Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CharlieEchoTango

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

CharlieEchoTango

Final (85/2/1); Closed as successful by ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! at 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

CharlieEchoTango (talk · contribs) – Hello all. For a while I didn't think I would have a need or a "want" for the tools. But times change and ideas evolve, and I now stand ready to request the mop, simply because I see how the extra buttons could come in handy at various times and I see no reason why not to have them, nor do I see a reason why I should fear the community process, given that I don't have much to lose by stepping forward.

I am a generally clueful editor, with a fair amount of experience, a good and balanced record (though not stellar nor consistent), a clean block log (not technically, but in spirit), and an appropriate use of the buttons I am already entrusted with. Areas in which I feel more clueful in are copyright matters, NPOV matters, image and licensing work, content cleanup, deletion and its much more positive counterpart Articles for Creation, anti-vandalism work, and some level of original content work. Areas where I'm less experienced in, or simply less comfortable in, are conflict management, policy discussions, and the "drama boards". The comfort disparity is likely due to a) me not being a native English speaker b) me not being much of a people's person, both of which may result in possible awkwardness at times, and consequently generates some lack of wiki-confidence when it comes to getting involved in these areas. As someone who values integrity and personal responsibility, I fully acknowledge these shortcomings, but I am always willing to learn, adapt, and do the right thing.

If entrusted with the mop by the community, I intend to generally keep to the areas I've been working so far and to stay the course. I do not intend to work the more controversial areas of the wiki, but if ever I land there by misfortune, I think I can be trusted to do the right thing and use due diligence, perhaps seeking advice from more experienced fellow editors and administrators. That, in my book, is A Good Thing™.

Simply put, I think I am ready to be a trusted member of this community. Thank you for your time. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

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: From a purely administrative perspective, AIV, UAA, AFD, CSD, PROD, RFPP, RM. That's pretty much it as far as my intentions go, but of course I may pop up elsewhere, who knows!

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

A: Without hesitation, my mainspace work. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a great content creator or contributor, but I did improve several articles (whether from a backlog, from random browsing, or from a personal project), written a particularly neutral DYK/GA on a controversial book and idea (though the article is yet to be complete) and I have several articles in the making. Why are these my best contributions? Because for everything we do here, content work is by far the most visible and impacting. When I improved PPCLI, though it was far from perfect and rather gramatically suck-ish, I knew I helped provide a better knowledge of the topic for the readers. And that, to me, is far more important than all the endless bickering that goes on in the various inner venues of this big project. I only wish I had more time, competence and courage to contribute more from a content perspective; on the other hand, as a volunteer contributor I do not feel pressured into working a specific area, which is a good thing because everybody has something to contribute, from brilliant content work to simple maintenance tasks.

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: Quite frankly, I cannot think of an actual confict I've been in. Sure I've had disagreements, discussions, and frustrations. But a conflict? The closest thing that could come to a conflict was a misunderstanding that happened on IRC a year ago. Surely no stress was caused from that. Am I stressed? To some extent, yes, but all of it comes from real life, and quite honestly, while I value my participation here, I am not emotionally involved enough that any "wiki-stress" could affect my "IRL-stress". When real-life stress becomes more serious, I'm smart enough to back away from less important commitments. And if actual wiki-stress happens, as it may in the future (who knows!), I would be quick to temporarily go away, because I have far more important and challenging priorities that I would never let anything affect : my real life aspirations.

Additional question from Surajt88

4. Just curious about your userbox. What's your take on WP:IAR?

A: There is no perfect answer to that question, but the overall philosophy I believe in and which is conveyed by the userbox is that when one is not a dick and does not behave as an activist (e.g. NPOV), they already meet the general spirit of the rules. That certainly does not exclude one from following the written or unwritten community guidelines nor does it entitle someone to violate the key policies and pillars our project is built upon. Simply put, one should use common sense and due diligence, but also be bold and not worry to much about the rest if they feel, in good faith, they are Doing the Right Thing™.

Additional question from Sven Manguard

5. A look at your monthly edit count shows that you fluctuate wildly between the 2000s, the lower hundreds, and 0. Do you mind explaining why? Do you predict it happening again? Do you believe disappearing for months at a time will have any effects on your ability to serve as an admin?

A: (e/c) Sure: I'm not a consistent editor, and I have a rather varied schedule in real life. When I have more free time and less stress, as happened at the beginning of the year, then again at the end of the summer, I may devote a significant amount of effort to Articles for Creation, which translates in a significantly higher number of edits (2 edits per declined submission, 4-5 per approved submission). At other times, I'm more stressed and busy with my studies and training IRL, and may not want to deal with the commitment AfC brings, so I choose to merely monitor my watchlist for things to revert (vandalism, etc) or help with (WP:HD, WP:NCHP/Q, etc), or simply work in other areas (articles, etc) that require less commitment in time and effort. No, I do not think my inconsistency would affect my ability to serve as an admin. Why would it? So long as the on-wiki business (e.g. outstanding personal requests, ongoing mopping) has been taken care of, the temporary availability of administrators shouldn't matter, because sysops are volunteers like everyone else. I hope this answers your question! :)

Additional question from Catfish Jim and the soapdish

6. You say that you intend to work on CSD admin, which is great as it frequently becomes backlogged. The most frequently used speedy deletion category is WP:CSD A7... it's also the most frequently misused and a fairly large proportion of CSD A7 nominations inevitably need to be declined. Can you outline how you would go about assessing an A7 nomination?

A: The issue with A7 is its ambiguous wording. Editors will have different interpretations of 'credible' and even of 'significance'. The important thing one must not do is preemptively decide for the community: even if one thinks an article may not stand a chance at AfD or PROD, so long as a credible (e.g. not silly) claim of significance (even the most basic) is being made, it should not be speedily deleted under A7, though other criterion may apply. Sometimes topics may appear completely non-notable because of poor writing or referencing by newbies, and giving an opportunity (PROD or AfD) to those editors to demonstrate notability and improve the article makes sense (pretty much like we do at AfC, which sees its significant share of potential A7s). That said, I would give significant consideration to A7s about unsourced BLPs, especially if written in a negative light but not quite meeting the criteria for G10. Sometimes shooting first and asking questions later is the right thing to do, but of course, it's a matter of circumstance, and BLPPROD is more-often-than-not appropriate.

Additional question from Ebe123

7. What's your opinion on WP:ABUSE and WP:LTA?

A: Oh, the dark part of the wiki, eh? I don't have much of an "opinion" on it. I think these are important processes when it comes to tracking, identifying and combating persistent trolling and disruption, which can be very harmful to the project. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of the WP:DENY concept. Obviously there will always be a need for SPI, LTA, etc, and I'll leave it to the functionaries and editors who take an interest in that kind of work to do what they're competent at doing. If need be, I'll play catch up and learn the trade, though to be perfectly honest, it's not something that I'm eager to do, and I don't plan on issuing arbitrary nation-wide range blocks anytime soon.

Additional question from Hurricanefan25

8. Say you come upon an article that reads:

"Blue Yellow Green Inc. is a company that is dedicated to research.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} It is the largest research company in Oregon, and has been awarded the ABC Award for Quality and the ZYX Award for dedication.^[1][3][7] It is criticized because it often considered smelly!!!!!"

Google only shows 1,500 hits on the subject, yet nearly all of the Google results say "BYG Inc. is the largest research company in the state of Oregon" or similar statements. The article is currently tagged as a {{db-hoax}} article. There are two editors to the article, one who created it, and another who said "it is smelly!!!" The writer of the article then removes the "smelly!!!" vandalism. The seventh source links to a Facebook page promoting the company; however, it lists the CEO as "Bobby Zinner," which upon a quick search of the company's official website, is not the actual CEO of the website. Further content is added to the article, citing an eighth source with more false information from the creator. However, upon further inspection of the blog, reveals it to have been created in a city in Brazil, not Oregon. You check back at the first Google search, and it is revealed that there is another source that says that the company was fake and promoted Brazil; however, it is a MySpace page; while you stumble upon another webpage (called blueyellowgreenresearchco.org), claiming the company had shut down. However, the MySpace page was created after the .org site. What would you do? (I originally used this question in another RfA back in October.)

A: {{db-hoax}} should be used sparingly in obvious and/or known cases; if nothing else than MySpace, Facebook and blatantly unreliable websites come out from a search, then Blue Yellow Green Inc is likely not the biggest r&d company in Oregon; this combined with the silly third sentence, the false name of the CEO, and the blatantly false information added, leaves little margin for good faith and looks obvious to me. Speedy.

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

9. What is the difference between a softerblock and a spamublock; and when would you employ the former instead of the latter?

A: The former when there is a COI but no blatantly spam contribs, the latter when there is a corp/org COI and actual spam/G11 contributions.

Additional question from Bongomatic

10. Could you please explain the circumstances that gave rise to your requesting to be indef blocked?

A: Focus on IRL commitments. A block, e.g. 0 tolerance policy, was a convenient way to ensure self-discipline, even if it meant I departed the project for a while.

Additional question from Shadowjams

11. I like much of what I see but I have these concerns I hope you'll address. I don't see much anti-vandalism experience (correct me if I'm wrong) nor do I see much CSD experience. That's fine, but you in a few places describe these sorts of tasks as "dark" (question above) or negative (in your nom statement, as opposed to AfC which is "positive"). You don't seem to like that sort of work. That, however is much of what admins do. Could you address that concern?

A: It's not that I don't like these specific areas, in fact I regularly voice my thoughts at AfD, !voting delete more often than not, and I do vandalism reversion diligently when required. I just don't necessarily run after it (I used to work RCP when I started editing here, which was okay for a while), because I feel I can contribute more in helping users at various venues, creating content, and simply contributing where I see fit. Maintenance work however is required if we are going to provide a quality encyclopedia to our readers, and I do my fair share of reverting, tagging, helping, improving, creating. Not all of these tasks are equally rewarding, but I think a balanced editing pattern is a good thing. I wouldn't read too much in the 'negative' vs 'positive' comments, it's only a personal taste, and I do not see these areas as "bad" areas per se. Less fun to work in, but hey, we don't always get to do what's fun. :-)

Additional questions from Surturz

12. Will you commit to a term limit, reconfirmation, or recall? If not, why not?

A: No to all three. If some editors have concerns, I am more than willing to discuss them privately or publicly. If somehow I screw up, and a significant number of editors express concern about my abilities, through a RFC, AN/I or other avenues, then I'll do the right thing, take responsibility for my actions, and drop the bit.

13. Have you participated in any off-wiki (e.g. email) communication in regards to this RfA?

A: No.

14. Has there been any off-wiki canvassing for your RfA either by you or other editors?

A: Not by me, but I can't speak for other editors.

Additional question from TerriersFan

15. Will you please list the articles that you have created (or the major ones if there are many) and indicate which ones have reached GA, FA or been featured in DYK?

A:

Additional question from RFA Guy

16. You mention that you like WP:Deny policy in Q7. Would you use it regarding a blocked user's page and/or talk page?

A: No. WP:DENY is a view that, in the context of persistent disruption, I agree with. But it's not policy nor guideline, so I'll stick to the actual process in place.

Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

17. It's a pity this is already the seventeenth question, but I'm not really interested in how well you know the rules like some are above. My question is, why wouldn't you be a good administrator? Be specific in your response.

A: I can be hasty at times, which may translate in an occasional lapse of judgement.

A2 (expanded per dissatisfaction expressed with prior answer, admittedly a bit weak): My lack of experience with conflicts and controversial discussions (as outlined in statement and somewhat in Q3) indicates I may lack the competence to make tough calls in heated discussions, something admins may be called to do at times. Since it's a lack of experience, I don't really have specific examples in my contributions to provide, sorry.

Additional question from Mabdul

18. In case of being successful in this RFA, will you still review AFC submissions and help us with the backlog?

A: Yes.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Question 7 (Husky's) seems more like a soapbox-y diatribe about the current RFA process than a genuine question. I don't see how it has anything to do with the candidate's ability to succeed as an admin, or his likelihood of abusing the tools. Townlake (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Might be relevant given the WP:RfA reform 2011. Not sure what the motivation for the question is.--v/r - TP 15:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• It may be relevant for that, but it is not relevant here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• He could be curious on the candidates opinion of the current RFA process and how open the candidate is to reforms. There has been a lot of discussion about how admins are opposed to changes and he wants to know which side of the fence the candidate falls on. Like I said, I don't know the motivation, I am just trying to find a rationale that isn't necessarily inappropriate.--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say it's just a rhetorical, soapboxy question that follows from Steven Zhang's recent failed RfA (their introduction to the process), who they quite clearly supported. Swarm ^X 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, Husky deleted the question and the candidate's response here. Townlake (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding the self-requested block, notice that it happens in April and unblock is requested in July. This is entirely my own speculation and the question is optional, but remember: that time of year is exam time. WilliamH (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• Point out AFC work I see lots of comments about this user's "articles for creation" work. How do I check out what a user has done there? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

  This should provide most of them. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I want to point out this comment at WT:WikiProject Conservatism: [1]. Unfortunately, the closing Bureaucrat may need to take that into account, although perhaps that will not be necessary given the clearly positive voting so far. Please understand that the candidate appears to have had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it is not my intention here to cast any doubt whatsoever on the candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  Issue boldly addressed. Thanks for the heads up! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  You did exactly the right thing. Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Anyone who can do that many AFCs without cracking shouldn't have too many problems with adminship.©Geni 06:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Sure. 10k edits, clean backlog, decent article work. We need admins. I don't think this user will go nuts with the tools. Net positive. You have my support. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. I see no problems. James500 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Support No problems either. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 10:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Support Logs, deleted content look OK, plenty of help offered at AFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Don't see any reason to oppose. 10000 edit with a year of experiance looks just fine. Happy Thanksgiving. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Support Strong Support - Good to go. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Mop here please! Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 12:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. Clueful guy, been around a while, knows what he's doing, won't abuse the tools. Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. Strong candidate; I think he'll be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
11. Support experience is fine, helpful editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
12. Support- Well-presented rationales at AfD, civil discourse with oppose; my subjective views are not reason enough to land anywhere else. Dru of Id (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - Great work in Articles for Creation. My interactions with this user have always been positive. CharlieEchoTango would make a fine administrator. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
14. Support Per my reasons below.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
15. Support Per answers to questions so far. Confident that user will make a good administrator. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
16. Support - Great candidate for admin. Very civil and mature. I don't why not. -- Luke (Talk) 17:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
17. Support, will be fine. fish&karate 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. Plenty of great work, sound knowledge of Wikistuff, and good answers to the questions - happy to trust with the tools -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
19. Support per Steven Zhang. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)3
20. Support - no real problems here; his answer to #9 #8 stretches the notion of "obvious," just a bit - but that's more a function of the question than of the answer. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
    1. Renumbering - as pointed out below, the old #9 is the new #8. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
21. Support - Doesn't appear there is anything wrong with this candidate. — Moe ε 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
22. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
23. Support The sporadic edit count actually makes me more comfortable. It shows someone who isn't completely addicted/obsessed with Wikipedia. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
24. Support - Working in AFC is definitely better with +sysop; sometimes editors' work grinds to halt because they can't see deleted contributions. In general: has written content, articulate/good answers to questions, sensible user page, e-mail enabled, clean block log, no red flags, basically: one big warm glow. WilliamH (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
25. Support the fact that you know what A7 means, per your reply to Q6, brings me a ton of hope. Also you are one of the best guys to interact with. Keep up the good work --Guerillero | My Talk 21:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - good answers to the questions - Cluefull user , no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
27. Strong support — His thoughtful answers to the questions and a demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia's more sensitive policies convinces me that he'll be an asset as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
28. Support I've worked with this editor before, and CharlieEchoTango is a good candidate for the mop. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 21:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
29. Support - Looks fine. AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Most definitely. I think you will be a superb administrator! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
31. Support, even though you support the Conservatives :p Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
32. I interacted with CET a lot via IRC when he was new-- he's not been around very long but from what I've seen has consistently been extremely level-headed and clueful, and has his priorities right. From experience, AfCing without +sysop is sometimes a bit of a pain; we definitely need more AfCers with mops. (well, and more AfCers in general...) I have to say this RfA was a surprise (wow, I feel like an old hand now!) but a very pleasant one at that. Fully qualified candidate, and a quick learner if there's anything he needs to pick up. All the best! sonia♫ 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
33. Reasonably impressed withe CET's contributions. I'm not sure a content section in a book article is entirely encyclopedic, but that's beside the point. ;) ceranthor 01:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
34. I was pleasantly surprised with I saw this RFA. I have interacted with CET on IRC and on AFC and there is no doubt in my mind that he should be an admin. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
35. Support. Excellent user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. The candidate is thoughtful, works well with others, and should be able to handle the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
37. Trustworthy. Townlake (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
38. Positive interaction in article space. Helpful on the task and also pleasant to me when I was a newbie at Wilmer W. Tanner. Few other times I've seen him were positive as well.RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
39. Support – I see no reason why CET should not obtain the mop. —mc10 (t/c) 04:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
40. Support No reason to oppose. All the best. Suraj T 04:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
41. Support My gut feeling from recent interaction was positive and I reading Charlie's answers indicates strong knowledge with lots of clue. As others have indicated, AFC is greatly enhanced with the mop since you can see what had been deleted. Royalbroil 05:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Had reviewed a bit ago for file mover, see no problems Skier Dude (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
43. Support - Why not? I agree that they went the wrong way with Q8, but obviously a net positive. Swarm ^X 06:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    Where exactly did anybody else mention question 8? And how is that a wrong answer (to a ridiculous hypothetical btw). Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    See !vote #20. #9 became #8 when #7 was removed, see diff. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    As to how it is a "wrong answer", I had this question in my own recent RfA, and I answered that I would decline it (my rationale is well-explained in the answer). Hurricanefan indicated that my answer was exactly what they were looking for. It's not "wrong" per se, as it's left up to the candidate's judgment. But, for that reason, I do agree that they "stretched the notion of 'obvious'". As an aside, IMHO, it doesn't help at all to create a positive RfA environment if you're attacking certain questions as "ridiculous". Swarm ^X 21:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

    It's been quite clear for a while that you and I Swarm don't see the RfA process in the same way, so I wouldn't expect that to change now. Your quip at my comment is curiously strange. Shadowjams (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

44. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. ^Bongo_matic 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
46. Support - great content creation, solid professional, collegiate manner. - Haymaker (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - easy decision. –η-θ 20:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
48. Support Looks good - active and editing all over the project. Love the response to Q1 from User:Surturz; although I think the Q2 and Q3 from that editor are out of line "trip" questions in the way they are phrased. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
49. Support I also had some problems with your answer to number 8. I think the safest thing to do in that situation is to take it to AFD, but that isn't something that is going to stop you from being a great administrator. You have my support. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
50. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
51. Support - Not seeing any real reasons not to support. Enfcer (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
52. Samir 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
53. Support, for being a great helper in the IRC help channel and an AFC reviewer! mabdul 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
54. Nothing frightening. Perhaps the odd slightly snipey response on occasion, (say diff 460914861) but if that is as bad as it gets then just do a penance of 2 extra AfC approvals and move on. Particularly like response (as of now) to Q15. --ClubOranje^T 10:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
55. Support - Trusted by the community (filemover, reviewer, rollbacker), thoughtful answers to questions, I am familiar with the candidate's high-quality content work at various military pages--Hokeman (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
56. Support. Good contributions. (For what it's worth, I cannot tell that CharlieEchoTango is not a native English speaker. His comments are remarkably articulate, especially his nomination statement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Clueful, nice answer to my question. Reminded me it's not a policy. RFA Guy (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
58. Support No real concerns. Answers above indicate an understanding of the spirit of the guidelines and policies in question. Kuru (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
59. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
60. Weak support Although the answer to my question — Q8 — seems a bit off, what I've seen from CET tempts me to support. HurricaneFan25 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
61. Weak Support I understand that you wrote Ethical_Oil:_The_Case_for_Canada's_Oil_Sands and made it good class but the fact that you spent twice as much time on other articles that have not reached that level makes me wonder if you care more about the articles you created rather than others.; This might seem unfair and I like your other contribs but if an admin class user spends over 250 non reverts on an article I'd expect it to be GA at the very least. --Kangaroopowah 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
62. Support - I'm not certain the editor needs the tools, but I don't see anything to concern me either so I feel comfortable supporting. Shadowjams (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - Why not. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
64. Support: impressed with his work so far and know that he will make an excellent addition to the admin corps. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
65. Support: No concerns. No candidate can be 100% perfect. The competency for the quality and volume of work this candidate does is sufficient to convince me they need the tools and can be trusted with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
66. Support Not seeing any issues. —SW— ^converse 17:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
67. Support - I see no reason why not. Mato (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
68. Support. AfC work and content creation are major pluses. Your answer to Q6 assures me of his CSD competence, and your answer to Q2 shows me that you know what Wikipedia is really about. Even with only 73 AfD !votes, they are mostly accurate (86.7%) and he has shown knowledge of policy in those discussions. You have limited anti-vandalism experience, especially in RFPP, but I'm confident that you'll be a net positive.--Slon02 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Thanks for answering my question and for good answers to all the other questions. If you enjoy AfC work then may adminship give more power to you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
70. Support Qualified candidate. Courcelles 03:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
71. Support Baseball Watcher 19:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - Already a great contributor to Wikipedia; I have no reason to doubt his capacity to use admin tools well and I can't see him causing any problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
73. support GOOD! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 19:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
74. Support (kinda redundant to be saying "support" in a section called support, but I digress) - Interacted with them on the Ethical Oil article, which has become a good article, and seen their edits in many other areas given we cross paths on various Canadian topics. Would agree with the self-characterization that they are a "clueful editor". Resolute 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
75. Support CharlieEchoTango has made some great contributions to Wikipedia and looks like very good administrator material to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Through past interactions with this user, I see no reason not to trust him with the tools. Kansan (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
77. Support C.E.T. appears to have decent grasp on policy and guideline, is willing to listen and moderate an opinion if new evidence is presented, and appears willing to ask for advichttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CharlieEchoTango&action=edit&section=T-6e when unsure of something. I feel he will not use the mop in any manner that harms the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
78. Support —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:37pm • 06:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
79. Support Working in AfC is not an easy task, there's much junk in there and the odd gem. The fact that the user is willing to help out new users in this way is major plus for me. Having reviewed his contributions I'm seeing a helpful editor who has a good understanding of policy. Definitely a great candidate. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
80. Support After looking at the answers to the questions and some of the editing history, I believe Charlie will make an excelent admin, having a diversity of abilities not just vandal fighting, or article creation, along with the ability to write convincingly, CharliesEchoTango gets my support. Jab843 (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
81. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
82. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
83. Support Seems worthy to wield the mop. Jarkeld (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
84. Support Candidate's civility and maturity are exceptional. Amazed that English is not their native tongue. Thoughtful answers demonstrate that CET is such a quick learner and I'd expect that his use of the tools would be as careful and considered as he has shown in the past. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
85. Stephen 04:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose I had hoped to support and I was really close to doing so when I saw this AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/180_Documentary that you closed. I really liked that you properly applied WP:IAR even though you were involved. There was no reason to wait for someone to close it and we need more bold admins like that. However, I was disappointed when I found this CSD tag (admins only; sorry) where you tagged an article as CSD G3 for vandalism when all the article contained was "information coming soon". There are two problems with that. 1) That you tagged that as vandalism when it was clearly in good faith (unless I am missing something big), and 2) That there was a clearly better CSD criteria as A3. Unfortunately, this happened fairly recently (6 August, so that makes it only 3 months ago) and you've identified CSD as one of the areas you'd like to work. I make this a weak oppose because I don't think you'd be harmful to the project if you did in fact succeed, but I think a little more experience in the areas you want to work would be helpful. Sorry.--v/r - TP 15:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Moved to support.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Presuming he was exposed to the other two deleted articles from that editor (here), which included a clearly nonsensical biography of the same 'person', usage of the db-hoax tag seems appropriate and within common sense. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good enough for me, thanks for the explanation.--v/r - TP 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, for now. I like to look at a candidate's article creations to get a good sense of their understanding of WP:N and WP:V, since these are critical to useful participation in the deletion processes. The most recently created article, from October 30, 2011‎, is Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. I was surprised to see it sourced only to the organization itself, with no third-party reliable source references. I thought about tagging it with {{Ref improve}} or {{Primary sources}}, but decided to check the article history first. I was even more surprised to find that someone had already tagged it for improved references, and someone else added a notability tag, but the candidate had removed both tags with the comment "take it to AfD if you think it's not notable. rm ref tag too, since the stub is properly referenced per WP:V." Now, as an article creator, I can get annoyed by "drive-by" tagging myself, but the solution is not to simply remove the tags without improving the article. Fix the problem, then remove the tags. I strongly disagree with the candidate's assertion that an article – even a small stub – can be considered "properly referenced per WP:V" with no third party references whatsoever, especially after being challenged on it by two other editors. 28bytes (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The barrister society is the professional order of lawyers (e.g. bar exams), I believe it is inherently notable. Because you raise the matter, I will go source it to WP:N, though it's true that I could have 'improved' it in the first place and you have a valid concern there. Thanks for your concerns :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins need to respond calmly, cordially and (ideally) helpfully when challenged, and since you've done that here, I'm happy to withdraw the oppose. Good luck. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Token Oppose. A lot of you should do some work, at least on one RfA. How can people write support without writing something like, "I checked the editing on [the article of greatest interest to me], and the candidate did a good job". At least some of you! (Updated 18:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC) The rest hasn't been touched)

   GA-status article Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands has a section on criticism that contains ad hominem attacks on (apparently) living persons, with little substance. WP:BLP suggests 2 reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons, and there is no reason that WP should be quoting a columnist's description of a living author as a "master of half truth".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

   Hi Kiefer. The article doesn't present the claim as a fact but as the opinion of the reviewer, naming the source in the sentence itself and using the word "contends" in a disinterested way. A BLP violation would be an engaged, authoritative, statement saying that "Ezra Levant is a master of logical fallacy", without quotes and in-sentence attribution, and then sourcing it to the paper. This is clearly not the case here, and I do not agree with your assessment that this is a BLP violation (in fact I took great care in ensuring the article was as NPOV as possible). To be fair, I realize how the quote directed at the author might be less worthy than one discussing the actual book, so I'll see if I can find a more relevant review. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

   Your other articles seemed to be well done, at least when I checked biographies. I am unfamiliar with AfC's: Did someone else write the first draft of 10 kilobytes, and then you Wikiformatted it and improved it?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   Nah, generally AfC's are submitted by anons or new editors writing their first article, and an AfC reviewer will go through the article and approve it (moving it to mainspace) or decline it, listing reasons. It looks like the article was written from scratch by Charlie. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

   I assume you are referring to Stephen Herbits? This has not been processed through AfC, but is a special case of an editor coming on IRC asking for someone to format their article from a MS Word document. I guess I was feeling great that day, so I just did it. The original article was dumped on Gfoley4's sandbox, see here and subsequent edits. Since moving Gfoley4's sandbox would have been quite inconvenient, I simply created the page once I was done, crediting the original author of the article in my edit summary.

   At AfC, editors mostly format their article themselves, though I may provide tips and/or actually format it myself when the article has a good potential (most submissions don't). Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

2. Not yet. Per Nova Scotia Barristers' Society. 28bytes pointed to this above, and I feel that the way the candidate reacted to the tags was not the kind of temperament I want to see in an administrator, and this incident was very recent. Given the candidate's relative newness as an editor, I'd like to see some more experience without any repeats of this. At the same time, I think the candidate was entirely clueful in fixing the canvassing problem that I raised just under "Discussion", above, and I fully realize that I'm an outlier in my assessment of this RfA. So please take my comment as advice to keep in mind after you get the mop, and please accept my best wishes for a productive administratorship. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

   While I wouldn't use this single "incident" as an example of my temperament, as said above I could have been more proactive in expanding the stub to make valid use of relevant sources showing notability (thereby addressing the editors' concerns), and so your (and 28byte's) point is duly noted and advice is taken in the spirit intended. Regards, :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I expected more out of the answer of Q17. No candidate is almost perfect. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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