Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cmach7 (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 21 February 2013 (transcluded my RfB nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Banaticus 28 26 16 52 Unsuccessful 04:43, 28 February 2013 0 hours no report
West.andrew.g 106 10 6 91 Successful 18:15, 27 February 2013 0 hours no report
Current time is 11:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Banaticus 28 26 16 52 Unsuccessful 04:43, 28 February 2013 0 hours no report
West.andrew.g 106 10 6 91 Successful 18:15, 27 February 2013 0 hours no report
Current time is 11:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

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 next administrator election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for further information.

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 Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Rusalkii RfA Successful 23 Apr 2025 156 0 0 100
EggRoll972 RfA No consensus 19 Apr 2025 110 57 10 66
LaundryPizza03 RfA Unsuccessful 17 Apr 2025 72 81 26 47
Goldsztajn RfA Successful 23 Mar 2025 136 1 4 99
Barkeep49 RfB Successful 7 Mar 2025 219 5 8 98
Giraffer RfA Successful 1 Mar 2025 221 0 1 100

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate, or 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.[2] 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

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.[3] 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".[4] 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

Shortcut

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. 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.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 11:05:43, 1 June 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.

Banaticus

Final (28/26/16); ended 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC) - no consensus has been demonstrated. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Banaticus (talk · contribs) I am a WikiGnome. I mainly work on reverting vandalism, but I also occasionally throw my hat into the ring and handle abuse reports, review articles, help people on IRC, answer {{help me}} requests, answer semi-protected edit requests... and sundry other things. I'm also one of the Wikipedia:Ambassadors. The time where I am right now is 3:05am 1 Jun 2025.

Am I more of an Eventualist than I am an Immediatist (unless it looks like self-serving non-notable spam or patent nonsense, which should be dealt with swiftly)? The answer is implicit in the question (namely, phrasing it as a question instead of a statement should emphasize that I favor eventualism over immediatism). This does presume that a person isn't working under a deadline. Those who are editing as part of a school class kind of have to be immediatists, their grade is assigned on how the article is "now", not on what it could be later.

I created several userboxes. Given SUL... many of the first created are on the verge of obsolescence, but I hope the latter-created userboxes will have more permanence.

I've created some music files. Banaticus (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Lua scripting. It's right up my alley, all that technical nitty-gritty mumbo-jumbo that pretty much nobody's ever going to see but that'll just make the English Wikipedia that much more of an amazing place. I look forward to being able to take the chart template and rework it with lua to just make it all work beautifully, simply, and swiftly. I also intend to redo the cite templates. Seriously, I've been working with them on paper for several months now, trying to get a concise format for AutoWikiBrowser so that I can start running through pages and automatically replacing most cite templates with actual citations (once people put in a citation, it's usually always done and over with and would greatly speed up page loading). Cite templates were part of why the Barack Obama page was taking as long as three-five minutes to load a couple years ago. However, the citation templates are a gigantic snarled ball of yuck and I have yet to untangle them fully. With lua, however, shoot, the possibilities are endless.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm pleased with my single-section Ancestry revamp for Cleopatra (yes, the famous one). She has a "seriously messed up" family tree (more like a tangled bush). When I first came across the article, it used the more typical family tree stemma. This was rather confusing, as her ancestry is quite tangled, which necessitates quite a bit of ancestral duplication, so I redid it using the {{family tree}} template. A day or so later, I changed family tree to the {{chart}} template, which "generates lower preprocessor node count." I did it all on paper, was almost done, realized that I missed one uncle, and had to redo the whole thing again before typing it into the computer. It was made more complex because she is descended from 11 people, including three uncle-niece and two brother-sister relationships, and all of them are descended from the same two people.
You can also take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contact and Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Banaticus/contactsemiedit for the people/articles I've helped resolve edit conflicts (but only since I started using those templates). Then there's my ambassador work.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Of course I've been involved in edit conflicts, I've been around for years. Even though I try to avoid drama, eventually I revert something that looks like vandalism and someone takes umbrage. Or I'll try to settle one of those oft recurring disputes you know what I mean? I do occasionally make mistakes as well -- I'm human. :) When I make a mistake, I apologize and revert myself. If I ever get into a situation where I'm all hot and bothered, I'll just step back and cool down.
Additional Question by Soap
4. You seem like a nice person but I have to admit that the answer to Q1 is bothering me. Is that really all you plan to do, and if so could you explain for those of us not in the know what having admin access would enable you to do that you can't do now?
A: I'd likely also work on things like helping protected edit requests, but probably not for a few months. I've been around Wikipedia for a long time and my interests and focus tend to shift over time. I'm not saying that lua scripting-related work is the only thing that I would ever do, but it would be my focus at this time. Lua scripting in an admin-capacity looks like it will be quite a lot of work in the immediate future, however. Module:String, for instance, is protected because it's transcluded (called) in Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items. As lua is used in more and more templates to do things like ease the crazy string handling templates which currently exist, and as modules become longer and lengthier because each "type" of lua call has to call the same module (all String calls would go to Module String, for instance), lua modules will likely all become protected within the next couple months or so as they start getting called by some article or area which is itself protected, which will make extending lua more difficult. Banaticus (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question by Wifione Message
5. I second Soap's views on your being a nice guy. I also thank you for applying for the RfA. Do kindly answer a few queries I have. (a) Why do you reply to bots which leave messages on your talk page? (b) Why did you make this edit that seemingly has no source? (c) Why did you revert here identifying the edit as vandalism? Thanks.
A: (a) A bot has its own account so that bot actions are more easily discernible from the user's regular edits, but the bot is still the proxy or representative of the user (the user is still responsible for the edits that their bot makes). I tend to respond to a person's proxy as though I was responding to the person in question. (b) It seemed like a good-sized paragraph from the article had been deleted with no cause, and that he was probably expelled from the government for a valid reason. Upon review, however, since there was no reference, it seems like it could be a BLP problem so it's probably a good thing that someone took it out again. {c} I believe it was because it was a Scribd document. Pretty much the only things I've seen at Scribd until now have seemed to be copyright thefts or non-encylopedic self-published material which in either case shouldn't be used as a reference. The given Scribd document does seem to be an authentic music score which would help provide verifiability to material in the article, though. Banaticus (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mr. Stradivarius
6. I see that you've expressed an interest in helping out with protected edit requests, which makes me very glad as we could do with more admins working in this area. To give me an idea of how you would cope with this, could you tell me how you would respond to the following three protected edit requests? (They are all open as of the time of writing.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Template talk:Infobox album/color Talk:Asymmetric warfare Talk:Warren Kinsella[reply]
A: I responded at those individual places by doing what I can. I don't think any of them require an edit to the protected page. In the first case, the user should seek consensus from the WikiProject. In the second and third cases, the users need references. I did have to add a new protected edit request to fix a typo: "Kinsella supported Sandra Pupatello in the leadership convetion tht chose a successor to McGuinty." "convetion tht" should be changed to "convention that" (both words are misspelled).
Additional question from Ritchie333
7. Above, you say "the citation templates are a gigantic snarled ball of yuck and I have yet to untangle them fully". Could you outline the procedure by which you would attempt to change the templates, what specifically you think should be changed in them, and how you might handle objections to your changes?
A: The citation templates as a whole call a massive amount of templates. To quote pop culture, it's like a cake. Or maybe an onion. Yeah, that's it, citation templates are like onions and they make the server cry. Basically, wikimarkup can't really parse text and make intelligent decisions. Sure, we have ifexist, "if these match", "if/then" and switch statements, but they're incredibly complex. I'd start cutting down on the number of templates which are in use by editing templates to not call other templates when they're only calling the other template to make a decision which the original template should be able to make on its own, if that's clear. If there were objections, I'd chat with people about their objections and look for consensus. I don't think there would be any objections to edits like that, though. Banaticus (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Plutonium27
8. One of your created userboxes is "This user is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."[1]. Are you a member of this church? I note it has not been included on your userpage unlike the other userboxen you created. This is unsurprising as editors seeking adminship now invariably refrain from adding - or remove exisiting - userboxes expressing religious and/or political beliefs and affiliations. Whereas these are generally held to be a personal matter, I believe such an affiliation could be pertinent, given your reason for seeking adminship, your interest in ancestry (per your A to Q2) and the controversies over LDS interest in data access (such as for the International Genealogical Index).Plutonium27 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: Woah! Please Ignore - I'll strike thru as soon as I can find the edit to do so - I confused you with the candidate below and his reasons for wanting adminship. Your religion has no relevance else. Apologies. Long day...Plutonium27 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, I believe you did mean to direct this question to me. I think that's a personal question. I've never stated on this wiki whether or not I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I haven't put that template on my userpage except as part of a "here's what I created" section. In fact, if you go back and look at the history of my userpage, that's not the only religious userbox that I created. Where that other one ended up, I have no idea. The big shift of userboxes out of template space and into user space several years ago (before then, the general idea was that any oft-used template should be in template space and userspace was only for your personal stuff that nobody else would be using) didn't move them to the original creator's userspace, they tended to be moved to the userspace of the person who was doing the moving. I wasn't involved in that moving except for "rescuing" at least one that I created (the LDS one) from another person's userspace. I should recreate that Roman Catholic one, I notice that nobody since seems to have recreated a Roman Catholic userbox, although given that it's been several years perhaps nobody is interested in it anymore. I became interested in ancestry because of my grandmother (who was head of the Ventura County Geneological Society a while ago), and also because Cleopatra had such a "seriously messed up family" to put it mildly. Anyway, I feel that my religion is a somewhat personal matter, and that none of my edits related to any religious matters have been made in a manner contrary to standard Wikipedia practice. What about the IGI? I've heard it mentioned before, but today is (as far as I remember), the first time I've ever looked at its Wikipedia page. I didn't see my name in the talk page there (which apparently has little enough traffic that it's never been archived since I started editing Wikipedia back in 2005).[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

So that I won't be repeating myself, I've edited this reply to say that I've expanded on the answer that was here when I responded to the second half of a new 4th question up above. Banaticus (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support Why not? His contributions are good. Cmach7 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't see why not, but I do advice a little more details on the first question, or you might not get much support. User intends to work on templates and many of these are protected for only sysop users so even that requires the mop. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Why not - looks like a good editor with good intentions. Vacation9 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. support - Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support - doesn't seem to check all of my boxes, but I think the editor will likely be a net positive. Go Phightins! 03:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per WP:NETPOS, although more consistent activity would be nice.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Sure.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Would do fine as an admin. Inka888 04:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I spent the last forty-five minutes going through this user's contributions and past history and the only thing that I can ask is why they have never been through an RfA before? Definitely meets my RfA criteria. Trusilver 04:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I think he can be trusted with the mop Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I'm not that very affiliated with this user much but I think this user has good potentials for being an admin here. Could be trusted. Mediran (t • c) 09:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Having gone through his contributions (perTrusilver) I am also certain that he will be a useful recipient of the tools. Short opposes talking about immaturity seem specious, given his (almost) eight-year history here, not to mention his obvious editing skill. It might be sensible to expand the answer to Q1 - not everyone here will know what Lua is, let alone what you can do with it here.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak Support The candidate is light on content-building and isn't the most articulate chap around here. That said, he's a hard worker, even-tempered, helpful and will be a net positive. He's stated a valid reason for needing the mop, and the likelihood of him abusing it is low. Majoreditor (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Can't see why not. Sure the nom could be better but seems like a good guy and I don't think Banaticus is likely to break the wiki. What the heck is a Banaticus anyway? --regentspark (comment) 02:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in 6th grade, I had to do an assignment on my name. I asked my dad where my name came from and he jokingly responded, "Well, we originally wanted to name you Banaticus..." A decade later, I was looking to create a website. My real name, Bart, was pretty much universally unavailable. I was sitting around trying to come up with something which could be remembered, fairly easily spelled out phonetically (which ruled out the use of my last name), and I remembered that name my dad had come up with all those years earlier. Strangely enough, banaticus.com was available. After a few years of use, when I didn't renew on time, a cybersquatter snatched it up for a year and wanted far more money for it than I was willing to pay. I never picked the website back up again. Anyway, that's where my name came from. Banaticus (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that http://www.banaticus.com is currently a 404; perhaps you could pick it up again. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Thanks for sorting out Cleopatra's ancestry. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Candidate seems like a net positive, although I trust that their boldness (which is appreciated) will be tempered with insight into their limitations. Miniapolis 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support As far as I am concerned, nomination statements and edit statistics should not be solely used to judge an admin candidate. Based on the candidate's contributions and what the candidate wants to do with admin tools, I support this candidate. Suraj T 12:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support After eight years of generally problem-free and completely block-free editing, is he going to start breaking the wiki now? He needs the tools for a specific task and is planning to work on other tasks too, so let's let him be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support But please be very very careful playing around with the cite templates. In fact, if you're going to play around with something that transcludes to tens of thousands of articles, be really careful, please. RayTalk 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I trust you and I would vote support even without the Lua script protection issue. As an aside I didn't even know the Module namespace existed until I saw this RfA; I assume it must've been a very low-key software rollout. —Soap— 00:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Gives me a good vibe and I think the opposes are trying to make every Wikian too cookie cutter. I'm actually not really int gnoming or patrolling. But I liked that the fellow seemed like a real person (really!) and not just some Wiki-drone spouting policy. The comments about smilies were cool as about his experience with part time employees. I don't think there is any danger from the fellow and I think the project will do well to have some "civilians" (normal people). Who cares if he has a job and spends time in the woods. Very cool actually.TCO (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support it looks like he won't do any harm, and he could user the mop. He looks like an ideal candidate. — nerdfighter(academy) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support After cogitating over oppose argueents, I choose to support Bart's request. If he is too bold, he may find a prominent spot in the Village stocks. A strength of Wikipedia is that even an overambitious and under-tested change to a template used throughout the encyclopedia can be reverted. I trust that he would not intentionally harm WP and judge that he is likely to be a significant help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 15:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools--rogerd (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support rogerd, above, has said exactly what I was going to say. The reasons given below for opposing this candidacy are entirely unconvincing. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. net positive Dlohcierekim 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 100% Support I just believe in you (like really much). 𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟 𝕁𝕒𝕞𝕚𝕖𝕤𝕠𝕟 𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKyser22 (talk • contribs)
  28. Support. I am unconvinced by the opposing arguments that turning on the sysop bit here would result in harm or even danger to the project as a result of some supposed recklessness on the part of the nominee. I also don't see the sporadic editing history as a problem either; there is no requirement for adminship to be a full time job, and no requirements for candidates to have worked on Wikipedia full time either. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose The nomination statement reads like a load of baloney. There is no clue yet as to exactly what this candidate seeks to do with a trust-based, lifetime position and a whole lot more detailed scrutiny on their policy knowledge will be needed to convince me to change this !vote. Leaky Caldron 10:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Baloney is a strong statement... Why don't you ask Banaticus a set of policy/guideline based questions? Wifione Message 10:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Baloney describes it very well. Besides, 9,000 edits since 2005 is not much, 10% of it on his own user page, only 43 % in article space. Besides, slipshod editing, and then going through the apologizing routine. An admin (claiming 8 years experience) should be a little more careful. Kraxler (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my edit summary on the talk page of this RFA says that I only have 75 edits on my user page. Perhaps you saw the total edits in user space number, 852 -- I think that number includes my 13 pages of archived user talk history, because back in 2008 I started archiving my user talk pages as User:Banaticus/archive#, instead of User talk:Banaticus/archive# (now archived as User:Banaticus/archiveYear). I kind of wish I'd responded before there were a few "per above" oppose statements. C'est la vie, that's life. Banaticus (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mistaken there. "User" edits do not include "User talk" edits. The 10% User page edits include edits of your actual user page (not your own talk page) and edits to essays and sandboxes (all pages that start like "User:XXX/...". As an admin candidate you should be able to read an edit count statement. Anyway, there are another 30% of user talk edits. With 43% of article edits, what are you talking so much about? Kraxler (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Struck. Kraxler (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How many edits do you expect this person to have? This person has been around for over 7 years and has been editing consistantly over the past couple years. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - Per Above, extremely underwhelming nomination statement, poor editing statistics.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Immaturity and jumbled prose. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. Intothatdarkness 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, I'm sorry to say. While we need a certain number of admins with the expertise to work on the interface, they also need to recognize that, first, the interface is still subject to community consensus same as everything else; and second, changes that affect hundreds or thousands of pages require a considerably greater amount of discussion and care than those that do not. This exchange from earlier today shows a somewhat casual attitude, and this earlier one, somewhat similarly, proposes a complex change to a massively used template for a relatively trivial purpose. This user, in short, makes me nervous. I'd feel better if there were a nomination from one of our current admins who frequently edit complex templates and interface pages. Chick Bowen 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you totally. Why on earth would we want an admin that *gasp* acts boldly and just goes out and gets things done when they should know damned well that they need to get with the program and hand it off to the bureaucracy to blabber about it until no one cares anymore, being absolutely sure to get all the opinions of the Wikipedians that know nothing about the subject but want to show how important they are to the system by bestowing their glorious Opinion upon us. Okay... sarcasm aside. I understand the process I just outlined is the traditional Wikipedia method of not getting things done, but the examples you have shown above don't strike me as negatives... quite the opposite. Being bold is a virtue here. The encylopedia, both the visible and the not so visible parts of it, are no carved into clay tablets. If there something someone has a problem with... they can revert and discuss it. I would rather see an administrative candidate that sees something and says "I can make this better!" and then does it, rather than a candidate that says "I can make this better! I better see what the Idiot Committee has to say about it first!" Trusilver 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly support being bold in editing articles. Templates with hundreds of thousands of transclusions, not so much. Chick Bowen 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What was wrong with my attitude? Was I mean or hateful or derogatory, were there any written procedures which I did not follow? As to This exchange from earlier today I don't see what I did wrong and I started a discussion on that topic there. As for this earlier edit, yes, I proposed an edit for a relatively trivial purpose. Do we now ban all edits except for non-trivial edits? We all know people with "unique" signatures. Shouldn't the ability exist to display their name in the accustomed manner for easier differentiation in user lists such as in the http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program (and wherever that template is used)? Regardless of my opinions, I think this should be a shining example of my accustomed manner of seeking consensus, and if consensus is not gained, to eventually just let the matter go without continuing to beat a dead horse. Banaticus (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretfully Oppose as per Chick Bowen. I would expect a candidate for the mop, with the main intention of affecting such technical nature and far-reaching consequences, to be much more careful with his edits (or in this case, his attempted edits). It is a shame, as I feel we need more technical editors, and more WikiGnomes, and in the future I hope Banaticus applies when he is a little less bold on such fundamental pages (although WP:BOLD does have a time and place). iComputerSaysNo 01:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Chick Bowen. I don't feel as if I can trust the candidate with the tools. SpencerT♦C 02:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. I want admins with clarity and reserve. I'm not seeing clarity. The Q1/Q3 answers suggest the candidate doesn't know what's important to say here. I'm not seeing reserve. Q5 has an incident where a good faith edit was tagged as vandalism. I'm pleased to see lots of AIV reports, but I haven't scanned them. Banaticus isn't seeking the bit to fight vandals but rather scripting. The tone for Q7/citation templates isn't reassuring. I can read the comments a couple ways. I'm happy with neither. Stradivarius's neutral is a good summary. I commend the candidates response, but I'm more cautious. I'm worried that fixes will break other things. Glrx (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you suggest is important to say in Q1? Regarding Q3, it's impossible to edit off and on for eight years and not ever have anyone disagree with your edits. Everyone that's edited for that long has an edit somewhere in their past that someone took umbrage with. I'm pretty mellow, though, and I don't fan the flames. If something is unequivocal spam, it's gone. If I made a mistake, I revert myself. If it's anywhere in between, then we start talking about the issue. What else would you like to see there in Q3? :) Banaticus (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answers understand the audience and convey the information the audience needs. What do your answers tell this audience? Yes, someone who has made 3K typical article edits will have encountered a fair share of controversy; we are interested in how that controversy is handled. Someone who seeks the admin bit should also carry over some of their article editing skills when answering questions. In addition, answers are read not only for what they say, but also how they say it. Study your answers and consider how they would be viewed by the audience. Glrx (talk) 06:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Reply to Chick Bowen. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I think from a personal perspective, Bart is a great person to have around. That said, I wish he was actually around a bit more. The sporadic editing is disconcerting for me. I'm also in agreement with Chick. I would rather see a consistent editing history before taking the bit and running with it. At this point, I don't feel confident that he is ready to take on the role of admin. Respectfully, Cindy(talk to me) 02:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite likely that I won't be around more often. I understand your decision, even while I don't really like it. :) I mainly work in a camp environment, which during the summer tends to put me pretty much entirely out of internet access out in the woods (and I haven't seen any edit links when I browse Wikipedia on my phone). Normally, during the week I work a crazy amount of hours and am gone fairly often. I do have occasional days where I can sit back and binge on internet access, but not near as many as I'd like. Again, I can understand your reluctance to support someone who doesn't structure their life around the activity for which they're applying to have more responsibility. It's a decision I've had to face when employees, who because of work or family, have chosen to only be part time and who have come asking for more responsibility, which I'm usually willing to grant after review, but I always find myself wishing that they were full time employees. Banaticus (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Like Soap said, you're clearly a nice guy. What's shaking me up a little is that you identify as an Eventualist. I'd rather see admins react swiftly to more than simply spam or nonsense. Also, five and a half thousand edits is a little too low in edit count for someone who has been around since 2005, and like the other opposers your sporadic editing raises a serious question. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, per Chick Bowen, above. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per all above. LlamaAl (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose discussing that new editors are missing but reverting (good/AGF) edits is a bad idea. (so per Q5) mabdul 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose I can't agree with NETPOS or "won't break the wiki" supports when the user is talking about getting involved restructuring one of our most important templates. I have no problem with the sporadic editing, mine has been similar, and the fact that you return after each busy spell shows dedication to the project Jebus989✰ 00:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose: Nothing against the candidate, but with heavily used templates, it would be better to keep the business of doing the coding separate from that of deciding when a change is well enough tested to go live. Opposing on the issues raised by Boing! said Zebedeee (Neutral 7) and Kurtis (Neutral 8). --Stfg (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, coding and deciding when a change is well enough tested to go live should be somewhat separate, which is why Dcoetzee created Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Lua recently. Banaticus (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak Oppose: First off, I don't think administrators should wait to take necessary action (you mentioned you were an Eventualist), and I don't see a whole ton of activity in AfD or WP:UAA, which are key areas I look for in potential admins. Don't get me wrong, you are a great editor, but I don't see you necessarily being a great admin. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose The sporadic editing does not bother me. People have real lives and since Wikipedia is project, largely based on writing, when inspiration or you take up a focus, then the edits can peak. The quality of the edits is also not unfavourable but I find the care and diplomacy in some of the actions a little to be lacking. Mkdwtalk 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I really don't know why the user wants to be a admin, seems like he was advoiding answering the first couple of questions. Also the user has not been consistent with his edits. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very regretful oppose per Chick Bowen, but I might be persuaded to change. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 00:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per above. —stay (sic)! 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per Chick Bowen. I also don't like the outcome of the candidate's adoption efforts, although that's a relatively minor issue. - ʈucoxn\talk 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Go look at the talk pages of those I adopted. How did I respond? What don't you like about those outcomes that you feel is my fault? Banaticus (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with DarkfireII13 (talk · contribs) and DarkfireII2 (talk · contribs) is very unfortunate. The editor got blocked indef. twice and had talk page access removed. I can't definitively say that it was completely your fault. It was also a while ago. However, it's an unfortunate outcome for an adoptee. - ʈucoxn\talk 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Chick Bowen, and per his answers to Q5. The candidate doesn't seem anywhere near careful enough to be safe with admin tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose. Many of the opposes above give me cause for concern, and neutral !votes 7 and 8 especially do so. I also have the usual concerns about a lack of content creation, and the overall professionalism of the nominee in communication. But, overall, it's what neutral !votes 7 and 8 refer to that cause me to oppose.--Slon02 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per Chick Bowen's rationale. I would hope Banaticus takes aboard these opposing statements as constructive criticism, and that they maintain and improve their editing skills. Re-nominate in a year, and I'm sure they will have changed their ways. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm a bit turned off by the copy/pasted nomination statement from the candidate's userpage, but I'll return when I have time to review his past contributions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of reinventing the wheel. I was actually getting somewhat tired of reposting an "about me" every year or two, so back at the beginning of the month I broke it into a subpage because I needed to post another about me on my online ambassador profile. The RFA asked me for "YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER", so I just dropped my "about me" in -- it's still in squiggly brackets up there. Is that not just a great face? :p Seriously, it took quite a number of grimaces before I really got the "popping frazzled" expression that I was going for. It's just over a year later and it still makes me laugh, which was exactly the effect I was going for. If you look through my past comments on people's talk pages, you will likely notice that I like emoticons (when their use seems appropriate). I tend to be in a good mood and I try to share that mood and to subtly invite other people to join me in that mood by the judicious use of emoticons. But I digress, let me, ahem, put on my more serious face from now on for this RFA. I hope this sheds a little additional light on just who I am. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. User seems to be OK, but I don't like the attitude in the nomination statement and answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral The nomination statement did not impress me but I don't consider it necessary to ridicule it by calling it baloney. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I just don't think that I can come down solidly either way on this candidacy. On the one hand, Banaticus has undoubtedly made some fantastic contributions here. Looking through your talk page archives over the past year, you generally come across as a nice guy and your intention to do the more gnomish tasks around the project with the mop is commendable. On the other hand, I find myself thinking along the lines of Chick Bowen above me in the oppose section. The general uneasiness about a perceived lack of caution is of concern and relevance. But, most importantly, you're a great editor and a fantastic wikignome. So, while I cannot support your candidacy at this time, I just can't bring myself to oppose either. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. The answer to my question six was pretty good, and was just about what I would have done. I also see good contributions in general, and a couple of quite complex templates that demonstrate their template skill, in particular {{is daylight savings on}}. However, I also see some warning signs, such as the mistaken parameters in the {{edit protected}} template used in the answers to my question,[2][3][4][5] the discussions which Chick Bowen mentions, and the recently created template {{About me}} which really should be in userspace rather than template space. These worry me enough to keep me from supporting. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that {{About me}} template which was created should have been marked for deletion the same day. I mistakenly created it in the wrong space on the 2nd of February, realized my mistake, created it in my userspace, and have linked to the one in my userspace since then. I should have marked the one in template space for deletion that same day. I've now done so. As for the editprotected template, I should have looked at its source. It's been a long time since I used that and I presumed it was a simple switch on the first implicit parameter, not an #ifeq comparing the answered parameter with "yes" (just an example of how convoluted templates can be at the current moment). I was wrong. Banaticus (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - We need more admins willing to work in "background" technical areas and some of our most valuable admins run bots and tools that most of us use every day. We need technical people to make up for the non-technical people like me. However, that non-technical side of me also makes it hard to understand exactly what it is that the nominee will do with the toolkit. If there's someone willing and able to explain the technical benefit of adminship in this instance. The nominee hasn't indicated a want to work in any of the areas where I think we could do with more admins. That's perfectly fine; but I suppose I just want to understand the nomination better if that's the case. Stalwart111 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral/leaning Oppose. I'm disturbed by this. If I understand it correctly, the candidate proposed a change that would have altered the way a template uses parameters, thus breaking potentially thousands of transclusions. Such a change absolutely must be exactly compatible with the existing version, and it's a rookie mistake to break that. Secondly, you shouldn't propose such a change without demonstrating that you have tested it, and that's another rookie mistake. So while I see someone who is clearly technically clever, I also think I see a cavalier attitude to proper software development practice - and people who approach it like that should not be able to make changes without review. The only thing that keeps me from the Oppose section is the "If I understand it correctly" clause, above - if anyone can verify/refute my understanding, do please let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. God, I would really hate to oppose Banaticus. He is obviously a great volunteer, someone with enthusiasm and a willingness to pitch in wherever he can. Kraxler's opposing points do not concern me in the slightest; 43% of his edits are to article space? That's a very large portion of content contributions, especially considering the good work he did at Cleopatra's article. As far as I'm concerned, it has no bearing on how he would perform as an administrator, and the somewhat sporadic editing patterns are offset by the fact that he has generally been active on a consistent basis for the past two years (albeit to varying degrees, but only in a few months out of this period has he been genuinely "inactive" by my personal definition of the term). The reason I am in neutral is because I have to agree with Chick Bowen and Boing! said Zebedee. This exchange and another previous proposal from roughly a year ago gives me pause and makes me wonder whether or not Banaticus would act unilaterally as an administrator, a concern that was not alleviated in his response to Chick's oppose above. Acting without discussing things beforehand can be very costly, especially with technical features such as templates which are transcluded onto thousands of pages throughout Wikipedia. I feel as though I would be more comfortable if he gave an explicit guarantee that he would open discussions at the Village Pump for technical features and gathered consensus from other users with experience in scripting before enacting any significant changes. Also, Wifione lists some instances in Question 5 where Banaticus should probably have exercised a bit more caution (specifically, re-adding this paragraph without also including a reference was a bit hasty, as that content did indeed violate BLP); however, we all make mistakes. Banaticus has adequately responded to those concerns, and I think he will make a point to be more meticulous in his work from here on out. With a few more months experience and a better demonstrated adherence to the principle of consensus, I can pretty much guarantee a support. Kurtis (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per Boing, Chick and Strat. You have some excellent technical skills that are needed and impressive, but you need to work on the cooperative skills. I understand holding firm on your ideas, but when they affect broad sections of the encyclopedia, you need to be quicker to accept consensus, and be willing to test more on the sidelines. Interdependence is something all admin need to understand, particularly in the technical areas of the encyclopedia. Give it a little time and work on your teamwork skills, and most of the neutrals and opposers will be in the support column next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. As others have said, you seem to be very intelligent and a good person; that said, I think you could learn a bit more about being a sysop (based off of your nomination statement). That being said, there's no reason you should not try to become an administrator in a few more months. Malinaccier (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kind of a "moral support". When I saw the percentage support/oppose, I initially figured this was a "snow" situation, but I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this is actually someone I could support in the future. A likable, well-meaning contributor to the project, who has something helpful to offer in an esoteric (to me) corner of the project. WMF: hire this person part-time. On the other hand, there are opposes and neutrals with which I really cannot disagree, so I cannot support now. As others have noted, Chick Bowen's oppose raises some concerns. On the other hand, it looks to me like the candidate readily accepted that consensus was against him, but we just don't know if administrative actions might set off some unanticipated consequences. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. Absolutely no problems with the candidate's contributions or intentions, but some of the behaviors displayed in this RfA (e.g. the rather strange nomination statement, some unclear answers to Qs, attitude in responses to !voters) leave me unable to support at the present time. — sparklism hey! 08:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What didn't you like about my attitude? Have I been unpolite? Banaticus (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No impoliteness, no, but some of your responses (e.g this) give me an uneasy feeling. Maybe it's the just the old problem of thoughts not translating so well in text form, though. It's not a real show-stopper, hence why I am not opposing over it. — sparklism hey! 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral more or less in the vein of Tryptofish. Learning support largely because the the candidate is absolutely, 100% right about the "ball of yuck" that is our cite templates, in a way that affects some of the work I do, and LUA could make a practical difference to the usability of the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral. I am somewhat concerned by this edit (identified by Wifione) where a good faith contribution has been labelled as "vandalism". While his edits are generally good, there are occasional errors that make me reluctant to grant the tools for such a far-reaching purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral. I don't see a benefit to piling on the "oppose" pile, and while they seem like a great person, I don't think they are admin. material at this time. Several possible suggestions: 1) If you want to impress people with your technical skills, referring to a particular skill-set as "nitty-gritty mumbo-jumbo", and "a gigantic snarled ball of yuck" might need a bit of copy-editing. 2) In a nomination, your particular time zone isn't really relevant. 3) Being in IRC and creating userboxes don't often equate to "support" !votes. 4) In question #3, I don't think that (edit conflict) is really what you want to address there; 2 entirely different things. I do appreciate your contributions however, and encourage you to continue. — Ched :  ?  18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Banaticus meant "conflicts" as in "disputes", especially with the question asking about conflicts over editing. Suraj T 11:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral, leaning to oppose, for the same reasons as Ched. While "a gigantic snarled ball of yuck" might be an appropriate description for some templates, I find some editors can be quite passionate about them, and if untangling them involves listing them at TfD (and deleting them as an admin), Banaticus might get some unpleasant blowback. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

West.andrew.g

Final (106/10/6); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

West.andrew.g (talk · contribs) – I'm pleased to nominate User:West.andrew.g for administrator. Andrew is a University of Pennsylvania PhD candidate in his final year, writing his thesis on security in collaborative online environments. In other words, he builds computer tools that scale to protect Wikipedia and other wikis. He has demonstrated his ability in this area by developing the anti-vandal tool WP:STiki, which to date has been used to revert over 250,000 instances of vandalism. STiki uses a metadata algorithm to identify and prioritize likely vandalism, including 'subtle' vandalism'; presents an interface for human review of lower confidence but still suspect ClueBot findings (that cannot be reverted automatically); reviews external link spam; and engages STiki users through regular recognition and statistical tracking of participation. Andrew has also been a rollbacker since 2010 and manually classified 67,000 instances of suspected vandalism himself.

Andrew has been with us since 2008, but he came onto my radar in 2010 when he conducted a rigorous but ill-conceived breaching experiment which involved using multiple accounts to test Wikipedia's security and response to spam. Andrew was blocked and negotiated his return to good standing with ArbCom shortly thereafter. Since the breaching experiment Andrew has shown himself to be willing to work within our community rules and to advance the interests of Wikipedia, not putting his own research priorities above those of our project. He has built tools that permit others to carry on valuable work at a massive scale. Moreover, he has added some of the most authoritative and useful scholarship about vandalism detection on wikis of any researcher in the field.

Andrew's scope of research is vast and includes not only vandalism and spam but also suspicious editing by IPs, copyright-violation detection, category organization, deleted content, and article popularity (see here and here). Andrew needs the Administrator tools to continue his research and tool-building, part of which involves analyzing revision-deleted content in statistical detail, as well as other aspects of site operations. While he could pursue the Researcher userright, to date this has never been granted to volunteers, only WMF staff. A successful RfA will permit him the access he requires while also demonstrating community support. In all, I believe he's not only someone we want on our side, he has shown that he is on our side, and we should keep him around by enabling him to continue and expand the innovative and compelling work he has undertaken. Ocaasi t | c 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I'm gratified to be able to co-nominate User:West.andrew.g for adminship. My reason for doing so is simple: I believe that having Andrew as an administrator will be a net positive for the project. I have reviewed his work and his methods and I think they speak for themselves; I say this even of the spam research that he conducted in August 2010. The paper it engendered is a fascinating treatise on research ethics. It's clear throughout the paper that Andrew did everything possible to minimize harm to Wikipedia and its contributors, and what harm there was was justified by the knowledge he was able to share with the community. This knowledge directly and indirectly contributed to improvement of the Edit filter and RevisionDelete, now some of our most effective tools against malicious spam attacks.

Andrew is of course not the typical adminship candidate and he's not going to be the typical administrator. I don't think we're going to see him closing too many deletion discussions, editing many protected pages, or performing too many history merges. And that's okay, because that's not how he can best serve Wikipedia. Data analysis and tool-building are what he does best, and they are skills of which the community is always in need. I'm pleased to see him approach the community directly for the permission to keep on doing what he's doing, and I have the utmost confidence in his ability to use those permissions wisely and always within the scope of our processes. — madman 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank User:Ocaasi and User:Madman for this nomination and it is one I accept. They have well summarized my contributions on the project and I would like to expand on just a few main points before the community's discussion/questioning (West.andrew.g (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)):[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: The catalyst behind this RfA is to obtain access to the administrative toolkit for purposes of data analysis and tool-building, not so I can use it for my personal editing. My 2010 attempt to get the researcher user-right dissolved in a philosophical debate, and a more recent request via WMF research/legal contacts suggested this RfA was the most appropriate venue to secure the needed permissions. My previous inability to secure the user-rights made my analysis of oversight/deleted revisions a far more challenging process than it needed to be. Regardless, that research showed copyright violations were perhaps the project's biggest vulnerability (understandably, they are not surface-level damage like vandalism). An autonomous means to discover copyright violations would be very exciting, and indeed, my participation with WP:Turnitin (and the need to view RD1 deleted content) is a catalyst for this request. However, the opportunities do not end there. I hope to analyze article deletion and page protection actions (among others) and hopefully bring machine-learning to bear by creating tools that can autonomously perform/suggest some fraction of these tasks and prioritize the remainder for human review.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my community involvement here is not one best reflected by my contribution history alone. I am an researcher/developer, and I am confident my tools (e.g., WP:STiki, WP:WikiAudit, work-in-progress) and reports (e.g., WP:5000) have enabled others to efficiently perform a magnitude of work that I could never approach as an individual. Countless researchers have used Wikipedia as a dataset, but I feel I distinguish myself by practically implementing my findings for the benefit of the community and continuing to improve and support these tools long after they have fulfilled their research role. Virtually all of my edits are (a) vandalism/spam reverts or (b) on talk pages in support of my tools/reports. I don't arrive with diverse experience regarding dispute resolution (though I've had to ask some users to stop using my tools, and dealt with a few angry vandals), edit warring, or many of the other oft-discussed topics here. While I may not edit in these spaces, I do understand the processes by which they operate. I follow along at WP:VPT, WP:AIV, WP:ANI, and WP:BRFA -- and subscribe to a number of related mailing lists. I've also attended the past three Wikimania events (Gdansk, Haifa, Washington D.C.). Finally, I've contributed a great deal of wiki and Wikipedia relevant academic research, which can be accessed via my website, C.V., or WikiPapers.
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: Without question, my link spam experiments were contrary to WP:POINT, WP:BEANS, and other community policies. To this end, all I can offer is (a) apologies, (b) evidence of good-faith intentions, and (c) to note how the events shaped my future/ongoing interaction with the project. My goal was to obtain data on human damage responses that could be used to prevent future -- actually malicious -- incidents of the same type. My findings have since been shared internally, externally, and integrated into my classifiers/tools. The experiments were rigorously planned to minimize harm to human subjects, have IRB approval, and vague details were published only months after the WMF was offered code/consultation on the vulnerability (more details). Regardless of one's stance on such practices, my conditions with ArbCom make clear that no further such experiments should take place; conditions I have now honored for 2.5+ years. Please consider that I am transparent about my real-life identity, and I consider many long-standing community members among my professional colleagues. For anyone concerned that my career and wiki-work are in conflict-of-interest, very soon I will be taking a research position unrelated to wikis/Wikipedia/collaboration. So, this RfA and the subsequent work that would result from it are done on purely personal/volunteer terms.
Outside such incidents, even ordinary wiki-work can sometimes cause stress in a community member. Indeed, with the data and tools I maintain, these requests can sometimes become taxing on my schedule. I have always sought to be honest with users regarding the prioritization of their suggestions. In places like WT:STiki they have become explicit parts of the organizational process (i.e., a bug and feature request tracking table). I've always sought to prioritize my actions based on community impact, and I've always been responsive to talk page and email queries even when I cannot pursue them further.
Additional question from Vacation9
4. You mention you will use the tools almost exclusively to access deleted revisions, but you did not mention how you will use these revisions. Deletion summaries which usually already explain for what means the page or revision was deleted (for example, because of copyright infringement) are available to the public already, and plain vandalism usually isn't RevDel'd. In short, please explain in detail how you will use deleted content in your research.
A: I'll address this query narrowly, as it pertains to the immediate copyright detection project. The goal is to mine past copyright incidents (i.e., those RevDeleted under RD1) to discover statistical indicators that can be applied in a predictive fashion. Specific to content, one might consider: (1) the length of the content; pages created with large amounts of text could be suggestive of copy-paste actions, (2) running sentiment analysis over the text; content copied from promotional outlets may describe a topic in very favorable terms, (3) whether the content can be found verbatim elsewhere on the Internet; akin to computational plagiarism detection. This is a small and by no means comprehensive sample (see WP:Turnitin if you want more gory technical details). However, I think it makes clear the point that I need to see past deleted content in order to develop these metrics. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Sphilbrick
5. Each admin has the ability to read every revdeled entry, which means they can see material that may have been removed for privacy reasons. We want trustworthy candidates because we don't want people to be able to see that information unless we believe we can trust them. I know nothing about you that would cause me to have concerns in this area, however, you aren't simply planning to look at the deletions, you plan to analyze them, which almost certainly means you will create a database which contains possibly every deleted entry. Access to that file by outsiders might be a minefield. What can you tell us about your project design that will lead us to conclude this data will be quite safe? Will your project plan, including security features, be reviewed by the WMF and/or others experienced in security issues? I recognize that you have a background in security, but I'll be uncomfortable with this project unless I know that there is some independent review of the security aspects. (I do realize the focus is on copyright, but it is hard to imagine how you would filter in advance in such a way that would ensure that you did not pick up any personal information.)
A: This might be a question better posed at WP:Turnitin, as it really pertains to that project and its participants, but it is one I will field here. First, it is possible to "filter" out the revisions of interest for analysis. We plan to look at the history of WP:SCV, as this provides a human-tagged corpus of both positive and negative copyright examples. When trying to learn more about one of these specific incidents, I often find myself needing access to RevDelete or deleted article histories/content. Thus, it is not as if we are dumping all RevDelete cases as our starting point. Even if we were, filtering by a simple "RD1" token in the log entries would keep us away from the defamatory/privacy cases (the most acute of which are probably Oversighted, anyway). Regardless, even RD1 and deleted article data have an element of sensitivity. We intend to perform all work internal to WMF infrastructure (i.e., Toolserver or Labs), so "copies" need not exist on local machines. I am not opposed to an independent security audit, but it might prove a bit circular. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TeeTylerToe
6. You say that your main reason to apply for this is for research. What would happen once you are no longer pursuing wikipedia related research? Would you maintain your Admin status?
A: As I point out at the end of para. 1 of Q3, I will very soon no longer be performing Wikipedia research in any "official" capacity. Any work performed under a successful RfA will be done on purely volunteer terms. I personally desire to continue helping out around here. Thus, I'll rephrase your question as: "If you no longer want to participate here, or do not require the admin bit to do your work, would you give it back?". Sure, I do not need the permission as some kind of "trophy" of my past wiki work. I have declined previous suggestions of an RfA, and I am only here now out of a technical *need*. I will emphasize that a completed "copyright project" is unlikely to be the end of my service. I plan to continue identifying and working towards novel projects involving the admin toolkit. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Tryptofish
7. Following up from Q5, I'd like to make sure that I understand correctly that all deleted content that you intend to analyze will be analyzed on WMF computers, and that no copies of deleted content will be placed elsewhere. Is that correct?
A: I'll emphasize again that this is not a question specific to my candidacy. There are other administrators on that project (including technical participants), and this really speaks to data security considerations for all administrators (but particularly those who might ever handle/analyze privileged data en masse). Succinctly, though: Given my access to Labs, I (and really, "we") intend to perform all work and data storage internal to WMF infrastructure. West.andrew.g (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Do you plan to publish your research results anywhere other than on Wikipedia or other WMF projects?
A: As per Q6, I will very soon no longer be funded/paid/supported for any form of Wikipedia-relevant research. I continue to use the term "research" for my ongoing volunteer work -- seemingly to the confusion of some -- as I feel this is still novel analysis. My ongoing work will be motivated by project impact and personal preference, not fulfilling academic/publication need. However, this does not imply that no interesting or broader scientific observations will come from the work. If that were to occur, in the copyright project or any other, I believe scholarly dissemination is appropriate. Consider that venues/publications like WikiSym (among others) are where wiki and collaborative science get done; WMF-supported research is often published there and the WMF is traditionally a leading sponsor. However, being an admin and having privileged data access does necessitate one to exercise greater care when publishing. For example, reproducing RevDel content would obviously be inappropriate. Just as a typical RfA measures "trust to utilize admin tools", one aspect of mine is measuring "trust to responsibly use the data those tools generate." Is there a more specific concern you are hinting at here? West.andrew.g (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my questions. Was I hinting at something? Well, no, at least I hope not. What you said – "reproducing RevDel content would obviously be inappropriate" – is what I was looking for. In other words, I was looking for you to respond to some specific aspects of the opposes that are based on the issue of giving access to deleted, sensitive material. I do think these questions are specific to your RfA, to the extent that you are asking the rest of us for exactly that trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from NativeForeigner
9. As a narrowing followup for #2, what are your best mainspace/filespace content contributions to Wikipedia? (ie. DYK, Good article, Featured Picture, Featured article)
A: I am not going to insult the impressive content additions/cultivation of other community members here by trying to cobble together an answer. Simply put, my only real main namespace contributions are 6,000+ damage revert actions (vandalism, spam, etc.). My tools have enabled a further 250,000+ similar actions by others. I "protect" -- not "create" -- article namespace content, and I think that the excellent work of others deserves to be secured as effectively as possible. Consider also that most of the actions the bit enables serve a similar purpose. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Links for West.andrew.g: West.andrew.g (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
  • Edit summary usage for West.andrew.g can be found here.
    Note that the seemingly bizarrely high proportion of userspace edits is due to regular technical reporting which West.andrew.g conducts en masse in his userspace.

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nom. — madman 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Hell, yes! Valuable contributor, just not in the usual manner. No sign he might misuse tools. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nom. A great asset to our community in a unique capacity. Ocaasi t | c 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support No concerns, very competent contributor. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I rarely edit these days, but West has my trust from very positive interactions in the past. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. It's almost impossible to not trust West. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Acknowledged, this could be construed as an unconventional request due to your area of focus, which is primarily technical work; but I've always been of the opinion that we need more administrators working on the technical side of the project. Viewing this candidacy in that light, you're well-qualified to do it. I've gone through your edits, in which I see some intriguing technical work and some good policy discussion and community involvement to boot. Looking through your talk page archives through early 2012, I see nothing but cordial interactions and friendly engagement with other editors. Your work on STiki is commendable and it seems to me that you're uniquely qualified to work with some of the more technical aspects of the site. You've got the right mindset and temperament, not to mention your technical experience, to be a sysop. I'm more than happy to support. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support No concerns. Creator of WP:STiki, and a very competent user. Research is a great use of tools. I would have co-nommed had I known. Vacation9 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very valuable contributor. His answers to the questions demonstrates skill and competence. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support and good luck with your research! Sounds interesting! --Go Phightins! 20:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Excellent personal interactions with the candidate. SpencerT♦C 20:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Absolutely, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the research that the bit will enable. Garamond Lethet
    c     22:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Special:Contributions/West.andrew.g Cmach7 22:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Absolutely. MJ94 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Easy to trust him with the tools when he's made one of them! I'm excited to see what else he has in store. --BDD (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support clear communicator, helpful, and dedicated user. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Great editor. Inka888 00:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I trust the nominators, and we need way more editors like him in the project. Knowledgeable scholar with a specific focus with the tools. Huge net positive. Secret account 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support The researcher flag sounds much more suitable, but since there's some problem obtaining that, I certainly prefer researchers of this calibre to have access to data. --99of9 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Per all the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --LlamaAl (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Looks good enough. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - sure. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per noms. INeverCry 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support OK .. I'm impressed. Often people with this level of technical skill suffer from either an inflated ego, or lack the ability and/or desire to interact well with others; not the case here. A fine example is the aforementioned STiki project: Not only is the work an exceptional benefit to the project; but the attention to detail in documentation is wonderfully rare addition to the tool. (also noting a rather good salesmanship ability in there as well. :)). I have no idea how long Mr. West will continue his studies and observations here with us, but I think it is a wonderful match which benefits the project greatly. If you don't mind the informality sir, then I say "Good luck in all Andy". — Ched :  ?  02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - A bit of a dust-up a few years ago, but that was then. Now, a fine choice to have extra buttons, and I salute the candidate's dedication and service to the encyclopedia. Should you pass Rfa, as it appears, my best wishes in your adminship! Jusdafax 03:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21 03:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, and may he come up with a cool new tool for us with the mop. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sure. Why not?! He has good contributions and also developer of an anto-vandal tool (STiki). I'm sure he would make a good admin.--Pratyya (Hello!) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support While I have always cringed at the concept of an anti-vandalism "leaderboard", the STiki tool itself is an excellent contribution to the community, and that alone shows a huge amount of commitment to the project that is admin-worthy. Easily meets my RfA criteria. Trusilver 04:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support without reservation. - MrX 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Too many reasons to list. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Trustworthy, polite, and has good communication skills.--Rockfang (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - I'm very surprised that he isn't an administrator, already. Promotion will only lead to good things for Wikipedia, and he's already given us a lot with no indication of wrongdoing. He provides good support for the need for additional rights, too. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per noms. Graham87 05:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Full support from me. Widr (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support – My first thought was "why does he want to be an admin". But it was nicely explained in the nom. Looks like a good move. Tony (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Extremely trustworthy editor. His sincere work at this project is highly appreciated by me. He'll learn along the way. Wifione Message 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Given the nature of the request. I would probably not support otherwise given limited participation in other areas.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I have interacted with Andrew regarding the Stiki tool, and i have found him to be extremely responsive, with a good understanding of Wikipedia policies.His reasons for becoming an admin are clearly explained, and the project will benefit by accepting his request. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  41. What's not to like? Orchestrating an attack on WP? Limited contributions? Limited discussions? The advantage of this user is that he has not criticized the arrogance and incompetence of many administrators, one of the complaints of WTTRschen and Fluffer an annoying administrator about Carrite. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarcasm? :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 09:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support We need users like this on the inside p*****g out! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support! being a user for years and having improved WP for creating such tools for reverting vandalism such as STiki. This nomination is very favorable of being successful at the end for this user should have been an admin ages ago. Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Definitely a net positive. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Obvious Support. Trustworthy and long standing user.I'm pretty sure that he won't be deleting the main page.If Andrew is unaware of any policies as some people here say, I think he should first go through them or take suggestions from experienced admins.In my opinion, adminship is all about trust and Andrew seems to have it. TheStrikeΣagle 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Years of experience with anti-vandalism tools, absolute net positive to the project. While I appreciate Shirik's concerns below, I think there's enough evidence to show he won't get involved in areas he's not experienced in at all, so I predict he will either disengage or defer to another admin should somebody ever see his bit and read him the riot act in response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - The admin tool bucket is mostly a vandal fighting power pack. Here we have someone who can make good use of the gear. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - As per nominated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Trustworthy contributor who has settled down, and their reason for wanting the tools makes sense. Miniapolis 17:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: Its hard to identify many editors who have done more to help with the work of admins through Andrew's anti-vandalism tools. Also, after collaborating with him on a Signpost article, I found his calm demeanor and intellect to be compatible with his nomination.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. The anti-vandalism tools he has created have been very, very useful. In fact, I use STiki much more than other such tools. Seems like he has his head on straight too. Guðsþegn (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. This user is obviously here for the right reasons, and is definitely trustworthy enough to be an admin, even if they don't intend to be a typical admin. The fact that he got IRB approval for his spam experiment says a lot (IRB approval can be notoriously hard to get, in my experience) and the tools he has written as a result are really something. Net positive is an understatement. I say give him whatever he needs to continue his work. Also, I read the (single) oppose below, and while I agree that this could potentially be viewed as a "hack" solution to getting the researcher right, I would point out that "hack"ing solutions together is what Wikipedia is all about. Ignore all rules is a pillar, after all :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support no reason to think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - trusted user Kilopi (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Hell yes - This user has proven his mettle more than most of the existing admin corps, further, his unorthodox rationale for Adminship is technically valid and very astutely proposed. Every inclination suggests he is an extremely clueful user and would continue to expand and develop as a huge asset to the community if we gave him what he needs to do this. I wish him the best of luck. -T.I.M(Contact) 21:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  58. The Researcher right would not allow him to see the content of deleted revisions, and if we want him to improve his anti vandalism tools further it would help if he could see the actual text that was added by vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - If someone goes through the trouble of writing a complicated anti-vandalism software package, then I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's here for the best interests of the project. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. I actually don't think this is as unusual an RFA as it might seem. Basically, the candidate wants to work primarily on copyright issues, which is clearly an admin area. How he intends to work on them, as long as it doesn't break anything which it won't, is his business. Chick Bowen 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, trusted user. As long as the Researcher right doesn't include viewdeleted, the tools are necessary for the task. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support As the user is trustworthy, what is wrong with giving him the tools for selective use? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I see no reason that I shouldn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I trust this user based on their work they have done for Wikipedia, such as the creation of STiki and since the 'researcher' user right does not include looking into deleted edits, I see how getting the admin rights are needed for this user. Webclient101talk 05:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No concerns, very competent. LK (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Iff he can make a better tool to detect and delete copyvios, this may the easiest !vote I've ever made. Even if he doesn't, he's not the kind of guy to go peeking through deleted revisions to search for faeces to throw at a fan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. West.andrew.g's work has been of enormous benefit to the project, and giving such an academic pioneer access to deleted pages to help him further that work can only be a positive thing for us. I can understand the opposers who don't want RfA to be used for anything other than becoming a "proper" admin - but our processes are here to serve the project, not the other way round. So if the project would benefit from giving West.andrew.g access to deleted pages, if legal issues require a process of similar rigour to RfA, if RfA is the only process that satisfies that, and if we have no method for unbundling "view deleted pages", then we should use what we have to achieve something that's clearly good for us. (I also trust West.andrew.g with the whole admin toolkit anyway, even if he doesn't want to use it all) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I opposed Carrite's recent RfA because it was essentially a "view-deleted" RfA. I have no such concerns here. Sure, that right is included, but I am confident that that they are being used in an "administrative" "I need the tools to improve the Wiki" sense that is appropriate here. Also unlike Carrite's RfA, this one is careful not to argue that a lower bar should be applied and there is no indication that the access to deleted information will be the only use of the tools. This, I believe, is sufficient. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 12:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, and I ask anyone opposing due to this being an unorthodox request to consider whether the research the candidate intends to do may actually help the project. filelakeshoe (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I would be willing to support his use of all the tools, simply because he's been around for a while helping without showing any signs of misuse after the spam research several years ago. Why would I oppose him just because he won't use some of the tools? Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per Ched and per Q9. This is a case of a user doing fantastic things for the project, reaching a point where advanced permissions are holding him back from doing even more fantastic things, and requesting the ability to do those things. He has shown the maturity to handle the responsibility, the ability to utilize the tools to the fullest, and good ol' fashioned common sense. We need more Wikimedians like West.andrew.g. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Rzuwig► 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - Please forgive my rambling style, which doth emerge when I am as enthused as I am now, to tender my support of this RFA.
    1. Mr West could clearly have asked for access to the tools based on his extensive work on anti-spam. I have read over past RFA and dozens of less experienced anti-vandal fighters have gotten their stripes with far less credentials than he has on record. However this candidate has been forthright with us and avoided this shortcut and has laid the full facts out for us to debate upon, to this I say Kudos.
    2. I first met Mr. West at Wikimania 2011 and I can support his claim that his work has far reaching consequences far and beyond that of a regular editor. My involvement as a developer/researcher have been fuelled by his excellent presentation of groundbreaking work he and his colleges have done. As such he bridges a structural hole between the WP community and that of that of researchers, where Wikipdia(ns) are treated with suspicion.
    3. I too am a developer/researcher working in the community rather than a contractor for WMF, no disrespect meant but it means that the work people like Mr West do is a labor of love - the same kind of thankless good faith work that Admins undertake. As such his venture should not be treated with cynicism (per a number of the nay Sayers below). I can attest to the fact that the WMF research committee has pledged to make dumps included deleted edits available to researchers - but that they have been acting in a self-serving manner in this and have avoided updating the criteria for getting access to such materials while at the same time creating a world of red tape - and that they do respond to request in a timely fashion, if at all and finally that if the community does not pick the glove - it is uncertain if the community will even be consulted in the future on such matters....
    4. We generally grant access to the tools if they are needed and the candidate is trust worthy. So I believe that Mr West has done the right thing and brought his request directly to the community in an RFA, since AFAIK oversight and the like are not given to non-admins. Mr West has demonstrated such a need. I have seen his presentation from Wikisym 2012 and at and I have a very strong impression that he is a the most dependable candidate I have ever seen at RFA and that his abilities in the area of research and tooling will serve the community both as work multipliers and as open source code-base for future developers to extend, per standing on the shoulders of giants! BO | Talk 23:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - yeah, there have been a few of these lately and I'm not particularly excited about them. I think if you sign up for the tools, there needs to be an acknowledgement that the community is trusting you with everything, even if you only plan to use one particular tool. Like another recent RFA with a similar single-tool intention, I'm supporting this because I would otherwise support the nominee regardless. I would trust them to use everything. I don't care if they then decide to limit their own work to one particular tool. Stalwart111 23:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  75. West.andrew.g will certainly put the tools to good use. The breaching experiment is not a particularly serious issue in my view, and I think we can forgive him for that. Kurtis (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - I think he would be an incredibly helpful admin and a huge net positive even if all he ever did was look at deleted pages and start to figure out how to detect copyvio better. Having said that, I think he'll be an asset with the bit in the vandal-fighting arenas too, clearly he has extensive knowledge in that regard as well. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. User would be capable of excellent administrative service; the work he intends to engage in would be a huge asset for the project. dci | TALK 03:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Closedmouth (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support —stay (sic)! 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Weak Support it is obvious failure in procedures then only way to give someone rights for seeing deleted material require also giving him rights to protect/delete/block. I am just going by gut feeling that it probably won't cause any issues in this case.--Staberinde (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support per Ched and others. The idea of an admin being interested only in one or two specific areas doesn't bother me in the least. Trust is a universal thing, either he can be trusted or he can't, and specialists are not a bad thing at Wikipedia. In this case, the trust is well earned and I'm happy he is interested in using the bit in any capacity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Wizardman 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support: I'm glad you could confront and explain your past issues. We need more administrators like you. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 16:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Weak Support - Competent contributor, understands and admits when he's made a mistake, and helpful. My one concern is how many userspace edits he has and how few talk edits he has. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  85. KillerChihuahua 22:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support No concerns Jebus989✰ 23:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--May puppies fly before pigs do. (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote removed as a sock --Guerillero | My Talk 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Viewing deleted pages is fine here as it was for Carrite. I don't get why it was WMF-wrong for Carrite but paradoxically WMF-required here (won't allow researchers it otherwise). In any case, I agree that the research is a very useful purpose and I think Wiki will get some other use out of the fellow on the side. TCO (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Thanks for the work you've done in the past. Yes, definitely. --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I do not have a problem with niche admin rolls. Malinaccier (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Net positive. I have a slight inhibition against this degree of nicheness, but I always have supported on the basis they are still a net positive. Satisfied with extremely straight answer to Q9, despite its inherently unfair nature. NativeForeigner Talk 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  91. I'm supporting, but I'm just barely this side of neutral. So, to do research about sensitive content that we would not make available on demand to researchers contacting us from the general public, we have to determine that the person is trustworthy at the level of trust we place in administrators (reasonable, as far as that goes), but we are being asked to evaluate someone to be an administrator, even though they are unlikely to do most of the things that administrators do. On the one hand, I see a lot of editors whose opinions I value expressing enthusiastic support above. On the other hand, most of the candidate's editing track record is in reverting, and I feel like there's a defensive tone (questions should really be asked somewhere else, asking me if I was hinting at something) in the replies to questions, not a communication style I would generally favor in an administrator. And the concern expressed in many of the opposes and neutrals, about giving access to sensitive information, is a very real one. If the candidate were to want to be a typical administrator, I'd have concerns, but I've decided to make my decision here based on what he says he will actually do. Ultimately, I'm satisfied that we can trust the candidate to keep all sensitive information secure and private, and that the research is a net positive, so I think that this experiment is worth a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Though researcher rights seem to be the key issue, I do not believe he will abuse the tools. And that providing him the admin bits will be a benefit to Wikipedia. PaleAqua (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Copyright violations are a huge issue. We need more help to dealing with it. It these "no big deal" admin bits will help him I am supportive of him having them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support This user has done way more than necessary to establish my trust for adminship. Even as someone who probably likes a little more process than the average Wikipedian, I'm finding opposition based on "this isn't the right rights package" to be a little bureaucratic. Given this editor's previous contributions... I'm convinced that granting this request is in the best interests of the project. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support I agree with the opposes that note that administrator rights is not for research, etc., but there's no alternative at the moment. If the candidate wasn't fully qualified to be an admin, I'd say no - but they appear to be qualified, safe and mostly harmless, so why not QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, since this is for the overall benefit of the project. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 09:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. No reservations whatever. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I had extensive discussions with Andrew when I asked him for assistance with work needed regarding a long term abuser. Andrew was very helpful and demonstrated a desire to help the project, and is trusted. The concerns raised about this unusual RfA are valid, and any similar RfAs in the future should receive full scrutiny to ensure that the candidate is supported with a similarly good track record, and a very good reason that admin access would benefit the encyclopedia (detecting copyvios would be of significant benefit). Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Trustworthy user. --J36miles (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support No concerns; Andrew is a competent and trustworthy editor. He may not intend to do much work in administrative areas, but giving him the tools would likely result in a considerable net benefit to Wikipedia, so why not hand them over to him? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. yup --Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support with caveat: the nominee should announce that he would be an administrator open to recall. As much as I support this candidate and the benefits he has brought to the project, the concerns listed by the opposing voices are too strong and relevant to brush aside. - ʈucoxn\talk 23:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - I trust this user not to abuse the tools. What they intend to do with them is of little relevance to me so long that it is within policy. James086Talk 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Trustworthy. West.andrew.g's proposed use of the tools is narrow but the upside is great imo. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Really I'm usually the last one in this section, considering I generally feel the restrictions on being administrator are too strong, but I'm really surprised by the reaction so far. So since I'm the first, I guess that means the burden's on me to lay out some solid reasoning. I took a moment to peruse through your contributions to the Wikipedia namespace. The only thing I was able to conclude is that you're something of a robot. Yes, you've done a lot of vandalism cleanup, and it appears that you also have some solid work in enhancing that field. But that is not what an administrator is. An administrator needs to be someone capable of making solid decisions, especially ones surrounded by controversy. What I don't see, and what I need to see to be able to support, or at least go neutral, is some understanding of policy. I just don't see it. Yes, I get that you don't intend to be floating around WP:DR. Yes, I get that you probably won't close any WP:AFDs. I don't expect any administrator to know every policy. I don't think there is any administrator here that does. But that doesn't mean you can be completely ignorant of those policies. Instead, what I saw in your Wikipedia namespace contributions was two things: a lack of substance, and a significant bias towards your anti-vandalism tool. Don't get me wrong, I'm a software engineer myself, and I know the amount of work a tool like that takes. I value this contribution a lot. But I keep going back to that is not what an administrator is. I fear that this RFA is really some form of a backdoor researcher user right, and if that's really what you're after, then we should find some way to fix that problem rather than, to use a software term, hack out a solution. This RFA to me feels just like that, a hack, and I cannot support it until I find some solid purpose for granting the right and evidence to support knowledge backing up that purpose. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give some background here, the WMF--from Mike Godwin through Geoff Brigham (past and current head of the Legal Department)--made abudnantly clear that anyone with access to viewing deleted content needed to go through a process identical in rigor to RfA to demonstrate their trustworthiness and community support. So I don't think it's as much of a hack as it appears. Plus, assuming the community believes Andrew is trustworthy enough to have the bit, there's no limit on how he might apply it outside of his current and existing research and tools (though he'd avoid areas where he's not sufficiently expert, as admins typically do). I've seen him change gears multiple times in the past 3 years and he keeps coming up with new and novel projects. I don't doubt that he'll make use of expanded rights in ways not currently foreseen or conceivable. Still, I respect your concern and think it's an appropriate topic to raise for discussion, especially as we approach others with similar but perhaps even more narrowly scoped interests. Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Not specifically this candidate but I am wholly opposed to the precedent that the highly selective intended use of tools establishes. Regardless of WMF guidance, this is not what RfA is intended for. This candidate will pass without effective all-round scrutiny and once successful will not be the last to seek selection using this approach. Leaky Caldron 19:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, if I'm understanding the candidate's intentions correctly (and if I'm not, I'd appreciate a reply from him or the nom giving some more detail). It sounds like Andrew wants the bits to do (useful) work on his automated tools, and possibly academic research. It does not sound, in my reading of nom and candidate statements, like he intends to do any administrative work with the admin tools. If that's the case, then I feel similarly to Shirik - this is a hacky, if well-intentioned, way of getting what the Researcher right ought to do, not an offer to do administrative tasks for the community. I'll reference and expand on my !vote in the Carrite RFA a few weeks ago (which, contrary to the claim Kiefer Wolfowitz makes above, had absolutely nothing to do whether anyone has criticized administrators): I'm opposed to giving admin rights to people who intend to simply use it to view deleted content for research tasks or personal curiosity. I understand that viewdelete could be useful to Andrew's work, and that his work on tools could be of use to the encyclopedia, but I nevertheless feel that unless the candidate intends to use his admin rights for admin tasks, giving him the admin toolkit is the wrong way to go. We make people administrators because they intend to do administrative work; we make people researchers if they intend to do research work (and I would certainly re-evaluate my position on this matter if this were a "Request for Researcher", where Andrew was asking for community scrutiny to grant him +researcher). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    'researcher' is granted by the WMF, and one cannot see the deleted texts associated with the revisions using that right. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, I completely understand that +researcher doesn't cover everything he'd need to do the work he wants to do (especially wrt copyvio detection, which would be an excellent thing to improve detection of). I guess I'm sort of squeezing myself into an awkward corner of "neither of these rights packages does quite what he needs it to do, but I'm not comfortable giving away the giganto-expansive one as a kludge for that if he otherwise doesn't intend to 'pay for' it by doing admin work". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All of you look the same. No wonder I get confused. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because I do not agree with granting adminship for research purposes. wctaiwan (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I did not read through the answers carefully and made my comment largely based on the nomination statements. On reading more thoroughly, it looks like much of his planned work with the extra access is directly for the benefit for the project. In light of this and the fact that he appears to have the community's trust, I'm indenting the !vote. wctaiwan (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong oppose. And I'm not changing my mind. I understand how some people need to see deleted pages for some reason. However, the English Wikipedia does not currently have a way to do so without assigning Administrator rights. We assign Administrator rights for the maintenance of the project. We do not assign them because someone needs one right that they can't get elsewhere. Per WMF Legal, any review of deleted material should go through a process identical in rigour to RfA... Not RfA itself. Until the community comes up with a RfDeleteview type system, we should not be hacking around it by just making "temporary" or "single-purpose" administrators. If West.andrew.g needs to view deleted pages for some reason, they can contact WMF Legal and either have a special group made for them, or have the Legal department okay a temporary (i.e. set length of time) adminship for him for that sole purpose. If West.andrew.g rins another RfA, and expresses believable wish to maintain the project with the admin toolkit, then I may support. gwickwiretalkedits 01:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose - nothing against the editor, but becoming an admin is not something that should be done because someone wants to do research purposes. I suggest that if the user really wants to be able to do what he wants to do here, he make a stronger push to give the Research user group more abilities. The process of RfA and adminship should not be hijacked for personal gain, even if that personal gain is admirable an will eventually benefit society and the Wikipedia community. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose – I'm sorry but I can not support this RfA. I am concerned that deleted contributions, rev-deleted personal information and other non-public information might end up in a spreadsheet for shared analyses that was never intended; but rather guarded against.—My76Strat • talk • email 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Not that it matters. Intothatdarkness 14:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Q2. I can't support anyone that can't point to at least one mainspace article when answering that question. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. rigorous, but ill-conceived Dlohcierekim 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I oppose this as well, on similar grounds as for instance Inks.LWC and gwickwire. If the foundation wants someone to be vetted for a particular right, let them come up with a vetting procedure (maybe limited to certain rights, who knows), not this odd backdoor. I supported Carrite's request last time, and still feel a bit odd about that--but they were an actual contributor with proven knowledge of policy. If the usual standards for RfA are applied, then unfortunately it ought to be a clear fail since there are no mainspace contributions that expand the project, and such contributions, as precedent shows, are usually deemed mandatory for any admin candidate. This is simply the wrong procedure. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Temporarily neutral. I need to think about this. It is unusual to give a researcher access to raw data of a potentially sensitive nature that is not first stripped off any person information. That's what most organizations do. Shouldn't we, or rather Wikimedia, be thinking of how to make that possible? --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this was sort of my thought process too - that it would be better to find a way to give researchers access to deleted data (preferably cleaned) than to have these not-quite-RFA-ish RFAs where the community may not have firm guidelines for when/why to promote research-only users. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this RfA will pass so I don't have to strain my brain over thinking things through :) Good luck and use the data made available to you wisely! --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Although I support West.andrew.g in essence, as he seems a perfectly good candidate, I cannot bring myself to support somebody that does not particularly want to use the tools other than in a very narrow sense. I do not expect a sysop to take part in every single part of Wikipedia that requires an admin, but I feel it is too niche; and potentially a conflict of interest if he is performing research (although, I appreciate this is coming to an end). My concerns are not enough to warrant an oppose, but unless he was considering using a wider range of the tools, I can not support either. iComputerSaysNo 01:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have talked with a number of admins at the Berlin Hackaton last year. What became evident is that de facto they are neither involved in RFAs not in any type of admin work other than they type in which they specialize that being tool production. I have had a similar experience when discussing admin duties with a number of the most active chapter members in a number of countries. They do not have time for editing or even much admin work. As such tool making is not a new niche, it was originally a preferred activity of early sysops when they also had SQL access etc... What has happened is that there is an artificial divide ever since many non technical admins have been created, the access to run SQL on the DB has been removed, the bot flag introduced and the job of admins in now perceived to be rooted policing the community. So in essence the above is not a valid argument to bar tool makers from becoming admins. BO | Talk 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I trust West.andrew.g, and I'm glad that WP:STIKI exists and that lots of people use it to rid Wikipedia of vandalism. I have no reason to think he'd misuse admin tools or do anything stupid with them. But I'm marginally uncomfortable with this kind of request. Not quite enough for me to oppose. It seems like what would be ideal is if the Foundation offered some kind of "researcher plus" right, which could be granted to technically competent people who are doing research. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For research that requires viewdelete, the WMF sort of puts people between a rock and a hard place. WMF won't give out the right to view deleted content to people without them being vetted by the community; the community (or at least some of us) don't want to give out +admin to someone who only intends to view deleted content, and anyway we don't have the ability to give out +researcher (or +researcherplus). It seems to me that the ideal way forward would be some sort of hybrid, where users apply to the WMF for +researcherplus, and then those who pass the WMF's researcher requirements are presented to the community at "Requests for Researcher" or whatever, for community vetting equivalent to RFA. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that he doesn't need to view deleted content but rather his algorithms do. Wonder if that makes a "researcher plus" thingee any easier?--regentspark (comment) 19:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe West is generally trustworthy, but nonetheless, this is a request for the entire admin bit, and there is nothing to go on that says he'll be a good admin. It's too bad there isn't a way to get a partial bit, but I'm going to have to stay neutral. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I believe the subject is trustworthy, but I was under the impression that making certain things (like deleted revisions) "administrator-only" shields the site from certain types of liability. That shielding would arise if administrators are insiders to the site, etc. I wonder how far we damage that if we give people administrative status solely for the purpose of conducting and publishing research based on deleted revisions. RayTalk 23:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. This is the most unusual RfA since I saw a bot account at RfA a few years ago. West.andrew.g has helped Wikipedia with Stiki. However he has contributed little by way of content creation. Together with the declared intent to actually not undertake administrative duties, there is no compelling reason to grant the tools. I assume good faith with regard to his declaration to avoid any further spam/misuse of Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

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

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Darkwind

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/2over0

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Secret

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Lord Roem


  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=539344061"