Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RL0919

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

RL0919

Final (71/16/5). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 01:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

RL0919 (talk · contribs) – Richard Lawrence (RL0919) first registered a Wikipedia account back in July 2005, and started regularly contributing in May 2009. All of my contact with him has been related to our shared interest in templates for discussion, where he routinely makes very insightful comments. He has regularly demonstrated that he is a very clueful and careful contributor, taking the time to thoroughly investigate each case. He frequently finds relevant discussions to help with establishing precedent, redundant templates to help with merging, and prior discussions in WikiProject space to help determine which templates are currently deprecated. His tireless contributions at TFD have been very much appreciated (especially since we frequently have to relist templates due to the lack of discussion). Closing these discussions can be problematic, since many of the closing admins choose to voice opinions in the discussions as well, so the addition of another admin with an interest in TFD would be beneficial to the project.

Richard has also made substantial contributions to numerous articles related to Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and is a member of the Objectivism WikiProject. He lists many of his contributions on his user page. I have always known him to be a very level headed and calm individual. He has a clean block log, his talk page history contains no serious disputes, and many editors come to him for help and advice. I have no doubt that he would do very well with the additional tools. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted, with thanks to Plastikspork for his confidence and support. --RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I would start with areas that I'm already familiar with, such as closing TFDs and CSDs for templates, page protection, edit requests on protected pages. I would expand out from there based on personal interest and the existence of admin backlogs. With any area I decide to get involved with, I would approach it cautiously at first, to make sure I had a firm understanding of the policies/guidelines/common practices in each area.

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

A: Overall I'm proudest of my contributions to WikiProject Objectivism, which include helping to bring Ayn Rand to GA status, creating several new articles, and overhauling a number of others. I think it is important to note that these were mostly collaborative efforts, which is significant considering the ugly history of POV-pushing and edit warring around Ayn Rand and related articles, which included an ArbCom case at the beginning of this year. For Wikipedia to survive and prosper, it is necessary that editors with divergent views about article subject matter be able to work together. I think the development of WikiProject Objectivism over the past several months is a fine example of how this is possible.

Since this is the "toot my own horn" question, I'll also take a moment to mention a few other items I have some particular pride in: helping to save John Todd (occultist) and Template:Adopt from deletion, successfully merging Template:Tfd-tiny with Template:Tfd-inline (thus proving to myself that I actually have some idea what I'm doing in template space), and navigating the ugly political POV-pushing and racist vandalism that hit the Van Jones article when he was in the news.

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: Well, I once got a death threat from a vandal, but actually I was pretty blasé about that. I'm a relatively low-drama sort of person. When I was first editing several years ago, I was involved in some debates that I found rather obnoxious. But even those were more annoying than stressful, and I have a much better understanding now about how to approach such things. I try to focus on the end goal of finding a way to improve the encyclopedia, rather than getting caught up in the heat of the moment.

Additional optional questions from Beeblebrox

4. Could you elaborate on the reasons for your extremely long Wikibreak of nearly three years?

A: I never really intended to take a super-long break. As I mention my answer to Q3, I was involved in a couple of debates that I found obnoxious, and I decided that I should step back a bit to figure out how that sort of thing was normally handled on-wiki. But then I got super-busy with work and stopped editing entirely. When my work situation changed, I had been away so long that I didn't even think about it. Then I saw someone complaining in a discussion forum about the quality of a particular article, and thought, "I can help with that." So I came back, with renewed interest and more time.

Additional optional questions from Smithers

5. In your own words, explain CSD criteria G1.

A. G1 covers patent nonsense, such as strings of non-human-readable characters ("jd*$#Q55FDdf") or word salad ("manifold hip blue fusion calmly tomorrow"). This is assuming the gibberish isn't vandalism of a previously readable article or something that isn't supposed to be readable, such as a template for generating lorem ipsum text. Bad writing and foreign languages don't count either.

6. In your own words, explain CSD criteria A9.

A. A9 is for articles about musical recordings. It has a two-part test: 1) does it give some indication of why the subject is significant, and 2) does an article exist for the artist who made the recording. If the answer to both of those questions is 'No', then the article could be deleted under A9. I'll be up front and say that I've never seen one of these, but when I do new page patrol I usually work from the back of the queue, where the really obvious deletions have typically been taken care of.

Additional optional questions from Amorymeltzer

7. Are there any aspects or tenets of the Objectivist philosophy that you think could or should be applied to adminship? Any that shouldn't? This isn't an attempt at inviting a polarizing article at Wikipedia:Objectivism and Adminship, just a (hopefully) creative way of seeing how you would interpret the userright.

A: I suspect that your question may be founded on a false assumption about my personal beliefs, but I will take it as it stands and try to answer in a way that is meaningful to people who aren't particularly familiar with the philosophy (probably most RFA participants), and also not excessively long-winded (I am aware that I sometimes run on at the keyboard). I think there is clear applicability for some of the major virtues in the Objectivist ethics, such as rationality (for example, closing a discussion based on a considered evaluation of the arguments, not an emotional reaction), honesty (being up front about any COI issues and avoiding actions based on them), and justice (treating contributors with respect for the value of their contributions, or blocking them if they are repeatedly disruptive). Respect for individual rights would be relevant when dealing with things like copyright issues and libelous BLP material.

As to non-applicable tenets: There are probably many that should not be used by an admin as a direct source for taking admin actions. For example, Objectivism includes aesthetic principles about what qualifies as "art", but an admin considering a CFD for renaming an art-related category should base the close on the consensus of the discussion rather than personal beliefs about the matter. (And an admin who can't do it that way should join the discussion as a participant rather than closing it.)

Not trying to assume anything about your (non-enWiki) beliefs, just using it as a framework. Thanks for the answer!

Additional optional questions from Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! //

8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Well, I already gave an opinion on that unholy mess at DRV. And I'm not the first person at RFA to say that I would not make closing controversial AFDs an early focus of my admin activity. But to take up the hypothetical anyway: First, I would need to consider whether a relist would allow the conversation to move to consensus (clearly not for the discussion you linked). If relisting doesn't make sense, I would close the discussion as "no consensus" (duh). Finally, I would have to decide whether that "no consensus" close should result in a default of deleting the article. Personally I think such a default is the best policy, and there is enough similar sentiment at DRV that I could probably get away with a deletion. But I'm also aware that the wider community opinion runs in the opposite direction, as shown by the many "oppose" comments here. So really the question is, do I implement the policy that I approve, or what I believe the community wants? I think the answer to that is that admins don't operate on their own authority, but rather are granted tools by the community to help implement the community's decisions. So when making admin decisions, I would defer to my best understanding of the broader consensus. At the moment, unfortunately, that broader consensus does not include defaulting to delete. So I would hold my nose and close it as "No consensus, default to keep."

9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. My most noteworthy involvement with a BLP is at Van Jones, the former Obama staffer. When he was being heavily criticized by Glenn Beck, the article was subjected to lots of vandalism and POV-pushing. The POV-pushing in particular created lots of BLP issues, both attempts to insert unsupported claims, and attempts to exclude supported claims that particular editors thought were too critical or too flattering. The vandalism was largely stopped by semi-protection, although it then migrated to the talk page, which also ended up semi-protected, which is relatively unusual. I think I acquitted myself well enough, but you can read the talk page archives and edit histories to decide for yourselves. Another example would be this discussion about Matt Drudge. There are also several BLPs within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, such as Nathaniel Branden and Leonard Peikoff, although these don’t have as many problems as you might see with articles about major political figures and celebrities.

As to BLP policy: Given how much discussion there is about it, I won't claim comprehensive familiarity with all the issues (although I am an occasional commenter at WT:BLP), but on the whole I believe it is appropriate. The amount of traffic that Wikipedia gets and the number of sites that mirror it can magnify the damage done by mistaken or malicious claims, and a cavalier attitude about BLP material would lead to a lot more of this. I think the most important thing we can do to improve our handling of BLPs is to implement something like flagged protection.

Additional optional questions from Phantomsteve

10. In your answer to Q1, you said With any area I decide to get involved with, I would approach it cautiously at first. I applaud the cautious approach (it shows a realistic approach in my opinion), but I was wondering which other admin areas you might consider getting involved in, and why you feel you could do a good job in those areas?

A: I would start by increasing my involvement in a non-admin capacity in areas where I already participate to a degree, such as AFD, MFD, and DRV, with the notion that I could work my way up to doing some easy closes, followed by harder stuff later. I would also follow the ANI and admin backlog pages more closely to understand where the greatest needs are. Just looking at the backlog page right now, areas like requested moves or history merges would probably be of more interest to me than files for deletion or DYK.

As to why I could do a good job in such areas: For the areas where I already have some non-admin participation, it seems obvious enough to expand on that. For less-familiar areas like requested moves and history merges, I would actually want to study them more before making such an assertion. In general, I think I have traits that would benefit me in many admin areas: a desire to explore options and find compromises, willingness to admit mistakes, detail-oriented without being obsessive, reasonable technical proficiency, etc.

Additional optional questions from DGG

11. First, at TfD, do you think you will do more good discussing the issues, or closing the discussions? Second, many discussions at all XfDs attract relatively little participation. How would you deal with them, and, more generally, how can we increase participation in these processes? (I realize that last part is not directly pertinent to your work as an admin.)

A: For the first question, I think I could help with both. Obviously in some discussions I will have particular opinions that I want to express, or I might contribute an opinion where there is otherwise a lack of discussion. But there will be other discussions that I will be able to close. As for low-discussion XFDs, the traditional solutions are either to relist or to close based on whatever minimal participation there is. Obviously not a huge range of options. For TFD in particular, many of the nominated items are orphaned, so there just aren't that many people who see the standard notifications. One possibility would be to encourage wider notification. For example, there could be a bot to notify all contributors to a template, not just the creator as is done by tools like Twinkle. Or we could encourage notifications to relevant wikiprojects. (I'm just throwing out ideas here, mind you, so there could be all sorts of downsides.) But ultimately it might not make a lot of difference in some areas. For the average editor, articles are more interesting, more familiar, and more important than stuff like templates, redirects, stub types, etc., so participation at AFD will probably always outpace the rest.

Additional optional question from Pcap

12. During the four years when your account was inactive, did you use any other accounts to edit Wikipedia, did you edit anonymously, or not at all? If you did use other accounts, are you willing to disclose them, and to whom?

A: I have never used any other account on English Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project. In the event that I ever did see a need for an alternate account for some purpose, I expect that I would be open about that with the entire community (e.g., posting the relationship of the accounts on the userpage of each). As far as anonymous editing, I did read Wikipedia between August 2006 and May 2009, and if memory serves I did make a few edits of the typo-fixing variety, but based on my contribution history it appears that I didn't log in except for this edit in February 2009. I couldn't tell you anything more specific than that; I don't remember now why I was even reading the article that I did log in to edit.

General comments

• Links for RL0919: RL0919 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for RL0919 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/RL0919 before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support without reservation as the nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I don't have any problem with the break as long as you are honest about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. I don't see any reason not to. Malinaccier (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Excellent, level-headed editor, from what I've seen. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, clueful editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, no reason to oppose, but has only been active in recent months. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support WP:AGF--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support looks good. Airplaneman ^talk 05:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support no problems in uploads, move logs or deleted contribs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
11. 'Support: admins don't have to be proficient in every area before they start - for one, I cannot forsee any negative consequences of sysop status in this case, and secondly, the user has the right attitutude. In the real world, you cannot expect people to have every required skill whilst interviewing them. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    That's interesting, as only administrators can see deleted contributions. What are non-admninistrators supposed to do, take it on trust? Fat chance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

12. Support - Why oppose? Can't find a reason to do so! Oh, and Happy Holidays! 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 08:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support, question answers reveal a sensible and clued-up user who would make good use of admin tools. A quick review of contributions reveals no concerns. I do not find the oppose rationales remotely convincing. Hence, I'm happy to support! ~ mazca ^talk 12:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support: Looks Good. Happy Holidays - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Looks good. Warrah (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support There's a clear need for another administrator to help out regularly at TfD, and RL0919 fits the bill to a T. He has an excellent history and there and a near-perfect record of T2 and T3 CSD taggings. His work on contentious articles, from Ayn Rand to Van Jones, is also very impressive. The candidate seems trustworthy, thoughtful, and capable, and his answers to the questions all inspire confidence. His willingness to help out with oft-neglected areas of the admin backlog (TfD, WP:RM) also moves me to support. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I am very happy with what I've seen, and the answer to my question shows me that the candidate will have the right attitude towards adminship. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Weak Support - I would like to see more CSD work, but the answers to my questions prove to me you know what you are doing, although I am sort of playing scouts honor here. Hopefully it pays off. Good luck. smithers - talk - sign! 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Won't abuse the tools, and that what matters. Secret ^account 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support The answers are solid, and I like that this user also has a life off-wiki. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - none of the oppose rationales seem sufficent to avert me from a default support.Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Head seems to be in the right place, as does some good experience where adminship is likely to take place. The concerns over a long "break" (clearly) don't dissuade me - active solidly since May is all I'm concerned with. Before that who cares? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support. Alison22 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indented (user indef blocked as a sockpuppet). Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

24. Support - Given the user's stated intention regarding the tools (TFD and CSD), I feel perfectly comfortable supporting. Answers to the questions seem thoughtful and full of clue. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Certainly. Why registering an account early on can be held against you is beyond me, and it's not a "wikibreak" if all your edits amount to a couple days of edits. If anything I find it reassuring that you're not a sock. From what I can tell you're a calm editor who works in a niche, without issues on the talk page, are generally clueful, and are low on drama. Absolutely the kind of editor who should have admin rights. Amalthea 00:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - I've been going back and forth on this. You seem to have a great understanding of the BLP policy, and the AFD policy. You seem to be a great editor, who would be a great help as an admin. You seem to be rather uncontroversial (always a good thing). You have over 21% of your edits in the Wikipedia space (mostly in the TFD area), which means you don't just stick to articles (something I like to see in an admin). But one thing concerns me, you're understanding of IAR. You mentioned that you shouldn't close AFDs per your likes or dislikes, and that's all well and good. But it's when we get into the arena of BLPs that it becomes a little more important for admins to take certain situations into their own hands, not to thwart policy or the community consensus, but to give them a hand in deciding which way to go when they can't decide which direction the article should go. Now don't take this in the wrong way, I'm just asking you to keep certain things in mind while you go around Wikipedia. I think you'll do fine, and I hope you pass this RFA. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 01:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. Aiken ♫ 03:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - echoing Amalthea and A Stop at Willoughby. I am not swayed by oppose arguments based on inexperience or a "wikibreak." I'm inclined to discount the early edits entirely, just as I wouldn't hold a history of IP edits against a user who later registered. And I think your answers to the questions demonstrate an astounding amount of clue; I'm confident that you will know how to navigate any areas of unfamiliarity that come up during your adminship. Rock on. — æk^Talk 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Good candidate. Nice mix of Prod, AFD and CSD in your deletion tagging. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Don't see anything that makes me think the candidate will misuse the tools. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Experienced candidate that knows Wikipedia well. Tries to solve conflicts in Wikipedia and few concerns are mentioned. Zigthel (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Unconcerned about arguments even taking into account his editing history before 2009; he wasn't a regular contributor then. He has only been actively editing since May 2009, which occasionally can be enough for an oppose, but I was very impressed with his contribution history and with the answers to the questions. Will definitely be a net positive as a sysop. NW (Talk) 14:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I really like the answers to the questions, and even if I hadn't, per Bali ultimate would be appropriate here. Opposing a candidate due to a 4-year-old contribution that was clearly in line with Wikipedia style in that era, and is still okay for a stub now? Utterly unfair and needs to be cancelled out. Ray^Talk 15:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Definitely has a clue. Good content contributions and I like the fact that he started in 2005. Sure, there's the three-year break but it still gives him an interesting perspective on how the project has evolved. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. I have no idea what I'm doing in template space, thus I don't participate in TfD but I know that a lack of competent admins to close discussions is a problem in all XfD arenas and so to add one would be of great benefit to the area and the project as a whole. The opposes really don't hold water- so he had a nice long wikibreak, many editors could benefit from that, it shows perspective with the "real world" (never a bad thing) but does not make him any less trustworthy with the tools. Good luck to you! HJMitchell You rang? 18:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Support I find the concerns about a long absence unconcerning; and have only looked at the candidate since this May. I like what I see, and think this editor would make a fine sysop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Good answers given, and I see nothing in the opposes that would change my mind.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Tan | 39 00:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. Seems an okay fellow, even though experience in some admin-related areas is a little shallow. Insistence at AfD that exploding trees is WP:SYNT was a little strange, but that's the worst I found about him. :-) Pcap ping 02:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Support -- No concerns. I liked his answers to the questions, especially #8. Shows he is able to follow shifts in the community's thinking even when they not yet codified into policy. EdJohnston (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per EdJohnston. Tim Song (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support, what's the worst that could happen? --cremepuff222 (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

    This user is now indefinitely blocked (for reasons unrelated to this RfA). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

42. Support I see no reason to oppose; also per Amalthea. Regards SoWhy 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I'm not too worried about anything the oppose section has come up with so far - candidate looks fine to me. AlexiusHoratius 16:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I can see you obviously know what you're doing from the questions. HaiyaTheWin (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Qualified. No significant concerns seem to have been raised. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Nothing of concern in the oppose section or question answers. Gigs (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - 8 months of solid contributions over a variety of places (almost half in article space), and almost 6,000 total edits, with around 90% non-automated, I don't see where the lack of experience comes into play. Some particularly nice article space contributions, good communication skills, a clean block log, no complaints of bad contributions or behavior. I don't see any reason to not support. -- Atama頭 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Yes, I think so. I actually think a wikibreak is a good thing; most of us get annoyed with this place sometimes, the judgement to step away rather than get involved in drama is a good one I think. And anyone who can help with template CSDs is good. GedUK  08:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. It's a sad day when seven months of active editing is dismissed as inexperience. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

    Note - I've got 11 months of active editing. I don't see anyone dismissing mine, or his, days as inexperience. I see people discussing the degree of those edits, and their import, in particular where those edits were made. I don't understand why a "gap" matters, but that's not really my place to judge. But if you're content to support editors because they've had 7 months of edits, or 5k+ edits, there are a lot of other 1 year+ editors who are more active (and will continue to be) and continue to do a lot of under appreciated work. Shadowjams (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

50. Support Opposes don't raise issues I'm overly worried about, and as Atama shows, reasonable contribution rate. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
51. Support: I have not crossed paths with this editor, but the answers in this RfA are sensible and encouraging and give the impression of a considerate candidate who will use the tools wisely. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - meets my standards. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 17:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Thoughtful answers to questions. Decent article work. Plans to help out backlogs in a sensible way, will be a good addition to the ranks.--SPhilbrickT 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. No evidence to suggest that the candidate's adminship will be anything other than a net positive to the project. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Support per PeterSymonds. How dare someone have a life outside of WP? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Weak support If the wikibreak is to be ignored, then I would question whether the candidate has enough experience. But what I've seen is very, very good. WFCforLife (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Looks to be a net positive. -SpacemanSpiff 06:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - Benefit of the doubt is warranted...Modernist (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
59. Support (moved from neutral) though I have high expectations!  fetchcomms☛ 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
60. Support The wikibreak seems to have been a good thing for him. delirious ☯ ^{~ happy christmas~} 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
61. Samir 18:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    why exactly?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

62. Support. s/he seems trustworthy enough.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
63. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, because it is the holiday season, but also as the user was trusted enough to be given both rollback and autoreviewer status, is an experienced editor of over 4 years and over 6,000 edits, User:RL0919#Awards are nice to see, and as candidate has never been blocked. Good luck and Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Impressed with his thoughtful replies (and his poise and maturity in the face of Bali ultimate's snarking). Completely unconcerned about his wikibreak. This is a volunteer enterprise. If he had more important things to do, god bless him. Now that he's back, let's give him the tools. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support I suppose I will type something here so that I am not accused of supporting with no reason. --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    You already supported (#42). Tim Song (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

65. Support Level-headed, mature. Knows what he's doing. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 10:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
66. Support Per all the good reasons above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
67. Have yourself a merry little support vote... No blocks, no drama to speak of, solid answers to questions, and I disagree with most of the opposes. Works for me... GJC 08:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
68. Support — JoJo • Talk • 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
69. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
70. Qualified and competent. Merry Christmas ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 21:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support Billions of people celebrate today in remembrance of Mary giving birth via immaculate conception. While the obvious answer is that Mary was actually knocked up, entire institutions and social rules are based on this single willful ignorance. Obviously, we live in a world of fools; a small minority of which still manage to overcome the absurd fantastical constructs developed by goat farmers to help explain the unknown. This project is one such example of our ongoing endeavor as a species to overcome the mass influence of our least intelligent thinkers. This editor represents someone who poses no clear and present danger to preventing Wikipedia from accomplishing this task, and thus, I lend to you my support. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting above vote as a duplicate (see #21 above). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Whoops! Totally forgot I voted for him already. Sorry about that folks! The funny part is that while reviewing RLO919 I was thinking to myself "hmm... this guy seems really familiar...". Well, now I know why! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Merry Christmas to a great candidate. Ret.Prof (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, Ret Prof, you've accidentally !voted twice; indenting. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

71. Last minute support -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose While I see a lot of participation in TfD's and CfD's, I see less than 400 deleted edits, and none to the usual areas of UAA, AIV, RPP, and very few in AfD's. Based on the lack of participation in those areas, I cannot accurately judge whether this candidate possesses the repentant requisite knowledge to make informed, accurate decisions at this time. I would like to see the candidate KNOW a policy before applying it, rather than rapidly learning one before applying it. ArcAngel (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   "repentant knowledge" ? WJBscribe (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps he meant "requisite knowledge"? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that's what I meant - but for some reason repentant came out. <DOH!> ArcAngel (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Freudian slip? :) Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per ArcAngel. One two three... 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Regular contributing from only May 2009 onwards. I would like to see more experience first in certain areas that admins should be versatile in, ex. WP:AFD and others. BejinhanTalk 06:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - perhaps more experience would be useful.West one girl (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - glad to reconsider later but this user needs much more experience. Just as an example, his/her talk page has only been edited 135 times in total. That really doesn't give us enough indication of how s/he will respond as an admin to the crap that will inevitably be hurled in his/her direction. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose - too early, I am also slightly worried about the long wikibreak. Pantherskin (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Concerned about the long gap between edits, and that he's only been editing regularly since May. I'd like to see a bit more experience. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose so far a basically short editing history gives me pause...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Changed to support...Modernist (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose per lack of recent track record to judge the candidate and Henry Oliver Walker.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   That page was created in 2005 by RL0919, and hasn't been edit by him since then, that's 4 years ago. How about we not try to go back that far, mmkay? --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   I might be asking for trouble where I shouldn't, but I'm actually curious to know what the concern is. I created the article as my 14th edit. Although it was hardly a model article and not what I would create today, I don't think it was all that bad. But maybe I'm missing something. --RL0919 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   It's an unsourced steaming pile, it's one of only 6 or so articles you ever created and you never fixed it. You've taken no responsbilty for the unsourced, alleged information you've placed here. The fact that it's longstanding makes it worse. It's like walking away from a car accident and when someone brings it up, your response is: So? That was a long time ago. Should have fixed these kinds of problems before standing for the position, if you really cared about content and what you put your name to.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Sweet lord. S/he created the page at 10:22pm on 12 Jul 2005, with an edit summary indicating that the info came from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. (cf. this online version of the same) Less than 12 hours later, s/he added two external links to the article, with some background on the subject. Other than putting the reference to the 1911-EB in the article rather than the edit summary, I don't see much need to improve; the article was a reasonable stub at the point of the second diff I've linked, perhaps even better than average. — æk^Talk 06:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Bali clearly has high standards, as is the right of anyone who participates here. "[S]teaming pile" and "car accident" are a bit harsh, but the original article was lacking for references (I didn't realize at the time that I should have at least put a {{1911}} template on it), and that aspect apparently hadn't been improved on in the years since. Since my return I had barely looked at the article, other than to confirm it still existed. I made some additions this morning that will hopefully take a little steam off the pile. (By the way, "he" is fine as a pronoun for me. I am definitely male, both biologically and socially.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica considered a reliable source? I honestly dont know. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   I wouldn't use it for something like scientific information, but for biographies of people from that era it should be a good source. At the time I wrote the article, there was a project devoted to creating articles for every old EB topic that didn't already have an article here. That's why I created it. I didn't know Henry Oliver Walker from Adam until that day. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   Britannica 1911 is definitely a reliable source. Not authoritative, especially for topics on which our understanding has changed in the last 100 years. In-depth articles shouldn't use it as the main source but it's definitely a solid starting point. Moreover, relatively new editors like Bali ultimate may not realize that precise sourcing was not the standard in 2005. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

   I'm going to have to say: the "steaming pile" and "car accident" isn't actually that bad. Looks like a solid stub-class article to me :). Airplaneman ^talk 05:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose. The participation in TfD is not enough for me determine knowledge in policy matters. I hope TfD regulars won't take offense, but most discussion in which the applicant was involved were of the trivial variety: "delete not used", "delete duplicate of XYZ", "keep this one is used", etc. Since the candidate declared he wants to increase his participation in AFD, MFD, and DRV after getting the tools, I have to oppose. I'd like to see experience in those areas beforehand. Pcap ping 20:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC) (striking for now, needs further evaluation 01:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

   You don't have to rely solely on TfD participation, among the candidate's 1178 project space edits are over 350 edits to other areas, including over 200 to Afd/Cfd/Mfd. In my opinion, it's not particularly important how much experience a candidate has in areas he merely intends to increase participation in. He will be confronted with numerous other aspects he had no contact at all with before, and might never have intended to have contact with. The only question is whether you trust him to act considerately and within community consensus. Considering the clue and cautious nature I've found in this candidate, I have no doubt that he will do just fine, will rely on common sense and read up on community policy whenever required, and defer to others if he doesn't feel comfortable. Amalthea 21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose per BejinhanTalk. Old account, but fairly new to today's Wikipedia. Would like to see a longer track record. I'm fairly confident that RL0919 wont misuse the tools, but would like to see more experience. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - moved from neutral; Nowhere near enough CSD or patrolling experience to approve a new page admin. Page patrolling is less than 2% of total edits, which are low in any case. Although I acknowledge TfD work is completely different that a lot of other parts of the project, we're talking about full rights, not just TfD rights. I still like and trust the editor, but would like to see more editing in some key areas. Not sure there's enough there fore me to be comfortable. Shadowjams (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Too few edits deleted edits, little involvement in the usual areas of UAA, AIV, RPP, and AfD, and certainly not enough experience, particularly in regards to CSD and new page patrolling. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose - with respect and appreciation for the candidate's work, there just doesn't seem to be enough experience yet to grant the tools. I don't see any problems or warning signs, just not enough participation so far. Looks like good potential though, and I encourage another RfA when the time is right. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
13. User admits that he edited anonymously before he created this account. Without knowing these edits we don't have a full record. How can we support? There might be vandalism! Heck, he might still be vandalizing today!!!!! Chutznik (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Uhh... is this a joke oppose? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    (ec) Hmm, wording, punctuation, and content of your comment let this appear to be ironic, but adding this to the oppose section makes me wonder. Could you clarify whether this is your actual opinion? Amalthea 15:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    this comment alone makes me want to outright Support. IP's are not evil. In fact, a lot of them are great wiki-gnomes--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Sounds like a joke. I certainly wouldn't take this oppose seriously until the explanation is expanded. I would be worried about an editor that didn't have some IP edits before registering, and even more worried about editors that knew what their IPs were (unless you were computer savvy and/or happened to have a very static IP) Shadowjams (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

    Chutznik seems like a pretty cool guy. :) *waves* --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose If I can't be accepted then neither should you. From now on I will oppose anyone being nominated if I feel they are equally or less deserving than I am. You are less deserving than I am, so no support for you. It's simple logic, since I was voted down. Otherwise the site is playing favorites and running a popularity contest and that must stop.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Struck innaropriate and pointy oppose. If anyone wants to revert me (not including Wiki Greek Basketball) feel free to do so. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Undid striking of another editor's !vote as bureaucrats are smart enough to consider all aspects of someone's !vote. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose No enough recent experience with modern Wikipedia Otherwise a good candidate. RP459 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

    Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by "modern Wikipedia" in this context? I'm a little confused. ~ mazca ^talk 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose Although the edits from this user are constructive, I do not feel that this user is yet qualified for sysop permissions.  IShadowed  ✰  21:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Another neutral I take. While he is very clueful and helpful to the project, s/he lacks experience at areas like AfD, which s/he should be familiar with if he is intending to help at CSD. While I am not quite supportive, I doubt he would misuse the Admin status. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Well, specifically he said he was going to help with template CSDs. His deleted edits contain a large number of perfectly correct T3s and T2s. ~ mazca ^talk 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Still, per Q10...I believe it is best that he acquires a little more experience in those areas before becoming an Admin. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - Nowhere near enough CSD or patrolling experience to approve a new page admin. Page patrolling is less than 2% of total edits, which are low in any case. Although I acknowledge TfD work is completely different that a lot of other parts of the project, we're talking about full rights, not just TfD rights. These are all oppose reasons, but I don't think that balances the gut feeling I have that I really like this editor, I think the judgment is good, and I think that there's a lot positive here. I don't have enough background to support, so I'm going to remain neutral (gut feeling works both ways), but after some more evidence I would be more than willing to support this. Shadowjams (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose.

2. Neutral Good work in Wikipedia, but long absence worries me. Houstonbuildings (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral - Certainly there are some worthwhile contributions here, and they would typically merit a support vote from me. However, given the relatively brief period of continuous editing, it makes it somewhat difficult for me to judge. I'm going neutral for now. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral Seems trustworthy, and I appreciate the obvious thought put into his answers to the questions above. Still, I think a greater demonstration of knowledge of policy would be usefull. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral RUL3R said it, another neutral from me too. I think that this user has been a great benefit to TfD, but I think that another month is needed to get more experience with CSD work and something other than TfD.  fetchcomms☛ 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

   Given that the candidate has pledged to become more familiar with article CSD and AfD in a non-admin capacity before beginning to tackle those areas as an admin, and based on the levelheaded tone he exhibits throughout his answers, would you feel comfortable changing your vote to support? I don't think it's reasonable to think that either a failed RFA candidate would come back in just a month, or that the community would look favorably on his doing so. It would be a shame to deny an otherwise competent candidate for want of one month's experience with article deletion, when he himself has acknowledged that he needs such experience and will seek it out. — æk^Talk 23:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

   Hmmm, good points. I am going to further review the candidate. Removing my vote for now.  fetchcomms☛ 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support. I still have some reservations, but none that are serious enough to warrant an oppose, and I do agree that one month would be a waste.  fetchcomms☛ 17:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral - He meets many of my standards, but I'm concerned about his lack of recent experience, in effect a newbie again. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2009 (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.