Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Reaper Eternal

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Reaper Eternal

Final (133/0/3); Closed as successful by –xenotalk at 13:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination

Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honour to be able to present to you Reaper Eternal, for your consideration for adminship. Reaper Eternal is one of the most trustworthy, level-headed and sensible editors I have come across for a good while. He is one one of a a very small group of non-admins to be trusted with edit filter management rights, he is a prolific and dedicated vandal fighter and a bit of a wikignome. That's well and good, I hear you say, but we have bots that can do a reasonable job of most of those tasks. Ah yes, but Reaper Eternal has proven that he does such things because he enjoys them, not because he lacks the talent to do anything else. He's written a Featured Article, cirrus cloud (which is well worth a read), and two other Good Articles. He's also taken on several GA reviews. His talk page and archives, as well as numerous other discussions in which he's been involved show that he plays nicely with other editors—newbies and veterans alike—and is not too proud to admit it when he made a mistake.

All things considered, I think Reaper Eternal would make an excellent administrator. He would do what he could to make life easier for the good guys—the gnomes, the vandal fighters and, of course, the writers—and harder for the bad guys—the sockpupeteers, the long-term abusers, the vandals and the spammers. I sincerely hope that the community agrees. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you very much, HJ. I accept this nomination. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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: As I mainly intend on cleaning up vandalism and blocking long-term abusers (the main reason I'm an edit filter manager), I will mainly be working in AIV and RfPP. I also intend on deleting obviously inappropriate pages, particularly the G# series. You can see a log of my speedy deletion tags here and several archived logs here, here, here, and here. I also respond to {{helpme}} requests, and would like to be able to help with {{adminhelp}} requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best article contribution is definitely my work getting Cirrus cloud from a little, poorly-sourced start all the way up to featured article status (nom). I also do a lot of work cleaning up articles, which ranges from categorizing and tagging new pages to reverting vandalism to wikifying and copyediting articles. (I have copyedited almost 200,000 words in GoCE backlog elimination drives, not including the copyediting I do on request.) I have two good articles, Worlebury Camp and Hurricane Danielle (2010).
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: The worst conflicts I've ever run into have been with long-term vandals and banned trolls launching 4chan attacks on my user talk page, resulting in its temporary protection on several occasions. Ignoring vandals, I haven't had much in the way of conflict with editors. There is one case, however, where I was called a "rabid inclusionist". I responded calmly and added sources to the playlist article to demonstrate its notability, which resulted in the nominator withdrawing his nomination. I've never really had any content disputes because the articles I enjoy editing tend to not be in controversial areas. However, I believe my interactions in the Cirrus cloud FAC show that I can interact appropriately with other editors when my work is criticized. In everything I do on Wikipedia, I try to avoid getting stressed, and I think I have a rather thick skin.
Additional question from My76Strat
4. Suppose you come across this CSD: User A creates an article - user B PRODs the article for cause - Ten days later after no change had been made, admin C deletes the article - 2 minutes later user A recreates the exact same article without changing anything related to the initial PROD - user D applies {{db-repost}} claiming "Recreation of deleted material" As an admin what action would take? I do accept returning it to the queue for a more experienced admin as valid.
A: Obvious decline. The article would have to be deleted via a deletion discussion, and a PROD is not a discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an obvious decline, would you consider it part of your administrative duty to inform user D that he had misapplied the tag? My76Strat talk 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: Actually, I would remove the tag and notify them even when I am not a sysop (like right now). Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from B
5. When thinking about our fair use policy, how do you evaluate whether an image complies with criteria #1 and #8? Consider these three scenarios for use of non-free content under a claim of fair use. If asked to close FFD discussions, how would you resolve them?
A: Well, for starters I don't plan on closing FFDs. If for some reason I had to close FFDs, I would do so based on consensus, not unilaterally. However, my rationale for !voting delete or keep would be as follows:
  • A photo from the school's website of a college professor who openly detests Wikipedia and does not allow cell phones in his classroom because he doesn't want someone taking and releasing under the GFDL a photo of him.
A: Delete - Pretty clearly fails criteria #1 of WP:NFC. In any event, if that is the only time that people got near that professor, he would almost certainly fail WP:PROF too, and thus there would be no article to use a non-free image on.
  • The photo from this website of the Moscow Water Dog, a breed developed in the 50s, which became extinct in the 1980s. The IFD discussion has three !votes for keep saying some form of "it is historically important to know what the dog looks like", two !votes for delete saying some form of "the image is too ugly to be useful", and one !vote for delete arguing that under Russian law, works of the Russian government published before 1954 are public domain, so we have a reasonable explanation of finding a public domain image. (Assume for the purposes of this question that this statement of law is correct and that the dog was first developed in 1950.)
A: Delete - The keep !votes are correct, except that the image could probably be replaced by a free version (failing NFCC #1), as mentioned by the delete !voter. Anyway, I think I found a free image, which would cause the file to immediately fail WP:NFCC #1. [1] I just need to find their image license to determine.
A: Delete - This passes NFCC #1 in that no free alternative for this poster could possibly be made (the poster itself, like an album cover, is copyrighted). However, it fails NFCC #8 in that it is not necessary for an understanding of rapture. On the other hand, I would support keeping this image if it were being used in an article about that specific rapture belief, as it would then pass #8 by being the only way you could describe such a poster.
6. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: It depends on the severity of the dispute. If it was something as minor as opposite !votes in an AFD with no direct response to each other, I would take it to WP:ANI for discussion. On the other hand, if there was a lot of strong discussion and contention between us, I would unblock with a summary like this: "As I was involved, I am unblocking this as a bad block." Then I would take it to WP:ANI for further discussion as to whether he should be blocked for 3RR anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. You are evaluating an articles for deletion discussion for a BLP. It is known that the subject of the article desires for the article to be deleted. How much does that weigh into your decision? --B (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: If the consensus was for keep or delete, I would close that way. However, if it were a no consensus closure, I would delete per WP:BLP's note of "do no harm" WP:DGFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from N5iln
8. I realize I've already !voted, but something came to mind just now. Your answer is entirely optional, and will in no way affect my !vote. How do you feel about WP:DTR? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A: My personal opinion is that WP:DTR has some valid points. For example, a {{uw-agf1}} or a {{uw-npa1}} is inappropriate, as the regular almost certainly knows about WP:NPA or WP:AGF. On the other hand, a {{uw-3rr}} would be appropriate to warn the other editor that he may be blocked if he reverts again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Carlossuarez46
9. What do you think of Wikipedia's division of sources into primary, secondary, tertiary, and preference for secondary sources? (see WP:PRIMARY) Into which category do data published by a governmental agency on its geography or demographics fall?
A: I think that Wikipedia's preference for secondary reliable sources is a good idea since it allows the article to analyze the topic. With primary reliable sources, you can do nothing more than report the facts from the source (except in BLPs, where even this should be avoided [see WP:BLPPRIMARY]). A tertiary source generally does nothing more than sum up the secondary sources and thus should only be used to give general information or summaries of the topic. However, a secondary source can be used to support an evaluation of the topic.
As for the second part of this question, data published by a governmental agency is a primary source because it took its own data and relies on nothing but its own data for its conclusions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by a statistician: The candidate's statement that "data published by a governmental agency is a primary source because it took its own data and relies on nothing but its own data for its conclusions" is problematic.
Almost all official statistics are produced in cooperation with other government agencies, with households, and with businesses. More importantly, the study protocol specifies the random-sampling design and the analysis (which usually is determined by the sampling design). In many countries, then, official statistics are more reliable and better understood than other secondary analyses (by subjective heuristics).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really sure how government took its data. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. I have observed and interacted with Reaper Eternal many times and am unequivocal in my support. I anticipate a rush of activity to this section. My76Strat talk 13:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks like a good 'un. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support — Definitely. — Waterfox ~talk~ 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Haven't interacted much with xyr, however xe seems to be a good candidate, and I'm Supporting Diego Grez (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a he. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I used xyr/xe because I didn't know that ;)  Diego  talk  14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep. Cleaning up his own issues without prompting is another plus. StrPby (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I thought you were an admin already. Good nomination by HJ as well. Moonridden girl took a look, so there must not be any copyright issues hiding. Ryan Vesey contribs 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Moved to neutral over concerns discussed below. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I realized my neutral !vote was very pointy. While I still don't agree with your response to question #6 admin candidates should be judged on what they would do, not on what they won't do, as admins. With that view in mind I am renewing my support !vote. Have fun with the admin bit.Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not like your answer to question 6 but I am keeping my support. Note that the policy says "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." WP:3RR is a bright line rule. It is extremely straightforward; therefore, an involved admin can take action unless they are involved with the specific dispute which includes the edit war. In reality, I support everything you stated accept for your decision to unblock the edit warrior. Ryan Vesey contribs 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, I do not believe that an admin should block another user for 3RR when they have had sharp disputes in the past. It could very easily look like pure revenge. If they really needed to be blocked, I would file a report on WP:AN3 and let an uninvolved admin take action if needed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. Edit wars/3RR violations are rarely so urgent that they can't wait for another admin, and given recent controversies, I'd rather have an admin who is overly cautious when it comes to involvement than one who is under-cautious. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. When I read that RE was running for adminship, I came here fully expecting to strongly support his candidacy based on what I saw of him in the past, where he was always helpful and clueful. But I wouldn't be myself if I didn't check his actual contributions to see whether my feeling was correct. And unfortunately, for a candidate who wants to work in speedy deletion, RE has made some mistakes in the past: This A7 just seconds after creation was truly bad. The rest of the taggings I found concerning were not bad as such, but look as if he had been impatient and overly hasty. This A7 6 minutes after creation for example or [2] and [3]. This G7 was hasty as well, given that new users regularly remove all content to replace it with new one, not knowing how Wikipedia works. I'm somewhat baffled by [4] and [5] but I'm sure RE now knows what {{wi}} is. Again though, those examples show a worrying tendency to act overly hasty. That said, in most of the cases I found, he realized his mistake moments afterwards and reverted himself and if there is a quality that every admin should possess, then it's the ability and willingness to perceive one's mistakes and the willingness to admit and rectify them. Because I think this is one of RE's main character traits, I am willing to assume that he is able to learn from those mistakes and will not be the "shoot first and check later" kind of admin if this request succeeds (we have already too many of those). My willingness is also fueled by the fact that the amount of such mistakes is somewhere near 1% of his taggings, so it's more likely that those were genuine mistakes and not normal behavior. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, [6] and [7] were self reverted. Ryan Vesey contribs 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know. My comment already says "in most of the cases I found, he realized his mistake moments afterwards and reverted himself". ;-) Regards SoWhy 16:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for reviewing my contributions, SoWhy. I'm not going to delete any {{wi}} articles as an admin, and I will allow more time before tagging articles for speedy deletion. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Articles + vandalism reverting + etc = good admin (short verison, I could keep typing for ages! :P) Hurricanefan25 tropical cyclone 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Editor has plenty of experience in admin-related areas and good anti-vandal work. --EdwardZhao (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. James500 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Plenty of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Personally I have no issue with hasty CSDs, it's hardly any less bitey to stare at the page for half an hour before tagging it, there's no data supporting the assumption that tagging in 5 minutes turns new users away while waiting 30 minutes is more likely to them into valuable contributors Jebus989✰ 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I was doing some admin mentoring of RE (until real life prevented me having time to do so) (see User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring for what we did!), and I was impressed with what I saw. I see no reason not support RE, and I think that he will make a good admin PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --CutOffTies (talk) 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support One of the best users on Wikipedia. I truly think he'll make a fantastic admin. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A very well qualified candidate. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - me too. Richard Cavell (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Always thought he was one! I have no doubt he'll make a fine admin.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - We have worked together on several articles and Reaper has always been helpful and collaborative.— Rod talk 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I have been waiting for this all month long, and I'm excited to see what he's going to do when he receives the tools. Minima© (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef Jimbo Wales! :) What else? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Protect the sandbox! Minima© (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I thought he was already an Admin. Great job, Reaper Eternal. Keep up the great work! Planetary Chaos Redux (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Should be a great admin. Monty845 17:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, I know him mostly from the AFC submissions he is reviewing. Really good job! mabdul 17:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Good luck, I see nothing wrong! America69 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support – has what it takes for the mop and bucket, and then some :). Airplaneman ✈ 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. So that he can indef Jimbo. T. Canens (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Hell yes And that's all I'm gonna say about that.--v/r - TP 19:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Suppport - I really, really, really hate the old cliche, "I thought he was an admin already", but I'd have to say that in Reaper Eternal's case. I actually thought this was a reconfirmation when I saw it in the candidate list. He handles himself as one already, and I have no doubt he'll be great in the role. -- Atama頭 19:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong suppport - An excellent candidate. Well-rounded and highly experienced in many critical areas; always friendly, helpful and full of clue. It's about time. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support Sterling candidate, no qualifications. Clear, succinct answers to questions on top of RE's solid experience. Steven Walling 22:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A well-rounded candidate, with good experience in content, Wikispace and anti-vandal work. I take deletion more seriously than most, and undeniably CSD was a concern. But a combination of self reverts for some of the mistakes, a very low error rate overall, and a very clear explanation of his policy on CSD going forward on his talk page, I'm comfortable in supporting. I look forward to reviewing List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset at FLC one day. —WFC— 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. TWO THINGS. Don't turn mean. Keep working to add content. Without it, the site is nothing and contributors are not falling out of trees to write quality work. Plus the latter will help prevent the former. Good luck, FA cloud man.TCO (reviews needed) 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support —Soap— 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support You seem sane enough for the job. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure about that. I have to question the sanity of ANYONE who voluntarily puts themselves through RfA, yours truly included. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - outstanding candidate, outstanding answers to some tough questions. --B (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Excellent candidate. The answer to question 7 is just such a long way from compliance with policy than I'm assuming it's a mere aberration. A subject's request for deletion does not mean that the article is doing the subject harm and most certianly does not justify a "no consensus = delete" close. The police position, at WP:DGFA, is "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." --Mkativerata (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! You're right, that guideline is in WP:DGFA, not WP:BLP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose as overqualified... err... Support Sven Manguard Wha? 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support without reservation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support. Kierzek (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Obvious support. Swarm X 04:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - based largely on my interactions with him at FAC. I will point out, however, that you're missing something rather important in Q4, and you may wish to expand your answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I know Reaper Eternal very well and he is a very nice person/candidate. I'm sure he will use the tools properly. Novice7 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. While A7 was totally wrong, I'll ignore it because he isn't that far off my personal views Reaper's heart appears to be in the right place, which is what's important for BLP I think. The rest of his contributions as a whole seem fine. NW (Talk) 04:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I have seen RE's contributions and we have worked together on some projects in the past. I truly believe that RE will be a great asset to the community. I'm happy to give my full support.– SMasters (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Have always been impressed by the clueful, patient responses I've seen from Reaper Eternal. A definite yes in my book. And, to be cliche - I thought he already was an admin. WormTT · (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 06:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support No reason why not to. ;) —Terrence and Phillip 08:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support More than qualified; this user should have been an admin already. :) HeyMid (contribs) 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Comment. I have not found any reason to oppose this editor. Presents knowledge of the guidelines and policies, as well as the ability to apply this knowledge in an appropriate manner. I believe RE will be a welcome addition to the admin team. Cind.amuse 10:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 'Support Are you sure you are not already? Agathoclea (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I knew he wasn't already - but he was on my list of names that I would be very happy to nominate. (Curses, foiled again......) Also is on my 'buck-passing' list - 'don't just believe me, ask so-and-so, thingy, or Reaper Eternal, they're all fair-minded'. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak support: The candidate is intelligent and usually clear and has some good content contributions, apparently. By his own account, the candidate has cleaned up past problems with copyright violations. I would have liked to have read more serious (both in tone and content) contributions to past RfAs by Reaper Eternal. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I happen to disagree with your answer to Q8 but that's a non-issue. I think you'll make a good admin. Mato (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Absolutely. This person is extremely hardworking, knowledgeable, and knows their way around the encyclopedia. The Interior (Talk) 15:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Here's a guy who really knows where his towel is. --Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have supported at #42. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Sure. Seems to have a good head on shoulders and sufficient experience for the tools. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Another mop to be dished out  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Seems qualified. I get a good sense that he's trustworthy. ceranthor 22:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Generally good. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. I really thought he already was one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Why not? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 03:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Seen editor numerous amounts of times in different areas of the project. Satisfied with his/her edits, therefore Support. Good Luck! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 04:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 12:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support No issues here. WayneSlam 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. I have every reason to trust this candidate. I looked through the edit history on cirrus: nice work! Extra points for surviving trolls from another website. I can't find any red flags, a very strong candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Pile-on support per answers to questions above -- clue is definitely indicated. :-) Haven't reviewed contributions yet, but it seems to have been thoroughly done above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Very viable candidate -- Luke Talk 21:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support and,
    "I occasionally use Huggle when I see that the usual vandal fighters are getting overwhelmed."
    Yes, occasionally you certainly do. :D jorgenev 03:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Good content contributions, and I see no reason to think Reaper Eternal will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - based on my reviews I do not see anything that concerns me. GB fan please review my editing 12:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Great user. No concerns. -- Ϫ 12:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Delighted to moved from Neutral to Support - see below. Ben MacDui 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support,No concern. EleoTager (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - looks good to me. Deb (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I'm not sure why, but upon hearing Reaper Eternal I thought they had been involved in some negative way in some large incident. Off the top of my head. But looking into it I am indeed confused, and will support. No idea why I thought that o.o NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Just as with my support of Q, RE is level-headed and helpful. I actually thought that RE already was an administrator. LHM 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Hardly a necessary support, as it seems that unless something untoward happens, this will pass with flying colours, but why not. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support I've read this whole debate in recent days, and have no concerns about this candidate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - Excellent candidate. RE does a lot of good work on our edit filters and can easily be trusted with the tools. He conducts himself well, as an admin should, and treats other with dignity and respect. RE has a wide range of experience working in many different areas of the project and is conversant in our policies. I'm very happy to support the candidate and look forward to his help in the admin areas. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Reaper Eternal has made many good quality contributions to the project. I'm sure he will make an excellent administrator. -- Marek.69 talk
  87. Support - I have occasionally interacted with RE and regularly see his work and have full confidence in his ability to wield the mop. Mlpearc powwow 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support I recognize him, not sure if he recognizes me, however he is a solid candidate. Admin him up! KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  89. More pile-on support. No problems with this user. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Clueful editor, good-natured and helpful to others. Worthy of a sickle mop. Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, an excellent candidate. All the best, --Taelus (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support will certainly make a fine admin. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support per Puffin's !vote below.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  95. I believe that the user will make a fine admin. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support This user's past behavior has been of the sort which is characteristic of the best Wikipedia editors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support The candidate is an experienced, dedicated vandal fighter and has demonstrated character qualities such as level-headedness and trustworthiness that give me great confidence in his ability to weild the mop. Cerebral answers to the questions and a terrific nom statement by HJM are also feathers in his cap.--Hokeman (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Strong content work, good knowledge of policy, excellent temperament. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Helpful editor, will be a great admin. Good luck. Connormah (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. As nom! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Yep, always seems like a good 'un. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - about time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Per nom; very qualified candidate. SpencerT♦C 00:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Don't see why not, had very friendly meetings. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Great user. Bryce53 | talk 01:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Not a doubt in my mind that this user is deserving of the tools. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 03:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Samir 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Lookin' good. ♠ 05:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - WikiGryphons certainly make wonderful administrators. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Qualified candidate. Courcelles 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. RE has done a great job thus far, and is definitely deserving of the extra tools. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Strong Support An excellent candidate for the mop. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support, please contact me for your cabal ID card and invitations to the Cabal-only nights at Raffles. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Way qualified. First Light (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Baseball Watcher 17:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, involved with janitorial tasks already without the full tool set. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support--Lcsrns (Talk) 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Definitely! I see Reaper Eternal everywhere! In every observation, I have found Reaper Eternal to be highly skilled, communicative, helpful, and polite, plus someone who takes criticism pretty well and learns from it. While I knew he wasn't an admin, he is certainly somebody who I knew would make an excellent administrator someday. I was surprised, however, to find out that Reaper Eternal created his account back in September 2009: it seems like he's been around longer. An amazing candidate...I have no concerns whatsoever here. Acalamari 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I only started editing in October 2010, so my account has been around for a year longer than I have! :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support "Thought he already was" situation here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)
  121. Support Looks good to me. --Bsadowski1 22:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  122. WP:100...oh wait, missed that one. Seen good work from Reaper Eternal; support promotion.  Frank  |  talk  01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support! My observation of Reaper's behavior on AfD and his vandalism work has informed me he is a responsible and prudent editor in WP who would contribute greatly to WP with administrator tools. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Can't see any problems. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 07:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Yes - good range of contributions from content creation to cleaning up. Seems solid enough and reasonable enough. Should make a useful admin. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Have seen his contributions around. Trustworthy and competent. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - high-quality article work, copious work at WP:AIV, 9 months' editing, participation in Admin training, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - I can't find any reason to oppose, based on checks I've done, and checking out the 'oppose' rationales below; op#3 I'll skip, because erring on the side of caution isn't a real cause for concern. Seems to have good judgement,  Chzz  ►  00:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Great editor and contributions. No qualms here after reviewing.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support, excellent candidate, full support. Dreadstar ☥ 05:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support, don't fear the reaper. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  132. Pile on. You know, I read through 130 supports and was happy no one else made Blue Oyster Cult references... but then I got to 131. Disappointing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Definitely. No alarms here, should be a great addition to the cabal corps. GedUK  12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
Your editing record gives me no cause for concern – indeed the reverse. However, I notice you have a userbox that states you suffer from auditory hallucinations. Symptoms apparently may range from the utterly trivial to the rather more serious. (In the former camp, I confess to having an Ari Hest earworm today for example.) I should like to be assured that your state of mental health provides no reason for the community to have concerns over handing you the tools. Ben MacDui 09:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that my mind is sound. :) Indeed, according to the Wikipedia article, studies show that ~5-10% of people have them. I do not and have never suffered from any mental illnesses. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for confirming this. As you can see I have moved to support. Ben MacDui 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that auditory hallucinations were so common without a diagnosable mental illness (and I'm a doctor). Thanks for educating me. But for the record, even if you had a mental illness, I would not hold it against you. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ari Hest earworms are highly contagious. The only effective treatment I've come across is Jason Mraz. But I only made it as far as EMT-I, so I may have missed something. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Look at this questionable revert [8]. Shouldn't an administrator examine the diff before taking action, as in this case nothing was done wrong? Puffin Let's talk! 15:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While noting that this is 'neutral', are you expecting admins to never make mistakes? I'd agree with what you say, apart from the fact that *any* editor, admin or not, should check diffs in that circumstance - I'm guessing that the edit summary gave rise to the mistaken thought that it was vandalism (all caps, etc) - mistaken in this case, but none of us are perfect - I think if we desysopped every admin who made a mistake, we'd have none left! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at the diff, and the bizarre edit summary and content made me think it was an account created with a spoof of your username (utilizing character look-alikes) for the sole purpose of harassing you. However, when my rollback removed your edits too, I saw that it was in fact you, so I self-reverted and apologized on your talk page. Cheers anyway! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Puffin, that's mind boggling. What do you expect with that sort of edit summary? The facts you present and the fact that RE quickly noticed, self-reverted, and apologized have actually clinched my vote in support.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can not support anyone who goes through admin coaching. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since that link is red, would you mind if I asked why? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero, that's a statement about the systems we employ at en.Wiki, and is not about the candidate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The coaching referred to is possibly this: User:Reaper Eternal/Admin Mentoring. The RfA process can be stressful and difficult, so being taken through some of the likely questions is appropriate. It could be argued that someone going straight to RfA without any thought or preparation is less suitable for the admin tools than someone who has done some preparation. Same as someone preparing for an exam or interview in real life, consideration of what is likely to happen is both useful and sensible. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I have some concerns regarding how Reaper Eternal will use the delete button due to his answer to question #7; furthermore, your answer to question #6 adopts way too strict an interpretation of WP:INVOLVED which would make it very difficult to find uninvolved admins (I'd be involved regarding the some 300 people who supported the proposal to grant the crats the ability to remove the admin bit, for instance...). All these reasons prevent me from supporting, but, having seen you in action, I feel I cannot oppose your candidacy either... Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I was very troubled over this one, and it can probably be viewed as a neutral leaning support, but I cannot support due to my concerns with the answer to question #6. I certainly can't oppose this candidate, but as I stated, 3RR is a bright line rule. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Renewing my support vote. He is an excellent candidate and this is a very poor reason for him not to have my support. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Reaper_Eternal&oldid=1270501162"