Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ucucha

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

Ucucha

Final (115/2/2)); closed by Pakaran at 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Ucucha (talk · contribs) – I have the pleasure to propose Ucucha - he's been around on Wikipedia since 2005, although has only been really active here since August (He was previously more active on Wikispecies and the Dutch Wikipedia, where he is an admin). Can he be trusted? I think so. He's produced some audited content, namely one FA (Lundomys) and one GA (Pseudoryzomys, currently at FAC), and another currently lingering at GAN, as well as thirty or so DYKs. Is there a need? Yes indeed, the wheels of DYK often need admin hands to tweak, so I consider this to be a substantial net positive to the project.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept the nomination and hope the community will trust me to perform the duties of an administrator. Ucucha 03:43, 8 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 will probably be most active at Did you know, where a few under-appreciated admins are doing huge amounts of work in getting all the updates ready on time; I'll be happy to help and relieve the stress a little. Otherwise, I will be dealing with the occasional vandal who pops up on my watchlist and I will assist if necessary at categories for discussion and requested moves, two processes where I have been somewhat active in the past. In general, I certainly won't be the most active admin, but I'll put my tools to careful use where I feel I can help the project.

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

A: I think my best contribution to Wikipedia has been reviewing hundreds of DYK hooks and helping to improve many articles on various subjects in the process. I feel DYK is a fabulous process, giving editors who contribute new content to the project a chance to have it featured on the Main Page and looked at by other editors. I've also done some content contributions myself; as Casliber kindly mentioned, this includes a number of DYK articles (listed at User:Ucucha/Recognized content with a few more on my talk page, if anyone is interested) as well as a single GA and FA. I intend to continue reviewing articles at DYK and elsewhere and developing some of the articles I've been working on to good and featured status.

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: Of course, I've disagreed with a number of people, but I don't think I have been in any serious conflicts--as far as I recall, I've always lived by bold, revert, discuss. I always try to keep a cool head and consider whether a contribution of mine is helpful to the project (as per the wonderful advice here), and I will continue do so in the future.

It is not directly related to this project, but as noted, I have been an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia for several years; I have been involved in some disputes there, which did not cause me significant stress and which ended favorably. A few months ago, I was nearly unanimously reconfirmed as an admin (they do things differently there—all admins face a yearly reconfirmation vote, with staggered votes held each quarter, where there is a hard requirement of 75% in favor for reconfirmation, without bureaucrat discretion). More recently, I handled the October reconfirmation vote, which proved to be one of the most contentious in recent history, involving deep disputes within the admin corps and a possible sockpuppetry issue which potentially affected the outcomes of some close votes. At the end, everything calmed down and several editors thanked me specifically for my calm and objectivity in handling all this. (Feel free to contact any Dutch editor to confirm this.) Although I do not intend to participate in similarly contentious processes on this Wikipedia, I do feel my prior experience there indicates that I'll be able to handle a dispute with care when I am drawn into one.

Additional optional questions from Shirik

4. What is one thing you have learned from your adminship on the Dutch Wikipedia that you think you will be able to apply here?

A: Level-headedness and, part of that, patience and carefulness. There's a couple of other things that boil down to that: not judging matters too quickly, avoiding contributions that enflame rather than alleviate disputes, assuming good faith.

Additional question from Keepscases

5. Which member of the Wikimedia staff (see http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff) would you most like to have a professional lunchtime meeting/conversation with? Why?

A: Erik Zachte. It would be great to talk some Wikimedia statistics with him.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

6. 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. First of all, I would not close it—I have little to no experience with AFD, and don't intend to change that anytime soon. But that is not an answer to the question you ask, so here it goes.

As this is an article about a living person, extraordinary care should be taken to avoid harm to the subject, and this should be borne in mind throughout the discussion. After reading the Shankbone AFD, there are three important points that I would take into consideration: (a) there is no consensus, whether rough or otherwise, about what to do with the page; (b) there does seem to be rough consensus that he meets the general notability guideline; and (c) many people make the argument that "marginally" notable BLPs such as this one should be deleted.

I sympathize somewhat with the latter argument, in that extraordinary care is certainly needed when dealing with BLPs, and deleting marginally notable BLPs with AFDs not resulting in consensus is one possibility to do so that may be considered. It has been considered, however, and there is currently no consensus to implement it. I would therefore follow the current deletion policy, which states that "if there is no rough consensus the page is kept" and close it as no consensus, defaulting to keep (the policy gives an exception to this rule for BLPs, but it does not apply here as Shankbone did not request deletion). I would not opt for an ignore all rules deletion either, because in my view IAR is an instrument that should be used when there is clear consensus that implementing a strict interpretation of policy is a bad thing to do; in this AFD, there was no such consensus. Some editors argued that the article could be problematic in BLP terms because it would attract people with a grudge against the subject; that may be a legitimate reason for deletion (WP:BLPDEL), but in this case others argued that these concerns were not strong (or even that the article was too positive), so I see no reason to delete under that piece of policy.

From reading the AFD, there also seemed to be a consensus that the article as it was at the time was not as good as it should be, with some editors raising neutrality concerns. It is difficult for me to validate those concerns without having read the article myself, but in my closing statement I would most likely encourage editors to review and improve the article to address these concerns.

I note that the decision I gave here differs from the actual closing admin's, and so I should note that his interpretation is certainly a reasonable one—I simply weigh the arguments differently than he did.

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

A. It is exceedingly important that we are careful about biographies of living persons; we have to bear in mind that questionable information on Wikipedia, one of the world's most prominent websites, can do substantial real-world harm and we should do as much as we can to avoid that while maintaining our integrity as an encyclopedia. I just re-read the WP:BLP policy and was confirmed in my belief that it is, in general, a sensible piece. I have not done much work on BLPs myself, except on DYK, where I have had to strike questionably sourced information from nominated BLPs a few times. I have not across any problems with the details of the policy myself, but I would happily defer the call on whether the current policy is completely adequate to editors who have more experience with it.

Additional optional questions from Addihockey10

8. When are cool down blocks acceptable and why?

A: Cool-down blocks usually serve no useful purpose, as they fire up rather than cool down a dispute. Thus, they should not be used, a sensible mode of action that is also codified in the blocking policy (WP:CDB).

Additional optional questions from Addihockey10

9. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a technical restriction that can be imposed by any administrator; it prevents an account or IP from editing Wikipedia (except for their user talk page). A ban is a sanction imposed by the Wikipedia community, the Arbitration Committee, or Jimbo Wales; it restricts an editor from doing certain actions. It may be specific, for example a ban from one article or from interaction with a specific user, or broader, up to a full site ban, which prohibits the editor from editing any part of Wikipedia. A block may be used to enforce a ban.

Additonal optional questions from WarthogDemon

10. An article is listed at AfD. The nominator makes a compelling argument that although the article is the subject of verified sources, it is not notable. After five days, there are ten votes to keep, although none of them disprove the nominator's original comments that the article fails the notability standard. Only the nominator has dissented. Should the article be kept per WP:SNOW, or deleted?

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats are available for perusal at your leisure on the talk page. Kate (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Long time editor with a reasonable attitude - WP:WTHN! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 04:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. I'm glad Ucucha is running; this is an editor with a good work ethic, nice manners, and a positive attitude. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Attitude is very good, level-headed. I can see no problems. The thing that should not be 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support as nominator ...hey, that transcluded pretty fast! Anyway 'nuff said. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per need at DYK and nothing in the contribs there that make me feel this user could not handle the job. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - I see no problems with this user at the moment. Good luck! smithers - talk - sign! 05:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support as one who has previously volunteered to be the nominator. I can't support this nomination strongly enough. I've been editing just over 5 years and in that time I have not come across an editor that I would trust more with these tools. We really need an admin at WP:Rodents. We have scads of simple, uncontroversial, moves to do over history-free redirects and deal with repeated instances of people jumping the gun and making copy and paste messes. WP:Mammals, WP:TOL, and the related projects in which Ucucha is involved will also greatly benefit from his status. Ucucha knows this encyclopedia inside out. As has been mentioned, he's an admin at Dutch wikipedia and he has run a bot over there. He's a regular vandal fighter and major DYK contributor yet cautious and conscientious in dealing with other editors or coming to decisions. And let no one argue that he's not contributing content. He almost single-handedly took Lundomys from a bot-created stub to a featured article in just over a month. Pseudoryzomys is on its way and his work on the the oryzomyines as a group has been excellent. Many of these articles and articles like Mammals of the Caribbean and its subpages are actually better resources than the published literature. If you want to know about these topics, go to an article Ucucha has worked on. If there isn't one, learn Dutch or wait until he gets there. He knows wikipedia, its community, and he certainly knows the topics on which he writes. --Aranae (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Literally nothing I can find that would lead me to believe this candidate can't be trusted with the tools. --Shirik (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support with no reservations whatsoever, per the nom, the answers to the questions, and Aranae's vote. Ucucha is an excellent content contributor (I very much enjoyed reading the FA Lundomys) here, and he has admin experience on the Dutch Wikipedia. Those two attributes, plus his DYK experience and willingness to help at DYK, lead me to believe he would be an asset as an admin. Ucucha also seems trustworthy and thoughtful, which solidifies my support. Best of luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Has shown to be trustworthy in his judgement at while working at DYK and commitment to Wikipedia as a whole. Given the tools I believe his ability to give constructive criticism and help users in a nonconfrontational and postive approach will be a positive addition to the administration. User has shown well understanding of the policies needed. Ucucha contributions both behind the scenes and building content have only helped Wikipedia. No reason to believe the tools will be misused and this user can't be trusted by the community. Calmer Waters 07:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - I can't find any reason to suppose. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Strongest possible support - a highly unusual vote for me, but here it comes. I've been unwillingly monitoring the candidate for weeks at DYK, as I had to approve their reviews and nominations, and I observe a number of qualities, which not only please my taste, but are invaluable for WP. Just to mention a few: dedicated to WP, calm, constructive, skeptical, hard working, well-balanced, ready to dig into any topic (forget the rodents; literally any) and help there (that is, not to point to the problem but to fix it for you). Gee, he beats mere in all that, and I am only glad about it. Not to forget, the candidate has been truly instrumental in operating DYK recently (i.e. I don't know what would we do without them). It is one of those cases where giving admin tools would greatly help WP. Materialscientist (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Sole Soul (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Good luck! Burmeister (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support, already shown that he can be trusted with the tools on nl.Wiki so have no doubts that he can be trusted on en.Wiki. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Ucucha is clearly a trustworthy candidate. Rje (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I applaud what Ucucha has done recently at DYK. Time for the mop! Royalbroil 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Seems both capable and knowledgeable...Modernist (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Good candidate! Warrah (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per Casliber nom, my cynicism about DYK notwithstanding. In other news, why anyone would want to be an admin on the Dutch wiki, I have no idea. Tan | 39 14:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I found Ucucha willing to help, constructive and inventive on difficult DYKs! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No concerns, seems capable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)`
25. Support I also agree with almost everything that has been said above. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Have seen this editor's work on DYK, and believe there are no true concerns regarding understanding of policies or character. Mrathel (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Seems to do excellent work in a collaborative manner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. I've been very impressed with your work at DYK. Keep it up! PeterSymonds (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. Good solid editor who appears to be a trustworthy candidate. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
30. yup A8UDI 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support absolutely. (but for a reason, work on dyk) Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Support; entrusted with adminship on another project, long-term user on this wiki, good balance of content work and administrator maintenance. Overall a fantastic editor well deserving of the bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Long-term trustworthy editor, and a superb helper at DYK lately. :) Jamie❤S93 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Keepscases (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - looks like a good candidate. LadyofShalott 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Support Dutch eh? Well, we're broad minded around here. I see no reason not to trust this editor with the tools. Crafty (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Excellent user with excellent contributions (mainly seen him involved with DYKs). Will be a great admin, no doubt about it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support DYK needs more admin help, we have a solid candidate who knows how to use the tools. Hand him a mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Well im sure that TAn and the Materialscientist prety much summed it up. Good job and I look forward to your conrtibutions to DYK. We really ned help there with the backlog and such.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support - Deo Volente! _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - no issues whatsoever, from content to DYKs to questions, quite respectable. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Support My experience at DYK with him has been positive. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Seems a sensible fellow. Kate (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Absolutely. Just want to add on to the fact that Ucucha is a fellow bureaucrat of mine at Wikispecies and I have no concerns about this candidate in here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
45. I can support this :) Icewedge (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Good candidates, good answers to questions, see nothing that makes me think the tools will be misused. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Strong Support I am happy with his answers, his contributions are excellent, he's an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia, he's a 'crat at WikiSpecies... it's the first time I've added a modifier to "support", which shows how much I rate this editor -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Looks like a solid and knowledgeable contributor. Geniet met de zwabber! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Certainly. I have no alarms; editor is experienced, calm and rational. GedUK  13:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Support - I have no reason to feel that this editor will misuse the tools and having more admin help at DYK would be good. Coffee's opposition rationale is a valid concern but as this editor claims to not want to do anything with AfD I don't think it's a problem. -- Atama頭 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
51. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as candidate is nominated by an experienced and accomplished editor (User:Casliber), I do not recall the candidate and I having any memorable negative interactions, and as candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. I especially like the equilibrated position of the editor about BLPs, which is refreshing giving the amount of drama surrounding them. --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Only ever seen good things. Looks like an excellent contributor with a tested level head and a desire for the best. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. A quick review of the candidate's edit history revewals no concerns. Ucucha seems knowledgeable and mature. Majoreditor (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Great contributor to the project as far as I can see. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Of course, need more like him. — JoJo • Talk • 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
57. Support If he's already an admin on the dutch Wikipedia, I think hes qualified as an admin here.RadManCF (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Support I've encountered U's edits on many of the Felidae pages I watch, and he's OK in my book. Seduisant (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Very helpful editor to DYK.--Caspian blue 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Nice contribs! --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 03:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Looks fine. BejinhanTalk 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. No problems that I can see. Tim Song (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
63. support per nom. No one has raised any issues that worry me. Hobit (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
64. Support per nomination & work/admin on Dutch wiki. Skier Dude (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - FA + previous experience. Will be a net positive, and more DYK admins is always nice. Aranae's support statement also swayed my !vote. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Experienced editor, well-suited for admin duties. Aiken ♫ 13:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Good job on Ross Casino, helped to do it a Did you know article. --MisterWiki talk contribs 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Able to admit where he was wrong as shown here. We need more admins who can admit when they're wrong.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
69. Support NLWP loves him. We should consider ourselves better-off for the help here. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
70. Support to, hopefully, offset error in oppose #1. Sluggo | Talk 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
71. Support --NotedGrant Talk 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - shows sound judgment and does plenty of anti-vandalism work. Plenty of experience, given Dutch adminship. Evil saltine (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
73. Support As per Casbiler. Trust the judgement of Casbiler and Newyorkbrad and the fact that you are a admin in Dutch Wikipedia and your track is outstanding and see no concerns and that the project will only gain with the user having tools after deep consideration.through nearly 75% of your edits are in last 3 months before this RFA thorough you have been around since March 2005.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
74. Support Looks like a really solid candidate. -SpacemanSpiff 02:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Excellent user Triplestop x3 03:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
76. Samir 05:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
77. Support, per consideration of who is opposing and why. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong Support Per Question 8 and the above support. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Does good work at WP:DYK and I see nothing to concern me. Since he has been active since August, I think that is enough time to know everything needed to get the mop (though not everything one needs to know for being an admin, I'm still learning after 14 months; but when I ran in October 08 I had only started seriously contributing here in June 08, so I know for a fact that one can prove their cluefulness in such a "short" time). Also, I think we can trust the Dutch and the guys at species not to give the mop to unsuitable people. ;-) Regards SoWhy 13:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
80. Support: I've seen your consistent, thorough work at DYK, and see nothing here to indicate likely problems. Gonzonoir (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
81. Support seems to be a stable and articulate contributor with good judgment. Gigs (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
82. Support I can see no reason not to enthusiastically support; will be great to have him as an admin here in the English project, as well, I'm sure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
83. Support: no problems here. Nothing to show me that this editor should not get the tools. Razorflame 22:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

    The opposes don't move me at all, and no problems elsewhere. Best of luck, 70.228.83.241 (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indented the vote of an anonymous user. Sorry, but only users with registered accounts may vote in RfAs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

84. Support - This user is very active and has been here since early 2005. December21st2012Freak (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
85. Support. I can't think of a reason not to and, from my own experience, I know that the admins who work in the main page areas (DYK and ITN in particular) could use quality help like Ucucha is offering. HJMitchell You rang? 08:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
86. Support. Seems very level-headed, good responses to the questions and prior adminship on Dutch Wikipedia is a bonus. p.s. Coffee, lay off the BLP AfD activism at RfA, please. It is becoming disruptive. Fences&Windows 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
87. Support. No reason not to. West one girl (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Sensible and dedicated editor. Has proven his trustworthiness with the tools on sister projects, and will be a valuable addition here. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
89. Support, already has experience as an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia, a check through contribs shows good judgment and communication skills, and the answers to the questions (especially #6) were thoughtful and well considered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
90. Support; seem okay. Pcap ping 03:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
91. Support; several years of admin experience at the Dutch Wikipedia, and I don't see any issues there, so why shouldn't we trust the user with the tools here? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
92. Support Very strong candidate. ThemFromSpace 04:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
93. Support: Seem like a good candidate. South Bay (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
94. Support:I've said in other places that it is unreasonable to judge admins on competency in every area at the start - instead we should have some system of accrediting competencies. Guy says he wants to work in DYK not AFD, and has plenty of experience of same. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
95. Support It's a pleasure to vote for someone already experienced in being an admin per above. The DYK's make it easy to pile on in favor. I'm sure you will be a fine addition to the button-weilding ranks, and good fortunes to you! Jusdafax 12:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support For work on DYK, Would though encourage more editing of individual articles, but nothing to suggest that i cannot trust the user. High quality here and full support from myself Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    Indenting double !vote (see support #31). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies, will not happen again :( Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

96. Support deleted content looks good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
97. Support. Seems sensible, no reason to think Ucacha will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
98. Support. Good candidate who deserves the mop! Good luck with it! Laurinavicius (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
99. Woo, 100th to support. --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    Or maybe not? :( --cremepuff222 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

    No, its :-D thanks for making me laugh. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

100. I am! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
101. Support. Seems like a good candidate. Kyriakos (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
102. Support seems like a reasonable and sensible editor, with a good understanding of policy and thoughtful approach to admin functions. Cenarium (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
103. Support: I do have concerns about how ready you would be to close an AfD. However, I liked your honesty when you said, "First of all, I would not close it—I have little to no experience with AFD, and don't intend to change that anytime soon." Coffee said, "The idea of holding someone to what they said in an RFA is a joke, as is the recall process." After thinking about what Coffee said, I have to agree. Many Admins, after they have "power" become corrupt, and feel that they are above policy and there is little editors can do about it. Many editors are leaving because of contempt for Wikipedia's so-called "policies" During The Great Coffee Debate many Editors stated how disappointed they were with Admins in general. For an organization like Wikipedia that is dependent on volunteers and donations, wrong doing at the top is the kiss of death. I believe the candidate will follow policy and help clean up Wikipedia. _ Ret.Prof (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
104. Looks fine to me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
105. Support – I've been him around at DYK when I'm there, and he seems very clueful. I don't see problems with him having the tools. MuZemike 02:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
106. Support - Seems well-qualified, and getting more admin help at DYK would be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
107. Support I find no reason not to trust him. Has experience as an Administrator and seems well intended. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
108. Support--Cube lurker (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
109. Support. The candidate is already an experienced administrator on another project, has made good contributions here, and offers no reason to believe that their adminship at en.wiki would not be a net positive for the project. Do tread lightly around BLP, though, as there is a great deal less discretion there for an admin than you might think. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Seems very capable and willing to take on responsibility. His actions appear to be for the good of the encyclopedia. I don't think an admin has to be equally proficient in all areas, and it is refreshing to see a candidate honestly acknowledge that he is not and defer actions in some areas to others. —mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
111. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
112. Support: Impressive work, good interactions. Maedin\^talk 18:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
113. Support – Theleftorium 20:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
114. Support - Tribuo virga: Give him the mop. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
115. Support Anirishwoman (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per #8. Cool-down blocks are in fact appropriate at times. Also, the wording of the answer indicates that the nominee believes Wikipedia's so-called "policies" are somehow binding when in fact they're anything but. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

   Further discussion moved to talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I'm not at all satisfied with your answer to my question on BLP AFDs. You said that you would look over the AFD, but during your review you would have not complied with the BLP policy to remove this. This article was closed as Delete, brought to DRV, where it was (by consensus) decided to be kept as deleted. Your reading of that AFD, leads me to think you wouldn't be ready to close an AFD yet. Although as you said you won't close any yet. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

   Per this comment at my talk page: "in some cases Wikipedia may in fact be doing subjects a favor in reporting what reliable sources are saying, instead of the gossip that may be the only thing people hear about marginally notable BLPs if Wikipedia does not have an article." I am even more worried about his grasp on the BLP policy. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Further discussion moved to talk page.

   Coffee, I put forward what I thought were good reasons to support this candidate and why (with respect) you were mistaken. Your response was to was a vicious, half crazed, manic, personal attack and to remove all my comments. This is clearly unacceptable. Therefore, I request 1) That you return my comments on the candidate to this page. 2) apologize 3) Cut back on the coffee. To be frank your behavior, is cause for concern. respectfully - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for your concern, Ret. Prof., but could you please let this matter stand for the moment? Coffee obviously holds some strong opinions, as he is entitled to, and finds reason there to oppose my candidacy, as he is also entitled to. In fact, I agree with him that long discussions on a vote are better moved to the talk page. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd encourage you to use this RfA's talk page of Coffee's user talk. Ucucha 14:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   I am sorry for sullying your RfA. I will say no more as the matter has been brought to WP:WQA. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Leaning Support Good answers to questions except the BLP and AFD ones. Do I trust this editor yes however I cannot endorse someone with these answers to BLP and AFD related questions, and yes I did notice that the editor has little to no experience in these areas. RP459 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral but leaning to support per above concerns. Again, this editor doesn't plan to be involved with AfD yet, so I'm not opposing. However, everything else is satisfactory and I must say that all of this user's work is very nice.  fetchcomms☛ 23:09, 14 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.