slow down article development. There are too many different proposals for me to adequately talk about whether I think Flagged revisions will work on BLPs. I think the general idea is good, and the WP:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions trial will give us an idea of whether any of it will work or not.

5c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: No consensus usually defaults to keep. But it is the idea of consensus that is important here. Consensus is determined by weighted arguments, so even if there is only one "delete" comment, but it is backed up by policy then the AfD maybe closed as delete (assuming there are no good "keep" arguments). To close any AfD, BLP or not, you must consider all arguments carefully. For BLPs I don't think we should change what normally happens to AfDs, however the article has an additional set of requirements that must be met.

5d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: As a new admin, I don't think I'd be immediately comfortable closing that kind of AfD on my own, and would garner input from more experienced parties. However, I would take their argument seriosuly. BLPs are a sensitive issue, and I would look carefully at the page history. I'd consider reverting to an earlier version without the "false claim" if possible, and make sure the article complies with all of WP:BLP. As we are talking about a "marginally notable" individual, they are quite possible at non-public figure and as such only information relevent to their notability should be included. If the article cannot be improved then deletion is an option I would consider taking.

Additional question from Toddst1:

6. 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 and why? (Note: Wikipedia:SUICIDE is an essay).

A: Any suicide claim must not be overlooked. I would discuss the case with other administrators. Looking through that essay, I disagree with using the boilerplate response, {{Suicide response}}. If I were to reply, I would do so with a personal message, hopefully making them feel like they could talk about it, and give them the option of contacting me via email. I would try to locate a checkuser, so we can find out where they are. Then, with guidance from WP:AN, we could take appropriate action with local authorities, WMF, etc. I'd exercise care in locking the user's pages, as I would not want to inflame the situation, and prevent them being able to talk about their feelings. This is something else I would discuss at WP:AN.

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

7. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Rambo's Revenge before commenting.

Discussion

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support, excellent user Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - All interactions have been positive, and the content creation work is superb. — neuro^(talk) 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per interactions with the user. They seem to have enough clue for the extra buttons. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Mainly for the name, but also appears to be competent, trustworthy, and experienced enough to wield the mop. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Absolutely. AdjustShift (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Haven't come across this editor before but, after a look around, seems competent and focused on articles. No worries from me. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support, can't see why not. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. Seems to do good work, and is willing to admit to mistakes and move on. That's exactly what's needed. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support as a specialist admin candidate seeking the tools for specific tasks. Article building, communication, and conflict resolution skills are such that I don't believe admin abuse will be a problem. Seems meticulous and careful in his edits, so I don't believe will misuse tools by delving into areas where experience is lacking. Agree with rationales offered above. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Pro forma response. Opposes as of this writing seem poorly based/supported and do not seem relevant to/reflective of candidate's abilities. Having carefully considered their rationales, I still believe candidate's adminship will be a net positive. Dlohcierekim 05:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Support. Fine editor, and, if those comments are the most uncivil things he has done, he is quite civil. No worries. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. No apparent problems, and this diff says a lot about his approach. (I'm just going to hope that his user name doesn't carry a hidden message.) (The preceding was intended as humor.) Looie496 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Per Julian. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per nom. Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support My interactions with him at FLC have been nothing but positive. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Seems fine. tempodivalse [☎] 16:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Quick review triggers no concerns.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support per MBisanz nomination. Glad to see someone willing to tackle some of the lesser-visibility areas of adminship. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Per this and this, I'm happy to support. Excellent content creator.  PUBLIC GARDEN  18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per my comments at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rambo's Revenge. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 19:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Good enough. Ceranthor 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
24. For some reason I find it amazing that you have 13 FL with about 5,500 edits. Clearly your doing great stuff.--(NGG) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    He only has one FA, the rest are FLC/Topics. FA's are MUCH MUCH MUCH more difficult to obtain than the other stuff. I put FLC more on par with GAC, than FAC.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Stupid eyes of mines.--(NGG) 00:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

25. Support because I see no reason not to grant this editor the tools. He is doing some great work. Timmeh! 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Yup. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support No problems. Good luck. hmwithτ 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Excellent content work; he will definitely be a good admin and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support No problems here. Good luck, Rambo! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Of course. -download ׀ sign! 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - 15 Featured credits? Wow.--Unionhawk ^Talk 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support - by default. Also checked contribs, healthy activity since March of 08, solid contributions to articles. No reason to think Rambo's going to blow up the the wiki. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Answers to the questions look good, clearly dedicated user. GlassCobra 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
34. I support Rambo's Revenge Forgiveness for his serious answer to my question (Q4) and sense of humor presented by his signature. (of course other good stuffs are accounted)--Caspian blue 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
35. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
36. In my interactions with the user during the O.C. article FAC and PR, he was cheerful, eager to improve and accepting of criticism—the qualities we need in an admin. Clearly here to work on quality content. Don't think this lets you off the hook for writing more, though :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Poorly argued opposes as of this posting. Thus, little reason not to support.  Marlith (Talk)  02:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
38. It's hard to say this with Ais's admin highlighter script, but I seriously thought he was one. Rambo is a civil, mature, and extremely clueful editor. Their featured credits are amazing, and is properly balanced with other work. This RfA was long overdue, but I'm still glad to support. Xclamation point 03:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - seems to be a good candidate for adminship based on my interaction with this user on FLC.—Chris! _ct 06:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support...thought he was one already! One (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support No reason no to. America69 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Great work. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    This edit convinced me to support. Need more people familiar and comfortable with images in the Admin Corp!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Ooops, looks like I already supported---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

43. Support Very good work at WP:FL, esp. reviewing. Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support. No drama here. Rambo's Revenge has good reason for Admin rights, and the temperament to exercise those rights responsibly. I found that he always communicates well with others as he improves the encyclopedia. Rambo will meet the end goal for the community. --Preceding unsigned comment 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - I've been impressed with his work at FLC, in both reviewing and nominating. Definitely think Rambo will be an asset for the community as an admin. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Good experiences with clueful candidate whenever I run into him. FlyingToaster 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - everything seems to be in order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Should do well in his areas. No reason not to support. Malinaccier (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support. Wizardman 03:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support Answers to the questions above and edits to mainspace make me think he will be a great sysop. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support clear evidence will be a net positive :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - plenty enough edits/time on board, great contributions of high quality, interesting user page. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong support - good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support as I see no valid reason to oppose. Adminship is no big deal, and I see no evidence the tools would be abused. Rather, I see instances where it's liekly they will be used for good purposes, as a benefit to Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Superb user. Like the content contributions and his work at WP:FLC and WP:FLRC is greatly appreciated. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Strong support. Another recognisable user. --candle•wicke 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Absolutely. AniMate^talk 04:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support no problems. Toddst1 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support User has been around since April 2007 and great content contributions and see no concerns and feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.Further as per MBisanz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Sounds conscientious and does good work. Thanks for answering those remaining questions; they helped tip the scales. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 22:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Big support -- I started to write my reasonings, but they became too long. If you want to read them, see User talk:Matthewedwards#RfA Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. I see no problems at all. — Σxplicit 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support Fine Wikipedian with a clear understanding of its ins and outs. He will do us well as an admin. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
66. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 16:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Absolutely! No alarms here. --GedUK  17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support No problems here and a net positive. Razorflame 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support. Seems to be level headed and invested in improving content. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Personal experience with the individual leads me to have little confidence in his ability to interact with others in a manner that should be expected of an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

   Difs, please? Dlohcierekim 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed, I'm going to need some evidence or something before I can take this oppose seriously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC).

   No. This is a personal reaction. If you want to find reasons not to like him, why bother looking for -my- personal reason? It even says -personal- right at the top. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   You said "personal experience"; it's not too much to ask that you provide diffs about the experience. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have no problems with Ottava's not providing references, I think Ottava realizes that in not doing so that his !vote would most likely be discarded, but for whatever reason has decided that is OK with him in this case. I'm guessing the reason is between Ottava and RR, and is personal---EG something the two of them know about, but isn't worth rehashing here again.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Exactly, and with it being 42 to 1, its not like it would matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   LOL, I'm not sure if you were discounting your !vote or Dougs there ;-)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Glad we cleared that up. If were something horrid, I might have felt the need to change my position. ;) Dlohcierekim 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Possibly this is the 'personal experience'. End of bug hunt. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   No. Actually, it deals with IRC, off-site discussions with other users, and other things that I would rather not bring up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Understood. I value all comments at the RfA, but can only give weight to verifiable remarks. Without diffs or other resources, I respectfully give yours none. Thank you for clarifying. --Preceding unsigned comment 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I cared what other people thought about my comments or concerns, I wouldn't bother posting. If Rambo has a concern, he can speak for himself. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Username concerns PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I may ask, how does this lessen Rambo's ability to effectively use administrator capabilities? I don't see anything particularly incendiary about his choice of username. One (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, what's wrong with the username? If it's not an inappropriate username then it doesn't seem to be a good reason to stop you supporting ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Nothing wrong, a fictional convicted terrorist is still a fiction. NVO (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   FWIW, I tend to agree that the username could be a bit off-putting in certain situations. To recycle examples I've previously used, "You've been blocked by Rambo's Revenge" or even a "Please be civil. Rambo's Revenge" at a new user's talk page comes across a bit strange. To me, at least. Peace, Amalthea 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   (Switched to support) Neutral Wondering why there have been no responses to later questions. Is acceptance a foregone conclusion or does RR just have no answers? —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 22:25, 9 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Laser brain

Final (talk page) (125/0/1); Ended Mon, 11 May 2009 00:14:05 (UTC) -- Closed by Avi (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Laser brain (talk · contribs)

Co-nomination by SandyGeorgia. Laser brain has been a solid reviewer, FA writer and positive presence at FAC since he registered his account almost a year and a half ago, quickly achieving a rank among FACs best reviewers (see February and May 2008 stats). He is among the most conscientous, prolific, and thorough reviewers at FAC, has written an FA, and has also helped out on the Signpost Dispatches with an article about MainPage day. He is always willing to tackle and stick with difficult reviews at FAC, and has demonstrated his civility and fair approach many times over. He is the kind of editor who does his homework and learns and applies policy well and fairly. FAC is a good forum for learning about copyright and plagiarism issues, and having another committed and civil admin on board to help deal with those issues, and ongoing FAC business, will benefit Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Karanacs. From my first interactions with Laser brain, I have been impressed with his ability to work well with all types of users. In his opinion, "we need to do our best to support and encourage" those editors committed to improving the encyclopedia, and ignore those who are here for other purposes. This philospophy may be the reason I see him most often at WP:FAC, where he is one of the hardest working reviewers. FAC can be a difficult environment for reviewers, as constructive criticism is not always well received. Regardless of the response his comments receive, Laser is unfailingly civil, encouraging [21], and helpful [22]. He spends a significant amount of his wiki-time copyediting articles that are being prepared for FAC (and at times works on articles that he has already opposed at FAC to bring them up to the FA prose standards). In addition, he has spent considerable effort improving several key articles, including an ongoing collaboration on Frankenstein.

Laser brain does not have a lot of experience with traditional administrative work, although he does revert vandalism and warn vandals. For the tasks he intends to pursue, however, the most important qualities are a CLUE, knowledge of content and image policies, and the ability to interact well with editors in potentially stressful situations. He has those in spades. I'm confident that Laser can learn any other skills he needs to do janitorial tasks, and that he will be a highly effective administrator. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Laser brain (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2009 (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: I'm interested in helping out at Copyright problems and Non-free content review. Both are usually backlogged, and since both involve potential copyright infringements, they should receive as much administrator attention as possible. They also require reasoned examination of text and images against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, something I am no stranger to due to my extensive experience at WP:FAC. I frequently deal with copyright and plagiarism issues in my professional arena, giving me a solid background to deal with such issues. I will also be able to help with the housekeeping tasks that come up at FAC.

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

A: I believe my contributions to reviewing Featured article candidates are the most important thing I do around here. Each article promoted from that process brings Wikipedia one step closer to becoming a comprehensive, well-written reference. There in the trenches, we collaborate, improve articles, and build consensus on what constitutes our best content. On the content creation side, I have brought musical instrument, a Vital article, a considerable distance from where I found it. I am proud of starting and bringing Elderly Instruments to Featured article status. I am also involved in a collaboration to bring Frankenstein, another important article, up to FA standard.

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

A: Sure thing. A lot of what I do involves criticizing the work of other users—conflicts and stressful situations are bound to arise. One exchange that sticks in my mind is when a user was raising spectres of cabalism and bad faith at one of his FAC nominations. I engaged him in conversation to point, and then suggested an RfC might be in order. The situation didn't escalate from there, but it demonstrates my path of conflict resolution. Most conflicts can be resolved through "patient conversation" (to quote an administrator I greatly respect), but when that has been exhausted one must use the proper channels rather than resorting to name-calling and vengeful behavior. I am also a consensus-builder; in any dispute, I aim for a practical, consensus-based solution.

Optional question from user:Tempodivalse

4. What is your understanding of consensus? How would you determine if consensus does or does not exist in different situations? I'm asking this because, as an admin, you will inevitably come across a situation where you will need to weigh consensus in order to take a certain action, such as in an AfD, article content disupte, et cetera.

A: Consensus is the general agreement of discussion participants over any given matter. Since no one here wields absolute power, Wikipedia operates on a consensus model for determining how things should occur. Admins make some unilateral decisions (such as whether to speedy delete something) but the policies and guidelines governing those decisions are formed by consensus. Determining consensus is not a numbers game—one must carefully examine the merit and general level of agreement of each argument. Sometimes the waters are too muddied and no consensus exists, wherein a default action is taken.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I don't monitor nearly enough BLPs to know how we're going on a grand scale. The ones I do watch are closely guarded, so I'd give us an "A" on that account. I've spent a day or two reviewing all of the relevant policy pages as well as ArbCom cases, and I'm confident that our collective head is in the right place. Do no harm. If content is questionable, get it out of there until someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it belongs there. We can't be careful enough in this regard.

5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A:

5c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A:

5d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A:

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Laser brain before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, not all of these links work, like the Edit summary one (Soxred's) looks up the edit summary usage for Requests for adminship. Is this template meant to be used on a user's user page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to click through to the actual RfA page, in this case Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain for the links to work - they don't work when you simply browse through RfAs that are transcluded at the WP:RFA page. Nick (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I never participate in RfAs, but Laser brain is just too good to pass up. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
4. (edit conflict)Support — Jake Wartenberg 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support From a brief review they are a great editor with lots of positive contributions to the project and I think they would make a valuable administrator. Camw (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Can see no issues. ∗ \ / (⁂) 02:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
7. A good, hard-working, and conscientious editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. From what I've seen, this user is helpful and civil, and understands Wikipedia policies. No issues that I can see. — TKD::{talk} 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. The candidate is bright and helpful. I see little risk in giving Laser brain the sysop buttons. Majoreditor (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
10. User is here to build an encyclopedia, nicely bold and focused, has perfect edit summary usage, and has broad experience from WP:FAC to a good number of helpful mainspace edits. User without a doubt deserves the mop.--(NGG) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Majorly talk 02:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Two wonderful things, lasers and brains, merging into one entity? It would be disastrous not to. — neuro^(talk) 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Absolutely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - All the makings of a good admin. Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support per above. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked nor he the candidate had any memorable negative interactions with me. One thing, though, I don't know if it's my browser or what, but the text of the userboxes on the candidate's userpage seem cut off of the right side of the screen. Not sure what that is about? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, I can't see all the text either, so it's not just you. Useight (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Occurs for me in IE7 (but only sometimes), never in Firefox 3. — TKD::{talk} 04:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

     Works for me –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

     Works for me too in Firefox 3 on Linux. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

    Hmmm, I'm using IE6; guess that explains it. Useight (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

     Works for me in Safari 3.2 (I never knew we had this template) Valley2city^‽ 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm, For people using older versions of IE, IE8 doesn't seem to have a problem with. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

20. Support A great leader and mediator, just the kind of person who would be a great administrator. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Good contributions, good reviewing, should be a great sysop on wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Oh well someone has to sort out the copyvio/fairuse pileup, good luck. NVO (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Civil, has clue, improves the encyclopedia, solid knowledge of policy. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. no-brainer this decision, plenty qualified and unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Someone who is willing to jump into the backlogs has my !vote. Also a good history and knowledge make me confident that Laser brain will use the tools well. Valley2city^‽ 06:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
26.  Works for me, er, Support. Excellent work at FAC. The content review areas always need more editors. Shubinator (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Watched Laser Brain around and like the work, attitude, etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 07:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support without any reservations. Hopefully this doesn't take away too much time from your FAC commentary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support --AWESOME PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support - I analyzed the edits of Laser brain, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No question; love your work.  Chzz  ►  09:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
34. — R² 10:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Weak Support I would've liked to see a little more work in administrative areas, but you'll do fine. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 10:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support experienced user, has clue, is civil, deserves mop. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support all of my experiences with this user and the answers to qustions make me beleive Laser brain is eminently mop-worthy Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Wtf Support?! How did I miss this going live? I should have voted while it was inactive... --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
40. 무지개빛깔 12:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support, excellent candidate. Ironholds (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support The couple of times I've seen this editor around, I've been impressed by the laser like brainy comments :-) And, with noms like that, ..... --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support, a great candidate.--Berig (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Strong Support. Been impressed by everything I've seen from this editor for a long time. I have no doubt Laser Brain will be a top notch admin. --JayHenry (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, per the noms, per the answers to the first three questions, and an excellent array of contributions to this project in multiple capacities. Cirt (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support as co-nominator. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support good answers to questions. No concerns, tempodivalse [☎] 13:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Good user, will not abuse tools, no reason to oppose. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Absolutely and unreservedly. LB is civil, sensible, intelligent and a brilliant FAC reviewer. I have learnt a lot form Laser. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support per reasons well articulated above. Эlcobbola _talk 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Good content work. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Skomorokh 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support mainly due to answer to Q1 and work on FAC. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support No issues I see. America69 (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support; have seen the editor participate in FAC processes and have been impressed with his advice and his attitude. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Saw this way before it went live. Absolutely the right temperament, definite support from me. Ceranthor 19:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Impressed by everything I've seen of Laser brain's contributions at WP:FAC, to the point that I've taken to emulating several aspects of his reviewing method. Thorough and articulate, this editor is respected by the community and can be trusted with the tools. Steve ^{T • C} 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - An ideal candidate to handle copyright-related matters, given how often they are discussed at FAC. Laser is easily one of the best FAC reviewers, and I echo previous supporters in saying that I've learned much from Laser's many reviews. I have full trust that the tools would be put to good use. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
59. WP:AGF I don't know the candidate at all and right now am too lazy to do research, but the nominator, SandyGeorgia's high credibility give me a warranty for the candidate.--Caspian blue 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Looks good. hmwithτ 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support because Sandy told me to... I mean, the candidate is swell. :P But seriously, he would help out a lot as an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Good luck. GlassCobra 23:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. Per two very well written co-nominations(above), consistently positive edits, and the untold hundreds of hours of review, improvement and encouragement this fine author has made. Laser has a demonstrated need for administrative tools. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support per noms. Will make a fine admin. Timmeh! 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Very strong support — I kid you not, I had already thought of Laser Brain as an administrator. Let's give him the mop. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
66. <generic thought he was an admin bit here>. Strong content work and dedication to the encyclopedia based on personal interactions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Wished I could have given a nomination.  Marlith (Talk)  03:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Strong editor, nom from two editors I highly respect, and plans to work in one of the most critical areas of the encyclopedia (dealing copyright issues and non-free content). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Laser Brain zap! appears from my checking to be an extremely capable candidate. He is extremely dedicated to the encyclopedia, and doesn't lose his head.  Works for me, he'll make a good admin. Xclamation point 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Pile on. Keeper | 76 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Strong support Wizardman 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Yep Does excellent work. Royalbroil 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support Nothing but positive interactions with Laser brain... how on earth do you not already have the tools? Resolute 04:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Nothing really to add to what has already been said. Ideal candidate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support per above; in addition, solid answers to questions given. One (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support; excellent and diligent FA reviewer. Daniel Case (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Of course. Ceoil (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Synergy 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Strong support Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Strongest support Excellent analytical skills and attention to detail. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Strong support Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Laser is an outstanding reviewer at FAC, and I am confident that his content experience, attention to detail and excellent communication skills will serve him well as an admin. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Support No alarms here, highly competent content builder willing to tackle admin backlogs. --GedUK  12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
85. Enormous Support--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    User:Juliancolton/Blink would have been better. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    What, haven't you read my essay?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Mind-blowing support. I may borrow your expression for other RfA cases ;) --Caspian blue 20:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

86. Support, especially per excellent work on FAC and copyright. FlyingToaster 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support – TheLeftorium 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support - I honestly thought you already were. Gran² 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support Kablammo (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. Kaaveh (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Support A sound candidate, it makes sense...Modernist (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
92. Support - impressive candidate, willing to work in areas where it's much needed (like copyright problems). Good luck. Robofish (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Easy support. No problem. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support excelent contributions, and needed experience with copyright issues. --J^mundo 03:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
95. Pile-on support, great looking editor from a quick glance, no real need to look further with the 94/0 turnout so far. Matty (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
96. Support, how can I not support a candidate named "Laser brain"? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
97. Support Admins who are well-versed in FA issues and see the wisdom in supporting positive contributors certainly seems like a win-win situation. -- Banjeboi 12:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support - created FA's/DYKs, lots of edits, good knowledge, fun user page. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
99. S Dlohcierekim 19:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
100. Support. Strong candidate. — Σxplicit 19:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
101. Strong Support. No brainer. ;) Seriously, I see no reason to oppose and every reason to support. No potential abuse as far as I can see. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Go out for the day and miss the chance to be #100, co-nom support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Support. Nothing but net. Eubulides (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
104. +S: Oi, why didn't you tell me you were slumming at RfA? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
105. Support - gees, I missed this. No reason to think he'd missue the tools, but I have to worry that the ranks of non-admin folks who frequent FAC keeps diminishing! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

     You are next on my list, Ealdgyth. ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

     It's a long list :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

     No. In fact, to quote Malleus (badly) "Hell no." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

106. Support no reason not to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. I have every reason to believe that this user will be an ideal admin. Firestorm ^Talk 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
108. Support Per nom. Dferg (☎) 20:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
109. Strong support. Go you! --candle•wicke 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
110. Support - seen the candidate around and no reason to not support; also per Firestorm (talk · contribs). Interesting noms with both FAC delegates. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
111. Support. Good communicator and content editor. qp10qp (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
112. DVD 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
113. Support Has got his priorities in order. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
114. Definitely. An excellent candidate. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
115. No brainer. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
116. Support. Superb work at FAC as a skilled reviewer. Tony (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
117. Support Trust the nom by SandyGeorgia and excellent candidate with great work in FAC and track is outstanding.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
118. Strong Support no reason not to support - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
119. Please zap my brain with lasers err, I mean support. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
120. Support Yup. MelissaC1993 (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
121. Support – seems good to me! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 08:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
122. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
123. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
124. Pile-on support Looks good to me, and nobody has opposed yet.--Res2216firestar 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
125. Support No problems here. Razorflame 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. No time to check out the candidate but with noms SandyGeorgia and Karanacs, candidate is probably O.K.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2009 (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 successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Dinoguy1000

Final (83/1/2); Closed by Rlevse at 20:39, 09 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) – Dinoguy1000 has been an editor since 2006 and achieved a reputation as an active and courteous user. I noticed Dino in my work and decided to nominate him.

Dino has over 11,000 edits and appears to be skilled in a variety of technical areas like templates. He is also a dedicated member of the Anime and Manga Wikiproject and has contributed a substantial amount of content. From his CSD tagging, I am confident he knows the deletion policy.

I believe that if selected, Dinoguy will continue his technical work and will assist in performing admin tasks. He appears to understand policy well and is able to interact with others. MBisanz ^talk 08:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks for nominating me. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:38, 2 May 2009 (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: I don't have anything specific in mind right now, but there have been times in my template work where I've had to make an editprotected request to get a noncontroversial edit performed. As time permits in the future, I may also look at the occasional CSD, PROD, and XFD; I participate in discussions on MediaWiki talk pages often enough that I may find myself making edits in the MediaWiki namespace; and I help out enough at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs that being able to make fixes to Twinkle and Friendly would be good. I've also had an idea for a side-project for some time now involving cleaning up or offering to clean up other users' CSS and JS which would obviously require the ability to edit those files (though I'd plan that out pretty carefully first, due to the potential damage and irritation that could be caused).

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

A: This one's a toughie... I'd say that I'm particularly pleased with my addition of auto-hiding groups in {{Navbox generic}}, functionality that has been retained through to the current {{Navbox}} and also added to the other navigationbox templates. I also generalized the sublist template of {{Japanese episode list}} from a Dragon Ball-specific one created by User:Collectonian, and then backported it to a version that works with {{Episode list}}. I've also made substantial contributions to the anime and manga infobox and the WP:ANIME banner (and in the latter case, I am working on updating it to use {{WPBannerMeta}}). For one last template example, I also updated {{Anime by decade category header}} and {{Manga by decade category header}}, before combining both into a single {{Animanga by year category header}}. For project work, I have also put a lot of work into WP:ANIME's deletion sorting list and its archive (being able to peek at deleted page histories would definitely help me out here), and I've hunted down and added a lot of items to WP:ANIME's news page. In the article namespace, I think I would have to say the updates I've made to List of Oh My Goddess! chapters are pretty decent.

I hope that updating {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} to use {{WPBannerMeta}} would involve updating {{WPBannerMeta}}, as the former template is far more advanced? G.A.S^talk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, WP:ANIME's banner is more advanced than WPBM? I'm pretty sure it's actually the other way around... I don't think our banner does anything currently that WPBM can't handle (it's just a matter of me looking carefully enough at what WPBM can do and trying to find some sample banners to look off of). Perhaps we should move this discussion elsewhere, though? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:44, 7 May 2009 (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 have been in a few conflicts in the past, and made some bad edits/edit summaries, but these are generally directed at content as opposed to editors. My first major conflict was a rather stupid argument on Digimon Adventure over the title parameter of one of {{Infobox animanga}}'s components that resulted in a temporary full-protection of the article (for the record, I've since changed my stance on that issue, and intend to start a discussion on it at some point). There was also an edit summary I left on a navbox template that wasn't particularly civil, but again, I was only commenting on the content, and not any of the editors who had written it.

Additional question from HJ Mitchell

4. Which area or areas of Wikipedia policy, if any, would you be most active in trying to change?

A: I don't typically involve myself on policy (or guideline/essay, for that matter) discussion, and really don't have much interest in trying to change anything like that. My own observations on Wikipedia suggest that by and large, current policy functions quite well; it is when individual users come in on some sort of crusade or with something to prove, that the collaborative editing process tends to break down. Ignoring that, wherever policy doesn't fit well with a given situation, we have WP:IAR and if it becomes enough of a problem, the community seems to be pretty amenable to making additions or changes to existing policy after suitable discussion.

Additional question from Hobit

5. Say we have an in-arguably notable porn actress from the 1960s who is still alive today. No known public domain pictures of her are known to exist and she is known to not be interested in having pictures taken of her. A user has posted a (clothed) full-body picture of the actress from a 1960's magazine arguing that even if a picture of her could be taken, it wouldn't represent the "characteristics" for which she is notable. It is taken to IfD where 2 admins argue it is replaceable and 3 other users argue that any picture would be hard to get and the characteristics issue is valid. How do you close it and why?

A: Wow, this question was quite tough for me to answer because I don't normally deal with either images or biographies (much less BLPs). However, after a bit of searching, I found Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2, which makes the situation quite clear. To quote, "...for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." So, in response to your question, if the actress's notability rested solely or significantly on her career as a porn actress, I would close the discussion as keeping the non-free image of her since no free images from the relevant period are known to exist, and no obtainable free image of her would be directly relevant to her career, which is the characteristic she is notable for. However, if a significant portion of her notability comes from some event other than her career, especially one later in her life (closer to the present day), I would probably close the discussion as a delete, since in that case, any free image which could be obtained - regardless of how difficult it may be to obtain - would be more directly relevant to some of her notable characteristics (my exact closure in this latter case would depend on exactly how and why she was notable, beyond her career). I decided to go ahead and answer this question without waiting to log in, I hope no one minds... =) --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Jennavecia

6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Hmm... now I'm wondering how I moved from templates to BLPs. ;P The current BLP situation you're referring to is vandalism to BLPs, especially adding unsourced and potentially libelous content to them, right? In that case, I would say that we are actually doing quite well - to the best of my knowledge, most BLPs that are likely targets for such additions are also heavily watched pages, so any such additions get reverted very quickly. Obviously, the problem gets worse as you move further from these main BLPs into less trafficked areas, but I think that newpages and recentchanges patrollers still manage to catch most of this stuff.

6b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I've never bothered to read any of the flagged revisions proposals, simply because it really doesn't interest me - it's a powerful tool for fighting vandalism, but the main application it's being discussed for is specifically on BLPs, which I usually avoid (as with all biography articles). I think that flagged revisions, in some form, would be immensely useful; I quite like the FLPPR proposal. Semi-protection is only suitable in a limited set of circumstances, would not stop persistent vandals (who would simply register sleeper accounts), and (in the case of blanket semi-protection on all BLPs) would only hurt BLPs that have no history of vandalism.

6c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: I honestly cannot provide a satisfactory answer for this (not for a lack of trying; I spent quite some time thinking it over), and in such cases, I would almost certainly defer to the judgment of an admin with experience in BLP issues.

6d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: Once again (and after thinking this over quite carefully as well and doing some research into what policy/guidelines have to say on the matter), I would say that my lack of experience with BLPs means that I would seek the advice of an admin more well versed on BLP issues.

General comments

• Links for Dinoguy1000: Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Dinoguy1000 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000 before commenting.

Discussion

• Just in case anyone else had this same confusion...I should just note that Dinoguy1000 is not the same user as Dinoguy2. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js — neuro^(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Several people who have commented below have noted concerns with my signature. However, I really don't like working on it much (I've got it where *I* like it ;) ), so I'd appreciate others' insight into how I may be able to improve it. Comments and suggested sigs are welcome at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Wait, you mean he isn't actually an administrator? I've seen him around for ages, and have just always assumed that he was one. We'll let's fix that now. Dinoguy would be a definite positive to the project as an administrator. Support NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
2. — Jake Wartenberg 15:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I'm impressed that the candidate willingly points out situations where he shouldn't have said something in such a manner. I trust him. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - No reason not to. — neuro^(talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. If that edit summary is what he considers uncivil, this guy is a saint. Tan | 39 16:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   I must concede that I thought that as well. :) — neuro^(talk) 16:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it's not so much that as I got a message about it from the template's creator/main contributor after the fact, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to point it out. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Support based on my (rather limited) experience with him. He seems quite civil and intelligent. WP:WTHN? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - looks like he knows what he's doing. I trust him with the tools. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Solid. Good find, MBisanz. Nice technical work, Dino - best of luck to you! Keeper | 76 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Tenure, experience, clean block log and civility, OK I don't understand all the technical stuff dino wants to do but I'm happy to have him do it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support. We need more people who care about the Wikipedia's technical side and 11,000 edits is certainly good enough. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. I'm really impressed by his contributions at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs and the most recent archive; people who can do that work and also communicate about it in a clear and friendly manner are exceptional. People who do it for free are priceless. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Very good editor, the only thing I see that bugs me is your signature. You don't have to change it, but it is confusing. Malinaccier (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    It was originally "—Dinoguy1000", but I got tired of its rather bland appearance, and since I do so much work on Japan-related subjects, the Japanese seemed appropriate. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    All I see is squares, and I assume a fair number of editors have the same problem. Obviously I don't have the font installed, but it does cause slight difficulties. Having the latin-based username in parenthesis is a good idea, though, nice touch. Useight (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

13. Need more template admins, and this one seems to be suitable. Ceranthor 17:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support no indication he'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 18:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - well of course the "Ruler of the World" should have a mop! But seriously, plenty of good contributions, great temperament, has experience at admining another wiki - my only question is: What took you so long to step up and ask for the tools? Best of luck. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Full support from me. I've seen this editor around and have every confidence in him. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Like his content contributions, work at WP:ANIME, the template work, and the cool head. Also, now he can stop bothering me for history merges ;) — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    Whaaat, why would I stop bothering you? Bugging you for stuff is too much fun to pass up! XD 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

19. Support As nom. MBisanz ^talk 19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support, but agree with Malinaccer and Useight that you should probably change your sig so people can better know what to call you. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with having funky characters in your sig (I know I do), but it probably shouldn't be your entire sig, because it gets difficult people who can't read it (either because they don't have the fonts installed or don't know Japanese). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Both of users accounts make good contributions and clearly does good work in the Anime Wikiproject. Users been here for a good period of time and done a good number of edits through numerous IPs, and 2 different accounts. Also excellent answers and excellent nom.--(NGG) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    Wait, since when do I have a second account? If you're talking about Dinoguy2, he's not the same person as me (and I've actually pointed out our similar usernames to him before). As for IPs, I've edited under a number of them, but this is the only one I make any significant edits under at this time. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    Hehe, I misread your comment. I thought it said you were that other account sorry.--(NGG) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    No problem. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

22. Solid Support Of course. -download | sign! 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support tempodivalse [☎] 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support--Giants27 ^T/C 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support on strength of contributions but I agree that he should change his sig. I don't like sigs that I have to mouse over to see who it is -- it wastes my time. Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

26. Per nom too few admins, alrighty? Dlohcierekim 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support solid credentials in the field that you want to work in. ThemFromSpace 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per overall record and comments above. No concerns noted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support I met the candidate once. Just like everyone have noticed, he is a civil and sensible editor with a great contribution history. I have no concern about him having the admin bits. Best wishes for him and our community.--Caspian blue 23:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, good user, and currently not enough administrators. Wizardman 23:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support, as per nom. Extremepro (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Too few admins currently :)! Also a fine canidate, if that edit summary is the most uncivil thing he has done, then he is reasonably civil. Respectfully suggest he change that sig to something more computers have the font for (or make the latin name at the end bigger) Oldlaptop321 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

34. Support Generally (ignoring tiny blemishes we all have) civil, professional, and cool-headed. Excellent templating skills. Would be a good addition to the mop-wielders. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Why not no flags here good luck. -- Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
36. SupportCan see no reason why not-please change the sig though! dottydotdot (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've started a subpage where you can discuss my current signature and suggest improved versions at User:Dinoguy1000/Signature. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

37. Support No concerns here. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Too many admins currently. Great user, will make good admin. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support see no problems in the last year, good answers. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support When Dinoguy and I got into a bit of a disagreement about a page name, he was very nice and civil about the whole thing. So, yes, I think he would make a good admin. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Of course. Great user. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks great! - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
45. - filelakeshoe 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - No concerns. Tiptoety ^talk 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Definitely! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
49. SupportI can't belive he's not an admin already!--Abce2|Howdy! 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
50. SupportExcellent user, tool access will be not only of benefit to the users daily activities, but to the improvement of wikipedia in general Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I admire your honesty in answering question #5. It's important to know policy but I think it is also important to admit you don't have all the answers but you know where to look it up or whom to ask. The latter makes a more humble administrator. Valley2city^‽ 06:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yep, I see no point in lying about what you do and don't know, and it tends to get you in trouble. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

53. Support Please become an admin --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support per MBisanz. がんばって  Chzz  ►  10:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support mainly per MBisanz nomination and answer to Q4. I'm glad this user sees adminship as a complement to, not a substitute for, ordinary editing. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support No reason no to. America69 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Full Support He does really good work and giving these tools would allow him to expand his abilities to help wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Only positive, constructive and friendly editing to be found. Dinoguy1000 communicates and builds consensus as he improves the encyclopedia. With a demonstrated need for system operator permissions he has met my criteria to be trusted with Adminship. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support - Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
62. No reason not to support. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support shows good sense and reticence. . . dave souza, talk 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support, no evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC).
65. Support. Answers given to questions and site experience both make me confident that this user would do well as an administrator. Good luck! One (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - good contributor, likely to make a good admin; a slightly-annoying signature is no reason to oppose. :) Robofish (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Strong Support - if I was ever fit to be an administrator, Dinoguy1000 certainly is. He has improved Wikipedia and would be a great admin. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. Fit for the tools. — Σxplicit 03:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Dinoguy1000 has extensive know-how about template coding, and it would be a net gain if he were to edit them to add new features, or clean up code when needed. G.A.S^talk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Certainly, no alarms seen here. --GedUK  11:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, as though you need it. Experienced and trustworthy editor. FlyingToaster 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - everything seems to be in order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - good contributor with good track record. I see no problem here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. For being honest and open to criticism. Kaaveh (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Trust the judgement of Mbisanz and user has been around since October 2006 and track is good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support A welcome addition to the ranks. -- Banjeboi 11:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Looks good to me.  Frank  |  talk  13:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong Support as he has been an excellent contributor to WP:ANIME for a good long while, and is generally all-around helpful. I see nothing which would lead me to believe the tools would be abused, and plenty of instances where the tools would prove useful to him. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - veteran editor with 10,000 edits, rollback rights, no issues. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
80. ダイノガイ>九千! — CharlotteWebb 20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Support DinoGuy1000 should be an asset on wikipedia; Good contrib, mainspace edits, and rollback rights used maturely. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Support will do fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Strong support. No problems. --candle•wicke 01:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   Discussion moved to talk page, where it belongs. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. On the oppose aspect, although I won't oppose per one diff, but I can't support when I see comments like this in which 1) who knows why anyone creates a particular article and if we're going to make assumptions, we should WP:AGF and 2) that's not really a reason for deletion anyway, i.e. a blend of a WP:PERNOM followed by an unproven assumption about the motivations' of the article's creator. Anyway, I would like to see more thoughtfulness and considerateness from those who have the means of closing such discussions. On the positive side of things are that the candidate has never been blocked and User:Dinoguy1000#Awards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that that AFD discussion occurred nearly a year ago, and I've matured a great deal as an editor since then. Looking back on it now, I'd largely have to agree with your assessment of my !vote in that discussion, and I actually gave a much "better" delete rationale in the second AFD discussion for that article, a little more than a month ago. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the polite reply; yes, although I still disagree with your stance in the second AfD (just not convinced why the need to redlink rather than redirect), it is definitely more of an appropriate rationale than the one in the first AfD and I may reconsider here accordingly. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - Candidate has no idea what the BLP problem is, much less a desire to help fix it. I would oppose, but I've decided it's counter-productive to the cause. لennavecia 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah, I was kinda anticipating this. Biographies have never held any interest for me, and there's plenty of work to do in the fields I am interested in, so I'm certainly not going to apologize for this. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

   Seems like an unnecessary response. لennavecia 20:16, 8 May 2009 (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.

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests.

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. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - 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.