Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Roem

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

Lord Roem

Final (81/37/6); ended 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC) - withdrawn by user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Lord Roem (talk · contribs) – Fellow editors, it's my very great pleasure to nominate Lord Roem for adminship :). A fellow legal eagle, we first ran into each other in December 2010, when I provided sources so he could write the excellent Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez article. Since then I've watched him flourish; he's served as a Clerk to the Arbitration Committee, participated in both anti-vandalism and deletion work, and despite the constant and lamentable distractions that clerking brings, come into his own as an article writer - Velazquez, along with three other articles of his, are now GAs.

He's got a good head on his shoulders, he's got the experience and steady bearing to be excellent at whichever area of adminship he turns his hand to, and he understands content work as well as the next guy - the next guy being me. The only surprising thing about this nomination is that it hadn't already happened. Hopefully the community will feel the same way :). Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank Ironholds for his very kind words and I accept the nomination. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Statement made below in Discussion section. Lord Roem (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2012 (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: I intend to take part in several areas where I have a great deal of experience. First and foremost, DYK. After 24 of my own articles up on the main page, a great deal of reviews, and work on transferring accepted hooks to prep areas, I feel I'm ready to help out in an administrative fashion. What triggered this feeling? There have been many occasions (like here & here) where I was online, there were empty queue areas, and the bot missed an update. There's seems to be a need for more help in that area, and I'm willing to lend a hand. Additionally, I would work in AFD and contribute to vandal fighting at AIV, places I've already contributed to in a non-admin fashion.

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

A: I'm proud to be writing in a content area that seems (if not is in actuality) less populated, both in writers and in articles. From the very beginning, my goal was to write an article for every single Supreme Court case in the past decade. While I haven't reached that lofty goal, my legal articles have filled an important gap. Along with Velazquez as noted in the nomination statement, I would pick Washington v. Texas and Taylor v. Illinois as my best content contributions. Not only are they, well, interesting articles about important cases, but they show my growth as a writer. I moved from short entries about boring cases to landmark decisions requiring a great search for resources. Even in that process, I was able to collaborate, as editors like NW assisted in gaining access to scholarly material. All in all, content is very important to me, and it will always remain my top priority.

Along with these article-space content contributions, I have done work as a writer for the Signpost Arbitration Report. In January, I collaborated on the report with Steven Zhang, and for the past few months I've been the sole writer. Specifically, I think my most useful Signpost work was on Arbitration statistics (found here) and the Arbitration mailing list (here).

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

A: I have been lucky enough to have escaped any conflict for me or involving any of the articles I work on. But, that doesn't mean I haven't dealt with stress or conflict. Far from it. I have had the privilege of working in Dispute Resolution for the duration of my wiki-life. Whether it involved handling a small dispute on the content noticeboard or a case with the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee, my involvement with mediating conflicts has provided me a great set of useful skills.

As I explained in my nomination for the Mediation Committee, "... if we can stop a dispute in its tracks, through consensus-building and cooperation between all parties, then we may just be able to stitch together editors in respect for each other so that the user conduct issues that evolve into arbitration-issues never occur." Even when mediation has been unsuccessful, I feel it is always important to ensure the parties themselves leave the process able to communicate. The source of most, if not all disputes on Wikipedia are from breakdowns in discussion which devolve quickly into edit wars or fighting. Mediation's goal is to restore that dialogue, bring the editors together, and (barring conduct issues) try to find a solution that has the consensus of all parties. As an admin, stress will probably come at one point or another, but I have seen what causes conflicts, what sparks a dispute. I know how to handle that stress, and how to elevate the discussion to the issues. It's a tremendously difficult thing to do, but I think I'm war-trained to handle it.

As one final thought to this question, I want to add a comment of fellow Mediator Sunray about the process of mediation. He said he saw "mediation as an evolutionary, learning process", one that both resolves the source of a dispute and teaches the parties how to avoid a future one. I think that is the most useful skill an admin can have. Beyond anything else, the mop should know how to clean effectively. I hope you place the trust in me to use that skill.

Additional question from M'encarta

4. What big projects do you plan to participate when you become an admin?

A: I'm a bit confused over exactly what you're asking. If you're asking about what admin-work I would participate in: I plan on working in DYK, AFD, and AIV. These are the three areas I have the most experience in and the most desire to help out. If you're asking about 'projects' in terms of other work: I plan on continuing my personal project of writing articles on Supreme Court cases from the past decade. I've started work on some cases at the beginning, but I have a great deal more to go.

I hope this answers your question. If not, please feel free to ask a follow-up. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Graeme Bartlett

5. Can you explain what happened with File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg?

A: I was writing an article for the Signpost about an update in the pending cases. I wanted to include some pictures of real courtrooms to add color to the usually bland report. (I should note I agreed to drop the idea, after some thought it was distracting). I looked up a picture of the UK Supreme Court. The picture looked like an official 'in-action' shot of the Court, not something owned by Reuters. I used the upload file button to upload it, and it was quickly deleted. After reading the deletion message, I recognized my mistake. And it was an error. That's why I don't plan on uploading images until I get a better grasp on image policy (I think I've only uploaded 3 or 4); it also means I will stay away from that area of administrative work.

I do understand my mistake here. And I also recognize that this is probably my biggest. I believe though, that looking through my contributions, you find that this was an isolated event. Someone needed to slap me with a trout. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Steven Zhang

6. It's not uncommon for administrators to become less active in areas they used to participate after they have a successful RfA. If your RFA passes, will you still be active as in dispute resolution as you are now?

A: Dispute resolution, especially work in mediation, is something I have a passion for. It may be a nightmare for some, but I really enjoy being able to get warring parties to sit down and talk. And when those attempts are successful, it's just really great to see an article at peace. As I said at my mediation nomination (linked in Q3), I envision a Wikipedia where the Arbitration process is starved of cases because so many disputes are resolved at the lower end. It may be an idealistic vision, but it's an aspiration I hold to and one I will continue to strive towards even if this RFA passes.

Dispute resolution is just part of my wiki-genes. Lord Roem (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I wanted to hear. Good man :). Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TruPepitoM

7. Do you believe administrators should be required to reach legal age in order to be one? briefly explain your answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruPepitoM (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A: There are some good arguments on each side of this debate. Those in favor may argue issues of protecting younger editors, while those against could say it's just not that big of a deal. Personally, I tend to side with the latter, those against such a requirement. Editors' and their maturity is not simply based on age. There are young editors who are very clueful and level-headed, while some may not always be said of adult users. In terms of what administrators do, those two qualities, along with a good grasp of policy, will in most cases reach a net positive. Only when it comes to handling sensitive information (like the privileges handled by CUs and Oversighters) should we be concerned about the age of the editor. In those instances, I believe foundation policy requires it. There probably are some legal issues there as well. But none of that business is handled by the average admin, and so I think the case for the requirement is not as strong. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow up. Would you please correct the grammatical errors and remove cliches? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What cliches? For me, because I feel clue and ability is not always linked to age, I just feel it's a bad standard. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Even now your response uses the singular "is" for the plural "clue and ability". I'm sorry but I cannot support an editor whose writing is below that of a junior high-school student. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Electriccatfish2

8. When is it appropriate to block an editor? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

A: In short, an editor should be blocked when the admin believes the block will prevent damage to Wikipedia. On the converse, admins should not issue things like "cool down blocks" or use the blocking tool as a way to retaliate against other editors. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dipankan001

9. Under what circumstances shall you a grant a editor IP-Block Exempt? If the user is your closest Wiki friend, and asks you not to ask a checkuser (privacy reasons), would you grant the editor IP Block exempt?

A: Hi, Dipankan001, I'm going to answer your question in two parts.

Firstly, I'd be concerned about why my "wiki friend" is asking me to avoid a critical role in IP-block exceptions (as CUs are utilized to confirm that the user's IP address is actually blocked by a range-block). If I can't confirm that his IP is actually being restricted, then the very first requirement for getting such an extraordinary exemption is not met. Even so, and this would apply to any editor asking about this process, I would assure him/her that CU results are strictly confidential, and the details of which can't be released to those who don't have permission to access private information.

Further, and this is just a meta-answer, I'd be very very uncomfortable acting on such a request on behalf of a "wiki friend". I would have to refer their request to another admin. As a request for an IP exemption takes the form of an unblock appeal, I feel I wouldn't be an impartial party (potentially involved) if this is acting on an editor I know really well. Simply put, if I know someone as a 'friend', I shouldn't be acting on their unblock requests. That would be inappropriate on many levels.

As to the first part of your question... I think I've generally addressed the context of an IP exemption in the discussion above... but, in addition to confirming they are a good-faith editor who is hampered by a range block, we need to confirm they agree to never edit through a blocked proxy. And finally, when the range block expires, they would lose the need for the exemption, an an admin would remove it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Salvio giuliano

10. Do you operate, or have you ever operated, other accounts on Wikipedia?

A: No. I have never operated any other accounts on Wikipedia. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dennis Brown

11. Comparing to non-admins, when, if ever, should an admin be exempt or held to a different standard of conduct or policy? This question would include the issue the paid editing, as well as any other examples you can provide.

A: Administrators are trusted members of the community and need to lead by example. When it comes to administrative decisions, administrators should be responsive to discussion of their actions and willing to accept criticism. You ask whether administrators should be "exempt or held to a different standard of conduct or policy". Well, administrators are bound by the same policies and expectations as any other editor, if not more so due to their position.

You mention the issue of 'paid editing'. I haven't been following those debates closely enough to really have a strong feeling on the question. I feel that if the community does come to the consensus that such behavior is wrong, as a formal policy, then both administrators and non-admin editors alike would be bound by it.

I hope you feel this answered your question, but seeing as I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, please feel free to ask a follow-up. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Worm That Turned

12 One thing I've noticed is a use of rollback a week ago which I'm a little concerned about. The page has since been deleted (so the diff is admin only) but at 14:42 on 1 June, an article was created by a new user on "RoomSurge.com". She went on to create another copy 15 minutes later at "Roomsurge.com". The second was tagged for speedy deletion under G11 and A10, but an hour later an admin instead changed the article to a redirect. By this time, the original article was at AfD. You reverted that admin using rollback. So, I'd like to know your thoughts on the following questions.

Hi Worm That Turned, I'm a bit confused by your question, and as I don't remember (with your current description) the context of that edit, could I ask you to clarify a few points please? Are you saying I rollbacked the edit by an admin which redirected the page? Do you have the name of the editors involved so I can see if I left a template warning message?

I just am trying to remember the circumstances of the edit (which I can't see), since I almost always use rollback on clear cases of vandalism by IP addresses, not registered users. Any additional details would be very helpful. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just an accidental rollback. Copying from the deleted history:

(del/undel) (diff) 15:41, 1 June 2012 . . Lord Roem (talk | contribs | block) (4,804 bytes) (Reverted edits by January (talk) to last version by Livitup)
(del/undel) (diff) 15:41, 1 June 2012 . . January (talk | contribs | block) (27 bytes) (←Redirected page to Roomsurge.com)

Note the timestamps, and how Lord Roem doesn't remember making the edit. Maxim_(talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it was most likely an accident, I was more interested in how Lord Roem reacted to the situation. Even if it was an accident, when you press the rollback button there is a clear page change (to Special:Contributions) so I was surprised it went un-noticed. I didn't expect him to remember the edit - who does remember every rollback they make.

Lord Roem, yes, you rollbacked the edit by January which redirected the page, though the fact he was an admin shouldn't have mattered. You did it within 1 minute of January's edit, as Maxim showed. As far as I can see, you did not have anything to do with the article, you didn't comment on the AfD. The article was deleted 4 minutes later.

In light of this, I've glanced at some other rollback edits, and I notice you rarely leave a message on the editors talk page, be it IP or new editor. As such, I've replaced Q(a) (which you're still welcome to answer!) with Q(c) Worm^TT(talk) 07:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

a) Do you believe you handled this correctly? Is there anything you would have done differently?

A:

b) More generally, how do you resolve WP:BITE with problematic articles by new editors?

A: While I'm awaiting a further reply from WTT on part (a), I can still answer this broader question.

Simply put, education. New editors who start out with a real and sincere interest in contributing positively can sometimes make mistakes. Mistakes that, taken in the wrong light, could be seen as disruption or a user with a bad motive. As an encyclopedia that is in constant need of new blood, of new editors to help fill the tougher corners of content, we need to ensure that the way we approach new editors who make mistakes is balanced. If we see a chance, yes even a chance, that the editor meant to do right but just 'messed up', then it is our duty to go out and help that editor. Indeed, I don't think I would have GA articles (or articles at all, for that matter), if I didn't get crucial advice when I was starting off. I created the skeleton of an article, and was in the process of writing the content out. Little did I know that that short article would, just five minutes later, be tagged for speedy deletion. It was only when I finished writing the first large piece of the article, another five minutes later, that I noticed the message.

Only because the editor who gave me my welcome message stuck by me, to help me out and offer me aid, did I realize my mistake, learn from it, and grow to create articles like Washington v. Texas. I may have been dismayed and left, if I didn't get the simple advice Ute in DC gave me.

It is imperative that we be as helpful to new editors as possible. We don't want to attract good-meaning editors who make a single mistake, get a warning, and storm off. It's a delicate balance, but it's a balance we must learn to apply. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

c) Could you describe the process you go through with regards to rollbacking an edit? Where you find it, how you view it, what thought process you go through and what you do next.

A: I will go to the recent changes page and look for the tripping of any filter ("possible vandalism, "possible vandalism to a BLP") and check the edit. If it's something that is unambiguously vandalism ("this is the worst singer. i hatee HER") then I'll click rollback. I will then click on the editor's contributions, sometimes wait. Many times, that was their only edit to the site. Other times, I'll be rollbacking an edit they made that is just in another in the long series of vandalism they've done. I'll then add a vandalism warning tag to their page, sometimes following their contributions (to see if they keep at it) and reporting them (after vandalism post-final warning) to AIV. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Hobit

13: Is there any place off of Wikipedia where you discuss Wikipedia related topics (say IRC or a discussion board)? If so, could you detail those contributions?

A: I probably can count the number of times I've been on the Wikipedia IRC on my hands. But all of those times are very short. The only time I discussed Wikipedia on IRC was a private chat with another AC Clerk. As per other discussion boards, no, I don't have accounts on Wikipedia discussion sites. My internet time is really: 1) Check SCOTUSblog, 2) Check Mail, 3) Go to Wikipedia -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from ~~

14: In light of wp:own can you explain your usage of the terms "my own articles"/"my legal articles" above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.150.145 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A: When I say "my articles", I'm just expressing my joy in finishing work on cases. But in no way do I think, or act, in any possessive way. I love collaboration, and that's how these articles have improved so much. Whether it be getting a source behind a pay-wall from Nuclear Warfare, Circeus adding some legal notes on prior citations for the case, or Savidan giving advice for improving my work, I only grow with the help of other editors who write in the law. Indeed, that's how I came to meet Ironholds.

My support of and need for collaboration is one of the reasons I've stayed with Wikipedia. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Dpmuk

15. This is a follow-up to Q5. Could you explain why you thought it would be OK to upload an image that was "an official 'in-action' shot of the Court, not something owned by Reuters"?

A: When I saw that picture, I thought its status was akin to something like File:111th_US_Senate_class_photo.jpg, an official portrait or something that Reuters news site had copied from the UK Supreme Court's website. As my area of research centers around the U.S. Supreme Court and because their website has pictures of the inside chamber on their front page, I probably thought this UK image was no different and was something in the public domain.

But I do concede my thinking was wrong. I should have not made that assumption and I should have read more about copyright issues before the upload. And as I said, until I get a much stronger grasp of this complex issue, it would not be appropriate for any of my potential administrative work to be in image policy. Further, until I get that better understanding, I won't upload pictures. But I'm willing to learn. Copyright may not be as sexy as First Amendment and appellate issues, but I've always been open to growth as an editor and this instance is no different. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional optional question from RegentsPark

16. I looked through the three mediation cases you've listed below and while I was generally impressed by your handling of the cases, I noticed that the resolution of the cases themselves (except, perhaps, the Max Planck one) was murky with mostly inconsequential results. Given that the time and effort spent on each case by you as well as by the various participants was significant, could you please comment on the usefulness of the mediation process and, if you have the time, give an example of a situation where you believe that the reward/effort trade-off has been positive?

A: Thank you RegentsPark, I think this is a great question. I think I said it best at my nomination for the Mediation Committee: "Some of these cases have resulted in parties pulling out due to the exhaustion of the process, and sometimes there is an inherent conduct element to the case that I, as a mediator, could not resolve (Kendrick mass went to ArbCom). Despite these setbacks, I have found that in each case, a step forward was taken, editors felt more comfortable to work together, and I grew tremendously as a mediator. In the Gibraltar mediation, the main dispute concerned the wording of a few paragraphs of text. It was an intense dispute. Yet, after several weeks of long discussion, the fire of intensity within the parties seemed to evaporate, and good-faith discussions were taking place. Mediation achieved its most important job: getting warring editors to sit down, and actually speak to each other. At the very least, that is an important goal in our process."

Whenever the editors involved in a conflict can resume communicating with each other, there is a huge positive trade-off. Why? It means that now the editors themselves will be able to resolve the dispute, and that's the best way to do it. It means that not only have they agreed to work with each other on this specific disagreement, but that they're willing to establish an environment where reasoned discussion can take place, for all future conflicts. In my opinion, that is the greatest success mediation can ever have. -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional optional question from TParis

17.. You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in only twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation? If anyone has a question why I said "neither are sysops" then please contact me privately and I'll explain. It has nothing to do with "sysop privilege."

So, just so I have the context right: A makes edit adding contentious material with weak source, B rollbacks edit, A adds it back in ("read the source"), B removes it again ("source not valid"), A rollback the removal, B then rollback the addition a third time. Is that a correct reading of your question? -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right.--v/r - TP 20:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A: Thank you for the clarification.

First and foremost, Editor B has violated 3RR. The fact that the original edit he or she was reverting is "contentious" is not relevant to the fact that the editor reverted an edit three times in the course of a 24-hour period. That is an infraction of the bright-line rule. Per usual practice, in this hypothetical, I would probably block him for 24 hours.

However, Editor A is not in a much better situation. While he has not violated 3RR, it seems he would be very close to violating it, so I would write a context-specific (i.e. non-template) warning on his page to stop edit warring. If he continued such conduct, and he did it without discussion whatsoever, it could reasonably be seen as battlefield conduct, subject to discretionary sanctions that are imposed on the Abortion topic.

As to the page itself, I would revert the page to the version before the contentious edit, and invite both editors on their talk pages to discuss it on Talk:Abortion. Once Editor B's block expired, I would either try to help initiate a discussion myself, or ask another admin (preferably one with some DR experience) to monitor the discussion's progress. If it really is the case that the source is weak, then the editors involved in this topic area would probably come to the consensus that it shouldn't be included. Especially if it's a contentious addition, some form of guided discussion is probably the best course to take.

Lastly, I would consider removing (at least temporarily) Editor A & B's rollback permissions. Use of rollback to gain advantage in an edit war is not appropriate, and the usage here seems like it could easily devolve into "A rollback->B rollback->A rollback->B rollback..." unless someone intervenes. Now, it should be noted that under prior community sanctions, Editor A would also be in trouble for violating a 1RR rule. However, new discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee "supersede" those rules, which suggests that rule is no longer applicable. If I'm wrong in that interpretation (I didn't follow the Abortion case, had just returned from wikibreak), then Editor A would also be blocked for 24 hours as explained above.

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• I have made a short list of the more complex instances of mediation I've been involved in, replying to a question by GabeMc. Anyone else who wants to know more about my experience in dispute resolution or my approach to mediation, please see this page.
  • Gibraltar mediation
  • Kendrick mass mediation
  • Max Planck Society mediation
• I will be withdrawing my request for adminship at this time.
  I thank all of you for giving me ideas on what to improve on, especially some of the opposes that laid out their feelings in an understanding way; and for that, I am very appreciative. I hope to come back here again in 6 months, so I can expand the areas I help Wikipedia to the administrative realm. I truly love this website, and I love writing articles. This won't deter me from that or any other thing I do. You'll still see me mediating, writing, and clerking. Whether you Supported, Opposed, or were just undecided, I hope to bump into you again in the future, through some facet of my work. And who knows, maybe I'll see you in D.C. on July 12. Best to all, Lord Roem (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'm (obviously) sorry to see you withdraw, but happy to see you in DC :). I stand by my nomination statement and I stand by your candidacy - you're a tremendous editor. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Support — Lord Roem may not have many edits, but is overall a great editor! ⇒TAP 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
3. Of course My76Strat (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Support Seems like a good guy. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Roem is trustworthy, sensible, competent, and hard-working. An excellent candidate who I am pleased to support. AGK [•] 21:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Since he's not around anymore to say it, I'm stealing the line. "Why not?" Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Qualified candidate Courcelles 22:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Why n...darn you, Sven. MJ94 (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
9. Exemplary candidate, with excellent skills in dispute resolution. Best of luck mate. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
10. Support Seems ready.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Support per Cyberpower678 m'encarta (t)
12. Strongest possible Support LR has a great head on his shoulders and does wonderful work with the clerks --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Support Sterling work in dispute resolution, great content contributions, and a high all-round level of clue. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Moving my !vote to neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

13. Support - I've seen this editor around the Wiki several times, never fails to lend a helping hand... seems like a great admin candidate. :) Theopolisme _TALK 06:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
14. Support Nice range of solid contributions. Deserves the mop for that along with four barnstars. Minima© (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Support Obviously a valuable contributor. Low edit count is not a concern for me: the fact that edit count is a concern says more about RfA hoop-jumping requirements than it says about the qualities of the candidate who seems to be trustworthy at meta matters and experienced at content creation. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
16. T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    I was told (at my failed RfA) that rationales are not required here, was that inaccurate? — GabeMc (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    The failure at your RfA was not due to a lack of rationales. And they are not required, although others are free to ask "why?". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Dennis, I never said, nor did I imply that my RfA failure was due to a lack of rationales, I merely asked for clarification if they are even required or expected, so as to know the "truth", since during that RfA someone told me they were not. More random spheres of influence stuff; i.e. anything on wikipedia can be true or untrue, depending who you ask, or who wants to tell you "how it is"? — GabeMc (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Gabe, please end this side show. Timotheus !voted without an explanation. Someone asked why. If Timotheus wants to reply, he will. The rest doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    @Bbb23, "sideshow"? I actually asked Nikkimaria a simple question, not Dennis or you. Is it inappropriate to ask for clarification when expectations are unclear? Are you really saying that Nikkimaria is free to ask questions, but I cannot ask her a question? — GabeMc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Gabe, you can ask me whatever you like, though if this conversation needs to get much longer we should take it elsewhere :-). No, rationales are not required - but they do help make this a discussion rather than a vote, and might convince others; anyone is free to query a vote (or query a query). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

17. Strong Support Experienced editor, knows was he is doing, as per WP:NOTNOTNOW. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
18. Support, per everyone above and the skill as an ArbClerk shown.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
19. Support I've seen Lord Roem about and always thought them to be clueful, intelligent, and sensible. Having looked at their contribs, I find nothing of concern. Slightly low edit count is easily accounted for by the fact this editor has made zero automated edits. LR has relevant experience in the admin areas they wish to work in and I have no reason to believe they are incapable of using the tools in other admin areas. Pol430 talk to me 11:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
20. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
21. →Bmusician 11:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate who has done good work in several areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
23. Seems fine, good article work. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
24. Support Good work, I see nothing that might give me a reason not to support. The Determinator p t c 15:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Solid work in several key administrative areas plus some good content work plus a collegial approach and willingness to discuss and not get hot-headed. I don't normally support users with less than a year's experience, but I do support those who have shown exceptional willingness to help out, and exceptional understanding of how Wikipedia operates. Yes, there will be mistakes, but I'd rather have someone who is willing to get stuck in and learn from their mistakes, than someone too timid to be bold, or who don't learn from their mistakes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
26. What I have seen of him has been nothing but positive. — foxj 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
27. Support Look fine, good luck in advance--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
28. Secret ^account 17:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

29. Support. Has clue, will travel. Needs the tools, will use the tools wisely. Not much more I can say. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
30. Support - Eh, I though he already was an admin. More than qualified and an asset to Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
31. Support – their DR work is impressive. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
32. Support - Candidate does a lot of good and I believe will perform well as an admin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - looks like someone who can be trusted with the tools. While the Reuters issue is concerning, we all make mistakes, and LR appears to have learned from this one, which is about all we can ask. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - thought he was already an admin, to be honest... Prioryman (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
35. Support Lord Roem is an excellent editor, whose work here gives ample evidence that this editor will make a good administrator as well. While experience is important, an overemphasis on raw edit count is a mistake, in my opinion. One whose work here is devoted mostly to content creation and mediation will rack up edit counts at a much slower place than an ardent vandal fighter or typo corrector using automated tools. We need a wide range of productive editors, and any moderately experienced, productive editor with a clue ought to be eligible to become an administrator. Despite my deep respect for Jayen466 and Fetchcomms, I do not believe that a single copyright related image upload problem is disqualifying. Fetchcomms wrote that "I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not". I would rephrase that to say that I care that everyone is committed to copyright compliance. It takes a specialist to understand image copyright deeply, and I said and did some foolish things in good faith regarding images in my early days as an editor. What is important here is that this editor immediately conceded the error, and has pledged not to get involved again in image copyright matters until developing a much deeper understanding. That is the mark of a mature editor and a good candidate for administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
36. Support. Trusted and respected by the most trusted and respected Wikipedians (i.e., the Arbs) - that's good enough for me. Solid contributions, sufficient tenure. QU ^TalkQu 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    Support. LR has an impressive track record for one who has been here such a relatively short time and has such a "low" edit count. I was amused to see that he and I interacted on his first day of edits. Apparently, I reverted one of his edits because he didn't cite to anything. He very nicely came to my Talk page to discuss it. As he is now, he was polite, interested in learning, and gracious. He already showed this apparent capacity he has to grasp things quickly and to interact well with others. A suitable temperament is important in an admin. I've also looked at some of the AfDs he's participated in. Although he doesn't seem to have submitted many nominations himself (one?), his behavior at AfD is clear, civil - and, remarkably for the somewhat contentious AfD world, he even demonstrates a sense of humor. His clerking, his involvement in mediation - all these things seem to be part of a piece, and they all speak well of him. Anything he lacks (e.g., the copyright policies) - and all of us are lacking in some areas - he can pick up if need be. We can't and shouldn't expect perfection in admins (or editors); nor should we fault people for being not completely well-rounded. There's plenty of work to go around (otherwise, why would there be backlogs?). He's done well in a short space of time and promises to go nowhere but up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

    I am unhappily withdrawing my support for LR because of the brouhaha about Q17. I have reread LR's response and the ensuing debate about his response multiple times, and LR's failure to acknowledge his error about 3RR does not do him credit. The fact that he misunderstands 3RR in and of itself is of some concern, but it wouldn't have been enough to strike my !vote. However, everyone should own up to their mistakes, senior editors more so, and admins even more so. We fault editors all the time for not doing so at ANI. Plus, he compounded his failure in two additional ways. First, he defended his error by deflecting the discussion to edit-warring instead of his original answer, and, second, even after all of this was pointed out to him by more than one editor he still didn't come forward. True, the discretionary sanction issue was harder (at least in my view) than the 3RR issue, but this isn't about competence, but about being open to correction. I'm sure this RfA must be stressful for him, but I can't excuse his response on that basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

37. Support Great work on law and DYK. —HueSatLum 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - I'd prefer a higher edit count and not have such a recent, long editing gap, but his assets (such as his article creation) seem to make him an appropriate admin candidate nonetheless. Rlendog (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
39. Support - Yes, Yes, and for the last time YES! This candidate demonstrates exactly what Wikipedia needs in an administrator. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
40. Support - Though completely unfamiliar with this nominee until now, I have complete trust in the nominator and was very impressed with answers provided by Lord Roem in the opening segment of this RfA. He possesses very good communication skills, good logic, and an attitude worthy of being trusted with the tools.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
41. Support I Like this candidate's answer to my questions. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)}
42. Seems to have good judgement from what I've seen. Can't see any glaring problems. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
43. Support The (relatively) low edit count is easily outweighed by the quality of LR's contributions to the project overall. Great candidate, and I really like the answers given to Q3 and Q6. — sparklism ^hey! 09:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Seems to be a good editor, and I doubt that ArbCom would trust someone enough to make him a clerk if he were untrustworthy enough that he wouldn't be a good admin. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
45. Support Good editor and good responses to questions. I say give him a shot at the mop. Rotorcowboy ^talk
    _contribs 14:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
46. Support as per reasons stated above.Greg Heffley 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
47. Support No concerns here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    Weak support - Some concerns have been raised, but I don't see anything that doesn't appear to be just an isolated mistake yet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but I cannot support any more. Just too many issues have been raised. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

48. Support. I think the answers to questions have been fine so far, and the reasons for opposing have been unconvincing so far. For me, a very critical question that I ask myself is whether or not I trust the candidate, and here the answer is a clear yes, I do have that trust. I pretty much wrote WP:AAFFD, and I'm not going to hold it against anyone if they made an isolated mistake about file copyright policy. I've been observing the Arb clerking, and seeing that the candidate also has experience both with DYK and MEDCAB, I'm satisfied that they have good judgment and experience with Wiki-disagreements. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
49. --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC) jo
50. Support. Could use them well, no concerns about the user. Rcsprinter (chat) 20:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
51. Support - Lord Roem does have clue, he just joined the Arbcom clerk trainee program and fell right into place as if they have been there forever, not an easy thing to do. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - I was neutral leaning towards oppose and was close to a !vote on either of those two options. However on seeing some of reasons given for opposing, I can't help but needing to give a little counter weight. RFA !voters place way too much emphasis on arbitrary requirements and yet at the same time criticises any candidate who's history they feel is a little too perfect when compared to such requirements matrix. There's not enough mainspace edits, there's not enough Wikipedia space edits, the proportion of different namespace edits are too high, too low, the number of XfDs !votes which matched closes are too high, it's too low, the answers to the questions are too perfect, they don't get into enough conflict, they get into edit wars, .... Can we please focus on what actually matters? Does the candidate understand the project policies and guidelines to a good enough standard, is the candidate generally going to make the right decisions when using any additional rights they are given, and are the candidate sensible enough to know if and when they are not yet familiar enough with a particular admin area so as to not take administrative actions & decisions there? -- KTC (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

    The criteria you see people using are their way of determining if there's evidence of satisfactory answers to those questions. What do you use? Maybe you go by what a candidate says at RfA instead? Many !voters (myself included) don't consider that as reliable as their history. Seeing as you seem to be referring to rationale I mentioned, I'll respond by saying his history doesn't seem "too perfect" to me. Far from it. It just seems too political, and there's not enough history to begin with. If he's promoted, it'll be on the basis of his arbitration and mediation duties offsetting the lack of regular editing experience, and he dove into those areas rather quickly for my taste. Not that it's a bad thing to get into those early on if you can, but I don't think it should be a springboard to adminship. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:20, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

    I certainly understand and for that matter agrees with using past record as predictor of future behaviour. The problem I have is the arbitrary nature of some opposes basing on nothing more than some randomly seleted statistical criteria that often conflict with other !voters equally arbitrary criteria. Citing File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg which only happened a month ago to argue that LR is not yet ready is perfectly fine. On the other hand for example, opposing for no other reason than the candidate not having participated in some random number of XfDs instead of focusing on whether the candidate give reasoned and policies or guidelines based argument is less so. My point re. too perfect is that if the community want to judge a candidate using arbitrary statistical criteria, then don't also opposes a candidate who's interested in becoming an admin that tailors their edits to fulfilling those criteria. -- KTC (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

53. Support - Seems a fine and level-headed candidate. Its not like many editors are clamoring to be administrators anymore, and he seems committed to it at least.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
54. Support after a review of random contributions. The general sense of what I saw left me with an impression of policy knowledge and clue to a degree that exceeded any expectations I might have had based on a pure edit count and tenure. Clue trumps. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
55. Support: Impressed with work as a clerk given the contentious issues involved of doing that well. --LauraHale (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
56. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. I like the tone of the answer about the copyright file uploading boo boo. Hey, every one of us here has fucked up a time or ten, being able to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them is the key thing. Good case made for having use for the tool box. There is one (1) problem though and that is an extremely low edit count and short duration at WP. I truly think it takes a couple years to learn the ins and outs of the culture. Ordinarily this is the sort of think that would put me in the NOTNOW camp. But I figure having Ironholds vouch is worth 10,000 edits and a year in itself, in round numbers. There ya go. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
57. Support, though I would strongly recommend that the candidate stay away from copyright issues per Q5. Seems qualified and sensible and I have no reason to think they'd use the admin tools inappropriately. There's nothing wrong with the candidate's edit count and tenure, 5,000 edits is sufficient for an admin candidate. Hut 8.5 09:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Still on the short side of 5,000, of which a minor fraction are in mainspace, and only 7 consecutive months of editing following a 8 month hiatus with a total of zero edits. We all set this bar differently, but that's really borderline... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    It's only borderline because of the unnecessary standards inflation that has taken place at RfA in recent years. Edit count, after a point, becomes a rather weak measure of editor competence. And it's not like the candidate doesn't know how to write article content, they have a long string of GAs and DYKs. Hut 8.5 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

58. Support I actually thought that Lord Roem was an admin, and am comfortable with him gaining the tools based on what I've seen of his edits and comments in various locations. The reasons for asking for the tools are sound, and the answers to the above questions are sensible. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
59. Support as per NewYorkBrad, above and below. I see good, clueful edits from this candidate, and I don't see anything that would indicate likely problems from him as an admin. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
60. Support, if the worst thing he's done is made an isolated mistake uploading an image (and image policy and copyright is a very tough area), I don't think I'm too worried that he's going to misuse the tools. Seems to have a very level head and a gentle way of dealing with people, from review of his edits and discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
61. Support...I originally opposed. I've thought about this candidate a lot and my review of their contributions indicates that they would be a net asset as an admin.MONGO 16:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
62. I see no evidence to suggest that he would misuse the tools, so support. Guettarda (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
63. Holding his own clerking the complicated and messy Fae ArbCom case, and not easily swayed by simplistic source bean-counting that is used to justify articles these days. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
64. Support - After failing to !vote in several recent RFAs for other valuable contributors to DYK, at least I can weigh in on this one. Lord Roem rolls up the sleeves to help in a variety of areas, understands procedure and protocol better than most, and demonstrates consistent good judgment everywhere I've observed his work. --Orlady (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
65. Support - (1) we desperately need more admins who have worked on caselaw articles, and (2) he passes my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Just curious, why do we desperately need more admins who have worked on case law articles? Jenks24 (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    He also stated that he wants to work AIV, which is an area that is indeed rather under-patrolled at times, IMO.  -- WikHead (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

66. Support - I think there is a good chance the user will be a net positive, despite concerns raised below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Adminship is basically irrevocable. It should not be gained on "good chances" of "net positives", because this encyclopedia is filled with admins, and those with higher permissions, given them on "good chances" which did not come to pass. I'd rather see it given out with more certainty in six months than on guesswork today.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

67. Support per Cullen368. Copyright understanding is important if you're going to be working with copyright issues. A commitment not to work in the area until/unless he has gained such an understanding is sufficient for me. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Dede2008 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Imperfect, but seems to have clue. --Dweller (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Nathan ^T 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
71. Support Sure. His mediation efforts reveal a serious editor who is willing to listen and I doubt if he's going to go off and mess things up. Not much point in waiting either. While I do take this whole RfA process seriously, we should recognize that generally good people can get turned off by the process and, quite easily, move on to other things in life. As someone recently said "it's only a f*****g web site" so, when a halfway decent person is willing to help out in a larger way, I say "give em a shot"! --regentspark (comment) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
72. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
73. Support - The candidate's work on legal articles, while limited, seems to be of good quality. I've watched Lord Roem's clerking from a distance and did not see any of his statements as being unusual or over the top. If we are wondering if someone really understands the issues that admins have to deal with, watching them clerk a difficult AC case is good stress test. Those who are not happy with his work there should be able to point to diffs from the history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence that they disagree with. One oppose voter criticized this diff from LR's clerking as being snarky, but it seems harmless to me. Perhaps the wrong diff was picked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
74. Support - Seems to have a good grasp of the fundamentals needed for the job. While length of time on Wikipedia may be a valid concern, simple edit count is not. "Quality, not quantity" applies here. One should not be expected to spend every waking moment working on Wikipedia in order to be considered qualified for adminship. Taroaldo (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    This is just a question, so please don't take it as "badgering". You say that "simple edit count" is effectively irrelevant, but would you be concerned if a candidate had zero edits to article space? Only ten edits? Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Perhaps I could have worded it better. I view length of time on Wikipedia as an important consideration because admins need more than a solid grasp of the technical elements of Wikipedia. Getting a sense of the community and gaining an understanding of how to effectively manage interactions within such a diverse group are things which can't be learned by reading a policy manual; these are learned through observation and experience. Seeing comments like "I have trouble supporting 'RfA X' because of a low edit count" is what concerns me. Back in the time of the "cabal" debate, we encountered a number of children/teens who drove a sense of competition over simple edit counts. They drove their edit counts up through hundreds of revisions to their user pages and wanton rapid-fire reversions of edits which looked like vandalism on Recent Changes, but were not vandalism (eg reverting users who were archiving their own talk pages). More than one of these individuals started seeking support for their desire for adminship based primarily on substantial edit counts. Bottom line: yes, I would support an editor with ten edits over an editor with ten thousand if those ten edits were stellar and were comprehensive enough to show a solid grasp of a variety of Wikipedia policies, while the other editor used his ten thousand edits to craft a remarkable user page. Merely looking at the numbers and raising a concern due to a "low" edit count is, IMO, not a viable objection. Taroaldo (talk) 04:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks for clarifying that. I understand where you're coming from, and I don't entirely disagree with you. Malleus Fatuorum 11:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

75. Support Torreslfchero (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
76. Support I believe that this user will not abuse the tools. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
77. Support I had trouble supporting this editor because of the low edit count and concerns about experience. However, I designed my question to specifically target different aspects of Wikipedia that would each need to be addressed. I didn't really care about the answer itself, but that the answer displayed evidence that the candidate did their research and addressed each particular component. In this case, they appropriately addressed misuse of rollback, arbcom sanctions, edit warring, misuse of edit summaries in place of discussion, and dispute resolution. I'm satisfied that this editor has clue. I may have done things a little differently, but in all honestly I'm not the more experience admin myself. I think this editor can be trusted and is competent. I also think this editor is surrounded by other very capable sysops whom I trust.--v/r - TP 22:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
78. Support A good candidate. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
79. Support Nothing against.Érico ^msg 01:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
80. Wifione ^Message 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

81. Support I'm sure his Lordship can be trusted with the mop! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Weak Oppose Relatively low edit count, plus user was inactive for about 6 months. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, some of us have lives outside Wikipedia and can't necessarily edit on some occasions.[1] If anything, I would hope having work outside Wikipedia would make one more qualified to be an editor than someone who is over-invested. I do share your concerns about edit count, though. →Στc. 03:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

If anything, LR is a personification of the fact that we put too much emphasis on edit count. That number is so arbitrary it would be more responsible of you to flip a coin. My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the edit count, although the most recent 2 successful nominations had very high edit counts. I am also having my RFA in the Summer after I get 5-6K edits (I currently have around 2.5K. Plus, he has experience and knows what he is doing, and for this reason, I am changing my vote to Support. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Says all the right things. – I'd like to see a little more individuality, rather than a weave of calculated soundbites. Disagree with the response to the age question. Reuters upload shows lack of clue. Sorry – perhaps next time. JN466 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   A discussion of the age question is likely to turn into a distraction, but if it becomes a significant issue in this RfA, I'll be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, I'll wait till this one is over and then start a thread at WT:RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   So, Jayen, your issue is he sounds too good to be true? Have you considered the possibility that he might just be a very good candidate? And I agree, the reuters upload shows a lack of clue. The acceptance of this lack and independent judgment-call to avoid images until he understands them better shows a hell of a lot of it, though. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   JN466, there is a measure of bad faith in the assumption you have published above. My first impression is that it belies the nature of JN466 as I recollect; for I remember seeing you as an editor not prone to such likes. If you have some gut intuition, follow it, but don't publish a factual statement that goes above your ability to know. Primarily this is to accord your conduct to the platform endorsed by the preponderance of your prior actions. My76Strat (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   Editors who aren't happy with the perceived level of individuality from a candidate are free to ask their own questions designed to elicit an individual response. See the related discussion happening now at WT:RFA. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   The longer the Fæ case runs, the less impressed I am with Lord Roem's clerking on it. There is a troubling lack of maturity and impartiality. Take this bit of snark just now. It's perfectly okay to have opinions about cases, but if you are clerking they really should not show in this way. --JN466 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   How can you possibly interpret that as "snark" or even a statement of opinion? He's not stating any opinion in the diff you gave. Did you mean to give another diff instead? Prioryman (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

2. I acknowledge that File:UK Supreme Court, in session.jpeg was an isolated error. But I have always held that all admins should have a good knowledge of how copyright laws and Wikipedia are related. From an ideological standpoint, I don't think m:Mission cannot be properly upheld by any user without a proper understanding of copyright on Wikipedia. This includes knowing why we use free content, how we define free content, and when we use non-free content. I don't care how many images the candidate uploads or doesn't upload. I care that everyone understands copyright, admin or not, and it doesn't set a good precedent in my book to grant admin tools to someone without this understanding. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   If your argument is effectively that someone who has made an isolated error cannot be considered for adminship, I suggest that you're setting the bar way too high. Nobody could possibly pass RFA with that kind of criterion - everybody makes mistakes. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Speak for yourself, Prioryman. As I recently noted elsewhere, I have never made a mistake. Seriously, though, I tend to agree with you about mistakes, but I believe that Fetchcomms is saying something a little different, that LR's lack of understanding about copyright is too important to grant him the tools. That said, copyright law is horribly complicated in real life. Understanding Wikipedia's policies, which aren't precisely the same, is not easy, either. Based on LR's obvious grasp of legal concepts, it seems unlikely to me that he wouldn't be able to come up to speed. I've seen current admins express some frustration and seek "advice" from others more experienced in Wikipedia copyright policy. I don't believe LR's limited understanding should be a bar to supporting his nomination. I do think he should reconsider his position and, rather than stay away from the issue, educate himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   I agree with Bbb23. Also do bear in mind that LR did not show any lack of awareness or concern related to copyright, he said he incorrectly interpreted it as data within the public domain. It's really quite different than being "unaware" My76Strat (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   Prioryman, my argument is quite clear. I will not support anyone not demonstrating a strong understanding of copyright as it applies and relates to Wikipedia. The number of mistakes does not matter; for example someone who may be making thousands of edits in the file namespace may make more than one mistake but could still demonstrate a strong knowledge of our copyright policies. I agree that understanding Wikipedia's policies can be difficult. But it has been obvious to me that admins who don't understand them are involved in more drama, embarrassing and time-consuming mistakes, and user dissatisfaction issues, than admins who do understand them. I have a no-nonsense view on basic copyright issues on Wikipedia, such as being able to identify whether an online news photograph is in the public domain (from the file page, it seems that the candidate was somewhat unsure of the image's status) as it relates directly to our mission. I'm saddened that many current admins still do not have a basic grasp of copyright policy here, but that doesn't mean we should let the trend continue. Bbb23, I agree with your last statement, and think that the candidate should jump into copyright issues with a user experienced in that area, which I find to be the best and fastest way to familiarize oneself with such a topic. But I personally think that is something to do before adminship. My76Strat, I disagree that the candidate "did not show any lack of awareness or concern related to copyright" as I must point out that a) he claims the photo did not look like it was owned by Reuters when he indicated on the now-deleted upload form that it was made by Reuters; b) that if it was an "official" shot of the court—I am assuming that "official" means taken by the UK government—it would likely fall under Crown copyright; and c) on the upload form, the candidate writes that he is "[n]ot sure" about the assertion that the image is in the public domain, which he made because it was "a picture of a government entity". I would excuse the candidate for missing point b, but points a and c are basic copyright questions faced on Wikipedia every day that should really be understood before becoming an admin. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you Fetchcomms, I am honored that you saw fit to append such a thoughtful reply; especially that it was entirely an effort for my betterment. My76Strat (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Concerns with lack of experience. Candidate plans on working in AfD, but has participated in less than 100 AfD's (with no NAC's). He also has less than 5000 edits, and has had less than 12 months of active editing. Overall, a good content contributor, but I don't see what the rush is. I'd rather see another 6-12 months of activity. -Scottywong| confer _ 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The reasons for supporting are unconvincing. It's ridiculous to consider someone with just a little over 2000 edits to the mainspace to be a suitable admin candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   Then again, if being an admin is really "No Big Deal" (a little-used phrase from yesteryear), that's not necessarily terminal, assuming that a candidate knows what he whats to do and feels a few extra buttons will help him do it in terms of actual janitorial work. Content creators and copy editors are a different food group than vandal fighters, file shifters, resolution arbiters, newbie helpers, etc. and it's not really completely fair applying super high achievement standards in the former capacities before assigning tools which might be of real aid to some of the latter aspects. As you and I both know "the buttons" have nothing whatsoever to do with ability to function in the formerly mentioned capacities — in fact, they can be a positive detriment, removing useful writers for janitorial tasks. Moreover, requiring a high level of mainspace performance before granting the toolbucket implies promotion — which is a notion I think we should all abandon. The issue is whether this person has a valid need for the tools and is this person competent to use them and worthy of community trust. While I agree that tenure and edits are definitely borderline here, I think in the final analysis we can assume this request for the gear is reasonable and its granting would be safe. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   That's a very big "if". "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride." Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose - My only contact with Lord Roem was when I reviewed his FAC nomination, the archive is here. My impression was "this editor doesn't know that he doesn't know". It is admirable that he wants to work in such a difficult area (US Supreme Court decisions) but I don't think his contributions (in that particular article - I haven't looked at other contribs) were of particularly high quality. I don't agree with what another editor said, that he has an "obvious grasp of legal concepts." It also concerns me that after I made the strong opposing comments he pretty much abandoned the FAC. He engaged in a little bit of discussion - but not much and most of the problems I identified with the article are still there. So not confident with his ability to judge quality content and per Scottywong - not that many active months editing. BlueBonnet 16:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   Oppose...I usually support at Rfa's or stay out...but this editor lacks experience.MONGO 17:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I'm sorry, but I can't support yet. There is a disturbing trend here with the candidate simply agreeing too readily without any independent thought. A great many of his AFD votes are simply "me too" votes tacked on at the last moment or "per $editor" or "agree with above", leading to almost 100% in agreement with AFDs as of late and over 90% overall, which is unusually high. Their answers to the questions posted, including my own, seem to be what the candidate thinks we want to hear, offering no real opinions or insight. Admins must be independent and think for themselves, rather than parrot their compatriots in a "me too" fashion. An administrators that will blindly agree with the majority, without a willingness to express an opinion or take a stand is unhealthy for our self-governing system. Perhaps is is due to a lack of experience or confidence, but we need our administrators to be more independent than this candidate appears to be at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Sorry...not enough experience for me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose per JN466 and Dennis Brown, and lack of experience. Nothing personal to Lord Roem, but I'm squeamish about people who I feel have tailored their activities towards gunning for admin and clearly know what to say and do to accomplish it. One can treat RfA as a political venue (the argument could be made that it is that way no matter how we try to treat it), but I'm uncomfortable with people who do play into that. I was involved in a mediation where Lord Roem presided and felt similarly there, that he would've been more effective had he taken more risks rather than played to what the maximum audience would like to hear. I try not to judge since RfA fosters this kind of thing, but nevertheless, I don't think it's time for this editor. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:19, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

   Problem is that at this point people who don't tailor their activities towards adminship are probably not going to get through RFA. In fact at this point RFA is first and foremost a test of a candidates political skillset.©Geni 01:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   True, but two things: I get that feeling more so from this user, as again per Dennis Brown who described it better than I could, his statements are excessively agreeable. Also, some people play the political game after having been here a while editing for the sake of editing. I get the feeling that this user skipped over that part and focused on adminship more or less from the getgo. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:19, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose Seems like a nice editor who should write more and try again in 6 months. At the next RfA, use a grammar-checker and otherwise copy-edit your responses, e.g. to question 7. Again, generally good but not qualified yet. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose Per Equazcion. --John (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Kiefer and Equazcion raise valid points. That said, the candidate simply does not meet my my criteria. When these, or an aggregate of them are reached, I would be happy to support a future attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose I think candidate will benefit from another shot down the road after accumulating more experience...Modernist (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose My vote is based on observation of LR's performance as a clerk on the recent Fae arbitration case. It's been amateurish, immature, and possibly biased. Under the best interpretation, a clerk, just like an admin, needs to know not just how to apply the tools but also be capable of engaging in skillful diplomacy, ESPECIALLY in difficult situations, and that just has not happened here. Previous clerks have not had this problem. LR's actions have only inflamed existing difficult situations and I'm concerned that their admin actions would entail the same kind of pitfalls. Also, someone should add "Not a place to practice being a lawyer" to WP:NOT (the inability to communicate in "human" rather than "faux-legalese" has been part of the problem here).VolunteerMarek 06:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    All my actions as a clerk, as explained in the discussion in the neutral section below, were either under direct request of the Committee, or in enforcement of guidelines set down by the drafting arbitrator. If you have concerns about the rules of any case, that's something to discuss with the individual arbitrators in question, not me. Lord Roem (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I imagine that some interpretation of the guidelines is required. I assume you'd agree a clerk could handle the issues and interpret the guidelines in a problematic way. I've looked over a bunch of your interactions with others in the Fae case. There are no huge red flags, but there is a fair bit of grating in your interactions with a fair percentage of the people involved. It _is_ a very difficult and impassioned case. I can't tell if those problems are because of you, the case (and personalities therein) , or some combination. Hobit (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've been following the Arb case pretty closely, where I'm not particularly invested in one "side" or the other, and I'm just not seeing a problem with the clerking. My failure to see something may of course just be a failure on my part, but it appears that the Arbs and the other Arb clerks who have commented here do not see a problem either. One part of being an administrator is dealing with users who react strongly to things in ways that most of the community would not react. It seems to me that reactions against the candidate's clerking decisions may be quite subjective in that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I agree it's subjective and I too am seeing the general support of the Arbs and clerks. I'm not certain that his clerking has been troubled, but he does seem "rough around the edges" in that I'm seeing a number of users have trouble with his clerking (something that in my experience is fairly rare honestly, perhaps our clerks are just that good). Is it because the case is so difficult? Am I just making mountains out of molehills? I'm not sure. But my gut says it's at least partly him. I'm also a bit concerned by his comment in this thread that seemed to indicate that any problems with his clerking must be the fault of the rules or the Arbs. Being rude or heavy handed isn't required. Hobit (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

14. Oppose per Malleus. Needs more experience Bgwhite (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose Failed to master his brief in this case recently. There's a big gap in his contributions last year which confirms the general impression that the candidate lacks experience. Warden (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
16. oppose but with a grain of salt. I've had some conflicts with this user as a clerk and I'm not certain which of us was in the wrong (perhaps both). On that basis I was going to go neutral as I don't really trust my own judgement there. The following things pushed me into the oppose column:
    • His following me to an AfD seemed a bit inappropriate for a clerk.
    • For someone focused on dispute resolution, I'm not impressed with their skills in that area.
    • The general lack of experience is a bit troubling.
    • VolunteerMarek's comments indicate I'm not the only one seeing problems in his clerking.

    Hobit (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

17. Oppose There is no question that Lord Roem is an excellent editor and will make an excellent admin. He has the right temperment, the right thought process and a great set of knowledge. However, I am seeing enough small errors that I'd like the editor to have a bit more time on wikipedia before being given the bit. This isn't a numerical thing, it's a gut instinct thing - and I'd be open to changing my mind. It's a shame, because I don't see the need for the bit, this premature nomination seems a little over eager. If I'd seen more experience, I'd have seen more need for the tools and I'd have supported. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Been watching this RfA with interest, and based on the answer at question 17, I'm satisfied that my gut instinct was correct. No one has violated 3RR. They have violated EW, but a "WTF do you think you're doing edit warring on an article, keep it up and I'll block the pair of you" warning would have been sufficient. It was a slow edit war, not a fast paced one, so that should have stopped the disruption. I don't deny Lord Roem would make a fine admin, but I don't think he's ready yet. Worm^TT(talk) 10:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

18. Oppose; unfortunately. I've seen this editor around recently and he seems a decent enough guy. However there are quite a few red flags that suggest he is not quite ready for the tools. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Just to add; the answer to Q17 makes me, sadly, firmer in this oppose. The mechanics of discretionary sanctions are something any prospective admin should be aware - and even were they not applicable to the example his handling is not something I would like to see encouraged. For reference I'd consider a proper answer one that noted the Arbcom ruling, checked the users for prior Discretionary Sanction warnings, warn if applicable, investigate background an apply blocks if necessary... but with a preference to protect the page. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

19. Oppose. Please forgive me if this sounds big-headed, it's meant as a (sort-of) compliment. This RfA reminds me a lot of my first RfA—I had a bit of experience under my belt, a few thousand edits, I was enthusiastic, and when I was approached by an admin I knew and held in high esteem and asked if I would accept an RfA nomination, I thought I was ready for anything adminship could throw at me. I was certainly competent enough to mash the buttons, but I had no idea of the subtleties of adminship, and those subtleties are the reason we don't have monkeys to mash the buttons so we can focus on the encyclopaedia. Adminship is much more about tact, diplomacy, and judgement, and in this context, those things only come from well-rounded experience. My best advice would be to do what you enjoy doing, not do anything solely because it would look good in an RfA, and try to gain an understanding of as many areas of the project as possible (particularly images and copyright more generally, as that is an area of particular importance in which it seems you lack experience). After six months or a year doing that (and there really is no rush), if you still want to be an administrator, that would be a good time to think about running again. But don't be too disheartened—I don't think anybody doubts your commitment to the project or the sincerity of your offer to take on additional responsibility. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
20. I agree with Fetchcomms that understanding copyright is pretty important for any admin candidate, and working with DYK and AFD requires an understanding of it. Furthermore, the response to question 5 doesn't assuage my concerns, acknowledging the mistake is good, but what I would really hope to see is an explanation of a better approach to image uploading that would have avoided the problem in the first place. Both text and images should be assumed to be copyrighted unless there is a clear exception that applies, or licensing can be found and the answer doesn't adequately address that. Monty₈₄₅ 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
21. Not yet. Appears to be a good editor, but lacks experience at this time. Solid contributions for a few more months and more to convince that the admin tools are needed and I would likely support in the future.--Michig (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose. The copyright concerns raised by others are worrying as I would expect admins to have knowledge of this area, but given the promise to stay out of this area until they know more, this on it's own would not be enough for me to oppose. What I do find significantly worrying, however, is their explanation for this error. The example given in Q15 that they thought could also be applied to the UK supreme court photo shows a lack of care in an important area - the tag on File:111th_US_Senate_class_photo.jpg clearly says it's PD because it's a work of the US federal government and so could not be generalised to the UK photo. I'd expect an admin to research important areas such as copyright rather than make, possibly incorrect, assumptions. As such I oppose at this time but strongly suspect I'll support in future. Dpmuk (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose - To few edits/experience (5000, 12 months), copyright concerns, badgering of opposes, lack of dispute resolution skills. — GabeMc (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Hi GabeMc, you're opposing for "lack of dispute resolution skills?" -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

    Well, mostly for your lack of experience. Come back in six months after working on some of the comments in the opposes. If you have good examples of dispute resolution, perhaps you should share them above in the discussion section. — GabeMc (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've posted a shortlist of the more complex mediations I've been involved with in the discussion section, per your request. I've also posted a link to the nomination questions for the Mediation Committee, which shows my approach to dispute resolution. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Okay, I've stricken that as a reason for opposing. How about content creation? — GabeMc (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    A full list is on my user page (under "Complete List of Created Articles"). As I mentioned in my answer to Q2, I think my best content work is Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, a Good Article, and Washington v. Texas, which is awaiting a Good Article review. Additionally, I have three other Good Articles, which include Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams and Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Some admirable content work indeed, but no FAs? IME, a GA does not compare to FA, not at all. I'm sure it depends on the reviewer. If you do fail this RfA, I suggest you take one of your GAs to FA before returning. — GabeMc (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I think requiring a candidate to have featured content is a bit rough. Lack of experience in deletion, copyright, admin areas - sure. Not active for long enough, not enough edits (or broadness of edits) - fair enough. Lack of content creation, understandable. But lack of FAs? I wonder how many admins have passed RFA without any FAs... Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 06:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Seconded. I've got serious content creation chops, and I don't think that an FA should be a requirement. Ironholds (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    " I wonder how many admins have passed RFA without any FAs ...". Far too many. Malleus Fatuorum 08:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    75% of currently active admins have no FAs (by which I mean they're not listed on WP:WBFAN). Hut 8.5 08:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I'm actually rather staggered that 25% of the currently active admins can even string two sentences together, never mind take an article through FAC. Well done to them, but what about the overwhelming majority? Malleus Fatuorum 09:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    It's quite difficult to find that rare breed of editor who can simultaneously "string two sentences together" and not have an ego the size of the Sloan Great Wall about it, and therefore not be a huge turn-off to RfA voters. For what it's worth, I've written one GA (and no FA's) and I got through RfA on my second try. Discussions about "not enough GA's/FA's" usually only pop up when there are other underlying problems, in this case, overall experience levels. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 18:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    No, It's rather easy actually; the real rarity is administrators who recognise their own limitations. And just to be clear, I'm not one of those who's ever demanded that admin candidates have any GAs or FAs at all, just that they have some appreciation of the problems and frustrations of working in article space by having got their hands dirty. Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    "The real rarity is administrators who recognise their own limitations": true dat. I think I know some of mine and I like to keep my toolbox out from those areas. I am sure I don't know all of my limitations, and I am also sure there are admins who know even fewer of theirs than I do of mine. Drmies (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose No. Not yet, not under 2012 standards. I'd like to see more contributions that are, well, in depth. I could see another result if he ran again in six months, but I'd also have to see what he did in the interim.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
25. Oppose due to a lack of deep experience. Stephen 01:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose Not impressed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Could you provide a more useful rationale, maybe? A decent oppose is one that gives the candidate a chance to reflect on the commentary and learn from it, either if the request fails and he wishes to try again after addressing concerns, or if it succeeds but he feels a need to take concerns into account nonetheless. "not impressed" is not useful feedback. "not impressed" does not offer an opportunity to learn. "not impressed" is simply rude. Ironholds (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    And what, in your opinion, does a decent support look like? "I have blind faith in the nominator"? Or the very common "I'm supporting because I plan to have a go at RfA myself shortly, so I don't want to create any waves"? Malleus Fatuorum 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    To be honest, anything. I'm not talking about the validity or invalidity of any support or oppose from a 'crat point of view - I'm sure this is a perfectly acceptable "vote". But it's not a helpful one - if you have problems with a candidate, you should highlight them so that the candidate knows what to work on. If you don't have problems with a candidate, there's not the same need because people don't really need to learn from what they're doing well. Ironholds (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I see, just as I thought. Malleus Fatuorum 09:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    A /useful/ rationale? This is /indecent/? I don't know this n00b, and looking, I didn't find myself impressed. If he, or you, want my support, show me something impressive. Short-sighted lemming, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think I ever said indecent; he's got four good articles, clerks for the Arbitration Committee (and, indeed, is the only non-admin approved to do so) and handles mediation, a field that is particualrly difficult given the confrontational and adversarial nature of discussions on Wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Implied by your second sentence, Oliver. I found the clerking particularly unimpressive. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    He has trouble writing grammatical English, even when reminded to write correctly. Maybe he's a Swedish speaker (and so fudges singular/plural) or listens to Zappa, but administrators on an encyclopedia should write standard written English. U c? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    I have trouble with the prose issue, but could overlook it if the candidate was sufficiently good in other areas. One reason I'd like to give LR more time before handing him a bit we can't effectively take back is that you sometimes get "morning glory" types who start very strong but then lose interest, turn to drama, or both. That LR has been involving himself in a lot of things is great, but I'd like to see his track record in six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

27. Oppose - I see a fair bit of good work here, but with under a year's worth of cumulative editing, I'd like to see a bit more experience first. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
28. Oppose per experience concerns mentioned above and a few intangibles that leave me with a 'gut feeling'. Chedzilla (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose The timing of this is unfortunate. It seems like a rush to a glorious finish. Lord Roem has only about a year as an editor, has only recently been appointed an Arbitration Clerk, and is now, in the midst of his first arbitration, looking for adminship. I think he needs to slow down. There was nothing in his mediation experiences that struck me as showing particular talent unless (and there are those reading this who might agree) merely getting through one without an RFC/U is considered remarkable. Now the Fae arbitration is gathering steam, and it is leaking in places that need patchwork. Only some of this falls under a Clerk's remit, but what does is not, in my view, always being handled smoothly. So, "not now, maybe later". Bielle (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

    Could you please clarify what you mean by "unless merely getting through one without an RFC/U is considered remarkable"? -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    I meant -as an aside- that it is possible that WP mediations in general are so fraught that it may be deemed remarkable by some when a mediator finishes without having stirred up sufficient ire to warrant anyone involved starting an RFC/U on him/her. It was a very small joke, and I apologize if I have either added to the general confusion or introduced humour inappropriately. Bielle (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    No worries. I appreciate your clarification. I do think it's a good joke though. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

30. OpposePer Scottywong and Dennis Brown. I also believe the answer to Q17 misinterprets the 3 revert rule. Note:I added a # to Bielle's above to fix counting- UnbelievableError (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Bielle (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    How so? -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    wp:3rr is broken with the 4th revert. - UnbelievableError (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached" -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    True. Doesn't explain why you said that editor B broke it. - UnbelievableError (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    WP:3RR isn't the only implementation of WP:EW. Besides, I specifically targetted Abortion which is under an Arbcom discretionary sanction.--v/r - TP 00:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    ... and discretionary sanctions first require a warning before you go blocking people. Yes, you may block someone after 3 reverts if the case is somehow egregious, but not because they have broken 3RR. 3RR is broken with the fourth revert. And you don't just go blocking people without having a word with them first ... JN466 01:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Before I drop it and move along, I'll just note that Lord Roem did not mention the Arbcom discretionary sanctions at all in the first paragraph of the answer that I am referring to for Q17. Instead, Lord Roem said that Editor B broke a specific rule. - UnbelievableError (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, it seems he made a mistake. People do that. Probably would've been better if he'd admitted it rather than covered, but with the complaints about lack of experience, I guess I see why he did. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

    @UnbelievableError: He mentioned them in his answer. What does it matter which paragraph it was in? Does the order of the answer matter? "However, new discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee...." That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard if so.--v/r - TP 01:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    He mentioned those in reference to dealing with Editor A. About Edit B, he said, "First and foremost, Editor B has violated 3RR." This was clearly a mistake. And I understand it, because it's difficult to judge a hypothetical description of a scenario like this, and would probably have been easier to judge with actual contrib/history listings and so forth to examine. I don't necessarily think Lord Roem would've made this mistake in actuality; I think a lot of experienced people read the question and missed this vital aspect along with Lord Roem. However, one major complaint against admins in general has been the inability to admit mistakes. I do think Lord Roem failed that test when responding to this oppose. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:45, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

    Not really. He mentioned the Abortion discretionary sanctions which means he was aware there was some that would apply to this instance. That was the purpose of the question. They are also discretionary sanctions which means that it is up to the administrator to apply them as they deem necessary. Simply because you or I'd have handled it differently doesn't make it a mistake. Also, simply because it's unequal punishment for both editors doesn't mean it isn't fair or appropriate either. Lord Roem gave a decent answer and UnbelievableError is unbelievably in error here. I'm not advocating for Lord Roem's answer, but it was satisfactory to me and the point of it was that he caught all of the factors revolving around the issue rather than that his answer matched some hidden admin textbook. If he can't see that, he shouldn't be !voting here.--v/r - TP 01:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Well, it was good that he mentioned discretionary sanctions – but believing you can block under discretionary sanctions without first giving a warning is an absolute no-no. That's several hours of needless drama at ANI right there. The info about needing to warn first before imposing a sanction is really very prominent on Wikipedia:AC/DS. JN466 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) @TP: I understand that the answer fulfilled your needs as the asker, but that's not what my complaint is about. The answer was actually fine from where I stand. But regardless of whether he showed awareness of discretionary sanctions, which is what you were looking for, he also did say someone violated 3RR when they didn't. It was a mistake, and he should've said it was a mistake. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:55, 14 Jun 2012 (UTC)

    Meh, I suppose. As you know though, it's a bright line; not a requirement. @Jayen466: Sure, but I'd write that off as an oversight. He's smart enough to read about WP:Discretionary sanctions before imposing his first.--v/r - TP 02:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    @TParis, I intended to move on but you have called me out. Id est quod est. The answer was the answer and it stands for itself. Thank you kindly for the ad hominem remarks. I would have registered as UnexpectedError, in homage to my favorite screen created by Microsoft but it was taken. - UnbelievableError (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    To which statement are you referring to as ad hominem? That I made a pun on your name?--v/r - TP 02:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

    Did my username have anything to do with my opinion of the answer the the question? If my username was ILoveLordRoem would you have typed the same? - UnbelievableError (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

31. I have to agree with Equazcion's points. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:43, June 14, 2012 (UTC)
32. The oppose reasons are more persuasive than those of the supporters. The discussion around #O30 (3RR in relation to Q17) clinches it for me. Giving an incorrect interpretation of a rule that could lead to an editor being blocked is bad enough, although I have no doubt that the candidate would not make such an Administrator error now. However, the element of trying to cover up the palpable error by referring to another part of their answer demonstrates a characteristic of defending the initial mistake by obfuscation. Unacceptable but frequently encountered in human nature, but not acceptable when applying for a permanent role of authority and trust. Leaky Caldron 10:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose - I hold iron in the highest of regards, but I have to oppose echoing HJ's points mainly. It's simply not enough experience, and not enough chances for people to "get ya", which is what happens around here if you hang around enough. No problems I know of with this editor, but its not time for adminship. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
34. Oppose: I saw no reason to weigh in on this RfA, not having extensive knowledge of Lord Roem's work, though I thought the content contributions were on the slim side, but after reading the eyebrow-raising answer to Q17 I have no choice but to say that I don't think this user should have a "block" button right now. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
35. Leaky caldron has summed up my view too (but I would replace the words 'such an' to 'that'). Making mistakes is one thing, but defending the intial mistake by obfuscation is another - in response to this, certain users' votes on a motion (concerning the candidate's tools) would be cast differently to how they were cast here...to the point that I suspect some people have noticed a glaring sense of unconstructive (if not inappropriate) partiality by those users. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose I'm sorry, but the answers to Questions 12 and 17 are a bit concerning. Better luck next time! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
37. Oppose Per Scottywong. I think a little more time in those areas are needed first. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Okay, agendum's done. I will vote for neutral with leaning oppose. TruPepitoM (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   The possible edit warring issue with User:Cla68 in the current Arb case concerns me. I'd like to hear from an Arb their take on the matter.--v/r - TP 02:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Moved to support--v/r - TP 22:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   See [2] (full disclosure: LR & I are the two case clerks for the Arbitration case you're referring to). NW (Talk) 03:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   I saw that, but as of this time, the information that was being removed by Lord Roem still exists in the evidence page. So my question is, was it eventually determined that the removal was inappropriate?--v/r - TP 03:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Speaking as an arb, but not for the Committee, I fully endorse Hersfold's statement linked above. LR did no wrong in that situation. Notice the version that exists now HAS diffs, not a vague promise of diffs some time in the future. Courcelles 03:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Not only did LR do nothing wrong, it is important to note that LR had the courage to do what was right. There have been significant decries that the committee has, up to now, been remiss by allowing weasel sentiments, fact synthesis an unsupported allegations to remain in the evidence section; with implications in tact. This is actually a very good development. It's sad when doing the right thing is so uncommon that people gasp when they see it. My76Strat (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Lord Roem's work as an arbitration clerk, in one of the most contentious cases the Committee has seen in a long time, has been sound and should not raise any concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   That's either complete garbage or an incredibly funny observation. The word for someone who argues vehemently at one side of the issue to remove evidence from one side and then, but a few days later, at the other side of the issue to keep evidence from the other side is not "sound".... unless you're Humphrey Appleby and all that entails. However, I agree that his choice of sides shows that he'd be an excellent, congruent addition to the set "wikipedia administrors". Fits right in.101.118.60.120 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   Thank you. But it still doesn't explain why, if his actions were correct, the diff he was editing out has been reinserted and not challenged. What am I missing? I believe you, I just feel like I'm missing something here that everyone else sees and it doesn't make sense to me.--v/r - TP 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   As I am reading it, Lord Roem removed the section because an editor was making a broad allegation without yet having provided examples or diffs to support it. Some of those (alleged) examples and diffs have now been provided. (I would really suggest we not get into too much more detail about the back-and-forth in the case; it would really be a very bad idea for any part of the underlying disputes in the arbitration case to spill over here.) Please note that in this case the two drafting arbitrators asked the case clerks, in the context of an especially contentious case involving off-wiki considerations, to take more than the usual measures to keep order on the case pages; it is important that Lord Roem's actions on these pages should be viewed with that in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   • It's worth looking again at the two diffs - (this time, the information that was being removed by Lord Roem) as they are different. The difference, when considered carefully, should answer the question. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   So is the difference the amendment of additional diffs? I thought the original issue was the link titled "this section".--v/r - TP 14:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   This is the reason LR gave: [3]. I think it's because there is a difference between saying "you made a mistake: [4]" and "you made a mistake: [5]". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

   (od) I must also disagree that a clerk's removal of unsubstantiated or invalid evidence can be construed as "edit warring". AGK [•] 13:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

2. Interested in responses to the further questions. I have had contact with the candidate before, in a rather stressful weeks (months?) - long encounter that required considerable judgement, so am tempted to Support based on how he handled that, and on more brief observations elsewhere. Would need some persuading otherwise, and the Oppose votes are certainly not doing it (especially given the usual suspects there). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

   What about the "usual suspects" in the support column? Malleus Fatuorum 04:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   Watch out Malleus, you might be arrested if you keep exercising your right to oppose. I thought that only happened in police states, but isn't Wikipedia one anyway? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   Pretty close I think. Only a matter of time before some random administrator turns up threatening a ban for "disruption", aka disagreeing with the received "wisdom", or posting more than some arbitrarily chosen number of times to an individual RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   Neutral badgering appears to be the newest cutting-edge genre of drama generation. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   How are you defining "badgering"? Disagreeing with you? Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   Scottywong, surely you have better things to do than seeking out those you don't like. Drmies (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral Can't support an Ironholds nomination. Don't see any reason to oppose at first glance, though. Keepscases (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   I'd be interested to know why the candidate hasn't commented on this. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   I would hope he is wise enough not to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   The wisdom would have been to have nipped this in the bud. Malleus Fatuorum 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   Not really. It's not an oppose. Keepscases is allowed his opinion. Had this been an oppose, it'd be up to the closing 'crat to determine if it's a valid oppose; but it's not. Why does the candidate need to address it? I agree with Dennis, he's better off letting it be.--v/r - TP 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

   Everyone already sees it for what it is. The only reason to respond to it would be to turn a drama comment into a drama discussion. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:47, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

4. Neutral - Does pass my criteria for the most part, but under criterion nine administrators do need a good basic understanding of copyright matters and the recent incident with the image does concern me. While I acknowledge the candidates' statement that they will stay away from images and that they have learnt from this, bumping into copyright issues is easy to do in many admin areas, and as a result admins should still be familiar with image copyright matters even if they don't specialize in them. However, since this is just one issue and I was close to supporting, I won't oppose. CT Cooper · talk 21:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral - (Moved from support.) I have to agree with Fetchcomms, HJ Mitchell, and BlueBonnet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral (also moved from support). Sorry Lord Roem, nothing personal, but per Fetchcomms, HJ Mitchell, and the Q17 answer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:10, 14 June 2012 (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.