Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peripitus

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

Peripitus

Final (talk page) (91/0/0); Ended Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:11:42 (UTC)

Peripitus (talk · contribs) - Peripitus has been an active Wikipedia editor for yonks and has made a heckuva lot of edits. He's done excellent work for WikiProject Australia, including four good articles, all listed on his userpage. He's also generally helped build the encyclopedia—cleaning up articles, WikiProject assessment, vandal reversion, helping build consensus on XfDs, participating in discussions and providing useful input, etc. He has clue (really!), has common sense, has good judgment, and won't do anything stupid with the tools. I see no reason not to make Peripitus an admin. —Giggy 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I'm pleased to receive and accept Giggy's nomination. Peripitus (Talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: Largely the areas I have already worked in. My interests here are wide ranging and I tend to edit and participate wherever interests me at the time. I intend to be closing deletion discussions (mostly AfD and occasionally IfD, MfD and DrV); I think I have a good judge of consensus and have closed quite a few (AfDs) with no issues raised. I've tagged hundreds of articles (and some images) for speedy/proposed deletion and aim to help keep the backlogs down. I also intend to be helping out with the other areas I have experience with here including blocking vandals, dealing with un/free image issues and copyright and occasionally page protection.

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

A: Article creation and populating articles with images are what I came here for and what I see as my best contributions. As Giggy said in his succinct nomination, I've written four good articles, one of which I hope to get to FA level in the next month or so. Most of these I built from scratch, writing all of the material and creating all images and maps, though River Torrens has lots of other's work in it. I put a fair few images up (on commons) to illustrate articles here, one of which was well regarded. I tend to do significant article writing off-line, resulting in additions like this and this. I was also quite chuffed at convincing people to let me split Bronze Night off from Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, though I did come in at the end of the arbitration case when many of the warring parties where bloodied, tired and in some cases blocked from editing.

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

A: I've not had any conflicts or interraction with users that caused me stress. While I have had minor conflicts—mostly on talk pages—except in the case of vandalism I work by the 1 revert rule and don't war on articles. I've received a few colourful characterisations and emails but nothing that has concerned me. I find that having a thick skin, and being civil and polite resolves most conflicts; just stepping away and putting the coffee machine on resolves the rest.

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare:

4. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A.In this case the vandalism is blatant and the language puerile and very schoolboyish. The only assumption to be drawn is that the commitment to stop vandalising is not sincere. I would see that the unblock request should be removed and the talk page semiprotected for the remainder of the block duration. Given the history, particularly the likelihood that this is the same user (if a school or dynamic IP this may be a false assumption) I can't see a need to wait for another admin. In essense - revert, protect and move on. After re-evaluating based on Xeno and other's comments I would leave this for another admin in the interests of fairness, and perhaps encouraging a potential useful editor. While I do see that they have been given enough rope I do appreciate that new editors are the engine driving the site and we should do all reasonable to encourage them to stay and edit. I made the inital response based on my reading of WP:AGF and at the time saw that there was strong evidence to the contrary that they intended to help the encyclopedia. On reflection this was not the correct approach to take. I am also well aware that having the blocking admin remove the unblock template and protect the page removes an editors ability to appeal, and prevents the possibility of another admin rightly pointing out that I was wrong in blocking. To clarify this as there seems I've engendered some confusion - the unblock will be handled by another admin in all cases.

5. Please answer two of the exercises at the AGF Challenge 2 and post the answers here or a link to your answers.

A.answers here

Additional question from CountyLemonade:

6. The standard AfD question here - What is your stance on cool-down blocks?

A.Just the cookie cutter response first—policy says not to do these ever. As policy is a living document that reflects de-facto actions and opinions rather than de-jure truths this has to be viewed as the common and recommended process here; but with some common sense. I think that blocking a user because, in my opinion, they are angry and need time to cool down is the wrong mental approach for me to take. Blocking a user who is flailing around and damaging the encyclopedia, despite adequate warnings to the contrary, is the correct action as the goal of blocks is to prevent this damage. If I had in mind that they were not cool, and that blocking will help them cool down, but they are NOT damaging the site or other users, then a block is not the correct approach. As with the edit button, the block button should only ever be pressed to make the site better—not to win arguments, send someone who you disagree with to bed or create and further drama. If someone is editing every Jimbo related page adding "Jimmy Wales is a balding...", you think because they are being a dick and another is doing the same and adding "Jimmy Wales is <random epithet>", you think because they are angry at something....all you can really tell is that they are both damaging the site and they would be blocked with this in mind. Sorry about the long-winded reply but this is a perennial question: All admins have to keep in mind the nutshell line from WP:BLOCK of "Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm". If there is no harm then there is no block...if there is harm then they may be a block regardless of why the blocking admin thinks the harm is happening, bearing in mind that damaging other users and their desire to contribute is often far more harmful than imitating Grawp.

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare:

7. Will you make yourself available to recall?

A.Yes - getting adminship is based on trust and if the trust demonstrably gone then continuing as an admin cannot help the site. While I am not in favour of arbitrary standards, that allow for gaming, I see that the ones at User talk:Kirill Lokshin sets a bar that is of adequate height while not being far too high. If consensus at an RfC says that I am not trusted with the tools then I will ask the stewards to remove the bit. That said if I had a few respected users, uninvolved in a dispute with me, tell me I've been a dick and should lose the tools then I wouldn't waste the communities time with an RfC—just get the buttons removed and get on with editing. As to who is a respected user, that is a very long list I don't intend to write but it at least includes the users at User:Riana/Helpful, Bureaucrats, Arbcom members, and too many others to adequately list.

Question from Sceptre

8. Would you answer a question about issuing cool-down blocks?

A.Yes - please see my answer to Q6 above. If you require further clarification please tell me here.

General comments

• See Peripitus's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Peripitus: Peripitus (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I'm strolling through looking at AFD, RFA, and my other watchlisted pages, and I see that there is an oppose pending an answer to one question about AOR? This.....guys, we are making adminship way more of a big deal than it is. Honestly, bottom line here. You should only support or oppose someone for Adminship based on one thing only. Will he/she work with the tools and use them in accordinance with Wiki policy? Plain and simple. Can you trust him or her to use them right? Will he/she benifit from using the tools? Its not rocket science people....Come on!!! RFA is supposed to bring out the leaders of wikipedia, not break down people piece by piece and discourage them from editing, which happens often. RFB is supposed to be the one to stay away from, and honestly, I can userstand the severity and the seriousness of it. But RFA isn't all its made out to be. This is becoming longer than it should, and I apologize for it, but I think some people need to wake up and realize, that a few extra opportunities for you doesn't make you a gold prize in a fair. It shows that your trusted to make the right decisions. That trust shouldn't be based on if your going to place yourself in a category that doesn't really mean that much anyway. A certain person made this wiki with one thought in mind, and well, I think its been twisted and turned, and its hurting more than its helping. Dusti^SPEAK!! 23:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the oppose you refer to is "Per the answer to Q4", along with waiting for an answer on AOR. Of all the RfAs to blow up to, I'm really surprised you picked this one. Tan ǀ 39 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small side-bar to the above, why would anybody oppose while pending an answer to a question? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am yet to see Peripitus "break down people piece by piece", nor do I think Jimbo created Wikipedia with the intention of adminship not being a big deal (he, er, tried to make an encyclopedia, actually). —Giggy 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<undent>As Jimbo has pointed out (where I can't remember) adminship has become a bigger deal than it was, how big a deal is up to the editors of the site. I have no issue with the Q4 oppose, as I am very happy to have pointed out that I am either wrong or have misread consensus on the best way to improve the site. As for the admin recall - many of the editors seeking this seem to be trying to make sure we don't have "easy come"→"impossible to go". Few things here are less productive that having to go though 100 AN threads, 4 blocks, 3 RfCs, 2 RFARBs and the proverbial partridge to get someone to stop causing damage. We enable admin buttons as we trust the user to use them correctly (as I will) based on limited information. If the admin uses them poorly - getting hundreds bruised in the ensuing brouhaha not a good outcome. The flipside of NBD for me is it works both ways. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have struck the AOR question part of my oppose. Sorry, I didn't get back to this RfA until today. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. As nom. —Giggy 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
2. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Good instincts, and seems adept at basic admin work. Can only be a good addition to WP's admin staff. No concerns.  Mr. IP, Defender of Open Editing  04:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Support -- assumed this editor was already an admin. - Longhair\^talk 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Support; abundant evidence of "clue," as Giggy indicates. Lots of good work here; should be a good admin. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Support a good Australian candidate --Stephen 04:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support - ooh, a Giggy nom! Yes, this candidate should be just fine. No problems at all :) - Alison ^❤ 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I view noms by Giggy as prima facie evidence of a great administrator at our hands - CL — 05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. Will make an excellent admin. Kevin (talk) 05:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
10. support Good user and AfD needs more administrators. - Icewedge (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
11. Daniel (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
12. — E ↗^TCB 07:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - Meets my criteria. Also, I like to see more admins wishing to work at IfD, MfD and CfD. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
14. —Dark ^talk 07:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
15. Support - I don't know you that well so I was reluctant to put my name down. But your intelligent and responsible answer to Question 6 has convinced me. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Ticks all the boxes for me. C:CSD seems spot on, uploads indicate great image policy knowledge, articles marked patrolled are as they should be, your non-admin closures of WP:AFD's are sound, great article work, collaborative desire evidenced through talk pages, great answer to Q6.... etc. etc. etc. Good luck and best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
17. Support Looks good that the candidate wants to work with WP:IFD WP:DRV WP:AfD and WP:MfD. Good luck. --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
18. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility (good close), having never been blocked, and focus on article work at User:Peripitus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility wasn't an extraordinary close... There was a clear-cut consensus to keep, so no tough judgement call involved, and the closing statement was the simple and solid statement "The result was Keep". What is so good about that closure as to specifically call it "good"? user:Everyme 11:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    "Good" does not imply "extraordinary". It looks to me like the reason for mentioning it is that it showed some boldness being correctly applied in a non-admin closure of an AfD discussion. We've certainly had some drama lately over whether or not these should be allowed as a matter of policy; with a good close, we have evidence of an editor who is already doing an admin task, apparently correctly (at least in this case). That's my interpretation, anyway.  Frank  |  talk  11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    More on my interpretation can be found on my talk page. user:Everyme 12:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

19. Strong Support: Seems excellent to me. I'll support him even though he's from South Australia :P --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    I had trouble getting over that hurdle too. :-) —Giggy 12:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

20. Weak Support Good answers to the standard questions, uses edit summaries perfectly, does all the little jobs that need to be done and seems to be happy about it. Definitely sounds like a good candidate to me :-) So#Why 09:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    Changed to weak support per answer to Q4. I personally think another admin should be consulted in such cases but this is not enough to make me oppose. So#Why 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

21. Support - Cant find a reason why not. I loved the answer to Q6. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 10:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
22. Support - should make an excellent admin.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
23. Support - will be fine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
24. Affirmative G'day, mate! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support - No problems are apparent.  Asenine  12:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
26. Per nom. user:Everyme 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
27. Support I see no problems with this user. Spencer^T♦C 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
28. Good nom, solid answers to questions...this one's got the right stuff. Wonder what Kurt will say. GlassCobra 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    "When should cool-down blocks be used?" naerii 13:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

29. naerii 13:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
30. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 13:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    Weak Support Weak because of the Q4 response. It troubles me that this user is unwilling to give a {{second chance}} or even unwilling to consult an admin. However, that's the only real flaw I see against him, and he seems like a good user who will use the admin tools well. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to Neutral or Weak Oppose later; I'm not sure yet.

    Why does he need to "consult an admin" when he is an admin? (Out of curiosity.) —Giggy 14:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    I believe Nuke would prefer him to consult another admin, to get a second opinion on the matter. Although personally I would believe the guy (just once), I can see why some candidates are unsympathetic to the vandal. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

31. Support. An experienced and level-headed user with an excellent mainspace (over 5000 edits!) and projectspace contribution record, including substantial AfD participation. Will definitely be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
32. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 14:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Another great candidate (and nom). LittleMountain5 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
34. Support. Good, sound editor. Nothing to frighten the horses here. nancy ^talk 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
35. Support. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
36. Support Wow we've been getting lots of great candidates for RfA recently, I can find no reasons not to support, the user has a great understanding of policy and has done lots of great work building the encyclopedia and I think that the Admin tools would only help Peripitus become a better editor :). --Mifter (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
37. Support per Everyme. Keeper ǀ 76 16:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Why the hell not? Good articles, a Q6 answer only Kurt could dislike, and clueful non-admin closures, what's not to like? Paragon12321 (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
39. Support I can trust Giggy's nom. America69 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
40. Support. Nice nomination and this revert in particular highlights the investigative nature of this editor. Something all administrators need to be. Good luck. Rudget 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
41. Support this productive, clueful editor. AfD discussions Peripitus contributed to include Articles for deletion/Bridget Mary Nolan which was deleted (and upheld) and Articles for deletion/Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105, which was (properly) kept. Non-admin closures looked good too.  Frank  |  talk  16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - Lower your shields and surrender your article writing ability, we will add your distinctiveness to our own. Tiptoety ^talk 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
43. Support. His record is clean. Although, I wonder why is his upload log full of redlinks. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    It appears most (the ones I checked) were deleted under CSD I8. Rudget 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    (e/c) Looks like they were deleted because they are on commons with the same name. (Per Rudget, I guess, although I included a link listing them over there...)  Frank  |  talk  18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

    OK, that's full support now. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

44. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
45. Support - per nom --T-rex 19:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
46. Support tabor-^{drop me a line} 19:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
48. Support per everyone else. No worries here. --Rodhullandemu 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
49. Support - I have no doubt that this user will do well. Soxπed93^(blag) 21:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
50. Support. --- RockMFR 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
51. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. I agree with Xenocidic that unblock templates should not be declined by the blocking admin. However, this user seems like a sharp enough candidate that I hope he can see that he was wrong, figure out why he was wrong, and learn. I don't think this indicates a core misunderstanding of the admin tools. Your exercise is a very, very blatant vandal, ya know... ;-) Tan ǀ 39 23:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
53. Strong Support I've come across this user's work on and off for about two years now within the context of the Australian wikiproject. He is consistently trustworthy and even-tempered (even when noone else in the discussion is), contributes well in debates and project discussions and contributes solidly in article space. For some reason I had assumed he already was an admin, otherwise I would have proposed to nominate ages ago. Good luck! Orderinchaos 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
54. Support I see no problems and per the nom.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
55. Support If Longhair can say I thought he was an admin already - well stole my thunder - well worth the mop SatuSuro 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
56. Support Peripitus has more than 5,000 mainspace edits. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
57. Strong support per Australian contributions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
58. Strongest possible support A valued and productive member of WP:AUSTRALIA. Calm, rational and knowledgeable, I trust Peripitus implicitly with the tools. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
59. Support That's 4 in a row, I'm on a roll. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
60. Support ...yeeees, yeeees, our plans for world domination take yet another leap ahead... Ehm, great editor, would definitely trust with administrator tools. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
61. Support yes.... he deserves it. Nice edits and media works.---Alokprasad84 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
62. Support I must admit that I wasn't all that impressed with the answer to Q4 but I believe that the potential for positive contributions from this clueful candidate as an administrator far outweigh any risks of him misusing the tools in such specific circumstances. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
63. Support on the assurance that he will consider offering {{2nd chances}} to vandals who claim they want to contribute constructively. It can't hurt, one of two things will happen - 1) they will lash out and resume trolling their talk page or 2) they will come up with a well-referenced addition to one of our articles, and hopefully continue doing so after ultimately being unblocked. Also, he's been here for ages, does solid article & CSD/XfD work and he's got a lot of people I respect supporting him. Net positive. –xeno (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
64. Strong-Support-The Candidate is perfect for the position of adminship. I see nothing wrong except q4. My Account (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
65. Support from oppose. After changing answer to Q4, opening up to recall, I can support this candidate. 13500 edits, many of the editors on my "respect list" supporting, much experience, good mainspace article work, 1545 WP edits show a good understanding of policy, solid XfD work. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
66. Support, per my reasoning. S. Dean Jameson 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
67. Support. --Boguslav (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
68. Support --Npnunda (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
69. Support Looks good. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
70. Support Changed from oppose. Lradrama 10:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
71. Support Giggy makes an outstanding case.--Yehudi (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
72. Support Seems good, meets my unwritten criteria. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
74. Support All signs point toward the tools being given to this candidate would be an overall gain for the project. --Winger84 (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
75. Completely bandwagon-jumping here, but you have an excellent manner about you, and you seem to have a sound understanding of policy, especially the evolving nature of it - seriously, this is what we need in an admin. Whole-hearted support. - Toon⁰⁵ 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
76. Piling on support. Axl (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
77. Support per Alison, since when does Giggy ever go wrong?! :-D --eric (mailbox) 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
78. Support -- Nothing left to say : ) Best of luck! --Cameron* 10:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
79. Support Excellent contributions over a long period of time. Melburnian (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
80. +S as per 27B-Stroke-6. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
81. Seems fine. Acalamari 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
82. Strong support per nom, strong answers to questions, and ambitious to-do list. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
83. Support - I'm joining late and adding this much needed pile-on support. I'm glad I could be there to seal the deal for you, Periptus :) This user seems cool-headed, knowledgeable, and ready for the responsibility. As long as he/she promises not to decline unblock requests to users he/she blocks, except for obvious misuses of the unblock template, I have no issues. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
84. Support may be superfluous since it seems to be snowing here but I'm saying so anyway: very sound candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
85. Support, no reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC).
86. Support: Absolutely NO reason to believe that this user would abuse the tools. I like people who work for WikiProjects. Just letting you know that I got a chance to help your project here . Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
87. Support, appears to be a great contributor to the encyclopedia, and to possess common sense, rationality, and respectfulness. Even though I'm a bit wary of people who say they haven't had any big conflicts, I quite enjoyed his answer to question No. 3, and am impressed with his ability not to be fazed by things. -- Natalya 21:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Gread editor. WP:SNOW? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 21:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
89. Support. Zaxem (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
90. Support Brill editor per Bart133 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
91. Support. Appears to be good admin material. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
92. Support - piling on now. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Per answer to Q4. –xeno (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC) (switched to support)

Just to expand, an admin should never decline an unblock request for a block they made, and they absolutely should not summarily revert an unblock request made in good faith. Furthermore, it's not hard to reblock a vandal if they blow their {{second chance}}. Also, page protection should only be applied after several unblock requests clearly made in bad faith, not the first good faith one. Far too extreme. –xeno (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

After seeing this, I looked at the situation posed in the question. I think it's a bit of a silly scenario. It's so obviously a bad faith request, it's so obviously vandalism, and an admin who would unblock would be, IMO, very naive. If someone seriously thinks you should never review unblock requests on your own blocks, I point them to this policy. I think Peripitus' actions are perfectly justified, and indeed, are correct. —Giggy 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who did unblock this vandal-turned-constructive-contributor, I respectfully disagree with everything you said. However, based on [1] and Tan's comment, I will give this candidate a closer look later on. –xeno (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Xenocidic, I see that you have a fair and reasonable position. I've changed my position, not to garner support votes, but as I see now that following the process in unblock requests will almost invariably do more good than harm on balance. The IP editor is probably an insincere vandal but allowing them a bit more rope will, at worst, lead to a user having to press the revert button, at best we may end up with a productive editor. One of the things that lead to me changing my mind is reviewing the actions surrounding this block log which followed this one of the same user. Here a serial copyvio problem editor was given the chance and changed - a good result for Wikipedia - Peripitus (Talk) 00:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Per answer to Q4, also pending an answer to AOR question. I also disagree with the answer to AGF Q 2.3, AOR struck after reading answer. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Switch to Support

Oppose - the answer to Q4, as Xenocidic and Eric the Red have pointed out, is an indication that this user is more intent on slaying vandals and not letting them get up again in order to try and make ammends. What about assuning good faith, and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? Lradrama 23:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak OpposeNo Vote - I like how Lradrama put it. One wikipedian vandal will do, on average, a few minutes of damage. However, one helpful wikipedia editor could create infinitely useful work. I believe that in the hypothetical posed in Q4, it would have been far easier to point the former vandal to Adopt-a-User and hope he would use his editing powers for good. And if you watchlisted the user, you could essentially keep him on WikiProbation and it would be a simple matter to delete any vandalism. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Any admin here - any admin here - would indef block this user on sight. That's not the issue here. Xeno chose to unblock this user (something I would never have done, and I bet 95% of the admins on this page wouldn't have), but you're saying that the user shouldn't be blocked, but rather "point"ed to Adopt-a-User (whatever this is) and hope that they don't vandalize any more? Give. Me. A. Break. Tan ǀ 39 05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support the statement that we have hypocrites opposing this RFA. SashaNein (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Care to clarify that? –xeno (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is said that ‘cool down blocks’ are unacceptable, yet are widely used by many of our current administrators. The practice has been used by Doc Glasgow, Nakon, Friday, David Fuchs, Thatcher, Stifle, William M. Connolley, and SirFozzie from just one quick look. I mean, come on, one even had the edit summary, “nasty personal attacks – 'cool down' and come back”. Cool down blocks are indeed unacceptable, but to proclaim that it’s such a ‘bad’ thing on this site means little since it’s such a widespread practice. I have seen no proof that steps have been taken to stop CURRENT administrators from continuing to do this. I also don’t appreciate your edit summary threats. Why don’t you issue me a cool down block, but call it something else? I won't be responding further. Feel free to censor this comment that you asked for, because I'm not about to 'cool down' after being threatened. SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any threat there. I asked you politely here, and at your talk page, to clarify your comment about "hypocrites" which - without sufficient clarification - does border on a personal attack. I've never issued a cool-down block and probably never will. And I'm still confused as to your comment, because not a single opposer has mentioned cooldown blocks. –xeno (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] I'm going to AGF and presume SashaNein mistook "oppose per Q4" as "oppose per Q6", anyhow, I think this particular exchange should be moved to the talk page as a misunderstanding to avoid unnecessary distraction. –xeno (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're stretching WP:AGF a bit too far here. Frankly, anybody who decides to direct such a user to WP:ADOPT is quite misguided. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef block an IP? =) –xeno (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nuke; I think even if he is insincere, he should be given a second chance. And if he blows it, it's another story. However, I don't think the candidates response to that question is worth an oppose vote. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I opposed based on this version of the response and have committed to taking another look with the candidate's softening of their position. I'll admit, some of this stuff you just need to learn on the job (like {{2nd chance}}), but I do expect people not to simply take a hard line when someone shows some glimmer of hope, such as the good faith edit the "hypothetical" IP made at 11:18 in the scenario. I agree - without that - I would've left him blocked. But in offering the 2nd chance and seeing that he did have a true desire to contribute (notwithstanding his prior tomfoolery), I turned a vandal into a constructive contributor. Vandals are a dime a dozen, but contributors are golden. –xeno (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have used truer words. However, I am now changing to support, because the candidate gave a good response to what we said, and has understand fully what we were saying. Lradrama 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

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