Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CactusWriter

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

CactusWriter

(93/3/0); Closed as successful Sun, 31 May 2009 05:55:08 (UTC) -- Avi (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

CactusWriter (talk · contribs) – This might be the shortest nomination in recent memory.

CactusWriter is knowledgeable, civil, communicative, and a contributor to mainspace as well as other Wikipedia spaces.

I had no familiarity with the user until following up on a BLP related edit, and randomly approached the adminship suggestion. This response is, in my view, a perfect outlook on what a mop and bucket entails. Do what you can, don't mind what you can't.

CactusWriter has written content, added references to existing articles, works with the deletion of articles. An active member of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies, the user is familiar with BLP. Over the last several months the deleted contributions are pretty much on target of our policies and guidelines.

Even more positive for me, the user did not and was not seeking adminship; it is to be a mop and bucket to further aid in the contributor's efforts to better this encyclopedia. Not a reward for service, but a bond of duty [1].

This is not the most elegant prose I've ever written for a nomination, but I honestly feel I don't need to go that mile. It is also my feeling that this nomination doesn't even need additional questions; explore the user's history. My verbosity is familiar to many so I hope that my silence is relevant. Keegan^talk 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I certainly appreciate Keegan's thoughts and accept the nomination. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Because I enjoy wandering around Wikipedia, reading and writing new content, I have never focused on any one particular area. I'm neither a dedicated vandal fighter nor a frequent reader of the notice boards -- but I've jumped into those areas whenever the need arose. Over time, I've initiated the standard alphabet soup of reports -- SPIs, AIVs, UAAs, CVs, etc., -- but the majority of my "admin area" activity has been with Afd and Csd. So I expect those are two areas where I would initially linger to lend a hand. For those interested, I've compiled a list of some AFDs I have created and participated in. It should give you a fair idea of my approach to Afd policy.

As far as Csd goes, my deletion philosophy centers on the terms "blatant" and "obvious". Hot-button issues like blatant attacks, total copyvios, and obvious vandalism are where "speedy" really applies -- time is of the essence here and those pages should be eliminated without mercy. I think the rest can be dealt with in a more relaxed fashion. Pages with less critical problems such as notability, advertising, context, etc. should be deleted when they are obvious, blatant and non-correctable. But given any doubt or hesitation, than tagging them for issues, opening discussion, and then, if necessary, Proddng and Afd are appropriate avenues.

Looking back through my history, I noticed that a number of my Csd tags have been G12 copyright violations and I often added items to the WP:Copyright problems page. It's an area with fairly heavy traffic and, from what I have seen, the service of only one or two (obviously dedicated but possibly overworked) administrators. Since I enjoy remedying copy-paste problems, I believe that's another area where I could help out.

In general, I've found that editing Wikipedia (like most anything) only requires a willingness to listen and learn, a modicum of deliberation, and some common sense. My approach to adminship is the same. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Ever since I registered, I have been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Much of my writing has been on films and biographies, especially the cinema of Denmark. (There's a list of examples on my user page.) I tend to write small articles, but I feel they are mostly solid pieces. For example, this Bio was a Csd that I was asked to save and it became this DYK article. The film A Victim of the Mormons was another article an editor submitted to DYK. Last summer I came across the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies page, took it on as a pet project, rewrote the intro, and have spent the last nine months organizing the categories and watching over the additions. It's one of those WP back waters where BLP violations can get tucked away without much notice. I like it because it's a great pathway for initiating, writing and referencing new bios. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A: I wouldn't say conflicts. Certainly there have been the disagreements and extended discussions which are standard (and necessary) for any collaborative project like Wikipedia. Good arguments are the backbone of policy creation. But problems with vandals, sockpuppets, spammers and such are only mild irritants. Stress on WP is relative. The pressure of doing good work is present is anything we do. But stress? Let me put it this way -- in real life, I've faced the wrong end of a gun, life-threatening diseases, deaths of family; I've survived hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and a plane crash; and -- horror of the horrors -- I'm raising a teenager. Really, in proper perspective, WP doesn't make the cut on my stress list. After all, like most everyone here, I spend my time on WP because I enjoy it. And for anyone who finds it truly stressful -- I suggest hitting the computer's off button, taking a deep breath and enjoying the world outside the window for a while. There is plenty of other stuff to do. The work here should be taken seriously, it requires dedication, but it ought to be enjoyable and satisfying. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. Would you delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it, and under what circumstances?

A: If an article has unequivocal problems as an attack page, copyright violation, vandalism or blatant hoax than the underconstruction tag is meaningless -- those pages should be be deleted regardless. As I've mentioned in Q1 above, my belief is that other types of problems can be approached at a more leisurely pace -- with a watch and see attitude -- giving the underconstruction page some time to develop and to see where it goes. It very well could right itself. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from I'm Spartacus!

5. Hi Cactus, I've been reviewing your CSD work. I have some minor quibbles with some of your selections, but nothing major. You did tag a fictional character as A7, but that isn't enough to get me to oppose (especially as you've declined speedies on your own nominations after rethinking them.) The one thing that I've noticed is that you will often use COPYVIOCORE instead of tagging an article for Speedy per Copyvio. Can you explain your philosophy in this regard? When would you tag an article for speedy instead of using this template?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

With that group of copy violations from the Vatican website, my sense was that there was enough of an intro, infobox and good references which would allow the articles to be rebuilt. As I am sure you noticed here that one you mentioned had previously existed and my next edit was to simply roll it back into pre-vio form. If there had been nothing worth saving and no better previous versions, I would have had no hesitation with tagging it as a G12. My philosophy is always to look for methods to rebuild content, but if it constitutes any problem in keeping it, than delete and start over. That was the sense I tried to convey in opening a discussion with the editor. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

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

A:The issue of "rights" can be viewed in several ways. From the perspective of opinion, Wikipedia functions on the basis of complete equality -- everyone's opinion is given equal weight -- no one person has any greater right than another. As far as editing WP, it is the "community of Wikipedia" which has the rights rather than the individual Wikipedian. Everyone here has an equal right as long as they operate within the rules. That is, each of us has the freedom to edit so long as it does not harm, infringe or disrupt the community. Failure to do so can result in the loss of those rights through blocks or bans. As well, some people are trusted with some extra technical tools (admins, bureaucrats, etc.). It is possible to argue that these tools might embody an extra right -- the ability to act on the community's behalf -- however, it should be remembered that it is still the community which holds "rights" over the individual. Bottom line is this: upholding "rights" means the same thing for each of us -- we agree to work within the rules and boundaries of the community as determined by consensus opinion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

7. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A I edit only under the account User:CactusWriter which I registered in April 2008, and I have never had any other account. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An optional question from Dr.K.

8. In your reply, quoted and linked by the nominator, you mention. among other things, that:

I'm not a gunslinger on vandal patrol. Can you elaborate on the term "gunslinger" and do you think that all vandal fighters are "gunslingers"? And if not, under what circumstances are they not? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A There are no great connotations in the term -- it was a simple allusion to the many Wikipedians for whom vandal fighting is their primary focus here, and all the imagery used comparing vandalism reversion to "combat", "sheriff's duty" and "defense". Gunslinger really came to mind during my one-week experiment with Huggle last November. Wanting to check it out, I downloaded it, started it up, and immediately had the sense I was in an Asteroids arcade game. (Umm... that dates me... let's make it Halo 3). After a week and a few hundred edits, I dumped the program -- mosly because I nearly missed this incident by using Huggle. There are some editors here who are very skilled at operating Huggle -- I am not one of them. It seems too much like firing from the hip. The vandalism fighters are absolutely crucial to the functioning of WP, but I think there are some who visualize themselves as "quick-draw artists", while others take a more contemplative approach. I'm happy to be the plodding detective type. (Maybe it's just all the doughnuts). — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from User:Gimmetrow

9. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a block without prior discussion?

A If there's an SPA account whose only edits are attacks, vandalism, or persistent spam -- meaning, the only reason for their presence is disruption -- I can see myself blocking without warning. (In this case, any discussion actually begins with my reason for the block). The username policy also allows any inappropriate username to be blocked on sight. Changing a block? I would change a block I had created, if I thought better of it; but, at the moment, I don't see changing another's block without some form of discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup. This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. Comments? Gimmetrow 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. For me, controversy, by definition, is opposed and requires discussion. Blocking someone unilaterally, knowing that it will be controversial, is in itself disruptive and needlessly escalates drama. If I know a block is going to be controversial, it compels me to bring it to a forum for opinion first. Period. In your for instance, blocks for WP:CIVIL are often controversial for two big reasons: one, they can too often be punitive rather than preventative-- which opposes policy. And, two, the boundaries of civility are fluid in an international community -- one person's "damn" is another's "motherfucking cocksucking son of a bitch." This fluidity invariably requires some discussion to find whether the boundary has been crossed. I hope this blathering has made my position a little clearer for you. Let me know. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

10. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

NAMBLAThis user supports the legalisation of man-boy love.

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: Although userpages are supposed to relate only to one's work on Wikipedia, there is a general agreement that they can be personalized -- much like one's desk at work. However, anything egregiously offensive, promoting a position, or reflecting poorly on the community can be removed. I think a userbox advocating sex between adults and children crosses the line of all three. There is also a definite history of disruption on this very issue. I would open a case at Mfd with a clear message to the user about my reasons. As far the user themself, there's no problem. Anyone can hold a different viewpoint here -- even when it's on the extreme fringe -- so long as their editing remains neutral. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats at talk page. ∗ \ / {talk} 07:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. ...as nom. Keegan^talk 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Looks good to me. One two three... 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Icewedge (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support and strongly! Can't find anything in edit history that is even slightly concerning, answers to opening questions are perhaps the best I've ever seen. This is exactly the type of attitude and demeanor I'd love to see in all admins. (also per nom Keegan) — Ched :  ?  07:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support looks good to me. Even the declined A7 for the fictional character (I declined that one btw) was only a mistake in that sense that it was taged 4 minutes after creation, before the creator had time to establish the context. But other than that, the speedy work, the answers here and the candidate's overall contributions look fine. And I salute any user who wants to help with WP:SCV. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - contribs look good. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, I love your approach to editing and your answer to question 2 was great. Jozal ^(talk) 10:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Seen him around, practically flawless work. ceranthor 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support WP:WHYNOT? Looks good to me. hmwithτ 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well said. Dlohcierekim 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Support OK. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Shappy and hmwith. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
13. To many administrators currently...lol just kidding. Your a pretty good candidate, a really good writer(when I read your reply on Keegan's page I thought I was reading a book), no major disputes(I don't think) and good little man work. But even as a little man, I would love to see a good candidate like you write a GA or FA.--(NGG) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
14. --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks really good. Malinaccier (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Cactus writer on Danish topics? Reminds me of an Ice hockey player from Israel. Go ahead, support. NVO (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose too interested in building 'pedia. Way too many editors like that around here. <joke; irony /> Dlohcierekim 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    • rotf-lmfao Thanks Dloh, that little gem will be stuck in the cobwebs of my mind for a while. Fair warning: You have released that !vote under the rules of GFDL, and I claim the right to re-use it in the future. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Support Erik9 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I see no reason not to. The user has enough experience and should use the tools responsibly and effectively. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. Happy to see this RFA, I'm a big fan of CW's writing and copyediting skills, and the answers to the questions are very good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak support I wish you had more article work. A few DYK's is good, but some GA's or FA's would have helped. But you seem like a fine candidate otherwise.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
22. I can support this editor. Nakon 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Well-rounded experience with nothing adverse in past history. Appears competent. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - WP:WTHN?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Solid answers to questions, not too many automated edits, overall, good editor, and would make a fantastic administrator--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong support. Wizardman 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Quick review of user talk page and recent contribs, as well as solid answers to RFA questions, demonstrate exceptional clue. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Absolutely -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Great answers to questions. -download ׀ sign! 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Per Keegan's nomination. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Limited content creation, but generally good quality edits. Good interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support – I, too, appreciate the good answers to the questions. MuZemike 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Liked what I saw in a quick review, like the answers to the questions. CSD tagging was solid and I liked how he handles different scenarios there (including declining at least two of his own CSD tags over the past month where he decided another option was better.) The fact that he will reconsider his own tags and reverse himself is a positive, not a negative, especially when dealing with CSD.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Looks good to me.--Res2216firestar 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Seems very solid, readily admits mistakes [2] [3], and seems singlemindedly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Scanned over most of their edits from March 2009, found no problems. -kotra (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support — Jake Wartenberg 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Antivenin 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support See no reason at all to oppose. dottydotdot (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support --t'shael mindmeld 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Actually I'll say strong support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that per the candidate's userpage, the candidate is an article rescuer who has earned some DYK credits in addition to having never been blocked. Also, good argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Julius Trumpler in which the candidate not only expresses an opinion, but also points to an external link, i.e. went beyond just glancing at the article and other comments in the AfD and demonstrated evidence of having looked for sources himself. Kudos! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - Levelheaded, trustworthy, and hardworking editor. I see no reason to oppose that. Icseaturtles★ 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - No reason to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support – Excellent user, will do fine with the tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Answers are great and nothing in contribs to be concerned about. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support looks good with a good history, He'll do well. Valley2city^‽ 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, Can't see any major disputes, edit wars, or blocks. Hasn't created an astounding amount of content, but what he has created seems to be of good quality. I support.Smallman12q (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, Looks like a fantastic editor. OtisJimmyOne 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Clearly has an interest in article work, per q2. Otherwise, no apparent issues. Majorly talk 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Can't see why not. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Solid Keeper | 76 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
50. I came across CactusWriter during a GA reassessment of Haraldskær Woman. (S)he responded politely and promptly to a situation that many react to defensively, and worked to save that article's GA status. Without that personal experience I might have been inclined to oppose based on a lack of content building, and in particular exposure to the independent review processes, but I'm satisfied the candidate knows what (s)he's doing, so no worries. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Acalamari 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support As per track and nom.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Oppose Too many admins currently. Oops, I mean Support, fine editor, good answers to questions, no indication of tool-abuse. In short, good candidate. (EC) Oldlaptop321 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. The candidate strikes me as helpful, experienced and level-headed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems to be a reasonable user. So why not? --Kaaveh (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Impressive afd work. Would be a good help in the Xfd arena.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Keep it up :). Renaissancee (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - No problems seen. MC10 | Sign here! 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support seeing as I have found no problems whatsoever. CW seems to have been a constructive and competent editor from the start. I also like the way of dealing with User:Willuconquer in the recent copyright incident referenced above. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support, as all that was mentioned in the nom was true.  Marlith (Talk)  04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Weak Support: As I dont see anything alarming! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Can't see any reason why not. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I like the succinct nomination statement in which the nominator clearly shows that the candidate has a good grasp of what admin do, and should do.--Caspian blue 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - Why only now? You should be an admin since last six months. ax (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Cactus has alleviated my concerns and provided ample evidence that he has the good judgement, a sense of humor, and the demeanor of an effective Admin. Malleus also made a good case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Seems like a reasonable user, a little more experience would have been desirable, but not a necessity. Ijanderson (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Love the way they go on BLPs, reasons for wanting adminship, good clean record on edits and talk. Has my trust. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - per (a) content skills and experience demonstrated in approximately 78 new articles; (b) audited content contributions through DYK credits; (c) peer review of others’ contributions at AfD and CSD; and (d) participation in nuts and bolts areas such as SPI, AIV, UAA, and CV. You appear trustworthy; I think you'll do fine with the mop. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support No reason not to. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support not a drama magnet - yay! -- Banjeboi 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Overall contributions look good to me, and I was personally impressed by the level of responsibility and follow-through with User:Willuconquer's additions of text to various Catholic related articles. Said user was confused about the pd status of government works (believing they applied to all governments). CactusWriter sensibly researched it himself, sought additional feedback, and followed through after the CP listing time had passed, with good communication to the user. This kind of thing makes me sit up and take notice, and I'm glad it did, because I also noticed this RfA in time to offer my strong support. We need that kind of admin responsibility. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Answers seem good, not seeing any problems.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support per Moonriddengirl.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Per nom. A good user. Seivad (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Checks out okay. — Σxplicit 05:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Support largely due to answer to Q1. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Support rootology/equality 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Not enough administrators currently. ^{see here} - B (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Seems fine - any candidate gutsy enough to drop the "F-bomb" in the nomination process should do well as an admin. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
85. Support for sure — JoJo • Talk • 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
86. The answer the question 8 gives me confidence. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Project space looks solid, no harm in a good AfD admin joining the ranks.--Koji† 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Have crossed CW's path in discussions and have found him to be exceedingly courteous and helpful. His leadersip through example makes Wikipedia a welcome place to edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support, good answer to Q10. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
90. Support. No obvious concern. A strong candidate. AGK 17:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Strong Support This is one of the times when I give such a support, out of two or three other times. I cannot find anything wrong with this user, and I would love to see Cactus become Admin. (I see the symbolism in your name, quite amusing!) ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
92. 50%+ article work, and the edits in the other namespaces are primarily focused on discussing content. This was a sensible and proactive approach; I like what I see. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support as I see nothing which raises any flags or causes me to believe this editor would abuse the tools. Twiddle the bit. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of audited content contribs, little in the way of noticeboard edits that would show a lack of/ability to deal with disputes. Also, browsing the top AfDs he's contributed to, I'm not convinced of a strong knowledge of policies and his arguments aren't the clearest or best-presented. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose Seems like a stealth candidate. (I want battle hardened admins that have dealt with contentious issues and who have shown they can excercise restraint and keep a cool head. I'm not suggesting any impropriety, but I worry about candidates who sneak in under the radar with stealth, rather than proving themselves first in heavy combat. =Refactored to clarify my use of the term stealth and to expand greatly on my battlefield analogies=) Nom says they have limited experience with the candidate. I haven't seen them around much. Candidate has indicated they don't need the tools. They haven't been involved in negotiating any disputes. I'm not in favor of handing out tools and hoping for the best. It's too hard to take them back when we turn up a dud. But if the candidate is interested in being an Admin they are welcome to lend a hand at ANI and to seek out editing disputes at 3O and other areas to see if they can help resolve them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Every single perception you seem to have of this nomination is, in the minds of the nominator and the nominee with intent here, is entirely incorrect. Good job assuming bad faith. Keegan^talk 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I understand your perception. But I think it may be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. By stealth candidate I mean to say: this is someone we haven't seen in action under the stresses and pressures and difficulties involved in disputes. If there's a better way to phrase that I'm happy to ammend my comment to clarify. And I think this crazy bias against people who want the tools to use them to help is absurd. Candidates who nominate themselves and who are willing to stand on their own two feet should be encouraged. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   I can vouch for the candidate's behaviour in what for many editors can be a stressful situation, the parachuting in of a GA Sweeps reviewer, as I said in my support. Also, from a personal point of view, I prefer candidates who steer well clear of places like ANI, much healthier. Not trying to change your mind or anyone else's mind, just saying. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I appreciate your reply. But certainly there is some balance between having editors who gnome away quietly without ever involving themselves in resolving disputes and animals at the zoo who spend too much time at the monkey exhibit that goes on at ANI. I think taking part in resolving disputes and dealing with difficult issues should be a necessary criteria for those who want the tools. If we want to have a special set of tools for those who want to solely focus on gnome work and deletions, then I'm all for it, but if we're going to hand out guns, we better make sure the Admins we're giving them to know how to use them so they don't blow off their own or anyone else's head unnecessarily. Maybe this is a broader issue than with this candidate, and certainly their RfA chances are looking excellent, and I trust they will do a great job, but I don't think it's acceptable for candidates to say they've never been involved in disputes. I want candidates who says

   Yes I've been involved in some and I've sought some out and tried to help resolve them. I'm human so I haven't always been successful in alleviating them, but I understand the issues involved and what's it's like to deal with wikilawyering, with obstruction, with personal attacks, and I'm able to take a deep breath and step away and to allow it work itself out. I can deal with it and maintain a cool head and restraint knowing it's not all on me and that it's always best to talk things out and to avoid shooting first and asking questions later.

   They can even quote me on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   My apologies for the accusation of bad faith, this further clarification makes sense now. By "stealth candidate" I thought you were implying intrigue. Keegan^talk 00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   And Administrative backlog too ? Wow! Interesting to see templates for RFA comments too ( User:DougsTech/RFAreason1 ) :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   You say that you oppose all candidates you do not see fit to get the mop. May I inquire what is the problem with this user? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Doug has stated elsewhere he'll only oppose a candidate who already has opposition. So, his oppose should basically be read as "Oppose per above opposers (...and because there's too many admins currently)". –xeno^talk 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Reminds me of User:Kmweber's RFA opposes :) -- Tinu Cherian - 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Also, interesting to see that he recently nominated another editor who failed 3/39/9 (and not because of him)... So much for high standards. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   That a silly reason. We need MORE admins. — JoJo • Talk • 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   How many more? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   Being that I did fall into the trap and reply to Dougtech's comment in a previous RFA, this discussion jumped out at me. I find it amusing.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   "Interesting to see templates for RFA comments too ( User:DougsTech/RFAreason1 ) :)" I don't see anything wrong with templates such as that. Doug has a point, and he can share it through templates if he is tired of explaining his point every time. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

   In another bizarre twist, there was a whole WP:ANI discussion that got DT blocked indef. Apparently he was happy with the outcome of a recent arbcom case resulting in an admin losing his/her privledges. DT thought it was amusing try and harass the former admin. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to come back with socks, we don't have to expect those customary template opposes we've seen in recent RFAs. Unless he is unblocked, DT won't be editing under that accounts for now. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

   Seems to me that you're doing exactly what you criticize DougsTech for, taking pleasure in the misfortune of another. Schadenfreude anyone? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose the content contribs showed nothing really spectacular, and the answers seemed below par. I don't see anything in the above that convinces me supporting this user. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Comment. I do not believe one needs spectacular anything to be an admin. My content building is mediocre, for instance. All one needs is an understanding of the tools as related to the area they seek to work in and a an even temperament. Nothing in the answers to questions causes me to doubt candidate possesses requisite knowledge or temperament. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Content was touted above as being something they work in. If they wouldn't have mentioned content, then there would be no negative. It is a self perception which I find lacking. Those who claim content in RfA tend to suggest that they will work primarily in that area. I emphasize talent within the field of interest when looking through RfA. And you may have no doubt caused, but I feel that trust must be earned, therefore, a neutral or a negative is equally an oppose, whereas a support must be with strong evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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