Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yuvmil (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 4 April 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

• WP:RFA
• WP:RFX

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

• WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

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

Yuvmil

(talk page)
Final (2/6/2); Ended 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - closed by User:Anonymous Dissident per WP:NOTNOW.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 wish to help not only make new articles, but to add missing references and increase the credibility of Misplaced Pages.

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

A: My best contributions are improving articles on philosophers of the 1800's. I had to write a report on many of these, so I used my knowledge for this.

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: No, I have not had any stress from other users.

General comments

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

• Comment I smell a rat, or rather a troll, here. This user has too much sophistication to have a total of 12 edits (plus 15 deleted). Looie496 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Looie496, was that really necessary? It says below to keep the "discussion constructive"! - Fastily (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not have said it if I didn't think it needed to be said. I will apologize profusely if it turns out I am wrong, but based on the evidence this does not look to me like a good faith RfA. Looie496 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Discussion

• I would suggest withdrawal, but I also believe that you show some potential and have the right attitude to become an administrator. Just get more experience and spend some real time contributing to Misplaced Pages and enjoying your time as an editor. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Moral Support - You have shown that you want to be an editor and not an admin. I am supporting you in your intent to be an -editor-. If you need help, many of the people who will respond to this are very knowledgeable. I would contact them and ask for assistance. I am sure a few will be willing to help. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Moral support Per Ottava, you mean well but please read this. Cheers.--Giants27 /C 00:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per NuclearWarfare. -download | sign! 22:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2. User is not ready yet. Come back soon in a few months (4-6, maybe).  iMatthew :  Chat  22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Per WP:NOTNOW. Strongly suggest withdrawing. FunPika 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
4. WP:NOTNOW - user has good intentions but will need more experience to become an admin. Sorry. - Fastily (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose with moral support I'm sorry, but per WP:Notnow. Sorry and keep up the good work. America69 (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose Way under qualified, and too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Thank you for submitting your RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to demonstrate a knowledge of policy and guidelines that is enough to attempt adminship. While it is possible to pass with below that, nominees have very rarely done so in recent times.

   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Misplaced Pages:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
   • Article building is the raison d'être of Misplaced Pages. I recommend participation in WP:DYK, WP:GA, WP:FL, or WP:FA as the surest ways to gain article building experience.

   My suggestion would be to withdraw and try again in another few months and couple thousand edits. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA and after passing that benchmark. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Your enthusiasm is running ahead of your experience, but your sincerity is greatly appreciated. Good luck, and keep doing what you are doing! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:52, 4 April 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.

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

AdjustShift

Final (61/5/4); Closed by Rlevse at 20:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

AdjustShift (talk · contribs) – Hello all. I've been a user of Misplaced Pages since August 2008. I'm applying for adminship because I believe I'll be able to serve WP better with the extra buttons. If the community grants me the tools, I will use them for the betterment of WP. In advance, I would like to thank the community for any input and I will endeavor to use it to ameliorate my contributions to WP. AdjustShift (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: If granted adminship, I would initially be working on WP:AIV. I'll analyze reports at WP:AIV, and warn or block vandals. I've got around 70 edits to AIV, and most of them have resulted in a block. Because of my experience at AIV, I can analyze reports better. New editors can occasionally make unhelpful, but well-intended edits. In such cases, I'll not block them.

I'll work at WP:AN and WP:ANI. I'll analyze the reports presented by editors, and try to resolve problems. I believe admins who participate at ANI should be able to calm the situation rather than inflame it.

I'll close AFDs. As a new admin, I'll not close contentious AFDs. I believe one needs more experience as an admin to close contentious AfDs and DRVs.

I would also like to expand my focus into areas such as investigating sockpuppetry.

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

A: I've contributed to a number of articles related to International Relations, politics and history. I collaborated with Kresock on a number of bios of the American Civil War generals and we brought four bios of the Civil War generals to B-Class: Robert Alexander Cameron, Charles Thomas Campbell, George Henry Chapman, and Robert Alexander Cameron. I've written/expanded 29 DYK articles. Some of my DYK articles include Baseball Before We Knew It, Louis Réard, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Egypt), Petrus Johannes Waardenburg, Marc Feldmann, Science and technology in Mexico, and Roy Franklin Nichols. I also started List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, which was brought to FL by Scorpion0422. I played a part to meliorate the list.

I've participated in vandal-fighting. I've about 70 edits to AIV, and most of them have resulted in a block. I've also participated at AN and ANI.

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

A: I've been in some conflicts in the past. List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates was promoted to FL. I started the list, and I felt that I should have been notified about the FL nomination. I started the FLRC, and asked the list to be delisted as a featured list immediately. It was my blunder. I should have been more collaborative. In the end, I found the input of Dabomb87 useful. I learned that one should be more collaborative and work with fellow editors to get desired results. In February 2009, I made a blunder by nominating a list for FL without consulting its primary contributor. I apologized to Abraham, B.S. and he accepted my apology. I have made some minor mistakes here and there, but I believe I have learned from them. In the end, it is important to keep your head cool. To avoid needless conflicts, one has to keep a cool head, remain civil, and communicate effectively with fellow editors.

Additional Question from Pedro

4. What are your thoughts on using Internet Relay Chat as a method of discussing actions that will or will not be taken on Misplaced Pages? What, if any, are the advantages or disadvantages?

A. I strongly believe that whatever happens on wiki should stay on wiki. I'll never use Internet Relay Chat to talk with any WP editors. Personally, I will not advocate the use of IRC as a method of discussing actions that will or will not be taken on WP.

Additional Question from Looie496

5. A major focus of your contribs is September 11 attacks and several related articles. Do you not consider your work there among your best contributions?

A. September 11 attacks was already a good article before I started editing. Some of my edits to the 9/11 article are minor edits. It would be unethical for me to take credit for it. Aude, MONGO, and Tom harrison are the main contributors.

Additional questions from Letsdrinktea

6. A user applies for rollback. They have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring, but you side with him and you don't think it would be a problem. Would you grant or deny their request?

A. I'll never side with a user who has a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. People who engage in disruptive behavior shouldn't be given rollback rights. WP editors should treat each other as colleagues, rather than friends or enemies. If someone I know engages in disruptive editing/edit warring, as a colleague, I'll ask him to stop his disruptive behavior.

Additonal question from  Marlith (Talk) 

7. What would you like to see Misplaced Pages grow into in a year?

A. I would like to see WP becoming a more reliable source of information. We have articles ranging from popular culture to academic disciplines. I would like to see an improvement in the coverage of history-related and International Relations-related articles.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: There is obviously a problem with the current BLP situation. English Misplaced Pages is a top website. When people search something on Google, they will get a Misplaced Pages reference near the top of the page. The information we publish about living individuals can affect their lives. False information about living individuals can damage their lives. Thus it is important for us to publish accurate information about living people. Because of the open nature of en-wiki, it is possible for people to add false or negative information about famous people they don't like. The bios of famous people (such as Brad Pitt) are patrolled by many editors and false or negative information added to these bios will be quickly reverted. But, the bios of lesser famous people (such as Greta Van Susteren) are poorly patrolled. It is possible for people to add false or negative information on the bios of lesser famous people and it can stick around for hours or even days. These things also damage the credibility of en-wiki. I strongly believe that we should do something to protect the bios of living people.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I like the idea of Flagged revisions. I don't think it will harm the IP editors or new users. They can get permission from the regulars. Some have said it is not compatible with "the 💕 that anyone can edit", but we ban/block disruptive editors. The current BLP situation is problematic. People can add false and negative information about people they don't like. People's real lives are important. Accurate bios of living people will enhance the credibility of WP. I supported the idea of the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposed trial. I believe it can reduce the number of BLP violations. Although I think we should use semi-protection more for the bios of living people, I don't think we should semi-protect all bios of living people. Some IPs and new editors do make positive contributions to the bios of living people.

Optional questions from Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

9. What is the difference between a block and a ban? In your own words, please, no cut-and-pasting.

A. A block is a way of technically preventing editors from damaging and disrupting WP. It is preventative, not punitive. An editor can be blocked for breaking 3RR, vandalism, etc. A ban is a formal removal of an editor's right to edit all or part of WP. It is a social construct and a banned editor must not edit WP, until the ban is lifted. An editor can get banned by the WP community, the Arbitration Committee, the Wikimedia Foundation, and Jimbo Wales. An indef block is not banning. It may or may not be permanent. It can evolve into a ban if no admin is willing to unblock the editor.

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

A. In this case, I was the one who blocked the IP. So, I shouldn't be assessing the unblock request. I will wait for another admin to look at the unblock request. Having said that, I don't think the IP should be unblocked. The editor vandalized the article several times, despite repeated warnings. Even after the block, the editor doesn't seem to learn anything. One week is not a very long time, so if another admin consults me, I would advise him not to unblock or reduce the block length.

Optional series from Protonk (talk). I should stress these are optional. I promise not to base my vote on a decision to not answer any one of them or to delay answering any of them.

11 What areas, aside from those mentioned in Q1, do you intend to work on? Do you find any particular admin area daunting? Do you find any particular area dreadfully boring?

A: I've mentioned administrative work I would like to take part in Q1. After gaining some experience as an admin, I would like to work on page protection. I don't find any particular admin area daunting or dreadfully boring.

12 Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are patrolling Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests and you see an {{Edit protected}} request to make a change to a protected template. Both the template and the change are relatively technical and you don't 100% understand what the change will do. Despite this, the change has a great deal of support on the talk page from knowledgeable editors who don't have the admin bit. Ignoring the possibility of asking a more technically competent admin for help or punting the request, what would it take for you to make the change? How many editors would have to sign on to it? What sort of explanation could you be given to convince you that the change was benign?

A: I'll not be patrolling Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests. I'll work on page protection only after gaining some experience. As an admin, I'll not do anything that I don't properly understand.

13 Moving off the above, let's take the opposite scenario. Let's say you are patrolling the same category and find a change which you understand and agree with but which has less than unanimous support from people on the talk page. Is committing an edit to a protected page based on a request different from just editing a page? Why or why not? Template, image and help pages tend to have relatively low participation, so how much opposition represents no consensus? How much support represents a quorum?

A: I'll not be patrolling the category that you mentioned above.

14 What is your preference when dealing with an edit war, blocking editors or protecting the page (or door number three, if you so desire)?

A: I'll block vandals. I've little sympathy for vandals. I've submitted reports at AIV. I've seen some vandals vandalizing pages even after level 4 warning. I'll not wait that long. I will not block established editors, unless there is a clear abuse. Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, and I don't believe blocking an established user will reduce the likelihood of future problems. In fact, we may lose a valuable user because of the block. So, an established user should be blocked only when there is a clear abuse (such as personal attacks or harassment). An established editor should also be blocked if the WP community supports a block against the editor. If the crowd is divided, the editor shouldn't be blocked. Editor A contributes positively from January 2009 to November 2009. In December 2009, he loses his head and makes some uncivil remarks here and there. I'll block the editor if and only if there is a consensus at ANI to block him. I oppose the "bold" actions by admins. I believe that admins should be carrying out what the WP community says with regard to WP policy.

15 Last one, I promise. When you are watching AIV, what do you do with requests which are not blatant vandalism?

A: Thanks for this one! I'll be working on ANI, so this is an important question for me. I've seen several reports at ANI which are not blatant vandalism. There are several types of unconstructive edits which are not blatant vandalism. Some edits of newbies are unhelpful. Sometimes people add incorrect information unintentionally. These are not vandalism. But, I've seen editors using {{uw-vandalism1}} or {{uw-vandalism2}} to warn new editors or IPs, when they should have used {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-test2}}. In these cases, I'll politely tell the new editor or the IP that their edits were unhelpful or use {{uw-test1}}.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

16a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I'll do research on whether the company is notable or not. If the article doesn't meet our notability standard, I'll delete it (CSD#A3 or CSD#A7). If the article meets our standard, I'll decline the speedy deletion request. I'll give some time for the editor to develop the article.

16b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Not really.

16c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Editor 2 has removed it twice. If Editor 1 re-adds it, technically he has not broken 3RR. In this case, both editors are engaging in an edit war. I would ask them to start a discussion in the talkpage. If Editor 1 or Editor 2 continues to revert without any discussion, I may consider blocking the editor. The best thing for both the editor will be to discuss the problem on the talkpage and reach a consensus. If another editor comes and reverts without any discussion, I'll ask the third editor to talk before reverting. If the edit war doesn't end, I may temporarily protect the page, and ask editors to discuss on the talkpage to reach a consensus.

16d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: In both cases, consensus is reached by analyzing the arguments presents by editor and their merits. In case of the AFD debates, one has to present sound reasons in line with policy or consensus as to why the article should be kept or deleted. The AFD debate is not a vote. After the debate, the article is either kept, deleted, merged, or redirected. When there is no consensus to delete the article, it should generally default to keep. Note: Sometimes, no consensus can default to delete. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie.

In case of article writing, it is more difficult to weigh arguments. In non-controversial articles (such as bios of Civil War generals), it is easier to reach a consensus, but in controversial articles (such as 9/11), it is not easy to reach a consensus. In controversial articles, emotions run high. People even create socks to support their POV. In such cases, some votes have to be dismissed when determining consensus.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  04:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. No reason why not. :) Meetare Shappy 20:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support — Jake Wartenberg 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks like he can be trusted. GT5162 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
4. --Giants27 /C 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Nothing I can see. America69 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Erik9 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support While your answer to the first question is a little cookie-cutter-ish, I don't see anything in your contributions or talk page history that concerns me. Good luck! faithless () 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Good, balanced editor who will do well with the tools from what I can see. Eight months is plenty long in my opinion. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No reason to oppose. Good work, Aaroncrick 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support All's well with your contributions. Sure, you don't post a hundred times a day, but the quality of your work is stellar. ThemFromSpace 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I randomly spotchecked some of your edits (particularly articles created), and all I can say is, wow! Ray 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  01:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong support Wizardman 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Strong support high activity in admin related fields like AIV and ANI. Also comes with mainspace contribs. Yay!  Marlith (Talk)  03:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support- a lot of good work in article writing, and in admin related areas, makes me very confident that you'll be a good admin. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
19. This is an obvious one. AdjustShift will be an excellent administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Article work is exemplary. I'm very impressed with their multiple DYKs, along with the numerous other article contributions. Vandal work seems OK, but does not base their contribs on it. I have confidence that AdjustShift will be a good admin. Xclamation point 04:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Too many administrators, currently :) No seriously, I'm very impressed by your article building, would love to see some more vandal fighting but that being said, an asset to the community. Cheers! -Senseless!... says you, says me 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Not enough administrators currently. And a good user, too. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 12:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Good answers to questions —LetsdrinkTea 15:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Trustworthy, head appears to be screwed on the correct way. Nick (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Will handle the tools well. Timmeh! 18:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Looks good to me. hmwithτ 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - Hell yes, good contributor, has clue, good temperament. :) — neuro 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
29. With pleasure, and thanks for responding to my Q4. Pedro :  Chat  21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - good article work and a calm, rational approach to some controversial topics. Looks fine to me. Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has no block, but what the candidate does have is over 25 Did You Know credits, which shows that candidate has avoided serious conflict while contributing to our project. Best, --A Nobody 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I can't believe you've been here the same amount of time as me; I always thought you had been around forever! rʨanaɢ /_contribs 00:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Good article and WP work + good answers = good admin. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  01:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support, can't think of any reason not and can't understand this ongoing and repetitive idea that there are too many admins. It makes it sound like an exclusive club which I've always been led to believe it is not. --candle•wicke 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Candidate has a grasp on the BLP problem. لennavecia 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Vandal-fighter with a good record of content contribution (29 DYKs!). That's basically an ideal admin candidate. Cool3 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Good experiences with the candidate, consider him/her/it to be trustworthy and mopworthy. FlyingToaster 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Answers to questions show a significant amount of clue. GlassCobra 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support I've known AdjustShift since his newbiehood in Misplaced Pages, and to be honest I was surprised to see this RfA so soon. However, he's obviously learned a lot during the 7 months being here, as evidenced by his answers (I agree with GlassCobra). Sensible editor, no reason to think that he'd misuse the mop. Best, JamieS93 20:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Skilled editor, will do a good admin. - Darwinek (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Has a good understanding of most of the WP, and i see no alarms. --GedUK  08:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Sure. — Aitias // discussion 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  11:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; no good reason to oppose; we need more admins with sports/pop culture knowledge. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
47. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support On balance. I would have preferred more full answers to my questions, but I did emphasize that they were optional. My advice to the candidate is to explore other areas of the admin bit because you will be asked to take some action regarding them at some point. Hell, you may find yourself focusing on them. I figured (and so did most of the ppl voting) that I would focus on AfD and avoid CSD and AIV (since I had very few edits there prior to becoming an admin). As it turns out, that's not really the case. I have closed less than 100 (i think) AfDs but I have made thousands of CSD decisions and blocked scores of ppl at AIV. Working well there has required that I pick up on different norms and procedures and I would have fared better had I been more open to the prospect of doing so prior to getting the bit. The RFPP questions were an attempt to engage you in a specific question on page protection without just asking you to quote WP:PROTECT. I had hoped that the answers there would shed some light on where you fit on the "consensus vs. the right answer" spectrum (because not everyone is on the same place) and what goes on in your head when you undertake an action by proxy. You will probably never be asked to edit the spam or abuse filters or asked to process the DYK queue, but I can predict with almost 100% certainty that someone is going to ask you to protect a page or make an edit to a protected page. Just be sure that you aren't closing off paths for yourself. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your input. I'll focus on page protection. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

49. Support. Seems alright. — Σxplicit 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support. Seen you around, you'll do fine. I like your strong response (and stance) regarding optional question #4 above. Keeper | 76 19:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support shouldn't misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support—not likely to abuse the tools. — Deckiller 04:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy 10:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Yep, has the sense to take it slowly and become familiar with policy before diving in. Good answers (esp Q4!) EyeSerene 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support No problems here. Good luck!--Michael (Talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
57. I have only seen good things from AdjustShift. Acalamari 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Some concerns raised in Oppose sound weak, so I support the candidate per AGF and his fair answers.--Caspian blue 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil 14:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC).
60. Support - I am slightly concerned at the use of superlatives such as "never" in contexts that might not be appropriate, but on the other hand, I like the last part of your answer to Q12: "As an admin, I'll not do anything that I don't properly understand." Please stick to that - if only all contributors to Misplaced Pages (editors and admins alike) felt this way! I see an editor who will continue to be an asset.  Frank  |  talk  16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Great user, might as well support. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. Also user has been here less than a year. DougsTech (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Response: But how is that a reason to oppose? More admins would add more opinions to the discussion, thus, adding a greater range of points of view to discussions. In addition, this user has shown great devotion to helping out the project, with many many edits in a short range of time. I myself have been here for two and a half years and still feel that this user can do an exellent job.  Marlith (Talk)  03:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please just ignore him LetsdrinkTea 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ditto, LDT; all others please read this before adding any further discussion.--It's me...Sallicio! 03:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   And let's not forget this, which applies equally well.  Frank  |  talk  23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose: Unfortunately I have to oppose for lack of experience. South Bay (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Is this the RfA you meant to add this to? (striking comment - South Bay's original comment cited WP:NOTNOW) FlyingToaster 10:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Lack of experience all over. Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   changed after all to neutral, see below Oppose on the basis of Q9 Q16. Unaware of the problems of beginning contributors. The willingness to ignore an "underconstruction" template on a new article is not a good idea--many ujses come here under the assumption they can build an article very graduallly--and, if you let them, they often do. The willingness to delete articles before people have a chance to work on them is not constructive. DGG (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC). (revised in italics DGG (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

   Can you link to what you are talking about DGG? I don't see this ignoring an under construction template in the response to Q9. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   sorry, Q16. DGG (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose, less than 10k edits, has not been a registered editor for even a year yet, and far too inactive in that time with seeming heavy decline in participation rather than the increase one might expect for one wanting administrative rights. Just not enough experience at all. Seems to have good potential as the candidate understands some basic Wiki guidelines and policies, but still does not fully grasp the relevant ones, such as the incorrect statement that an AfD can only close as keep or delete. No consensus (which is not the same as keep), merge, and redirect are all also possibles (as is userfy, on some occasions). I'd recommend candidate first be an active editor for at least a year, and being sure this is the place for them, as such sever declines in edits usually indicate one is getting ready to leave, not increase their dedication. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   Collectonian, I don't think one needs 10k edits to become an admin. When I was new, I was involved in vandal fighting. That's why I had more edits. Please note that I've started and developed a number of articles in January, February, and March. In those three months, 9 articles started and developed by me appeared on DYK. If I were to simply fight vandalism, I would have got 10k edits by now. In 2009, my edits has slightly declined because of RL commitments. It will increase. Thanks for pointing out my error. I've corrected it. I didn't say "No consensus" = "Keep". What I said was, when there is no consensus to delete the article, it should generally default to keep. I've also pointed to the AFD where no consensus was defaulted to delete. As a Wikipedian, I'm flexible. If you've any suggestions for me, you can drop me a note on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   You may not thing one does, but I do. I believe potential administrators should be heavily active in the project, in both article creation/editing/improving AND vandalism fighting, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose I found multiple answers to questions troubling. Sorry, but these are key issues and give insight into if you would make an effective admin or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, Leaning Support Although you have done lots of great for Misplaced Pages, I feel you would be more qualified with more experience in other areas. -download | sign! 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could you be a bit more specific please, Download? I am a little confused by what you found missing in the candidate. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Having registered this account only 8 months ago, I feel it could do with more experience. Looking at AdjustShift's talk page, I also see minimal activity but good collaboration. After seeing a few answers to questions, I'd be glad to change to support. -download | sign! 20:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral: It certainly isn't enough to bring me to oppose, but I think the answers to the questions are very weak. Maedin\ 12:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think my answers are very weak. Can you point out my weak answers? I'll try to meliorate my answers. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   You can drop me a note on my talkpage. AdjustShift (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Will do. Maedin\ 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral I think your answers are rather weak, also, as Maedin says, particularly in areas where aggressive attitudes toward new editors are concerned, as in DGG's concern above. I won't go with "oppose" as you at least said you're look it up first, but why not give a new editor time and assistance in writing an article, time to show notability, and assistance as a welcome to wikipedia. Other answers are not particularly well-thought out; imo, this is probably just due to lack of experience. --KP Botany (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral changed from oppose. Though the approach to new editors is a concern, I agree with KP that you will probably learn from experience, but not confident enough to support. DGG (talk) 06:19, 11 April 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.

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

Tassedethe

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (58/5/2); closed successful Andre (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Tassedethe (talk · contribs) – This is very similar to my path to adminship. Tassedethe does a lot of work in the disambiguation arena, which I'm very familiar with. Tassedethe identifies and fixes many Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, sometimes those fixes involve page moves, and sometimes the moves can only be performed by an admin. Access to the tools would help in Tassedethe's work there. Tassedethe also contributes in other areas of the encyclopedia that I'm less familiar with, but I could find no problems in the edit history. Certainly an editor who could use the tools, has not been involved in any drama that I can find, and would be beneficial to have as an admin. JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I'm pleased to accept the nomination. Thanks to JHunterJ. Tassedethe (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: As indicated in my nomination I do a lot of work with regard to disambiguation pages. The principal Admin tool I would be using would be the ability to move pages to titles with an edit history. I am aware that this is not a tool to be used lightly, and that care needs to be taken if there are cut/paste moves involved. Disambiguation pages are generally not plagued by persistent vandalism but they do suffer from non-notable additions. I have therefore nominated pages using WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. While I don't see myself patrolling those areas full time I feel I would be able to make useful contributions, for instance at clearing CSD backlogs.

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

A: I feel my best contributions have been to the WP:WikiProject Disambiguation, fixing links to dab pages, cleaning per the style manual etc. I think an examination of my edit record shows that I have made a net positive effect to Misplaced Pages. While I am not a great article creator (great in terms of number and great in terms of quality) I have created stub articles and understand the requirements of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.

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

A: I am generally a pretty laidback person so the few (minor) conflicts I have had have not caused me a great deal of stress. I feel I am able to communicate calmly and effectively with most people. I find that the ability to compromise usually enables progess to be made, and if that is not an option, I prefer to bring more people into the discussion. As an Admin I would not be immediately launching into blocking vandals, or mediating in disputes, although I do think I have the temperament to do those sorts of tasks without undue drama.

Optional question from Keepscases

4. How come you have never had a user page?

A: I've always been concerned with the release of private information on the internet and have always tried to separate aspects of my online 'footprint'. So, for example, my username here isn't the one I use for email, which isn't the one I use for other networking sites etc. As I wouldn't want to put any identifiable personal info on my user page (e.g affiliations, politics, sports) what is left would probably not be very interesting. I very rarely look at other user pages (User talk pages, yes) so I've also never seen one where I thought 'Hey, very nice, I'll pinch that'. The single link that exists on my user page at the moment is for the precise same reason as the statement on your page!

Optional question from Looie496

5. Your dab contribs are so massive that it's almost impossible to tell whether you've made any other type of contribs. Could you summarize the nature of any other work you've done, if any? In particular, have you contributed to the content of any articles, and if so which ones?

A: I tend to go through phases, doing a tasks in different places but always ending up back at disambiguation. For instance I spent a bunch of time making and populating film director categories e.g Category:Films directed by Basil Dearden. Or populating unpopulated categories e.g Category:Fellows of the British Computer Society. I did spend a lot of time going through {{Lists of heads of UK diplomatic missions}}, correcting red links, disambiguating and adding some new biographies. The articles List of Ambassadors from the United Kingdom to Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, and Bulgaria (and more) were all created by me at that time. As I mentioned above not great articles but encyclopedic with reliable sources. I doubt there is not a single blue link on that template that has not been edited by me. Some AFDs I started Joshua Kopel, Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures, James C. Andrews. A couple I made (I think) concrete contributions to, James Watson (author), K-Lite Codec Pack. My file upload record shows I've added film posters to over 100 articles. Another area I've contributed is to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, e.g here and here. I hope this shows some positive non-dab related contributions.

Optional questions from Jennavecia

6a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I do believe that Biographies of Living People needs special consideration on Misplaced Pages, and that we have a legal and moral duty to protect such articles from attacks. However from my viewpoint I don't feel that vandalism or the addition of unsourced negative statements are outstripping the ability of other editors to remove or correct these changes in a considered and timely manner. That being said, I don't have a lot of BLPs on my watchlist, nor do I spend much time following Recent Changes. Perhaps I would view the problem differently if I was performing admin tasks. I have always assumed that the escalation of an article to semi-protected and fully-protected status was the best way to check constant BLP-violations.

6b.' What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: The use of the phrase 'trusted editor' makes me immediately suspicious of Flagged Revisions. The idea that a single editor would get the right to tag a version as 'right' or 'correct' seems to go against a guiding principle of Misplaced Pages i.e. WP:CONSENSUS. I would be more comfortable if a 'correct' version was flagged as such after discussion, and agreement, on the talk page. Also I feel that some of the most pernicious BLP violations could easily be included in a correct version e.g piping to hide an obvious negative link, or the use of alternative neutral names that might not be familiar to an editor, not to mention the subtleties of certain religious, ethnic or nationalist disputes. The idea of the Flagged protection and patrolled revisions proposed trial is something I would support though. I would consider, depending on the results obviously, a flagging system if it could be shown that it prevented BLP violations, or that they were reverted more quickly. The trial doesn't seem to mention having a control group i.e a set of unpatrolled BLPs. This would give information on the rate of BLP violations, and how fast they were reverted without a flagging system. I don't agree in Semi-protection for all pages, this would stymie the growth of Misplaced Pages for I feel that the majority of BLP are not subject to attacks. Increased use of semi-protection (almost a 1 strike and you're protected) I would agree with.

6c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A: Lots of caveats in the question, so probably lots in my answer. I would assume a mildly controversial claim would be something like "Was seen at a nightclub the day before a game", rather than "He takes drugs and sleeps with prostitutes". Would I be comfortable rushing to my appointment if it was the first claim? Yep. If it was the other? No. I would want to revert that immediately and place an appropriate warning e.g {{uw-biog1}} (or higher if necessary) on the user's talk page. For a 'minor' BLP violation, in this hypothetical case, on returning from my appointment I would still revert the change but might content myself to an edit comment depending on the mildness of the controversy. As the article is unsourced I would add a {{unreferenced}} template if I was confident that the person was in fact notable.

Questions from Letsdrinktea

7. A user displays the following userboxes:

What is your judgment on these boxes, and what action would you take?

A: As you can tell from my user page (Re: question 4) I have no experience with user boxes but I realise that this question is not really about my judgement on the appropriateness or otherwise of the boxes but more on what Misplaced Pages policies exist in relation to them. Looking at WP:UP#What may I not have on my user page? I can't see the topics in the user boxes being specifically prohibited. The statement about bin Laden would seem to be allowed per "It does not, however, include statements that support controversial groups or regimes, that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence." There is a general catchall on Inappropriate Content but seems to rely on the personal judgement of the editor (and not necessarily an admin). However at WP:USERBOX there are more "Content restrictions" outlined including "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." Whether those particular statements can be described as such is again the personal judgement of the editor. There seems to be no discussion space equivalent to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention for user pages. If I felt particularly strongly about these userboxes (and I don't) it would seem I should bring it up with user on their talk page in the first instance, and if necessary take it to WP:MfD.

Question from Hobit

8. Did you realize that "wtc" in the 2nd box of question 7 likely stands for "World Trade Center"? If you did not, does that change your opinion in any way?

Yes I did realize that. In the same way that I noticed that Korea was piped with dog, and that graphic could be thought to represent 'slitty eyes'. Two people have commented that my answer to this Q was good, and two have felt it was poor and been part of their reason for opposing my nomination. It makes me think that there isn't a right answer to this question! I hold to my opinion that there is nothing (that I can read) in the userbox guidelines that specifically states that these boxes are forbidden other than general catchalls for "inappropriate content" or "inflammatory or divisive " but they provide no examples (except for that of pro-pedophilia advocacy). The only thing that is clearly banned is statements of violence, but as I noted in my answer support for groups/organizations "that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence" is not banned. I have not been involved in discussions at WP:MfD so I have no idea what standards are actually applied to user pages. Where is the line in the sand, how offensive must something be? The Opposes clearly feel that this line has been crossed. I have added the discussions at WP:MfD to my list of Misplaced Pages areas that I follow. Only by observing what does and doesn't get deleted there will I be able to clearly understand the 'unwritten rules' on userboxes and userspace content. If I might make a more general comment, there are a number of Misplaced Pages areas in which I don't have extensive experience. If I was promoted to Admin I wouldn't be launching myself into these areas without following the discussions, reading the help pages etc. When I did start in new areas I would do what I have done with all my editing - start with the easy/simple/clear stuff and gradually move on. I am not too proud to ask for help and advice if something is not clear, nor too arrogant to feel I have nothing new to learn.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: As it could be deleted as WP:CSD#A3 ""No content... consisting only of external links" or WP:CSD#A7 "An article about a... company... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" I would say not long, no more than an hour from the tagging. The {{underconstruction}} tag earns some time per WP:AGF but I feel that if an editor knows how to add a template they should know the minimum requirements for a stub article.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Not really. I would be less likely to look for other reasons not to immediately delete the article.

9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: I would say that if Editor2 did remove it again that would a 3RR violation. It would seem that this was promising to become an edit war and intervention in a friendly way to encourage users to start discussing on the article talk page would be the first step. If a particular editor did not engage in discussion and continued to revert edits I would consider blocking them, but if it involved multiple editors (again who were not discussing the problems), it might be necessary to temporarily protect the page, to force the editors to discuss on the talk page and build consensus.

9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I think they are different in that deletion really only can have two clear results, delete or keep. It's difficult to only delete half an article (if only half an article was the problem that should have been discussed at the article talk page). This means that consensus can be clear (a vast majority vote one way, with arguments based on policy etc) or unclear, where there are arguments on both sides. The latter case is more difficult as it requires the closer to weigh arguments, perhaps dismissing some votes (e.g. WP:SPA or WP:ILIKEIT), and make a final arbitration, remembering that is not just a simple tally of votes. On article pages there should always be attempts to address the concerns of all editors, even those in the minority. As long as everyone is basing edits on WP:RS there should be no need to declare that the majority rule.

9e. Should Foo (disambiguation) be moved to Foo if Foo is redlink or a redirect to the dab page? And if moved should the dab page be deleted?

A: As long as there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Foo (perhaps Foo (bar)) then yes it should be moved per WP:MDP. (If Foo (bar) was the primary topic then it should be moved to Foo with the hatnote {{otheruses}}). Foo may also become a redirect to an article with a different title also per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (e.g Elvis redirects to Elvis Presley with hatnote {{redirect|Elvis}}). After moving Foo (disambiguation) to Foo some editors delete the redirect as a cleanup. However WP:INTDABLINK recommends that deliberate links to disambiguation pages that do not have (disambiguation) in the title should be made via the (disambiguation) redirect. This ensures that anyone cleaning up links to dab pages (i.e. this project WP:DPL) can see that the link is intentional. In that case the redirect should remain.

General comments

• Links for Tassedethe: Tassedethe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Tassedethe can be found here.
• Promote Tassedethe (if RfA is successful; bureaucrats only)

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton |  14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate or fair to the user to host those userboxes above under question #7. It gives the impression upon first glance that they were taken from the userpage, leading to the question of "Why do you have these on your userpage?" - this is the most common reason for referencing userboxes, after all. I understand, after reading the Q&A, that it's not the case, but wouldn't a link to each by sufficient? The middle one is especially ... for lack of a better word... liable. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It took me four readings to realise that it was a hypothetical question -- I thought it was saying that the user had them on their userpage. To be honest though, since there are no opposes based on them I would imagine that it just means that I was a little silly reading it too fast. — neuro 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - Defaulting to support, seems like a good candidate. Not seen any issues in a quick rundown of your recent contributions. — neuro 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support seems like he's already taken the mop on with his disambiguation work. Great contributor, trustworthy, let's see what he can do... -Senseless!... says you, says me 14:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support no reason to oppose. GT5162 15:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support, does good work, has a huge amount of edits and no problems on his talk page, no incorrect speedies in the last two months, and will make good use of the buttons. --Amalthea 16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
6. I really like what I see on the candidate's talk page, although that's the most minimalist userpage I've ever seen from an RFA candidate. Everything about this candidate says "good worker, no drama". Btw, for people wondering how to pronounce that username, I'm assuming it's "tasse de thé", "cup of tea" in French, roughly /tass d' tay/. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yep, and I could go for one of those right now... rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Support, I'm a fan of his work. ;) -- OlEnglish 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Contribs look good, I see no problems. FlyingToaster 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Extremely active editor (especially considering that only ~10,000 of their edits are automated). No reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Why not. America69 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - an excellent editor with 61k edits who I have never noticed before. Upon a review of contribs, it's because he's been busy doing excellent work competently and undramatically. Clearly someone who can be trusted with the admin tools to help them out in their everyday work on Misplaced Pages. ~ mazca 19:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support--Giants27 /C 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - More admins of this sort needed. Spacevezon 20:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No issues here. Keep up the good work! GlassCobra 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Of course. -download | sign! 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Dean B (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I've often seen his contributions and found him totally trustworthy. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Here to improve the project w/o drama. Appears to have clue. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support No problems LetsdrinkTea 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Hard working and productive. Looks good to me! -- Marek.69 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Obviously a sensible, dedicated editor here for the encyclopedia, not the drama. Nick mallory (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support A very level headed editor who understands that discussion is paramount. I particularly liked your answer to question 7. I think you would make a great admin. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support — Jake Wartenberg 03:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Looks Fine! - Fastily (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support This user has 69,000 edits they must be a good user. NanohaA'sYuri 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Certainly. No issues showing up. --GedUK  10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
29. SupportSeems like a good candidate. Pmlinediter (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Your answer to Q7 was very good, and I can see that you do have a legitimate need for the tools. This one is a no-brainer. Malinaccier (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Look good to me. hmwithτ 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support A dabber after my own heart. Quick scan of the recent contributions doesn't raise any flags, no block history, and a good communicator on their talk page. Can't see any reason not to support, and I know all too well how useful the tools could be for someone whose work involves page moves. I'll be watching this one closely, as a successful candidacy might push me over the top toward considering a run of my own. Mlaffs (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Trustworthy? Definitely. Broader experience would be nice, but to each his/her own. Steven Walling (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support and glad to do so. I can definitely appreciate the need for the tools to handle page moves to get things in better working order. Good luck! JPG-GR (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak support - Candidate doesn't understand the severity of the BLP problem on this project, though it shouldn't take long to realize it upon performing admin tasks, as was pointed out in an answer to one of my questions. Candidate's willingness to support trials and tighten protection on BLPs does, however, inspire some hope; thus my support, albeit weak. لennavecia 06:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support No strong reason to oppose. Can definitely trust him/her(?) with the tools. Antivenin 07:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support I would like to have seen more drawn-out and in-depth work on a single article or set of articles, which I believe is important experience for an editor to have...but at the same time, the candidate seems to have an understanding of the basic policies anyway, and besides will probably mostly use the admin tools in areas like disambiguation, where I imagine this wouldn't be a problem. (Also, if you do have some in-depth article work, please correct me; it's possible that I just didn't see it amidst the sea of dab and cleanup edits.) Also, has a clear reason for wanting the tools—you can get by for only so long asking an admin friend to delete/edit a protected page for you, and eventually it gets annoying. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support No problems I see with candidate. FunPika 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Meetare Shappy 20:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support: Almost 90% of his/her 69,611 edits are to the article namespace (which still leaves over 1,500 edits in the adminy area). Answers to the questions were thoughtful and on point demonstrating a knowledge of policy. No known civility problems. A value to the project. Good luck with the mop!--It's me...Sallicio! 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support I've had plenty of interaction with Tassedethe at Malplaced dab pages. He clearly knows what he is doing there and seems to have a good common sense for areas in which he may lack admin experience at the moment, so no worries from me at all. – sgeureka 00:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good. Ray 01:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
44. The user's enormous contributions to the dab pages is very impressive, and getting the admin tools will definitely benefit in his work there. As an aside, I've also seen him around, and I like his temperament, civility, etc. on talk pages. Xclamation point 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I like his work and trust him. prashanthns (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support. Not enough administrators currently. (You know, that's some f-ed up grammar there. If one was going to boilerplate something and use it indiscriminately, you'd think it'd be less awkward). Tan | 39 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per WP:AGF, i.e. no memorable negative interactions and no blocks, but I wish the candidate had more on the userpage. There's something nice about knowing where admins are coming from when you deal with them and it kind of puts more of a "face" on them than feeling as if you are just dealing with an account. Best, --A Nobody 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. older ≠ wiser 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, 49 supports is a good sign. And no, there are still not enough admins in my opinion. --candle•wicke 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Definite need for the tools (although he'll probably put me out of a job over at WP:MDP) Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support I think de facto those userboxes would be deleted. But policy doesn't seem to justify doing so, and he did a good job of researching and justifying the decision to leave them alone. Good skills in an admin, see no other issues. Hobit (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. 70,000 good edits without causing any trouble sounds good to me. Cool3 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support (I'm a tea addict, but I think I can be unbiased here. *grin*). I've encountered Tassedethe here and there, and always been impressed with the calm, thoughtful demeanor. Although I don't quite agree with the answer to #7, I'd much rather have an admin who declines to take an action than one who immediately indef's someone they don't agree with. (After all, we are never required to act here.) No worries about the mop in these hands. Back to my darjeeling FTGFOP1 now.
56. Support Res2216firestar 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Weak support. Though DGG did bring up a valuable point down in the oppose section, I don't necessarily believe the answer about the userboxes suggests bad judgment on Tassedethe's, as it's a matter of opinion, and probably won't effect other admin areas. — Σxplicit 23:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support good answers to questions; seems to know policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   Troll alert LetsdrinkTea 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   LDT, that was completely and utterly uncalled for. DougsTech has expressed his opinion at WT:RFA, and whilst I disagree with it, he is in absolutely no way a troll. Please remove your attack. — neuro 00:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   "completely and utterly" and "attack" seem a little harsh to me. If I were responding to this, I think I'd say "WP:ANI is the place to discuss any actual evidence of trolling, not RFA." I can't say whether DougsTech is a troll as defined on Misplaced Pages because I don't keep up with ANI and ArbCom; I can say that successful trolling involves picking a position calculated to be divisive and pursuing it relentlessly, with the goal of causing friction among the regulars, so whether he's trolling or not, it's best not to "fall" for it. One crat has said he won't count this vote; should we ask more crats so that we know for sure? Would that reduce tensions over this !vote? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Well, it was completely uncalled for. This was in absolutely no way such a thing. — neuro 03:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I completely agree with LetsDrinkTea. More than you can imagine. All politeness aside, DougsTech is a troll. No point denying that. Antivenin 18:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   The only editor who is fair game for personal attacks at RfA (apparently) is the candidate. You make yourself look foolish and inconsistent by your ill-considered response to what appears to me to be DougsTech legitimate viewpoint. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   I concur with Malleus here, Doug has justified his viewpoint. Antivenin, you should know better. — neuro 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Doug has not justified his viewpoint. And nor is it legitimate (witness the backlog). He's got some baloney about adding admins to some chaos on Misplaced Pages. He is, effectively, punishing current RFA candidates for actions of past administrators. I find that disgusting and detrimental to this project, and if it's detrimental to this project then I cannot tolerate it. DougsTech does not offer any constructive criticism either. There's no way a candidate can improve from what DougsTech said. They're too many administrators? What's someone supposed to do about that? Convince an admin to leave Misplaced Pages so he can get a successful RFA? It's ridiculous. Moreover, I'm not the only one who thinks DougsTech is a troll. A quick glance through WT:RFA will show you that. Antivenin 07:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   If the goal is to make points you all want to make, I don't have any good advice. If the goal is to resolve the DougsTech question, then I'd like to point out that WP:ANI is thataway → They deal with questions of who's a troll and who's not all day long; we don't. Also, if uncertainty about how crats are going to treat this is causing tension, then we can ask them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would advocate simply supporting the candidate with an emphasis on there not being too many admins and it not being an exclusive club, etc, if that is the belief held. Getting into disputes with the opposition would appear entirely unhelpful. If the opposition is attention-seeking they are receiving their very desire, if they are simply stating their belief, then state yours in the appropriate section. For that is only my humble approach to such things on this page. We must work together to resolve our differences. --candle•wicke 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Someone who has never been involved in a serious dispute probably doesn't care about anything other than passing an RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Maybe I am reading this wrong, but are you saying that the only reason to not get involved in a dispute is to try and pass an RfA? — neuro 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   No, not the only reason, but perhaps one of the more likely reasons. Everyone says that the life of an administrator is stressful, so I'd like to see how the candidate responds when placed in a stressful situation. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   That makes sense. Thanks for replying. :) — neuro 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Couldn't the fact that the candidate has not had major disputes, be your answer to how s/he responds in stressful situations? I haven't looked closely at the candidate's history, but just hypothetically.... rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   No. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Sorry, but I would really like to see some experience outside of these areas. There are a lot of tools and it is hard to really tell how you would use them besides some of the theoretical statements. Many admin start off "specializing" then end up abandoning that and performing deletions, blocks, and the rest. I think you just need more experience in some of those areas (discussions about the matters, AfD, AN/ANI, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose I disagree with you that the middle userbox is acceptable. The admiration alone might be, but not with the "wtc" Perhaps you would get a better feel for this with some more experience in related matters. DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose While there is much that I like about you as a user, your answer to question 7 and less so to others indicates to me that you are not ready yet for the broom. gidonb (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral im currently going to stay Neutral i see many positives and some negatives that may concern me particular in some areas of the userpage.Staffwaterboy 06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   If you have a moment, could you clarify what the problem you see in Tassedethe's userpage is? It would help us better understand your concern. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   I have a feeling that he simply wants a better userpage than a link to a sandbox subpage. FunPika 16:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry for the misunderstanding that was per the question 7. with the userboxes and userpage rules as per above i feel that there should be more experience leaning in that area. Staffwaterboy 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - poor answres to questions. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 8 April 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.

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

Toon05

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (54/1/0); closed successful Andre (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Toon05 (talk · contribs) – I present, for your consideration, Toon05. Toon05 is a dedicated, helpful, and enthusiastic contributor who has been with us for over 2 years and has made over 6,000 edits. I first met this fantastic contributor when I looked over his editor review (see here for more information) and realised what a valuable contributor he is to our community. At that point in time, his content work and administrative know-how was already above exemplary and left very little to be desired.

Toon05 is a major component of the WP:SCV system, and the tools would be immensely useful on his patrols there.

In short:

• Article work: With three GAs (Alan Shearer, Shay Given, and Victoria of the United Kingdom) and 1 DYK (Al-Maquar) and another two in the works, Chris has proven himself to be a sterling content producer. Toon05 sincerely believes that cooperation, community, and collaboration are the reasons we have so much great content, as evidenced by the abundance of article talk edits he has. This little snapshot further exudes the principles of collaboration he champions.
• Administrative areas: As mentioned above, Toon05 is a major player over at SCV and he routinely tags SCV's for deletion. He's also an intermittent Huggle user with plenty of experience at AIV. Toon05 does have some experience with WP:AN in addition to the above. His knowledge of our deletion policies is evident in his CSD work and his edits to the AfD process.
• Demeanour: Without a doubt, Toon05 surpasses all civility expectations. If you've ever interacted with this user you'll find him to be beyond helpful, beyond calm, and, most importantly, beyond polite.

In summary: Toon05 will excel as an administrator on this project and Moonriddengirl and I have every confidence in his ability to do well. Scarian 13:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Moonriddengirl

I have been aware of Toon05 since August of 2008, when I first noticed his extensive work with copyright concerns. While he focuses most of his efforts with these at WP:SCV, there is considerable overlap with WP:CP, since CorenSearchBot tagged articles wind up at both locations. I have been highly impressed by his diligence and sensible approach to these, and I know that the tools would be regularly put to good use by him there. He shows a good understanding of when such problems should be speedily deleted, when they should be listed for more in-depth investigation and when they should simply be cleaned up, all in accordance with various copyright policies.

I have also found him diligent in notifying contributors of copyright issues, which is very important to help prevent future infringement, and he is very courteous in his dealings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Marnad1963 and http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbalaya1978, for instance). His temperament will serve him well as an administrator, as he can do what is necessary for the good of the project but is mindful of the Misplaced Pages's goal to remain accessible in so doing.

As Scarian indicates, I have every confidence in his suitability to serve as an administrator. I'm convinced he has the knowledge and the nature, and I believe that giving him access to the tools will be a great benefit to Misplaced Pages. --Moonriddengirl 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks Scarian and Moonriddengirl for your excellent noms, I accept. – Toon 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: Most of my admin work would ultimately revolve around Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations. There's quite a bit of overlap between SCV and speedy deletion; naturally there are many articles which are blatant copyright infringements, but there are also lots of articles posted by companies directly from their websites which, even with permission to use the content, are pure advertising. Another common problem is pages whose content has been copied and pasted to a new title in-wiki - these require history merges to ensure that editors' contriutions are recorded and we comply with the GFDL. Additionally I would do some general speedy deletion work, as well as dealing with vandalism, considering reasonable requests for rollback and userfication of suitable deleted articles. At the moment a lot of the work I do involves listing articles in different places for somebody else to deal with - the tools would allow me to solve the problems when they arise.

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

A: On the content side of things, I'm proud of the first Good Article I helped to promote, Alan Shearer, because it was the first big content-contribution I made to the project. I learned a lot about the manual of style, the GA system and countless other areas of Misplaced Pages during the process and although the subsequent FAC run was unsuccessful, I'll take another run at FA-status improvements in the not so distant future. I'm also proud of my DYK (Al-Maquar), as it was a subject that I was completely unfamiliar with — I had to approach the whole subject as a newcomer and it turned into an interesting challenge.

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: It's rare that I find anything on-wiki that causes me stress, but I think disagreements with other users are inevitable every now and then; I always try to keep calm and find a reasonable compromise. This (and subsequent sections) is an example of a situation I found a bit frustrating, and could have been more receptive to the editor in question, especially at the beginning. It was an article that I'd contributed a lot to and the editor made clear his concerns of bias; while I wasn't the only editor to disagree, I was quite vocal in my opinion. I think in future I'd approach the issue a little differently; take a step back and consider the issues raised for longer before diving straight in - when people have strong feelings about something like this it shows that they care about the project. I don't think the editor's remarks and edit summaries were intended to be aggressive, and a cooler response from me will help to make any similar discussions run smoother in the years to come. In the end we managed to reach a compromise which suited all parties (and on friendly terms), after a pretty large discussion over what turned out to be have quite a simple solution.

Additional Question from DFS454

4. Under what circumstances can a non-free image be used to illustrate a living person?

A: In the vast majority of cases, non-free images can't be used to illustrate a living person, due to the fact that it would be replaceable - i.e. it's possible for somebody to take a photograph and license it appropriately - per WP:NFCC#1 and Misplaced Pages:NFC#Images_2. In some rare cases, usually for articles about retired people or people from disbanded groups which were key to the subject's notability, an ordinary photograph would not suffice, and therefore fair use is permitted. An example of this kind of image is File:Kaoru_Kuroki.jpg‎ - a retired adult video performer who has successfully sued takers of post-retirement photographs for invasion of privacy.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

5a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I apologise in advance for the length of this answer, but I didn't think it was something which could be adequately done justice in three lines.

While BLP issues are not something I deal with in my day-to-day work, I think that it is one of the most important issues on Misplaced Pages. Ensuring that articles represent their subjects fairly is vital. Massive amounts of damage can be done to a person's reputation (and life) very quickly in the age of free information, and as the most-read online encyclopedia and one of the most visited sites on the whole of the web, Misplaced Pages would have enough problems were it not editable by anyone. While being openly-editable is the source of Misplaced Pages's growth and popularity, I think that the current system, whereby vandalism edits made to even high-profile articles can stick around for hours, days or even months, is something which seriously needs to be addressed. And it's not even just people who read Misplaced Pages who see the potentially problematic content - this is an example of Google picking up a piece of vandalism on the Barack Obama article (a racial slur, in this case) and it being visible 16 hours after the vandalism was reverted (which was two minutes after being placed). If you think about the effect a more subtle peice of vandalism, say... some negative content written in an encyclopedic manner on a lower-profile article, could have, given the amount of Misplaced Pages mirrors and the ranking Google gives our results, the consequences could be very serious, both for the subject and legally for Misplaced Pages. It's vital that we find a way to ensure that any negative or controversial content added to BLPs whatsover are backed up well by reliable sources, and the current system, in my honest opinion, just doesn't cut it.

5b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A:

• I think that some form of flagged revisions would be very useful to help solve many BLP issues. However, I have to say that I think it should be limited to BLPs only - I oppose efforts to make Misplaced Pages harder for newcomers and anonymous editors to contribute to, but this is an issue which requires a serious solution. Most vandalism comes from anonymous editors and autoconfirmed users (not all of them, obviously there are many more useful contributors than vandals) because they are less accountable and have less invested in WP than established editors. Requiring that these users' edits to biographies of living people be approved before going live gives us the opportunity to prevent a massive amount of BLP issues, and would also help Misplaced Pages's credibility as a source. However, there must of course be the framework there to support it; the system would only ever work if editors play their part.
• Flagged protection would be subject to similar problems which haunt the current protection system; those articles which aren't protected slip through the net, and to gain protection it is necessary for there to have been repeated incidents - not one incident which wasn't picked up on. I don't see flagged patrolled revisions as being worth the effort, to be quite honest - if slanderous libellous or unsourced negative edits are visible, they are causing a problem, and to patrol all changes would be a mammoth job which I really don't think would get as many volunteers as a flagged-revision style approval would. This would result in a huge ever-increasing backlog that I don't think could ever get cleared.
• Liberal semi-protection of BLPs could be an interim solution, until a better one is found, but I don't like the idea of completely stopping IPs and non-autoconfirmed users from editing an article. I think coming up against a wall would repel more potential contributors than being let into the foyer until someone comes to open the door. Apologies for the metaphor, it is how the thought formed in my head.

5c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A: As an unsourced, controversial claim, I'd undo the edit, with an edit summary which politely asked users to provide a reliable source which backed up their claim, and to read WP:BLP. I'd watchlist the page, and drop a note at the relevant WikiProject's talk page asking someone to take a look, and if they could source the article. Then I'd run for the bus. I'd check the article again when I got back, and see if I could reliably source any remaining material, as well as the edit the initial user had made.

Optional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

6. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP.

A. Yes, this edit is definitely a violation of WP:BLP. It's negative, contentious, the "source" is certainly not reliable, and it's clearly an opinion - it's an inappropriate edit to make anywhere on Misplaced Pages - WP:BLP is not limited to articles.

7. What's the difference between wikipedia policy and the content of a wikipedia policy page?

A. Policy is generally agreed upon consensus on how things should be done. Policies have been formed to prevent or solve certain problems; what is on a policy page is an attempt to write this down. The problem with this is that it's impossible to describe instructions for every form of a certain issue; this is where the actual policy varies from what is written down. It's important to look at the problems which prompted the creation of a policy, and to understand what is trying to be prevented or encouraged by the it - so basically the actual policy is the "spirit" or the "essence", and the content of a policy page is the "letter" - We cannot blindly follow the letter of the law without understanding the law itself. This is what WP:IAR is all about; to prevent what is written down as policy getting in the way of what we are all here for: writing an encyclopedia. I apologise if I haven't expressed myself well here, some things are simpler as ideas than words.

8. Is a "consensus" on WP:AN/I enough to overturn an Arbitration Enforcement action? If so, what kind and level of "consensus" would be needed?

A. Yes, but only "a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so" would be enough to overturn an Arbitration Enforcement action. (From this motion, also described at WP:AE)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

9a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: I'd wait about 15 minutes to ensure that no more content was immediately forthcoming, after which I'd userfy the page, and inform the page creator that they can prepare the page there with no pressure, and that it can be moved into the mainspace when ready. Although there's not much content present, I think this option is less likely to "scare off" new users as their creation hasn't been deleted outright.

9b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: No.

9c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Well if Editor 1 reverted, he would only have performed two reversions, and similarly for Editor 2, neither has actually broken 3RR (which forbids making more than 3 reversions within 24 hours), but what they are doing is still edit warring. Naturally they should both have headed to the talk page after Editor2's first removal to hash out a solution.

9d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: In both areas it should always come down to the arguments which are put forward by both parties and their merits in policy. Usually it's possible to find common ground over phrasing and what to include when seeking consensus during article writing. Naturally, the ultimate outcome comes down to which ideas have the overall support in this situation. In this sense majority rule is probably more true there than in AfD, simply because there's no impartial adjudicator to judge the consensus - it is soley down to the participants in the discussion.

General comments

• Requests for adminship/Toon05

• Links for Toon05: Toon05 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Toon05 can be found here.
• Promote Toon05 (if RfA is successful; bureaucrats only)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Toon05 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton |  14:02, 2 April 2
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support As co-nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - See no reason to do otherwise, seems like a good candidate. — neuro 14:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I haven't vetted the candidate yet .. but considering the noms.. no problems. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - As co-nom. Scarian 14:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Has been around since Nov 2006 and fully trust the judgement of Moonriddengirl and good track.User has used rollback well and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Good candidate Power.corrupts (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Appears to be a good candidate. I will look at his contributions in more detail later. GT5162 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I've looked at a sample of the user's non-automated edits, and consistently saw politeness and cordiality. That, together with MRG's opinion, leads me to believe that this user will not abuse the tools and should be extended the community's trust. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Gave me some good advice when I needed it. --DFS454 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support No reason to oppose, good edits, trust the noms. FlyingToaster 18:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
12. I've seen Toon around and I am confident he will make a great admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support - Seems like a good contributor, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton |  18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support Per Juliancolton, no issues here.--Giants27 /C 19:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Sure. :) GlassCobra 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
17. One of my favorite editors. Can certainly be trusted. — R 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Looks well qualified. -download | sign! 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Good contributor, long continuous history; and plentiful edits especially since June 2008 - plus two nominators whom I trust.--VS 21:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the possibility of another administrator with an interest in copyright.—S Marshall /_Cont 22:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Good luck. Dean B (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support —Capricorn42 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support, my search of the talk page and contribs turned up nothing of concern. Tavix :  Chat  01:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Certainly. No issues showing up. --GedUK  10:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. The answer you provided to question seven was good in my opinion. Many people do not understand this use of WP:IAR, and I can see that you will interpret policy quite well as an administrator. No other problems, so there is really no reason to oppose. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support A stellar candidate, who will lighten the load in a crucial area. (And is there a basis for the belief that there are too many administrators in the highly-specialized and often-thankless field of enforcing compliance with intellectual property laws and ethical standards?) Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - Toon knows his way around Misplaced Pages and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Not enough administrators currently Alexfusco 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good solid contributor to Misplaced Pages. Marek.69 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support I hadn't come across Toon05 before, but am impressed by his answers above and from what I have seen of his contribution history. I trust him to be a informed and responsible admin. Abecedare (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong support - Let me first say how refreshing it is that a replacement has been found for Kmweber. Speaking on the candidate, I'm impressed with the answers to my questions and also with 6-8, in particular. Toon05 shows considerable clue and I believe he will be an asset to the admin core, hopefully spending some of his time helping improve the problems we face in the area of BLP. لennavecia 06:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Meetare Shappy 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
39. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Love the answers, love what I see in a quick look at your contribs. -Senseless!... says you, says me 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong Support Oops..I see I got a mention in the .. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?.. I was stumbling aroung in toons flower garden like newish editors do .. and toon helped me to grow and didn't push me away . I am grateful to him for that and I am sure he will make a worthy administrator.(Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
42. Support. I ran into Toon05 while we were both working at SCV. An admin to help out Moonriddengirl at CP is just what we need. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per WP:AGF in that we had no memorable negative interactions, I don't see any blocks, etc. Best, --A Nobody 00:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Looks great. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Strong support, why I was just examining your GAs quite randomly the other day! Well done! --candle•wicke 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Trust Scarian and Moonriddengirl's judgement and user seems trustworthy. MBisanz 10:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support  iMatthew :  Chat  15:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support Per nom and reasons given above. Timmeh! 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. An asset to the community. — Σxplicit 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Definitely seems trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support No good opposes, and I don't have any problems with Toon05.--Res2216firestar 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RFA_standards; respected co-nominators. Bearian (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support: per all.${\displaystyle {\mathfrak {S}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {f}}{\mathfrak {w}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {t}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {r}}{\mathfrak {b}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {y}}}$ 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   DT, do you think there are too many administrators currently working in the area of copyright violations? Kablammo (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Can we just go ahead and strike these votes since it is obvious a crat isn't going to count it? Tavix :  Chat  00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   See centralized discussion - Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#User:DougsTech - Fastily (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

   Off-topic (and insulting) discussion removed. As has been mentioned, keep discussion about DougsTech limited to the WT:RFA page, please. kthnxbye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

I have reverted this RFA to the last revision before its official closing time. This has resulted in several comments being removed; they remain available in the page history. See my comments here for details, and please do not make any further edits to this RFA. — Dan | talk 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Nomination

Final (61/107/17); Ended 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) – Yes, this may seem like a joke because everyone else has a joke RfA and this is me. However, if you want the joke version of the RfA, see this user space page. It was designed to have fun. I decided that we could separate the more jokey stuff to that and keep this serious. Regardless - Most of you may know me. If you've never heard of me, well, I don't know what to say. I oppose a lot of RfA's, I've been involved in some of the most controversial incidents, and I have quite a few people who have expressed their hatred towards me on and off Misplaced Pages. It happens. It also happens that this RfA page was receiving many views even though it was not created before today. People want to see how I would do at an RfA apparently. Yes, I've been pressured by a lot of people to run. Do I really want the job? Well, decide for yourself. Ask whatever questions you want. If you want followups, I would suggest you simply linking to the talk page so a conversation can happen there. If you want to oppose me, feel free. I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it. If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you joke support me don't expect to be able to strike it tomorrow. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 don't like to block people. I don't like to delete pages that people work on. I have no problem voicing an opinion in these areas, but they have always left a bad taste in my mouth. What tools would I use? Well, I would definitely use the ability to read deleted pages to help in reviewing problems, helping those to create new articles without the previous one's problem, and other similar things. I would also use that ability to help with history merges. I would use the tools to edit protected pages when it is necessary and also to protect pages (example - images on the mainpage, which get neglected). I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin, in advocating for users where no one else is willing to defend, and participating in ArbCom enforcement to ensure that there is fair treatment on all sides. I would also help out in Conflict of Interest cases. I would not work unilaterally, and my previous experience with sysop tools always involved constant communication with others while performing actions.

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

A: I don't really like this question. I never had, and I never will. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. As such, good contributors should be in the background and invisible. Its not about "me me me" after all. I believe that too many problems come from people thinking only of their best contributions and ignoring the point of the place. If you want to see what I do, check my contribs or my user page. If you want to see what admin work I perform, go look at my wikiversity logs.

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

A: I've probably stepped on most people's toes. I'm sure the opposes will come up with new and exciting things to look at, so, here's to them. Now, I will state that I will not respond to the opposes. I believe that the opposes have their right to express their views. So, enjoy.

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

A: I was involved in a ban on a user at Wikiversity. It was a nasty situation. It took a lot of discussion and involved Jimbo's help. The user continued to use multiple ISPs to come back and continue plaguing the community. I really hate bans. I find them necessary sometimes, but only as a last resort and only when people are willing to go all the way to ensure that the individual cannot come back. Indef blocks and bans tend to fuel sock puppetry and users doing whatever they can to try and get revenge. Blocks don't necessary have this result. I don't like blocks either, but I can see a time and a purpose for them. Many are too harsh, and some are too light. The worse blocks are those done unilaterally and by an admin who refuses to talk to other admin or the blocked user. Lack of communication only encourages problematic behavior.

5. Would you delete the mainpage?

A: Yes, for 100 dollars. I would block Jimbo for 200 dollars or any member of ArbCom for 500 dollars. Furthermore, I would delete all pages on Intelligent Design, Scientology, Ayn Rand, or any current politician for free simply to remove all the constant fighting from the community. (I kept this in for fun :) ).

Optional question from Dank55

6. Can you give an example where you might "advocat for users where no one else is willing to defend"?

A: There are many users that I have vouched for, defended, or other such things throughout Misplaced Pages. I have gone out of my way to call for neutrality in situations involving high profile individuals like Mattisse, OrangeMarlin, and Giano II to just random ANI people who seem to be ganged up on, have had people call for Indef blocks way too soon, or other such situations. I spent a lot of time with DGG trying to ensure that one user was not run off the project in a manner that would normally encourage sock puppetry reprisals just a few months ago. I have defended those like Malleus or DougsTech. I have spent time on forums, talk pages, email, and chatrooms discussing with many admin trying to get blocks to be toned down, situations resolved, and the rest. I'm sure there are plenty of situations that I have left out.

6a. How do you feel about Goodmorningworld's support rationale? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I'm not really sure. I tend not to look at rationales when I look at RfAs, but I guess I have to since I am not in the voting role. Could I even support "as nom"? Regardless, I would be willing to unblock in situations that I feel are too harsh. I hate excessive timelimits for blocks. Would I go around an admin and do that? No. Would I spend a lot of time talking to them? Yes. I believe in communication between blocker and blockee. If that isn't happening, then the admin did not uphold their end of the block and the block is not doing what it is supposed to do (prevent, not punish). Of course, the "shoutout" and "lickspittle" may undermine the bulk of the comment, but everyone has their own way of phrasing things. I enjoyed the phrase "He's got his idiosyncrasies". :)

Optional question from Jeandré

7. What do you think of April fools edits like on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A Wow, I didn't even notice that one. The "hanging" part bothers me, because it is a living person. Sure, it can be forgiven as most things can be. Is it appropriate? Not really. Will it happen? Yes. We are supposed to prevent, not punish. As such, there is little we can do besides not supporting or praising the behavior and hopefully keeping it from becoming popular during the next year. If we turn such people into heroes all they will do is continue the same or even possibly something worse.

Common question from many users

8. Would you possibly run again?

A: The simple answer is no. This is a one time thing, and not because I really care too much either way. If I want to use the power because I am in the mood I have tons of stuff I can do on other projects. Would it make working content easier? Yes. Would it allow arguing for unblocks? Yes. Do I care if I fail? Why would I? If I get over 100 supports or 100 opposes, then I will be equally happy. It would just mean that a lot of people feel strongly about me. Now, 100 neutrals would be great just because. But yeah, why would I bother running again? If the people want me, they want me. If not, then, they probably wont. :)

Optional question from --SB_Johnny |

9. While you noted above that you didn't want to respond to any of the !votes, could you perhaps summarize the main gist of most of the opposes below, and say whether you agree with their assessments or not? You know I hold you in high regard (almost always :-)), but you also know I'm often a bit put off by your passion for the dramatic. We've discussed "Wikipedian culture" endlessly over the past several months, but I'm not at all certain (especially after reading some of the above) how you intend to improve it.

A The statement about not wanting to respond would be understood by most of the regulars at RfA - there are many fights that break out in the oppose section and there are always claims of "badgering". If someone wants to discuss things with me, that is fine. I have contacted some people with more information, but I respect everyone's oppose. I think it is amusing how many people have stated that I am a drama mongerer, or that I'm on AN or ANI a lot. If you look, I am rarely there unless I am dragged there first with many responses being that there was no real problem and just a dramatic situation. During early ban proposals that were mostly drama filled, I was responding with just more lines of poetry because no real statement was necessary. But everyone has their own view of everything. What are the main opposes? Mostly "Here is a link to where you upsetted me in the past." Look at EVula's for his overreaction, for example. But that's just how some people are. How would I help Wikipedian "culture"? Probably in no way. I don't like to participate in much. I only involve myself in processes that help me build content or deal with content building in some way. If I find a major problem I will take it to a noticeboard or someone would take me there. Am I outgoing? No. Am I trying to win friends? No. Could I have easily kissed ass for 6 months, support 40 RfAs, and use Huggle to get 10k more edits in order to easily pass an RfA? Yes, as many people have, especially the many people that I oppose and who get in under "No Big Deal" or "Why Not". See, -that- is what Wikiculture is. It is also why I stick to the Encyclopedia and don't really care about the rest. The tools would be used to further my ability to write content. The only blocking related and Arb enforcement powers would be to have another content editor around to help defend content editors and ensure fairness. Those like Giano and Orangemarlin are great content contributors but they are given excessive punishments which disrupt the Encyclopedia as a whole. Someone needs to be willing to voice their defense.

Follow-up: Well, I'm pretty sure I qualify as one of those passed through under the "no big deal" clause. The problem is that you've stated that you want to stand up for "the little guy", but then you give Giano and Orangemarlin as examples. Those aren't little guys. Like it or not the Misplaced Pages community is an online community like any other, and if you manage to piss off enough people, you'll be held to account. (And I know exactly nothing about why they got into trouble, but the very fact that I know their names and know they got into trouble means they must have gotten entangled in some seriously loud dramas.)

The ideal of wiki-culture is that everything should be no big deal. Whether you're on AN, AN/I, RANDOM/ACRONYM, etc. has nothing to do with it.

For those not familiar with "outer-wikimedia", I was (am?) Ottava's custodian mentor on Wikiversity. As your mentor there, I saw you reach out to help even those who disagreed with you (and/or even disliked you!), but I don't think you've lined up those connections for this RFA. The fact that you've been accused of having poor social skills should tip you off here: you have very good social skills, and if people think you're clueless, you've obviously been putting your worst foot forward.

Sounds to me like you're both overly confident on the one hand (sticking up for the little guy), and not realizing your potential on the other (you can make the community better, if only in small ways). You could be a truly great admin (and Admin) if you tried, and focused. So I'll rephrase my question: what small paths to improvement would you be willing to focus on? What small difference can you make? Tools or no tools, you can help. --SB_Johnny | 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find where I said "little guy", but that doesn't matter. :) I stand up for people of all types. I stood up for someone who was blocked indef when their previous block was 24 hours in order to stand by that the progression is there so as to not seem abusive and chase people off wiki (and then turning to vandalism, socks, etc). There are many others of all types. One area was me standing up for j.delanoy, who is definitely not a little guy. Mostly, I am forced into a position of devil's advocate even if I believe that my view should be mainstream and not simply opposition. Sometimes people listen and I am able to get consensus on my side. Other times it doesn't happen. Does that mean I should give up fighting for what I believe is right? No. Do I really care if this RfA fails? No. As I stated, this was an RfA created because many people wanted it, even those who I knew would oppose me. I wont be on Misplaced Pages for that long of a time. I'm going to go out of my way to make sure that the people I need to help me with my work stick around until that time, and that the people who earn my respect are treated with dignity and respect by the community. If you want to see what I care about, its the stuff on my user page. I don't care about Wikiquette, ANI, AN, Fringenoticeboard, NPP, ANV, AfD, Pages needing protection, or any of that. I'm not a "Wikignome". The only personality that matches is Wikidragon, and, as you can see from the opposes, we are a group that is not liked by the gnomes, elves, and people who just troll those boards above waiting to devour random billygoats. A dragon is a species of myth, and people don't like their reality infiltrated by what shouldn't exist. This is an RfA that was prepared 100% opposite of every other RfA, for 100% different reasons of every RfA, and just proof of how Misplaced Pages feels about those like me. As I stated - I won't be running an RfA again. I really don't care. I don't want to be a Crat, an Oversiter, a CUer, an ArbCom, or even a founder. Hell, once I finish my content creation goals I will leave those pages to the dedicated "fixers", to people who fight vandalism, and all of the other paper pushing jobs. Most people know exactly how I feel on the matter, but I will just put it down in writing so we can all see it once again. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from rʨanaɢ /_contribs, follow-up to the above question

10. You have said (in your answers to questions 1 and 9) that you intend to "defend" or "advocate for" users who would otherwise be left out to dry. Can you please clarify why you need admin tools to do that, and how admin tools will allow you to "defend" users in a way that you haven't been able to do previously? Several opposers have expressed the concern that your answers to these questions imply that you intend to wheel-war; if that is not your intention and these opposers are misunderstanding, can you clarify how you intend to defend the kind of users you're talking about?

A: Admins rarely listen to non-admins in terms of their blocks. Unless you have the ability to unblock, the blocking admin rarely would consider any claims that the block is too long or excessive. In Arb enforcement, this causes a lot of unneeded drama. Yes, those like Giano and OM were at Arb for a reason. However, a 2 day block for a minor thing is less drama causing than a week block, but many people don't understand. Also, blocking notes tend to be unfair. Wheel warring is the reinstating of an issue. It is clear that I would only have the bit for leverage and not actuality. If there was an admin not willing to discuss the matter, then yes, the block should be overturned but mostly on the principle that blocks are not punitive and an admin not willing to talk about it (with others and even the blocked user) turns it into a punishment. Anyway, I would be working with other admin, especially on ArbCom enforcement. I know those like Tiptoety, Elonka, Tznkai, and others who work in the area, so it wouldn't be hard for me to work alongside of them and finding the appropriate response to certain issues. I also know Giano, OM, and many others under ArbCom enforcement and they know that I understand what it is like to be a content contributor and how it feels to be in the middle of a big content creation while coming "under fire".

Optional question from fahadsadah (talk,contribs)

11. In Q5, you said that you would block Jimbo for $200, or an Arbitrator for $500. Why do you think the Arbitrators (or their blocking, anyway) are worth 2.5x more than Jimbo apiece?

A: Jimbo gets blocked randomly and his block log is, realistically, meaningless. An Arbitrator is more of a regular person who is put into a position and comes understress. Part of the $500 dollars would be going to buying them food and drinks in order to help them overcome the additional stress. :)

Response: Jimbo has only been blocked five times - less than half your eleven fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Read again - my block log is only 5 times. Of those, three are direct CoI violations and had other inappropriate involvements. Then, you can talk to Nandesuka and see how he feels about me. We have worked together on multiple articles, so your comment falls flat. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Delicious carbuncle (talk)

12. In your answer to Q9, you state that you are rarely at AN or ANI unless you are "dragged there first with many responses being that there was no real problem and just a dramatic situation" - when I posted my concerns on ANI about an admin telling an editor's ISP -- without being able to provide any evidence -- that the editor was committing "libel" on WP, you inserted yourself into the discussion to label it as drama. Furthermore, you suggested I be blocked for blatant disruption. While I appreciated your input and considered asking for my account to be blocked, do you feel this is consistent with your statement above and will reflect your actions as an admin? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A If you notice, I was dragged into ANI that day on another thread. :) And on that thread, many people had the same feeling as I did about your concerns. You complained over j.delanoy's actions. He is one of the most highly respected vandal cleanup admin here. You have to expect a backlash from that. If I lose supports because I defended j.delanoy's actions, then really, so be it. I did what was right. If people like me are ruined for protecting people like him, then it is complete worth it. J.delanoy is one of a handful of editors that I would go to great lengths to make sure that he isn't harassed and chased out of this project. Your complaint there was frivolous and an attack on his integrity.

I'm personally supporting your bid to become an admin, if that wasn't clear to people reading my question. I don't think your stance in that very limited discussion is the reason that anyone would fail to vote for you. I'm sure jdelanoy appreciates your efforts to shield him from concerns about his actions, but as I said repeatedly in that thread, this wasn't about the actions of an individual admin so much as an attempt to discuss how such matters should be handled. Is it fair to summarize your answer as: "expect more of the same"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI is for drama. There is very little that goes on there except drama. Naming j.delanoy in the manner that you did could only be problematic. You stated things in such a manner that could only be statements that he abused his power. If you wanted a general discussion, there are other places, like AN, Village Pump, etc. As Durova put it: "Threats and harassment are concerns at ANI, not actual action of this type." Staying on ANI there could be only one result - j.delanoy is called into question. You have to understand the position that you put people in. If you put it somewhere else then the tone would be different. However, everyone knows that good admin get pulled into ANI and tarred quickly. I would rather be damned than to let that happen to someone who puts in the constant hours into reverting vandalism and preserving the integrity of tens of thousands of pages. So no, it wasn't anything personal to you. Would I use admin powers in that situation? No. Would I go to great lengths to ensure that random passerbys who feed off drama don't pounce on him? Yes. Regardless of what people below in either section may say about my contributions, anyone can replace me. It would be hard to find someone with the will, commitment, and integrity of j.delanoy. I'm sorry if I hurt you, upsetted you, or made it seem like you were being ignored. My only concern there was protecting his reputation. As you can see from the many responses below, reputation means a lot here. If you want to talk, you can send me an email or find my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to revive this dead issue, but the ANI thread was intended to be about how ISP contacts should be handled, not chastising Jdelanoy's action which prompted the thread. That said, Jdelanoy told an editor's ISP that the editor was committing an actionable offence (libel) on Misplaced Pages. When questioned about the allegation of libel, Jdelanoy's response was ""Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". I found that concerning. He may be a tireless vandal fighter, but blindly defending any admin's actions without regard to the specifics seems like very poor judgement on your part, although your loyalty is commendable. Very little of this seems to relate to my original question, but I think you've answered it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've attacked jdelanoy for his actions before. However, I don't think ANI was the place to do such .But yeah, to address directly my feelings about ANI - I loathe the place. WP:DRAMA use to be a redirect to the place for a reason. I find it amusing that people below say that I frequent the place, but if you do a search, you will find me appear in very few threads. I don't know why it is like it. I don't really want to know why it is like that.

Questions from Many People

13. How do you feel about BLPs? What is your experience with them? Flagged Revisions?

A. As you can see from my contribs, I have spent a lot of time on biographies, living and not living. I primarily work on the dead because there is far more information and Misplaced Pages is in need of expanding the pages of many notable writers who get little beyond stubs or uncited personal essays. However, I have worked on quite a few BLPs. My most notable BLP experience was at Rosalind Picard. I came in there at the behest of User:Kim Bruning because he respected my ability to write biographies and to perform research. He is a computer science person, and I felt that I could help with the page since it was damaged by fighting. Most notable, it was User:Moulton (since banned), who worked with Rosalind Picard, vs a large group of people labeled by many as the "ID Cabal" because of their interest in Intelligent Design WikiProject pages. Regardless of either side's view, I felt that the page needed to be expanded, which I quickly did. Then I worked with both sides to find more information and research to state -everything- about her notable career. The peacock adjectives, the labeling, and the rest were removed. The lines were worded to be more direct to what the source say, and attribution was given to specific people's -opinions-. Both sides became content with the page afterward. During the long time of trying to fix the page, there was a lot of fighting on the talk page. At one time, I was accused of "white washing" because I expanded the page and changed some of the hard core stances to be more informative and less declarative. This was followed by a stance teasing me in ottava rima. I responded with a poem of my own. A poetry battle broke upon the page, and the poems can be found here and here. The fighting was diffused for the most part and people were able to see that my concern was not to have either side win but to make it a much better page than it was. Thus, the fighting was able to come to an end. Do I think things like Flagged Revisions could have accomplished this? No. Could they help? Perhaps. The only way such partisan fighting can come to an end is when people are willing to stand up and be neutral, to discuss things with -everyone-, and to try and build consensus between -all parties- in a fair and level manner. They must be able to keep from being bogged down by criticism and let everyone know that you care about the encyclopedia -first-. 99.9% of people involved in such fights will recognize this and will let the improvements happen. I have worked on many BLPs since then, and I have been able to help both sides work together in a neutral manner. I have helped new editors be able to talk to old editors and not get discouraged, I have helped the actual BLP subjects be able to voice their concerns in a manner that will be listened to, and I have tried to be as fair as possible. BLPs are a delicate matter, especially when there is a level of controversy.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton |  03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Maybe we should put up a huge notice on this page saying "This is NOT a joke", since a lot of people below seem to be treating it as such. I guess that's what comes out of adding an RfA on April 1, but that's no reason for people not to read through it and see what it actually is. Chamal :  Chat  01:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Can we also note his name is Ottava Rima, not Ottawa. Thank you..  GARDEN  18:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Quick comment. Ottava Rima said and I quote in his nom statement, " If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it". Well that not what I see. America69 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's really neither here or there; it's been a few days, things change, some people criticized Ottava for not commenting on opposes.... either way, it shouldn't play a big role in the closer's decision. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, I was trying to point that out. As you said, it won't matter. America69 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I haven't challenged opposes. I have challenged material that I have pointed out as false and damaging. Its one thing to oppose. Its another thing to lie while opposing. Their oppose can stay, but the truth needs to be heard. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support for epic lulz. Nice chap, too; calls a spade a spade (or WP:DICK a WP:DICK). Ironholds (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Personally I think you are a WP:DICK, but I am sure we can find things we both can agree on. Lucifer (Talk) 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per the IRC cabal, der. Seriously though, I admire users who have stepped on toes. I think people who haven't stepped on any toes probably haven't got into any disputes, which I could see as an issue down the road. How can you solve a dispute if you haven't been in one yourself. Personally, I believe that there are far too many admins who haven't had any run-ins with disputes, whether being personally involved or being an outside helper (ie WP:MEDCAB). I think learning from past experiences is best, but there are far too many admins who have no experience whatsoever in solving disputes and would probably be clueless when they encounter a dispute (and hey, we have them every day). So, uh, yeah. For not being afraid to step on a few toes, I support you. While what you've done has most likely been in an effort to further the interests of the community, I still think this RFA will not succeed. Either way, I want my opinion to be clearly known. We need more admins who are willing to step on a few toes, to get the job done. We, as a community, need to change our rationale to support users in RFA from "Have they annoyed me/anyone, at any stage in their wiki-career, to "Are they fit to be an administrator? Do they have the experience and skills required to be an admin?". In my opinion, to Ottava, that question answers a Yes. (And sure, he's had his fair share of fuck-ups, but haven't we all?.) Ottava would be a net positive to the project as an admin, and if all else fails, we have ways to deal with issues down the track if need be. What's to lose? Steve Crossin :  Chat  03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Serious support - Ottava Rima may be a distasteful name in many members of the community's mouths, but while he can be a drama-whore at times and a troll at others, Ottava does do a substantial amount of positive work here, as witnessed by Samuel Johnson, Rosalind Picard and Nicolò Giraud. The first, which Ottava is a substantial contributor to, is now a featured article; the second was a heavily disputed biography of a living person that he was involved on and helped bridge the conflicting sides, and the third was one that he was involved in a heavy dispute with a person who wanted the individual to be described as a pederast.

   I've been in a dispute with him before during the FAC for USS Connecticut (BB-18), but his checking of the prose for plagiarism, no matter how much I hated him doing it, he did make the article better in the end. Since then, I've had him check two other articles I have written for the same problems, and his efforts were extremely beneficial to the articles in question.

   I don't think that anyone can dispute that Ottava does good here on the project, and that's what you should be voting on. Could he do better with civility? Of course; I don't think anyone would say he couldn't. Do you think he would block or use his admin powers in a dispute in which he is a party in? No. Would he use the tools wisely? As evidenced by Wikiversity, yes. Would he be a net positive as an admin? I think so—the drama-ing will come up whether he is an admin or not, so the I believe that addition of the mop can and will only be a net positive for the project. —Ed 17 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Until It Sleeps :  Chat  03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Is this meant to be a joke? Either way, I support. -download | sign! 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima has indicated that this is indeed a legitimate request. –Juliancolton |  03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Support per Idi. Durova 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)\

   This is apparently a serious request. Should your support be taken seriously? Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   And how many supports in regular RfA's are taken seriously? I can name at least 30 supports that mention food, or something similar. Synergy 04:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Have I been editing today in a way that appears nonserious? Durova 05:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Strong Support Surprisingly, I support this. The user is a net positive to any project that he is involved in, and he could do serious good with the mop. Watching him occasionally inspires me to come back to Misplaced Pages and edit, and he's a nice enough guy to talk to and interact with, even when he does step on toes. Sure, I've argued with him before, and I'll probably do it again, but he's got good points, and in my opinion which stems in part from my admin experience on Wiktionary excellent judgement. --Neskaya _talk 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support All joking aside, I didn't ever expect to say this--OR and I had a particularly heated encounter over something that spilled from here to Commons once--but for all his faux bluster, he's often one of the lone voices of reason in many, many, many, many heated debates. Does he sprinkle that reason with extra cayenne pepper sometimes? Yes. But so do I--I try to be a smart-ass about it, OR goes in with firing off flare guns. Does it get the Right Point across? Yes. Do I support him? Yes. rootology :  Chat  03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Ottava's a he? I always thought of OR as a female's name... anyways... I doubt this RfA will pass, and can't believe Ottava honestly expects it to pass either, but I do believe that OR has the best interest of WP at heart---even if he (?) can be a... consider this a Moral Support.---I'm Spartacus! 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - (1) I believe he has the project's best interests at heart. (2) Edit tools are extremely useful for content contributors, and I strongly resent the split between 'content contributors' and 'admins', this isn't rocket science and we are all in this together. Plenty of FA wirters are admins, 'crats and arb members, (3) Yes he has had some temperament issues, but I am positive he will be watched closely for misuse of tools. Given that I believe there is a better than 50% chance OR will be a significant net positive, so let's give him ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support - (moved from oppose) despite my lame Apr 1 oppose, I would have no issues with this user as an administrator. ∗ \ / (⁂) 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose for a reason I haven't thought up yet. tfeSil (aktl) 08:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Felt that I should elaborate on this support. Basically, the civility issues are worrying, and I have been on the opposite side of an argument with him and found him to be extremely irritating. However, I trust that he has enough sense to preform the low-risk duties stated in Q1 without causing issues. He may be trollish at times, but he has shown during his tenure at Wikiversity that he does care about this project, and he is able to yield the tools responsibly. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

14. Support An admin who is prepared to fight his corner against a prevailing tide can be a great thing if it makes the rest of us pause and perhaps better consider our position. OR's position on what he would and wouldn't do also makes it clear this isn't a power trip. --GedUK  07:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Supporrt iMatthew :  Chat  10:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support A shoutout to my man Ottava, who is NOT an admin lickspittle like so many molluscs who I've seen slither onto this page. If elected (like that would ever happen, LOL) Ottava would be like an editor's advocate right in the middle of the admin corps. He would not be afraid to unblock users blocked by arbitrary, capricious, moronic admins who should be pushing a mop (literally: cleaning the toilets at McDonalds). He's got his idiosyncrasies and he'd make mistakes so we'd have to keep a close eye on him, but the net benefit would greatly outweigh any damage he'd cause.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Well informed of the role, isn't going to be intimidated by anyone. Sure, he "lacks restraint" now and then, but I think that can be a good attribute in certain cases—this being one of them. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Yes Ottava is brusque and has a bad temper, but has a CLUE and there's no reason to think he'd abuse tools; in fact adminship might take the "rough edge" off. Remember WP:NBD, users who've been here and done all the stuff Ottava's done are supposed to get the bit by default. Ottava, moreover, has so many "enemies" it's difficult to see how, even if he wished to be abusive, he could. Misplaced Pages actually needs admins like Ottava, if only to balance things out a little more. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Switched to Strongest possible support, from the Dark Lord of the Underworld, trumping the recent Stronger oppose than possible. I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Ottava, but then there isn't anyone I've always seen eye-to-eye with, and I hope there will never will be, as that would mean I'd been cloned. Ottava clearly has the project's best interests at heart, so it's difficult to see him abusing a few extra buttons many of which, like blocking, I doubt he'd be making very much use of anyway, Most of all though I agree with Deacon said just above. Misplaced Pages needs more admins like Ottava very badly IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Ottava has the temperament of an artist that is for sure. He is passionate about this project and sometimes this can lead to heated debates. But he does listen to arguments and reflects. Our paths have crossed a few times and all my interactions with him have been positive. I have great respect for his content contributions. Graham Colm 13:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support per Casliber and others. I admit to having had less direct contact with Ottava than some of you seem to have had, but in all the contacts I have had with him he has always struck me as having the best interests of the project at heart, and I have no reason to think that will change upon becoming an admin. Also, given his statements, it's hard to see that he'll do anything wrong with the tools. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Oh, sure. Anyone who managed to get blocked for "incivility" on Misplaced Pages Review can't be all bad. Seriously, although looking at the current voting this won't pass, I think Ottava would be perfectly good at the job; he can be a grade-A PITA, but (as with his spiritual cousin Giano) I do trust him to know when to turn "asshole mode" off. Forceful ≠ disruptive. Not necessarily, anyway. Iridescent :  Chat  15:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support He is already an admin on another major Wikimedia project and I don't see anyone turning up evidence of him deleting pages and banning users he doesn't like. I would say that this proves that he can engage in heated and stressful debates and argue forcefully without abusing his power, and would be able to do the same on the English Misplaced Pages. I am casting this vote at a time where there are actually more Oppose votes than Support votes, and I don't predict a sudden turning of the tides, so I am looking forward to a future date at which the candidate may decide to run again. Soap /_{Contributions} 15:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Which Wikimedia project?--It's me...Sallicio! 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wikiversity. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

24. Rima for President. Oh, you've got one? Last year? Can't wait four more years, bring in the crown and the hatchet. Full support. NVO (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Casliber said it best. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Per above.--Giants27 /C 20:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support – TheLeftorium 20:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Yes. He is manly, and Catholic. SBHarris 20:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Admin is no big deal. While his temperament is unusual, I have no cause to question OR's honesty, and if he sticks to his self-created admin role -- won't block or delete, will question admin action -- it may help to prevent groupthink in the admin corps. In short, he's a good guy, has a precise role envisioned which I think would be a good thing for Misplaced Pages. . This is a unique support, since normally I don't support people who I think have temperament issues -- really, it's conditional on his acting as promised. Ray 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support though as some of the opposers said below, do we really want to tie up our best content contributors with the bit? Regardless, clear positive. Black Kite 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support  Excellent contributions to the encyclopedia, decent interval since last block, and would be the only admin that could keep some of our more contentious 'good article writers' in check. --StaniStani  22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Support - As others have already noted, Ottava Rima is a "distasteful" WP:DICK with a short temper, and a difficult and confrontational manner. Full support (and expecting the same in my RFA self-nom). 76.10.136.135 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

32. Support While I've seen that he does speak very bluntly, I think he has the best intentions for WP at heart. Killiondude (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
33. miranda :  Chat  01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support per Casliber. The sysop flag isn't permanent, and it can be fairly easily removed in the case of abuse. –Juliancolton |  01:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    What alternate reality are you from where the sysop bit is fairly easily removed? It's my experience that it is usually overly dhramaful...---I'm Spartacus! 01:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Desysopping is indeed a drama-laden process, but it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination; in addition, there are numerous means of carrying out a desysop. Also, as evidenced by my above vote, I feel Ottava has the best interest of the encyclopedia at heart, and any reasonable administrator would voluntarily resign the bit if it is suggested they do so. –Juliancolton |  01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I can only imagine that if I did anything that would be eligible for desysop someone should come to my house to see if I am still alive and/or held captive. Regardless, if Jimbo, Cary Bass, or ArbCom members were to ask for my ops, I would definitely hand them over. Why? Because I like those guys. See, the thing with "adminship is no big deal" is that I don't really care enough to keep it at all costs, especially when I value the hierarchy. I've followed Jimbo on many projects and have stood by his decisions. I have a lot of faith in Arbcom. Cary is just a great guy in general. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

35. Support OR is an excellent editor who asks the hard question and takes stands that should be taken, but aren't due to the herd instinct here at WP. Pity this won't pass, but I'm nailing my support to the door.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh noes, not a Luther reference. My poor Catholicism will be shaken by such a comparison. Heh. :) Now, if your support will only help convince Misplaced Pages to remove indulgences. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

36. Support I disagree with this editor's views on (nearly) everything to do with the wiki and agree that there is a tendency towards argumentative and tendentious behaviour. However, I see no evidence that this user will abuse the tools; indeed I am fairly confident he would not based on his contributions here and elsewhere. The idea that we should refuse otherwise qualified candidates for adminship on the basis we would prefer them to concentrate their efforts elsewhere is nonsensical and antithetical to the idea of a voluntary project such as Misplaced Pages. Any assistance that this editor can provide on admin tasks, no matter how small, is welcome. -- Mattinbgn\ 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Seems a fine candidate who's able to learn from mistakes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Though I usually agree with him on most things, I have to disagree with Wizardman. I think that our best content contributors make the best admins-they have experience with writing and research. These are two elements I find essential to a successful adminship. Best of luck, Ottava. Ceranllama chat post 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong Support - Ottava Rima's pleasant attitude and willingness to help out with any problem make him (or her) a pleasure to deal with. Will be a shining example for other admins, as he (or she) has been for other editors in general. I look forward to watching Ottava Rima -- whether male or female -- interacting with newcomers to WP, an area in which I feel he (or she) will excel. I only wish that I had been in a position to nominate him (or her) myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
40. support - the cabal likes admins who go off half cocked, but to many are getting deadmin'ed (see Ryulong, and SlimVirgin for recent ones), and the more recent group of admins seems shy on actual involvement with the content and content disputes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Brusque? Yes. Malicious? No. A great content creator? Yes. And I'm sure a good choir boy like OR will recall Matthew 7:3-5 -- I think some people in the Oppose and Neutral sections need to look that one up. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - my interactions with the user have been uniformly pleasant and helpful. He's help build up the encyclopedia and I'm sure would be an asset as an administrator. - Biruitorul 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support per Horace. OR is at heart a dedicated scholar. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I think this user has turned around and can do a lot of good for the project. --Adam in MO Talk 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Weak Support. Despite the drama problems I think that Ottava will be a benefit to the project. Malinaccier (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Weak Support It's obvious which direction this is going; but, I think that Ottava cares about what is right for the wiki. His help to others in IRC, and his contribs indicate an honest loyalty for the community. I'd strongly suggest toning down some of the rhetoric on site between now and the next RfA, and then I could say "Strong Support". — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  21:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: I also think that at times the humor is misplaced. There are times for humor, but it shouldn't be a whim to just say "I'd delete the main page for a $100. Not everyone gets that kind of "funny" — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'd do it for $50, so don't let me ever have the bit. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

47. Support as I think that controversial admins are much more fun than controversial editors. Plus, with most of the controversy, OR is usually right in the way he steers the boat, even if it is in a somewhat sociopathic way. But we're all at computers, so nobody can actually ause harm, so to me, that's fine. It's called tough love. --rm 'w avu 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    We can cause plenty of harm when using a computer as a proxy. How about libel, slander, and lies? Those are just the start -- people can cause plenty of harm behind a computer. We are riddled with BLP issues left right and center, and people complaining to OTRS about issues with their articles that they are upset about. Remember Poetlister? Remember Eco? We have the ability to cause real world harm, even if it is primarily through the medium of technology. The internet is just another medium. (This sounds a little strong in my head, it isn't intended to be, I have tried to rephrase and failed) — neuro 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Neuro, soon you're going to be suggesting that there are real people with real feelings behind those computers who might be hurt by "sociopathic" admins. What's next - suggesting that the BLP subjects aren't fictional? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Okay, now that is hilarious. By the way some BLPs are treated around here you can pretty much get away with labeling them "in-universe" and it would seem to fit. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

48. Moral support, per our previous good interactions. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - We need more admins who aren't scared to speak their mind. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support in part per this moving essay. I am slightly saddened to see this RfA fall to the opposes. Any admin bright enough to see Misplaced Pages in this light is a rarity. —La Pianista 23:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
51. On the fence but support: I just moved this from neutral, but I went through and carefully read OR's answers again. I am a big proponent of WP:DEAL but also believe that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are necessary qualities of a sysop. Notwithstanding the civility issues, I feel that OR could be a useful member of the admin corps by putting a different perspective on the sometimes-stuffy persona of the common admin and his willingness to understand the more difficult editors. His input on the Oppose: Too many admins currently situation is a prime example. I also realize that this RfA is almost sure to fail but I ask OR to do two things: temper your 'tude for 6 months to a year and within that time I will renom you for round two. I think that he could be a wiki-diamond in the rough. Viele Glück!--It's me...Sallicio! 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support Nothing I've seen convinces me that Ottava would abuse the tools. Seems to have the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart.--Dycedarg ж 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Conscientious editor who will be an asset on Misplaced Pages. JASpencer (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support per good arguments. Best, --A Nobody 00:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support, I think there are may be administerial uses for this person (taps nose in a thinking fashion). Malicious? Manly? Mmmm... --candle•wicke 02:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
56. User:Mixwell/Rainbow Support He's a awesome guy. Boy needs the rainbow. ☟ These comments below should be ignored. --Mixwell :  Chat  03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Ottava has been very cautious with the use of tools at wikiversity and has asked for advice from more experienced custodians (admins) when unsure and I feel that this would also hold true at wikipedia. He has made great efforts to mediate disputes in very tense situtations and has gone to great lengths to help users who have had difficulty interacting with the community. As a moderator Ottava has remained level headed and shown a great deal of patience. Based on my experience and interactions with Ottava at wikiversity I feel that he can be trusted to use the tools wisely. --mikeu 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong Support: I understand why many might object to Ottava receiving admin status, but in many cases the reasons many editors might object are the same reasons I would give to have his privileges increased. This user’s knowledge of WP guidelines borders on annoying, but he always seems to err on the side of legalism which can be frustrating to those of us who have our own ideas of how editing should be handled. Having worked with him on several poetry articles over the past 6 months, I have yet to see him make an edit that was not focused on improving the quality of WP whether it was on a mainspace, a user talk page, DYK, or any other special page. In some cases, he has sided against me in disputes because my understanding of WP policy was flawed, despite the fact that he and I were working together. If this were a popularity contest, as I fear some RfA’s are, then I could understand how a decision against adminship could be validated, but if this decision is to be based on edits and actions alone, I can see no reason to object. Mrathel (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Logical Support. Let me get this straight. People are opposing because Ottava MIGHT be a bad admin here, right? But he already has a proven track record of being an admin over at Wikiversity. So either the supporters at wikiversity were crazy, or the opposers here are crazy. Seeing that wikiversity has not crashed and burned, I'll let folks here do the math. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Don't get me wrong, Ottava Rima is a royal pain in the rear end at times. Goodness knows we've had our issues. However, over time, Ottava has gotten himself a clue, and sufficiently so that he went and successfully obtained admin rights on a wikimedia wiki. I support or oppose based on whether someone will be a competent admin, not whether I like them or not.
60. Can't imagine him misusing the tools. --SB_Johnny | 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Strong support --KP Botany (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I see Ottava as one of those people that act as the safety valve to the rest of the community, much like the dissenters who keep the community in check. From experience, though, such users are not very suited to adminship. I do not believe that Ottava has the temperament or the attitude to be an role model and an administrator. While I respect his abilities, I cannot accept the impulsive traits that he has shown through his editing tenure. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   If being a role model ever became a requirement for administrators I believe that most of the present admin corps would be forced to stand down. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Unfortunately it seems so. This is not the place, though, to pass judgment on them; this is Ottava's RFA. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you might at least agree that it seems a little inconsistent to hold RfA candidates to a higher standard than administrators are held to though. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose that depends on whether you want the average standard to go up or down. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Could it go down much further? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Don't tempt the gods. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Lacks restraint. Hipocrite (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Strongest oppose possible Likley to abuse tools by unblocking blatent vandals who were blocked after violating what OR uniquely (and more-often-than-not, incorrectly) interprets rules to be. A consumate troll - worse than me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Needs to not add jokes and Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   This is an actual RFA, not a joke. bibliomaniac15 03:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Simple mentioning anything like that especially in RFA is a joke.DougsTech (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Anything like what? Ironholds (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   "Yes, for 100 dollars. I would block Jimbo for 200 dollars or any member of ArbCom for 500 dollars. Furthermore, I would delete all pages on Intelligent Design, Scientology, Ayn Rand, or any current politician for free simply to remove all the constant fighting from the community. (I kept this in for fun :) )." Like that. He obvoiusly does not think it's serious enough. Sadly this is becoming more common among the admins. DougsTech (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Sadly? Admins are far too serious, from what I see currently. X! :  Chat  03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   "more common"? Well then surely he should be made one, if he now fits in the common mould quite nicely. Admins are not meant to be humourless, paper-pushing hardarses; a sense of humour and fun is allowed, today of all days. Still, any sane crat will discount your standard oppose anyway, so arguing is a waste of time. Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, you are wasting your (and everyones) time arguing here.DougsTech (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Concerns about temperament and lack of restraint. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. I am actually of the belief that our best article writers should not become admins. Why? Well, for each deletion batch they're doing is another chunk of article that goes unwritten. It's easier to find people to close XfDs and block peeps then it is to find genuine article writers. This o vote is so that Ottava can do what best not just for the 'pedia, but for himself. Wizardman :  Chat  04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   He clarified the above point, but my oppose still stands due to behavioral concerns throughout this oppose section. Wizardman 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Great contributions, but I question whether OR has the, er, social skills for the position. In many ways, an administrator is the wiki- equivalent of a customer service representative.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose - Not enough article contributions. ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Moving to support ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose From what I have seen of OR, I just don't see them having the patience to deal with the silliness that admins must patiently deal with every day. They have very strong views, which is great, we need people to provide different viewpoints here, I just worry that they could come off too strong. Since RfA is essentially an endorsement of a user, I just don't feel comfortable endorsing a user which I feel can be a bit too strong at times. --Terrillja _talk 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose I am very sorry but I don't feel that you are at the point where you can take up the responsibilities of an administrator. For example, this post has me a bit worried about your judgement. In addition, in your first answer you stated, " I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin..." what leverage do you hope to gain? Discussion plays a vital role in being an administrator and I feel that you would be too quick to go rogue and serve your own purpose. I'm sorry I cannot support you right now. Icestorm815 (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Strongest oppose imaginable I can't think of anyone less suited to be an admin. An argumentative time-waster who refuses ever to admit he is in the wrong, Ottava had to be placed under mentorship (to avoid a community ban) from August to December last year . A brief example of his way of going about things can be seen on the talk page of Alfred, Lord Tennyson from February this year where he berates User:Contaldo80 for removing the edits of a blatant vandal/copyright violating SPA Jordie0108 (talk · contribs). Ottava claims Contaldo80 doesn't have "consensus" to revert such trolling. Read the rest of the conversation. Ottava doesn't seem to have a clue about policy but he is, as Contaldo80 says, "just argumentative for the sake of it." His inability to suffer contradiction leads him to make personal attacks, such as this rant against Professor John Beer , which is borderline libel. WP:BLP is obviously safe in Ottava's hands. He can also be vindictive. He had a difference of opinion with User:Fowler&fowler over some of his Featured Article Candidates then initiated a check-user investigation against Fowler on the basis of the flimsiest evidence. This incident took place less than two weeks ago. I'm afraid that Ottava might use his admin tools to further his own personal agenda (the "leverage" remark in his answers hardly inspires confidence). --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Not only no but hell no Unpleasant temperament. Quick to judge. Willing to make bald accusations in defense of friends. Unable to disengage from disputes. Diffs available upon serious requests but I'm not interested in dredging up a bundle to satisfy idle curiosity. Protonk (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Do I have to point out the inherent humour in somebody going "hell no, unpleasant temperament"? :P. Ironholds (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Reluctant weak oppose - Ottava, I am sorry, I like you. However, you need to tone it down a little. Please run again in the future. — R 09:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Strong oppose - a solid contributor to mainspace, but as other users have observed, is argumentative, reluctant to admit mistakes, prone to bullying (frequently demanding the resignation of admins who challenge his views, for example), offensive violations of WP:NPA (such as questioning the "ethics" of his opponents), and finally, has a rubbery, self-serving take on policy in my experience. Basically, he just seems to love Wikidrama. I also find his stated reasons for wanting the tools not at all persuasive, and indeed, somewhat worrying (as in his comment about using the tools as "leverage" against other admins). Gatoclass (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose The comment about leverage has me seriously worried, especially in the context of the editor's argumentative style and tendency to encourage Wikidrama. I hadn't known about the mentorship, but that is also a concern. I too find his style unpleasant. Not at all suitable to be an administrator and as others have suggested, more useful to Misplaced Pages as an editor and maybe as a thorn. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong Oppose Good article writer, but we need to look at an admin's temperament in order to judge them. Come back here when you learn how to be nice to other people. Meetare Shappy 11:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Does not assume good faith, and per Folantin above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong Oppose I very rarely oppose, especially when as in this case the candidate is a good article writer. However Ottava's temperament as demonstrated by a long block record is not right for adminship. I'm prepared to disregard blocks from more than 12 months ago, even 12 months and 2 days ago, but that still leaves three two blocks in the last twelve months from three two different admins. Communication skills or style are also inadequate, as demonstrated by the candidates stated unwillingness to enter into dialogue with !voters in their own RFA. There's also a separate but equally serious issue, the candidates postings on wt:rfa have displayed a deeply inappropriate understanding of the role of an admin; the candidate is trying to move Misplaced Pages to having a small group of fulltime admins who disengage from the community and don't take part in its deliberations. I take the contrary view that as many civil, experienced and cluefull editors should be made admins as can be persuaded to pick up the mop, and in this way we can be a self administering community where the burden of administration is widespread and the administration does not disengage from the community because it is inextricably part of it. Having a good editor such as this candidate want the pedia run by admins who only do admin work saddens me, having an admin with this vision for Misplaced Pages would horrify me. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Downgrading from Strong Oppose to Oppose as the candidate has started to respond to opposes, and because I'd miscalculated his blocks. However I'm still convinced that Ottava should not be an admin, both in his interests and the project's. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Strongest possible oppose Never. — Aitias // discussion 12:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh look, the prodigal son returns. Going to come back and edit, or are you just following up your vote at my RfA with another stab for users you don't like? Ironholds (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I wonder just how much editing Aitias is allowed to do before it triggers the reopening of the ArbCom case against him? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    . Majorly talk 13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

18. Strong Oppose One of the few times that I don't even have to take a glance at the user's contributions. OR is completely drama prone with a terrible attitude and disposition. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Sorry, no, needs to get along with and respect others better. And no, I don't mean he needs to submit to the civility police's every whim (they drive me nuts, too), but just that he neeeds to be able to work with others much better than he does now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Oppose Ottava Rima is a very good editor, and certainly does his best to prevent WP from becoming dull. But his short fuse and habit of making the maximum drama out of any disagreement are unsuited to admin work. --Philcha (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Past experience with Ottava Rima at AN and AN/I leads me to feel that his temperament is incompatible with adminship (and being a drama magnet only makes it worse). — Kralizec! (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong Oppose Ottava does not have anywhere near the temperament required to be an admin. Per several others, quick to drama and anger, extremely condescending. My last interaction with him was when he was blanking a number of redirects; I restored them, telling him that blank pages served no purpose, only to be told that I was edit warring and vandalizing. I'm really hoping this turns out to be a joke. GlassCobra 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Nope, sorry. You do some truly superb work in mainspace, but ... Ottava, do you really want to be an admin? It can be an ugly, dirty job, and sometimes brings out the nasty side of even cool-tempered people. Would it really be the best application of your talents, which are considerable? Think on it. Antandrus (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Regretful, but Strong Oppose: Ottava is an excellent article contributor and is a nice guy when things are normal, everyone knows that. But he also has a really terrible attitude when engaged in an argument, and everyone knows that too. I don't want to and neither do I need to describe any of it since everyone is familiar with this. In my view, an admin needs to have a cool head at all times and I can't picture Ottava doing that after he becomes an admin. An admin should be capable of finding a way out of problems, not into them. It feels weird to be opposing someone who has made a lot of useful contributions to Misplaced Pages, but I think this is necessary anyway. Chamal :  Chat  14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose. Doesn't seem to have the right temperament to be an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose - has a tendency to draw things out much longer than necessary. –xeno (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose per bibliomaniac15. GT5162 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose per the excessively contentious "discussion" we had at User talk:EVula/Jan-Mar 2009#Improper templating. Being unable to understand that comments like "I HAVE A TINY COCK" (as vandalism; obviously, if someone wants to talk about themselves, hey, to each their own...) are actually block worthy is a horrible position for an administrator to have. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava expressed concern that I misstated his position; I don't believe he was defending the vandalism (and didn't mean to imply that; my apologies if that's how it sounded). He did, however, state that "an admin shouldn't block based on actions on their own page," which is the crux of my opposition; if an administrator is being attacked by a vandal, he should respond with a block. Citing WP:COI in this instance is not constructive at all; we don't need another level of bureaucracy to deal with vandals, and we certainly don't need to tie the hands of our administrators any more than they already are. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'd just like to take the opportunity to reinforce my opposition to Ottava, given a recent talk page message from him. He's excessively antagonistic, and absolutely a poor choice temperament-wise for an administrator. While I don't think he'd abuse the tools per se, administrators are (incorrectly) seen by some as being of a higher level than the "regular" editors, and he's not the sort of person that should be on that imaginary pedestal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Seen as being at a "higher level than the 'regular' editors"? Not by me they're not, and I'd hope not by many others either. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Total agreement about that; sysops should be seen as just editors with a couple more abilities. That doesn't mean that it's always the case, though; perception can vary wildly, dependent upon a person's on-wiki experience (primarily for newbies, who I can easily see being bitten pretty hard by a sysopped Ottava). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

29. Oppose. Ottava is, and wants to be, a populist ("Down with tyrants! I speak for the little guy!"), and I agree with the supporters that populists can make good admins, but I agree with the opposition that Ottava isn't there yet. I think it's very hard to pull off being a populist; there are so many pitfalls to watch out for. You have to keep the people who want to bring down the system at arm's length; you have to constantly examine, not just your own motives, but how you're coming across, regardless of your motives; you have to bend over backwards to be friendly and engaging. It's hard. I'm disappointed by Q8; if Ottava saw himself in a process, I would happily work with him, but if the only choice on the table is "take me or leave me", there's not a lot I can do with that. I like Ottava, I think he has a net positive effect, but he'd get into trouble with a mop. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose due to this user's history of instigating battles with other users, which I have observed primarily at Misplaced Pages talk:DYK but that apparently (based on the above comments) has been displayed in other areas, too. It's OK to disagree and it's OK to express opinions forcefully, but Ottava overdoes it in both departments. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose. I have the utmost respect for Ottava's mainspace contributions and his committment to making the encyclopedia a better place. I think he is an excellent editor, but I do not believe he would make an excellent administrator on this wikipedia. I've seen Ottava do wonderful work in encouraging resolutions to disputes, especially when they involve new editors. I've also seen Ottava escalate other disputes (in my opinion, unnecessarily). Sometimes he takes criticism of his and/or differences of opinion very well; sometimes he does not, and a relatively minor issue can get blown into a larger drama-fest that pulls in other editors. I think Ottava has come a long way in his general attitude in the last year, but I think he has a little way to go before I could support him as an administrator. Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose - Seems to contribute well, but also creates levels of drama that outweigh his article-writing. Skinny87 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose - I have not had any encounters with Ottava Rima so my viewpoint is unbiased and strictly from his contributions. My female intuition says he would be dangerous with administrative tools. From his conversatgions with others I would have to agree with those that say he is paranoid, crazy, uses little common sense and tact. His "block log" shows a tarnished reputation.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    — Christie the puppy lover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

34. Absolutely not - mostly per bibliomaniac15 and Hipocrite, as well as personal harassment from OR. //roux   17:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Do you think you could clarify what you mean by "harassment"? You are making a pretty serious allegation. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    Voila. //roux   20:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

35. Oppose. This clearly won't pass, but I hope OR will gather constructive criticism from it. Mine is that he doesn't seem to recognize when to withdraw from a conflict or how to do so gracefully. The recent kerfuffle with Fowler&fowler is a perfect example. I would expect an administrator to possess this quality. --Laser brain (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose per answer to q7. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t17:48z
37. Biblio says it as well as I could, unfortunately. I feel really bad about opposing too, because I like Ottava a lot, but I just don't think adminship is for him. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Oppose Too many admins currently. Just kidding. But I do agree strongly with bibliomaniac15. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose I would like to Support, but issues with Ottava Rima's not assuming good faith holds me back. Sorry. America69 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
40. No, no, no. Every time I've seen him, his attitude has been horrible. --NE2 20:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Sorry, Ottava, but I just don't think you have the right mindset. Above, you commented that most administrators should stand down if attitude is an issue. If you think that is true, why would that mean we'd need one more? It's difficult to judge temperament in the time before people run for RfAs, and I do agree that is true that many ill-tempered admins make it through. However, if one is showing signs of this even prior to running, it's probably best to avoid giving them extra tools. hmwithτ 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
42. oppose OR has serious problems. He has demonstrated repeated failure to understand how the GFDL, Creative Commons licenses, and public domain work. Moreover, attempts to explain it to him failed. See this discussion. By itself, this lack of understanding of copyright would be a problem. However, this is part of a more general pattern by Ottava. He opines about topics he doesn't know much about, develops weird ideas about them and then refuses to listen when people who know more try to explain it to him. None of these are traits that are good in an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Strong oppose see my comments below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)oppose has same initials as WP:OR which is prohibited here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    This is not funny, and cruel IMHO. How do you think this editor is feeling right now? Do you have any valid reasons? Graham Colm 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    How OR feels, probably no worse than those whom s/he has slammed with no good reason. I've always believed that you shouldn't dish it if you can't take it. And now I'll add the additional reason of being pestered by you - moving to strong oppose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    o_O Um, how about you explain why Graham asking you a perfectly legitimate question warrants giving Ottava a strong oppose? —Ed 17 03:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    No problem. This is not a poll and what matters for determining consensus is the strength of the argument provided. Chamal 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    No problem because it seems where this is headed, but hotheads like the nominee tend to run in the company of other hotheads like those who pester all the opposes. You guys may well be happy with an admin who displays or condones such behavior, I - with lot of others - am not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

44. Sorry, but I really don't think this would work out very well. --B (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose- this editor seems to me to have a volatile temperament and a bad case of the stubborns. Sorry, but the danger of Ottava Rima using the mop to irritate people and cause teh drahmaz is too great for me to support. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose - I find Ottava well-intentioned and a good mainspace contributor, but inconsistent and unpredictable in his behaviour in project space. I would not honestly feel comfortable giving him admin tools; as I just don't know how they'd end up being used. ~ mazca 22:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Oppose: per my RFA criteria. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose per above. I'm sorry- a history of inconsistent and tempermental behaviour prevents me from supporting. PerfectProposal 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose OMG no. No, no, no, no. Horrid behavior on AN/ANI and elsewhere. Skinwalker (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose. As can be seen from this user's block log, he has been blocked many times in the past year for disruptive editing and edit warring. I am also concerned about the candidate's statement that he would use the tools as "leverage" when dealing with other users, as it seems to imply wheel warring, and about the fact that he generally seems to be a somewhat controversial figure within the community.--Unscented (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose - Blocked by everyone and their mother. Wouldn't like to block (except actual, good-standing users). Wouldn't like to delete (except actual, quality articles). Notably, I absolute detest this edit. Jd027 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Banned...? —Ed 17 02:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Duly noted. Jd027 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

52. Oppose It's a simple concept really. Ottava opposes everyone else's RFA, so I'll oppose Ottava's RFA. Also per above.Tavix :  Chat  02:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Another simple concept: RfA can do without payback. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I can honestly say that I don't weigh "payback" !votes at all when gauging consensus as a bureaucrat. While I highly doubt that it will make much difference in this particular RfA, I do think that these sort of things need to be crushed when they pop up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't consider this a payback vote... a payback !vote is where somebody says, "they opposed me, so I'm opposing them/they supported me, so I'm supporting them." This one is using the fact that from Tavix's perspective, OR opposes everybody. If Tavix had Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Tavix|run for admin]] and received an oppose from OR, I might agree that it is payback. But in this case, I don't.---I'm Spartacus! 22:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava's voting stats: 17 in support, 6 in neutral, and 27 in oppose. I can hardly see this as opposing every RfA. –Juliancolton |  02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'll retract that statement, I didn't think about my comment like that. Tavix :  Chat  01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    What were you thinking of when you claimed that "Ottava opposes everyone else's RFA", and what are you thinking of now? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

53. Oppose I don't like the "leverage" comment, Adminship tools is cleaning up stuff and helping other editors and not for politics.--Lenticel 02:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong oppose. On IRC, the user cursed at me and told me to retire again, over a minor dispute he blew totally out of proportion. Misplaced Pages does not need that sort of behavior as an admin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I just couldn't stand this. The "minor dispute" was Hurricanehink proposing that three GA articles should be merged into a list and effectively deleted because Hink was in the middle of creating a "Featured Topic" and those three GAs put him below the percentage required for that Featured Topic. Instead of working on the pages, he wanted to take the easy way out to get a star. Yes, I chewed him out for it. Yes, it completely disgusted me that someone could game the Featured sections in such an outrageous manner. The fact that Hink came here and called it "minor" is insulting to me, to Juliancolton, to the Featured processes, and to Misplaced Pages as a whole. I am -glad- I yelled at him for his outrageous behavior. If that cost me Hinks and Dylan's vote, so be it. The dishonesty that those two showed was far too much to let go without comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yea, but if only you assumed good faith and talked me to me, rather than cursing at me and telling me to retire. I was not in the middle of that FT, by any means. It was mostly finished, and there were three more articles which needed some discussion, as the WPTC was unsure whether or not to have articles for storms that didn't affect land. Certainly it was a minor dispute, and you turned it into something much bigger than it actually was. That is not behavior expected from an admin. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    You could have the best intentions in the world, but the mere thought that you would think that any situation in which you remove three certified GAs and possibly benefit from the action (i.e. another star for your collection) is completely unethical. The fact that you still don't recognize that completely disgusts me. You think its minor. I think its major, because it calls into question -every- -single- -one- of your GAs and FAs. If you are willing to game the system for that, then you were probably willing to game the system then. That is utter corruption, so yes, it is better that you retire than to continue performing unethical actions in regards to GAs and Featured Topics. Just be glad I haven't drawn up an RfC on you or proposed a topic ban on you in regards to featured content. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

55. I stopped reading at "I would use the tools as leverage to discuss unblocks with other admin." That is everything that is wrong with admins already. Keegan 03:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
56. oppose never really was a big fan of that April 1 thing. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)+1

    Ottava Rima has indicated that this is indeed a legitimate request. –Juliancolton |  04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

57. Oppose. This has nothing to do with the fact that he was the only person to Oppose my RfA. Though he may be a dedicated editor, I have real concerns about him possessing the tools. I share the fears of many of the above regarding your history. I don't think I have seen anyone with such an extensive block history and is still allowed to edit. Though he hasn't been blocked in months he still antagonizes, perhaps purposely, many others. I also lament that you refuse to address the concerns of those who oppose you. This indicates to me that you don't wish to make improvements. Valley2city 05:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    He doesn't refuse to address the opposition. So here's to that. Keegan 06:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    I refer you to his answer to question 3: "A: I've probably stepped on most people's toes. I'm sure the opposes will come up with new and exciting things to look at, so, here's to them. Now, I will state that I will not respond to the opposes. I believe that the opposes have their right to express their views. So, enjoy." He shouldn't address everything but many people oppose because they have concerns. Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, but he should allay their fears if he has a constructive response to them and they are asking for it ("asking for it" In the literal sense, not the punitive sense"). Valley2city 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

58. Oppose I don't usually comment much, nor add my thoughts, but I oppose because I have been taken aback by Ottawa's attitude in a few posts I've read. I think it is not insurmountable that he could add actual value, but some demonstration of a more considered approach would be required.liambussell (talk) 14.27, 1 April 2009 (China) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
59. Oppose, don't get me wrong, a good content contributor, but totally the wrong attitude for adminship. Lankiveil 08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC).
60. Oppose There is great value in an admin (or admin candidate) who isn't afraid to step on toes from time to time. There is no value in an admin (or admin candidate) who just runs into a room and just kicks people in the nuts for lulz. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Wow. Easily the funniest thing I have ever read on Misplaced Pages. Better than this and this combined. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hot damn, hippo crates lasted for 6 months! rʨanaɢ /_contribs 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

61. Oppose I hate opposing RfAs, but I would be very uncomfortable with Ottava Rima becoming an administrator. Ottava is a good editor in general, but the idea of him becoming an admin is unsettling at best.--Res2216firestar 16:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong oppose From what I can tell, over the past month or so Ottava has been doing good constructive editing and not starting fights. But nevertheless, the frequency of problems Ottava has caused in the recent past, or fights Ottava has started, is too much to ignore; if I were the only one who had gotten into spats with Ottava I might not oppose, but I know tons of editors who have had similar problems. Also, in spite of Ottava's answer to Question 1, I don't really see any "need for the tools," considering that Ottava self-identifies as a "content" editor (and Ottava him/herself has opposed numerous other RfAs for this exact same reason). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Changed to strong oppose per Ottava's recent comment in the questions section, showing a lack of respect for editors who work on different things than he does (calling other editors "paper pushers"), and suggesting that this entire RfA was opened just to prove a point (about "how Misplaced Pages feels about those like me"). Ottava's attitude towards editors with different editing styles than he was what prompted my first big fight with him back in December, and it appears that attitude has not changed. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

63. Strong Oppose per Ottava's disruptive behavior in the not too distant past. I sincerely believe that users are capable of reform, and I won't oppose solely based a user's block log, but a 3RR violation isn't the same as multiple blocks for disruption... beyond just that the general "don't give a crap" attitude I've noticed in his or her edits really bothers me. T.B.S., The last month or two has been particularly good and constructive, if I see more of this I will definitely consider supporting in the future. -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Oppose. I hate to pile on here, but better safe than sorry. When I first met saw Ottava on IRC he seemed like a good guy. However, as I became more involved in watching different RfAs succeed and fail, Ottava's opposes seemed so pointless, with reasoning that didn't even make sense. I can pull out diffs if anybody feels the need. Sorry :(. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Strongly oppose, terrible attitude. Everyking (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Oppose Though reluctantly as the editor does much good work. But just the wrong temperament for an admin. Dean B (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Oppose— what they said^ –Capricorn42 00:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Oppose. No. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Oppose. I don't see much of you, but usually when I do you come across to me as abrasive and quick to judge, as has been stated repeatedly above. I don't feel as though I can support you. Hersfold 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Oppose Has brought too much drama to DYK discussions. I wonder why this RFA has not been pulled, there's no chance it'll succeed. Royalbroil 03:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has indicated that he wants to see how it turns out, despite the sheer number of opposes. --Neskaya 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

71. Oppose, per above Griffinofwales (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Oppose per above and because of answer to Q2&3. - Fastily (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Strong Oppose per answers to most of the questions. User appears to have little interest in being an admin. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Just to point out; the validity of comments like "Little interest", "no need for the tools" is generally agreed to be almost zero. Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    And yet Ottava has made those same kinds of opposes at numerous other RfAs, which prompts the question why Ottava is running at all (in other words, if s/he has such high expectations for other candidates to "need tools", then why shouldn't Ottava himself demonstrate a need for them?). In any cases, in most of those situations I remember other editors defending people's rights to express the "no need" opinion even if the 'crats will discount it, so likewise JPG-GR here still has the right to express it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

74. Oppose. Having such an epic block log for disruption is enough for me to oppose, but it is also because of having watched OR in action. He has qualities, but we can't have administrators who seek conflicts, are quick to judge, who don't appear to be listening to the opposition's arguments, and who try to win discussions through attrition. Few editors have struck me as so unsuitable for adminship as OR.--Berig (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Oppose - answers to questions 1-6 are enough for me to oppose for lack of appropriate temperament. I believe in OR's sincerity and ability; I don't agree that OR's approach is right for adminship of en.wikipedia.org.  Frank  |  talk  12:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose - Trust is the standard applied to candidates for the rather mundane office of WP Administrator. This editor cannot be trusted with the tools. X MarX the Spot (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Oppose - Per this, and incivility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadsadah (talk • contribs)
78. Oppose. Sorry, I think you are a great mainspace editor, and very valuable to Misplaced Pages; however, I do not think you have the temperament to be an sysop. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 15:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Oppose. Too much drama. Too much time spent on the wrong end of WP:DRAMA. I won't say this editor will never make a good admin, but I don't think they're there yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Stronger oppose than possible - I have to admit that I have sympathy for Hink – he's totally undeserving of the shit Ottava put him through, especially on IRC. Add that to Ottava's horrid incivility and block record, despicable judgment, drama-mongering, harassment, and promise to be horribly disruptive as an admin, and... wow. I don't care how good of an article contributor Ottava is, judging from what we block constructive editors for, I'm deeply alarmed that he hasn't been blocked for 8 months. Makes me wonder why Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima or Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ottava Rima are redlinks... --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    See above my response to Hink. This oppose is just retaliation for my getting in the way of Hink adding another easy Featured Topic at the expense of three Good Articles. The fact that those two pages are Red Linked only verifies that concerns like Dylan's can be summarized in no other manner but petty. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Dylan, you're entitled to your opinion, but "no fucking way", especially in an edit summary, is uncalled for. — neuro 20:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    My apologies. Is there anyway we could hide the edit summary, but not the edit? Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, one moment. — neuro 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think it's necessary to hide the edit summary. –Juliancolton |  20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    That's the response I got too. — neuro 20:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not at all, neither deletion (removing the edit), nor oversight (hiding the summary) are justified in this case. Prodego 20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava, harassing/trolling/assuming bad faith with me and Hink will get you nowhere. Congrats on making my oppose not only stronger, but irreversible as well. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

81. Oppose Prodego 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Oppose I do not believe I have ever seen Ottava act or speak in a neutral manner. While this is an admirable or exceedingly irritating trait in both a person or an editor, it is entirely contrary to how an admin is supposed to perform. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Oppose Comes off to often as hostile and confrontational, and only escalates a situation. Grsz 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Oppose From what I have seen Ottava is a good mainspace editor, but seems to be unable to handle criticism (even when it is justified and constructive) or admit faults; instead OR usually chooses to respond by assuming the mantle of victimhood and counter-attacking the critic/reviewer. For example, consider the lesson the editor has drawn from the opposition to the RFA, or their previous blocks. This is grevious shortcoming for any editor in a collaborative project, and a critical one for an admin. Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Oppose. The items on the block log is too long to be listed and summarized. OhanaUnited 04:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Oppose per prior behavior, temperament, incivility, block log, absolutely no trust with the tools (regardless of other wikis). Need a year of problem-free editing before I would consider supporting. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Oppose Sorry but being a admin you may have to make or do things that you may not like such as blocking users or deleting articles.Staffwaterboy 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not accurate. Under no circumstances does an administrator never have to do something if they don't want to, for whatever reason. When they do things, they have to follow community standards, but they can choose to not do anything if they so desire. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

88. Oppose Sorry, but I simply can not trust you with the tools per issues such as incivility and behavior stated above. FunPika 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Agree about 100 percent with Karanacs. --JayHenry (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    And per RoyalBroil. The toxicity RB mentions is a large part of the reason I disengaged from DYK which was once my favorite part of the project.

90. Strong Oppose Incivility issues, prior blocks. WP:NOTYET. Willking1979 (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    The above user has stated here that his oppose is based on a standard that he has not applied to any other and involves the fact that I did not blatantly agree with a statement on his user talk page: "Say Yes to Flagged Revisions". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    There are other users that have the banner. They too have the right to !vote either way in RfAs. My comment on my talk page was not intended as a soapbox. Even if FlaggedRevs were not invented, I still would have opposed this RfA. Willking1979 (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Removed the descriptive. It doesn't matter. I am simply linking to your more elaborated statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    "I will state that I will not respond to the opposes." Just couldn't restrain yourself? Hipocrite (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Ottava has been responding to the opposes left and right, just not on this page. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 13:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

91. Oppose Clearly not administrator material, per a look at the block log and the flippant statements throughout this RFA. Steven Walling (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Hmmm...I count two flippant statements...the "joke support" comment, which was actually serious, and the answer to Q5, which was quite funny. —Ed 17 22:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    I didn't say it wasn't funny. I said it was flippant, which it was. Steven Walling (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    What you said was that there were flippant statements throughout this RfA, whereas you now seem to be agreeing that at best you were exaggerating. Ah well. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Nitpicking my word choice doesn't change the fact someone with extremely tough RFA standards (to put it kindly) treating their own RFA like a big joke is a huge red flag (in addition to the block log a mile long). Steven Walling (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    It is not "nitpicking" to point out that what you said was untrue. It is nitpicking of you not to accept that it was at best wild exaggeration. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

92. Oppose --David Shankbone 03:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
93. Oppose Absolutely not. Tan | 39 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Oppose, temperament and civility issues. "leverage"?! SideWays with mop, anyone? - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
95. Oppose. Far too much drama and incivility in one person. — Σxplicit 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
96. Oppose. The level of combativeness I've seen from you at DYK makes me unable to trust you with the tools, I'm afraid. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
97. Weak Oppose Weak because of decent personal interactions, but the candidate's incivility at times raises concerns. Spencer 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
98. Oppose - no thank you. Too many controversies that you seem happy to fan the fire of, rather than help douse. Achromatic (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
99. Oppose Civility is very important for an admin. Admins should reduce drama, not escalate it. Chillum 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
100. Oppose - Good writer, not so good at getting along with others. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
101. Oppose - per trolling on WT:DYK after his article was rejected. ~ Ameliorate! 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     I feel strongly that User:Ottava Rima/DYK sure suggests that the above comment is far from the truth. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Ottava frequently falls back on the "I have over 50 DYK" argument to claim that his activities on WT:DYK in the past were not disruptive. This is a logical fallacy; some arbitrary number of DYKs of his that did pass doesn't say anything about the way Ottava acted when one of them didn't. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Sorry, but when you, Gato, et al, attack those like Casliber, Rlevse, and Raul over at DYK, there is only one side that is trolling, and it wasn't the side that I was on. Most of the people that agreed with you had extremely little experience there and caused significant problems. If it weren't for people like me, we would have plagiarism on the main page and all sorts of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     I'm not talking about plagiarism problems; we all agree (as has been stated by other people in this RfA) that your anti-plagiarism work at DYK is valuable. Ameliorate! and I are referring to back in December when you made two disruptive proposals and attacked numerous DYK editors in attempt to have the DYK rules changed because the rules happened to exclude one of your articles. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Rlevse was very clear back then that the proposals were necessary to form consensus. There was an idea going around that did not have a proper consensus discussion. I proposed that we blatantly count block quotes. That was decided as what the community did not want. Have I not followed that since the actual consensus discussion? I think it is obvious to everyone that I have followed the determined standard. If you look at the Template talk page you will see that I reviewed one hook and even made it blatant that the blockquote was not counted. This has also come up in other reviews since that consensus discussion. Consensus is how we create standards here. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

102. Oppose - I have been very torn, as Ottava Rima has stood up for me in a wonderful ways, and for that I am thankful. I genuinely like OR. I appreciate OR's contributions and marvel at OR's genuine generosity to others. But OR seems to have two personalities. I too was driven away from DYK by OR's nastiness, and from FAC because OR's responses. OR's recent attacks on Fowler&Fowler, going to the extent of filing a sockpuppet accusation horrified me and make it impossible for me to support at this time. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     I moved off topic comments to here. I don't like the fighting. I am invoking IAR in doing this. My filing of a CU request was based on a blatant use of a revolving IP, which was checked. As Yellow Monkey later revealed, the user was another person who "retired" and did not stay gone. I don't remember responding directly to Mattisse at FAC or DYK, but if they would like to provide links that is fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Response You are misrepresenting. Yellow Monkey was not involved in the malicious Sockpuppet investigation you filed against Fowler&fowler . See: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Fowler&fowler/Archive, which was characterized by the closing admin as starting to look "like a fishing expedition". As far DYK, my few rather mild responses to your virulent posts there drew an RFC against me, so I was penalized by your behavior. Since then I have been fearful of ever posting a response to you. I would be fearful of being involved in DYK now if you were active there. Although I did post on FAC for The Lucy poems, your treatment of Fowler&fowler on Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/The Lucy poems/archive1 (and the resulting sockpuppet accusations) made me fearful of attacks and accusations against me if I post there again. All in all, I am frightened of posting near you. I am sorry to say all this but your comments above and removal of remarks make it necessary to clarify the record. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     If needed, I can ask the four CU clerks and the three CU that I talked to at IRC to testify about their responses to me on the matter and the seriousness that they took 6 IPs constantly attacking me across multiple forums while simultaneously defending Fowler. The reason why the check was performed was for this very reason, regardless if the actual SPI report was not completed. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     • No need. The actual SPI was completed (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fowler&fowler/Archive) and speaks for itself. I do not believe that invoking nontransparent sources is healthy or good for Misplaced Pages. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     CUs can verify that a CU was checked, so the opinion of one -clerk- is meaningless in the case, especially with the support of multiple clerks and CUs. It was not reopened because it was seen as moot. Now, if you want to talk about transparency, where were you defending me against someone who logged out and used a rotating IP to constantly attack me across multiple pages while simultaneously defending Fowler? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

103. Oppose. RfA might be no big deal, but it's definitely not a joke and I really can't see someone telling it is and then being a responsible admin. This is April 6, not April 1. (Offtopic: BTW the interesting thing is that you're right now getting the same support percentage you were making through your own votes at other people's RfAs.) —Admiral Norton 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

     At the very top - "I decided that we could separate the more jokey stuff to that and keep this serious." The joke RfA is linked. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

104. Oppose per numerous reasons stated by others opposing. Temperament and civility are key factors. Timmeh! 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
105. Oppose While he is on the right track, I must say that he is not quite the kind of person that an admin is.  Marlith (Talk)  02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Oppose Too many admins already doing the cheap shot at any cost in any situation. What's needs is more admins who are willing to find solutions, not admins who are always willing to get in a negative word about a person. --KP Botany (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

106. Oppose Too much drahma at AN and AN/I lead me to question giving this editor the tools.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Links? I am rarely at ANI or AN, nor do I have either at my watch list. This meme serves absolutely no basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     I guess we have different ideas of what rarely there means.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

     Being brought to ANI is quite different than constantly starting things at ANI. I have gone to AN or ANI very rarely. I do not watchlist the page, nor do I troll the comments and respond. Everyone knows that I hate ANI and that I think it does nothing but damages others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

107. Apparently not sensible enough to distinguish criticism from hate. Friday (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

     Links? Diffs? Are the two mutually exclusive? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. A total dramamongerer, and would probably be disasterous as an admin. But I have had numerous pleasant encounters, so no need to pile on. I think he knew how this would go anyway. Majorly talk 13:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Largely per Majorly. Seems rather too drama prone but I've only enjoyed pretty positive interactions in the past. I also note Deacon and Malleus in support, who make good points. Pedro :  Chat 
3. In view of the friendly comment above from the candidate I feel I should say something here. If we could give the right to view deleted articles separately, I would strongly support doing that, but I'm not that happy about the right to edit protected articles. As a slightly different view about the same sort of problems that others have mentioned, I see it mainly as being too stubborn in defending views and comments once they've been expressed, rather than the view and comments themselves. As for article writing, we could use a few dozen like him. I notice another editor has suggested cloning as well. DGG (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   The protected articles would be things like the DYK template (spelling errors, typos, problems with images, etc) or any corrections needed for an FA that is a TFA. Or do you mean in general? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4. I would oppose if I thought this might pass, but I don't like piling on. Excellent article creator; much too antagonistic to be an admin. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Per most of the oppose section. But I have had some good interaction with Ottava. He has clue but uses it too well or too badly, I can't really tell.  NEDRAG  19:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Per mainly Biblio and also Majorly. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  20:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
7. I have to side with Majorly on "he knew how this would go". Ottava is clueful in many respects but every now and then the cluefulness disappears and transforms into some seemingly random erratic judgement. For instance, Ottava is notably tough in RfAs. He opposes a lot of candidates and although I disagreed in many cases, I've been surprised to see him support candidates that fail the very standards he has set elsewhere. As another example, I can't for the life of me understand how someone with usually sound judgement writes this response to a victim of real-life stalking. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   You mean "If I was a judge at your hearing for whatever you would want to press against him, sure, I would probably grant you it. However, Misplaced Pages is not a legal recourse." Which based on basically what Misplaced Pages already states? No Legal Threats is very clear on legal disputes also. Sorry, but Misplaced Pages is not a battleground to settle legal disputes with another party. You can oppose me for feeling that way, but I wont budge. And I've only supported a few candidates. The only "controversial" candidates I supported, like Ironholds, didn't matter one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   The more interesting part of your reply was "you are lucky that there is enough sympathy about (or, just no really really gutsy admin about) that you aren't indeffed until it is settled as per the letter of NLT." For cryin' out loud... The guy was dealing with some wackjob editor who called his employer to get him fired. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   I suggest you read WP:NLT, which makes it clear about the indeffing - "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." and "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral leaning towards borderline oppose This is a tough one. Looking at the user's contribs and actions on Wikiversity I believe Ottava is more than capable of being a productive and effective administrator, however concerns raised above about personality lead me to believe this may be a problem. While I do value people who are willing to tell it like it is rather than worrying about not offending anyone I could see potential problems with that behaviour. As wikipedia's traffic grows Administrator actions are ever more so in the public eye, and while we can't possibly expect everyone to be a PR expert bluntness doesn't help the situation any. I would like to see the user show the ability to show diplomacy where the situation requires it without giving up his honest opinions, as well as run again in RFA. —Nn123645 (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Strong Neutral. I would oppose due to OR's excessively confrontational attitude towards other editors not being usitable for a sysop. However, I was involved in an IRC dispute with him this morning, so I can't in good faith oppose the RFA. That said, OR brings some good things to the project. I just don't think giving him to tools so he can have "leverage" over other admins would be a good thing for Misplaced Pages. Firestorm 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Seems completely sane and reasonable from the little interaction I have had and answers to the questions above, if there weren't concerns raised regarding temperament and civility I would move to support. I hope OR gets nominated again at a later date. I think that the points OR raises about potential 'abuse' or lack of accountability is valid and I hope that he works towards resolving the underlying issues even without the admin bit. Unomi (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    Apparently, many of the opposes don't want me to work in that area, but they seem not to understand that I would be doing it with ops or without. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

11. Was told my opinion would be valued. So here it is... Has clue. (most of the time) Lacks deft touch. (most of the time) Knows where towel is (about 1/2 the time I think) ... high marks for meaning well, though. Ottava, you made a very favorable impression on SB Johnny (at Wikiversity, see above) which is not easy to do! He's good people and gave you some great advice... see what you think. Would love to support. Would prefer not to oppose, and pileon not needed at this time. Hence... neutral. ++Lar: t/c 04:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    At another site your position on BLPs is characterised as "my understanding is that Ottava wants to remove most, if not all, editing restrictions on BLP articles and deny any rights to article subjects, not that they have any to speak of now"... is that true? If so I may have to take back what I said about clue. :) As that's pretty much exactly backwards of the direction we need to move. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Could you clarify what that site is? (I'm assuming it's WR, but hey, who knows.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, perhaps Lar would be kind enough to share his hidden wisdom and name the site - then we would be all a bit wiser. Please do not make vauge references - Is it Misplaced Pages Review Lar? Well? Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I am not really clear what the source of this animus is, Pedro, but it's really not helpful to badger me this way. Ottava knew what it was well enough. Next time I'll try to remember to be clearer. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I'm sorry if you think asking people not to be vague in a discussion is badgering. I'm also not clear as to why you think it is acceptable that as long as the candidate is aware of what you are talking about then the rest of the community can be nicely kept in the dark on a community project. Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I saw, Lar, and I was pissed. I was about to get Majorly to respond there, lol. If you look here, you will see four BLPs on my list. I have edited many others, but -these- were ones that I was directly involved with BLP issues to a major extent. In each case, I was directly in communications with the article subject, posted communications where I could in discussions, and worked with many people on both sides to come up with a fair compromise. The edits to Picard, where Moulton was first banned, are an example of where I strove to improve the page, expand it to be more fair to the professor's career, and tried to make every side happy with the wording while being true to sources. I have been in communication with senators, governors, professors, and other people who have had BLPs, and I have worked with them, advised them, and showed them how to use various places on Misplaced Pages when they end up creating accounts (see Irving Hexham, for an example). But yes, I will say it now - Somey is a frequent liar, and, with the amount of Misplaced Pages Review editors opposing me, it comes as no surprise that such things would be said and such tactics used. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

    There certainly is a wide variance, isn't there? I think you did good work on the articles you named, but I'm still curious as to the reason Somey would say that... were there situations where you've commented where such a conclusion could be drawn? It doesn't make sense. ++Lar: t/c 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Somey has no problem slandering me. He is unabashed at it. Why else would he let such an obvious and open thread calling for opposes stand? Is it coincidence that two blatant SPA accounts appeared? That so many members of Misplaced Pages Review have appeared? Hipocrite is right up there at the very top. Surprised? I'm not. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Reverting to form? I opposed you well before there was any post about your RFA on WR. But please, pull the other one. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    And yet I've seen constant emails and IMs between WR people and even participated in them myself. I think it is charming that you are pretending that such couldn't happen. And here you are in that thread. Its not a coincidence. Simply put, you are a Misplaced Pages Review member who is nothing but an inflamatory wikianarchist that does nothing but bash good contributors here. Sure, your oppose actually makes me happy. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    Could you try to be civil? Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    I don't think it would be possible when I am speaking to a prominent member of a forum who has used posts to attack people, to promote the destruction of the encyclopedia, and has said some of the most hateful things I have ever seen. Here is just one example - "immy Wales is perhaps the least impressive part of Misplaced Pages. He's a leech, who shows up every so often to spout this or that piece of "wisdom," which is usually just him saying "do something right and it's done right." Who cares?" I don't know why you aren't banned, or why, with such hatred to this place, you are still around. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

12. Great attitude. I am with you as an editor. We enjoy greater 'priviliges' and this attitude suits an editor. Not an admin perhaps. prashanthns (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Wimpy neutral. Ottava is a great editor. He's far brighter and more productive than most admins. He could be an above-par superior sysop if he decides to dial down the drama. Majoreditor (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Normally, with the concerns listed, I would oppose such a nomination; but, while I haven't interacted a lot with Ottava Rima, I am familiar with him. As such, I will not oppose, based on what I do know about him, but I'm not able to support; I also don't think that Ottava Rima deserves to have 100 in opposition either. I would, however, like to acknowledge all the good work Ottava Rima has done, as I believe that he is a strong editor. Acalamari 23:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Neutral Great contribs, but the civility issues are concerning. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Neutral The recent Fowler imbroglio and the editor's subsequent actions were disturbing enough that it was reassuring that he did not have the power to block. God no, was my initial reaction to this RfA. However, now that I've been following this interesting RfA over the last few days, and seeing a lot more of the editor, I am convinced that OR would not have used the tools improperly had he had them. I suspect a reasonable person exists behind all that bluster :-) Can't support so soon after the F&f thing but am leaning in that direction. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    I tend not to take kindly to people who attack Ceoil's writing, let alone says this like "you don't know how to write English" and similar attacks - "Would you like me to pick apart your "best FA" as well? You teach grammar to college students? In what language? English?" Note, that page he was attacking had over 30 copyeditors and passed through FA with over 30 supports. The vitriol was completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Neutral leaning towards support. Good contribution to resolving an intractable argument at the Picard article, showing good clue about BLP. Some subsequent issues may to some extent involve problems of communication or being misunderstood, but suggest lapses of sensitivity in tense situations where care is needed. The RfA above is jokey, and no problem with not taking it too seriously, but it's unclear that there's any real need for the tools. A lot can be achieved by earning respect without needing to be an admin. . dave souza, talk 11:39, 6 April 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.

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

AlexiusHoratius

Nomination

Final (74/2/0); Ended 20:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) – closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident 21:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs) – Hello all, I'd like to present AlexiusHoratius for consideration for adminship. Alexius is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, has had his account since September 2006, and has been active since August/September 2007. In that time, he's collected a staggering 25000 edits, with over 15000 of those in the mainspace. Most impressively, these are all non-automated; Alexius has never used Huggle, Twinkle, or any other automated script. He was one of the first rollbackers, having had the tool since it was first implemented in January 2008. He's a stellar vandal fighter, with 220 reports to AIV, and can also be seen offering aid and advice at the Help Desk and Reference Desks. Further, he's done a great deal of article work, most notably on South Dakota and Geography of South Dakota, as well as several others. He's a helpful member of the South Dakota WikiProject, having just recently assessed a slew of articles and proposed improvements to the assessment process. His talk page archives are full of barnstars from people thanking him for reverting vandalism on user pages as well as outstanding maintenance work on articles like California Gold Rush, South Dakota (to which he has over 450 edits), and Iowa. On top of everything, Alexius has a pristine block log and also takes photos and creates maps and other illustrations for Misplaced Pages.

Alexius was asked to run nearly a year ago, last May, by another user; however, he declined the nomination to hone his skills and build experience, which I feel was a great sign of maturity. However, his time has now come; he's one of the few editors with more edits than me still not an admin, a transgression that needs to be rectified immediately! Let's award this fantastic editor a mop to help us clean up! GlassCobra 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to GC for the kind nomination. AlexiusHoratius 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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 be working at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP, the "admin" areas I have been most involved with. I've made over 200 AIV reports and 39 RFPP requests, so I feel that I am experienced enough in these areas to work here. Out of those total 240 or so reports and requests, only three have been rejected to my knowledge (I almost always check back to see what happened to my reports). I also feel that with my experience with vandalism patrol and the rollback feature, I will be able to work at WP:Requests for permissions, granting rollback to responsible users who request it.

I realize that some may take issue with the fact that I have very little deletion experience - only two !votes and no tagging. The reason for this is that I simply am not very interested in deletion, I haven't worked on it much in the past, and I won't be working on it in an administrative capacity in the future. Last May, when a user asked if I would be interested in adminship, I decided not to run, one of the reasons being my lack of experience in deletion. Well, almost a year later, not much has changed - I guess it just isn't my thing. I realize deletion is an important aspect of administrative duties on Misplaced Pages, but I'm not going to force myself to work in an area I don't want to work in just to improve my chances of passing an RfA.

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

A: The contribution I am proudest of has to be the South Dakota article. I did the great majority of the work taking it from this to its present state; it's only a GA, but I've put a great deal of time and effort into it. Although I don't live there anymore, it's where I grew up, and I'm proud of the fact that it's now one of the better US state articles. Other than that, much of my work is in the area of vandalism patrol, and I take pride in the fact that I try to be as careful and courteous as I can when doing this, mindful of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. Accurate vandalism patrol is a big deal to me, as an incorrect warning or block may drive off a new good faith editor.

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: Nothing major, no ANI thread-producing stuff, to my knowledge. However, many of the articles I edit have to do with large cities, states, provinces, and countries, and I have been involved in some disagreements as far as what belongs in these articles and what doesn't; most of these involve my attempts to adhere to WP:Summary style. These articles cover a wide range of information, and they will simply become too large if cuts aren't made at times. I try to deal with this issue in various ways. Sometimes it involves simply explaining to a new editor that their additions are too specific for that particular article (seen here), sometimes I'll create a daughter article to move more specific stuff too (seen here, for example), and sometimes I figure that it really isn't worth fighting over and I'll just drop it, as I did here.

Also, this is quite snippy, I suppose I should mention this as it was probably the most uncivil post I've made. It was back in 2007, and I have tried hard to remain as polite as possible since then. (The situation behind that one is that I had spent three hours trying to take a skyline photo for a city that doesn't really have a skyline, for an article that had no skyline picture of any kind before, and I was annoyed that the immediate response was "take a better picture". Still, that doesn't excuse my post, the picture in question was a bit gloomy, and the other editor was simply making an improvement suggestion.)

Additional questions from Letsdrinktea

4.a. A newly registered user goes to an article and starts removing sources from it, and degrading the article content, and then nominates the article for deletion. How would you handle this?

A: That would really depend on what type of article it was. If it was a simple case of vandalism blanking/text removal, for instance, if someone blanks Canada and sticks a delete template on it, that is obviously nonsense and should be treated as vandalism. However, sometimes pages are blanked in cases of controversial articles and issues, such as, say, the issues surrounding the pictures on the Muhammad article, or perhaps a user removes a picture or blanks an article that they find obscene, something with nudity, for instance. There is a good chance that the new user simply doesn't understand our policies. In this case, while the editor is clearly acting against policy, I would explain very clearly to them that Misplaced Pages isn't censored, deletions of that type need to be discussed first on the talk page, etc. If the blanking continued after a clear explanation, I would then consider that to be vandalism as well. Finally, and I don't know that I've ever run into this personally, a page may be being blanked by the article's subject, and while this too is against policy in some ways (WP:COI), there may also be WP:BLP concerns at play here. If it looked like this may be the case, I would investigate the matter in greater detail, checking sources and starting a thread either on the article's talk page or the BLP noticeboard for more eyes. All that said probably 95% of page blankings are simple vandalism as in my first example. The second and third examples are much rarer, but should be dealt with in a somewhat different manner.

4.b. In response to what you did, the user denies what you accused them of. What would you do then?

A If it were a registered user, as you described, I would probably simply show them a diff on their talk page as proof of what they are claiming they didn't do, perhaps explaining again what the problem was if their confusion sounded legitimate.

5 A new user goes around vandalizing pages by blanking out sections and adding nonsense. They vandalize again after their final warning and you block them as a vandalism only account. The user then requests to be unblocked, saying that they know what they did was wrong and promising to make productive contributions. What would you do (would you grant or deny the request)?

A You know, if it were only a case of short term vandalism followed by a sincere-sounding response, I would probably consider unblocking in the spirit of WP:AGF. I would explain clearly that such behavior isn't acceptable, and I would keep a very close eye on their further contributions. If the disruptive behavior began again, I would just report them to WP:AIV with an explanation of the situation; at this point I would probably feel too involved with the user to be the one who blocked them a second time.

It occurred to me last night that I sort of ignored the other part of your question, and that might give people the wrong impression. Just to clarify, although I would consider unblocking, I would never decline an unblock request from a user I had blocked. I might unblock, I might leave it to an uninvolved admin to decide, but I wouldn't be the one to reject the unblock request in the case you described.

Optional question from Jeandré

6. What do you think of April fools edits like on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A That one is taking the joke a bit too far, in my opinion, so no barnstars from me. Just as the joke went a bit far, a de-sysop or block in that case is too much as well. I don't know what a block what have accomplished, really, and it seems every April Fools' day has stuff like this, isolated incidents where people get a bit carried away. Had I seen it last night, I would have certainly considered undoing/re-wording it, with an explanation as to why I was doing so.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

7a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Purely hypothetical answer, please see the second paragraph on my answer to Q1 - I have no plans to work in deletion While the article could be deleted as having no content (a web address doesn't count), the situation suggests that a new user is incorrectly trying their hand at article creation. Rather than swiftly deleting it, it may be a better option to hold off for a bit, explaining to the editor the basics of article creation, and let them know that unless more is done with the article, it will eventually be deleted.

7b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Purely hypothetical answer, please see the second paragraph on my answer to Q1 - I have no plans to work in deletion This seems like a clearer case for the article to be deleted immediately, again as having no content. However, in this case as well as the one in 7a, it would be a good idea to explain the basics of article creation etc. to the new user, telling them that an article needs to be more than simply an 'Under Construction' template. In both of these situations, I think a helpful approach would also be to explain the concept of user sandboxes, and how they can be used to work on future articles before they are ready to actually be created.

7c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Technically, they are not in breach of WP:3RR; an editor needs to go over three reverts for 3RR to apply, and in this situation it doesn't appear as though either of them have. 3RR warnings are also an important factor in determining 3RR violations, and your description says nothing about warnings having been given out.

However, the three editors are edit warring, and should probably be spoken to, even though 3RR has not technically been breached. The history of the situation should also be investigated. (Is this the first edit war between these editors over this subject? Are these new editors who don't understand our policies, or are they experienced editors who should probably know better? etc.)

7d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: I wouldn't say that 'majority rule' (and yes, I know strength of arguments needs to play a role as well in both types of debates) is necessarily more applicable in article writing debates. Although there will often be an informal poll or vote taken, these are often seen as strictly unofficial. Additionally, content disputes can sometimes become extremely complex (see, for example, this beast of a debate); determining consensus in situations like these can be a much more difficult process than simply using 'majority rule'.

Optional question from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Yes, I do believe that there is a problem. As it currently stands, it is in many cases no more difficult to add a Seigenthaler-esque lie to a BLP than it is to add 'i like pie' to an article about a river. I think this is a problem. Wherever someone stands on the general issues surrounding BLP, I'm sure that we can agree that there is a fundamental difference between the potential affects of an article about a living human and one about a river. BLP accuracy is of utmost importance because false information inserted into articles can have a real-life affect on people. Severe BLP vandalism can damage reputations, families, and professions; it can also potentially lead to lawsuits.

I also believe the problem to be significant. In my experiences with anti-vandalism patrol I know that while many instances of vandalism are quickly erased, some are not. Furthermore, I have seen cases of oversighters complaining or even quiting due to the workload and begging us to do something to bring the situation under control. Both of these, in my opinion, point to the fact that our current methods of BLP enforcement are not adequate. Although we are a wiki, which I believe to be a strength of this encyclopedia, we also have a responsibility to BLP subjects to do our best to insure that the information we are giving is correct.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: 1 & 2 I would support either of these options on BLPs (but not on others). I have heard many if not most of the arguments against these options, and I simply believe that the benefit of better BLP quality control outweighs the costs. I also disagree with those who believe this will be the death of open editing. We already have semi-protection, full protection, and the ability to block users and all are examples of limits already in place on open editing. Between the two, I would say that although I am not yet an expert on the technical details, Flagged protection and patrolled revisions seems to allow for a few more options and, in my opinion, a better chance to protect BLPs.

3. As far as liberal use of semi-protection, I would say that all else being equal, (say, four instances of anon vandalism in the last hour) I would be more likely to semi-protect the BLP than the non-BLP, due in large part to some of the BLP concerns I expressed in answer 8a. However, that is as "liberal" as my protections would get. Although admins have a certain amount of independence in what they protect and what they don't, it is the primary job of an administrator to uphold current Misplaced Pages policies. In other words, I wouldn't go running around semi-protecting BLPs that did not look like they needed it, as that isn't what the current policy calls for. As to the second part of the question, I believe that semi-protecting all BLPs is going too far. If the topics of questions 8b 1 or 2 would prove successful, taking a policy leap like this one would hopefully not be necessary.

Added around an hour later I was thinking on this a bit later, and that example in the first sentence may give the wrong impression. If it read "last few hours", it would be closer to what I meant. (4 anon vandalism edits from different IPs within the last hour would almost always get a semi-protection from me, BLP or non-BLP alike, now that I think about it)

8c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A:I would likely rv the latest edit (mildly controversial changes are still controversial changes, I suppose, and these should be sourced) and leave a message (in this case, an 'unsor1' or 'unsor2' will usually suffice if they are new, a less patronizing equivelant if they are experienced) on the editor's talk page. After the appointment, the addition of an 'unreferenced' template would be called for, as well as a bit of further research as to the subject's basic notability. (The research shouldn't be too hard, as sports statistics aren't in short supply on the internet.)

Optional question from Nja247

9. If a user makes positive contributions to the project after being banned, eg by use of a sockpuppet, can/should those contributions be kept?

A:WP:Ban recommends a balanced approach to this, and I agree with what is said there. I think that generally, good additions made by banned users can in many cases be kept. An example of this are many of the additions of Archtransit/Chergles (et al.?). This user, although being deservedly banned, has also made a number of good content contributions, such as Boeing 747 (and yes, some decent c/e to South Dakota a couple months ago.) Although the disruption, abuse of trust, and ban of this user requires that any further socks he is using be immediately blocked, it probably wouldn't do too much harm to hang on to the good article contributions. That said, most banned users I have encountered are not good article writers. The were usually banned for things like general disruption without any major contibutions, POV-pushing in articles, or massive copyright infringement. In all of these cases, they should be reverted. I'll also note that WP:Ban recommends a "default to revert" approach when it comes to gray areas on what constitutes "good" contributions from a banned user, and additionally recommends that once an editor removes material inserted by a banned user, the removal should in most cases not be reverted. This too sounds like a rational approach to the issue.

Just a note, and I don't know that it is that big of a deal, but it is somewhat related to the question and I'll mention it here if editors are concerned about it. I currently display a barnstar from User:Chergles on my userpage. I had interacted with him a bit before learning his true identity, and I've kept it on there because I don't feel that the barnstar is that serious of an issue. However, if an editor feels that this constitutes some sort of endorsement of what he's done, or feels that it sends a "wrong message" in any other way, please let me know and I'll be happy to permanently remove it.

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  20:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks fantastic so far. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support for Notre Dame, the Packers, and the Yankees notwithstanding, seems like a quality editor. Doesn't use IRC, doesn't use Huggle or Twinkle. Slightly partial to File:Cook'sThirdVoyage58.png. Will continue researching, but doesn't appear to be an ass-kisser, and seems to have a clue. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Actually, the noninterest in deletion makes me happy. Also, note the lack of edits to Drama1 or Drama2. Thank goodness! We need more administrators who don't add to teh dramaz. I don't even recognize your name. That's a good thing. Just don't let adminship get in the way of your content contributions. Also, if you post thank you spam on my page, I will punch your spleen out. :-) Good luck.
3. Oppose - Supports the Yankees. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - Supports the Yankees. –Juliancolton |  20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - Who are the Yankees, again? — neuro 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support as nominator. GlassCobra 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support good range of edits. Nothing adverse recorded. I do not believe I have ever interacted with him, but look forward to doing so. --Anthony.bradbury 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
8. Support per nom (and nominator), edits, answers, and vague recollection of positive impression of this editor in the past.  Frank  |  talk  20:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Per everyone else.--Giants27 /C 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Very good editor, would be a benefit to the mop. Best, Versus22 _talk 21:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Red Sox I mean, er Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Definitely. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  21:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Looks trusted. GT5162 21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral - Supports the Yankees. :P →Dyl@n620 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No issues.America69 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Absolutely - Why has this taken so long? Let's snow this thing and put him in the line of fire, I mean put him to work .. ahhh .. allow him to become acquainted with the tools. — Ched ~ /_© 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Not enough administrators currently. iMatthew // talk // 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support. Fully qualified candidate; no issues or concerns. The opposer's position is shockingly devoid of merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong Support Highly qualitfied. -download | sign! 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support  Growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. Contribs, knowledge, attitude all line up. --StaniStani  22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Support I do believe I've seen you around plenty of places, working diligently. Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support despite support for Green Bay Packers. (A very great fault, but slightly outweighed by the excellence of his contributions to Misplaced Pages, esp. article building.) Kablammo (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Good answers to questions, though for #4 I meant that the user was degrading the article content for the purpose of trying to get it deleted, perhaps I should have been more clear. LetsdrinkTea 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, I see what you mean. In the case that it looked like a new user was simply going about the deletion process in an incorrect manner (blanking and so on) a clear explanation of the process would be in order, it may be that their edits are in good faith, they're just going about it in the wrong manner. Also, I suppose the type of article would come into play in this case as well, per my answer to 4a. AlexiusHoratius 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

24. Support Per Julian. j/k, a fine candidate. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Well-rounded edits, high edit count, no involvement in major conflicts with other users. EscapeByMusic 00:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeByMusic (talk • contribs)
26. Strong support Wizardman :  Chat  00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Great edit history. An asset to the community.PerfectProposal 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Quality editor. Will make an excellent administrator. Marek.69 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Couldn't really ask for a more ideal contributor. Will handle the mop well. Jd027 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. Looks good from here. The fact that he is a Yankees fan raises some questions about his judgement though. Cool3 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Erik9 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support; no reason to suggest it would be a bad idea. Ironholds (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Yes No problems here. J.delanoy :  Chat  02:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose — I view 25k edits over a span of 2 and a half years as prima facie evidence of Wikipediholicism. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Looks Fine! - Fastily (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support, will make excellent admin. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support All of my interactions with AH have been positive, we need more like him. Acroterion _(talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Per noms, per answers to the first three questions, some good content work, and contributions to other areas of the project as well. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this added capacity. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - good 'pedia builder. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. AlexiusHoratius, you are an excellent mop and bucket candidate, with 25K+ edits, over 2.5 years. You have earned my trust! --Rosiestep (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support I don't think I've ever come across AH, but having looked thorugh contributions and general wikiwork, I can see no reason to oppose, especially if he add WP:CSD to his work list as that can back up horribly. --GedUK  07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support I've come across AH in my work and have always found him to be levelheaded as well as hard-working and efficient. - Schrandit (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose. I'll come back to you when I have a reason. tfeSil (aktl) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I couldn't find userboxen to agree with. Minnesota? Sports? 80's music? Hmm. I suppose I'll just have to support because you're an excellent editor or something. FlyingToaster 09:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support – sgeureka 09:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong support despite poor judgment IRL (being a Yankees fan). :) hmwithτ 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Per nominator. SD5 (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support File under "thought they were already an admin." No qualms. OhNoitsJamie 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support: Not enough Administrators currently. South Bay (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Has been around since September 2006 and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
54. A-Roooooid... A-Rooooooid Let's go Boston! That said, opposing over teams isn't a good idea, and nothing else leads me to oppose. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support thoughtful answers to the questions (hypothetical as they were) :-) No reason to suspect that s/he'll misuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support Seems a strong candidate. Dean B (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Whenever I've seen you around, you've been doing good work. I see no reason not to support. Hersfold 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. No problems except for Notre Dame fandom which is disappointing ;). Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - User displays some clue in answers to my questions. Some understanding that policy can change through action would have made this a strong support. لennavecia 06:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
60. Support Seems to be up to the task. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 18:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Why not? Meetare Shappy 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
62. Support Answered my question, and all the others well and good history overall. I think the barnstar is fine mate. Nja 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
63. Support. Candidate has clue, looks like a net positive. — Σxplicit 07:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
64. I've seen Alexius Horatius around, and I think he does a good job. He'll be fine. Acalamari 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate is a good article contributor who has received multiple barnstars and has never been blocked. Sincerley, --A Nobody 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - what a name!!!!! --candle•wicke 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support: A strong contributor, intelligent, stays away from drama, and will do well with the tools. Maedin\ 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support: Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support seems like a capable candidate...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Wait, what the hell? He isn't an admin already?! He has the experience in necessary areas and the right attitude for the job and to be a productive admin.  Marlith (Talk)  03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support. See no issues. Jayjg 04:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Pile-on support No concerns to raise.--Res2216firestar 06:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support for non-baiting, mild manner with IP vandals. Now treat everyone that way after you become an administrator and you'll be even more of an asset to en.wiki. --KP Botany (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

   Not trying to be mean, but are you going to come up with that oppose reason every time? With the amount of users, we definately need as many administrators. :) Versus22 _talk 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

   All I want at this stage is for all of DougsTech's opposes to be indented and struck. →Dyl@n620 21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

   See the most recent few weeks of discussion on WT:RFA. –Juliancolton |  21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

   link — Ched ~ /_© 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

   Let Kurt Doug have his say, even if we disagree with his reasoning. Majoreditor (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   Guys, not a single 'crat is taking his !votes into account. Can we just stop commenting every single time he does it so he will stop getting all of the attention that is so desired? Just pretend that every RfA has one less oppose. It's not that difficult. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   I second this. The way you get children to stop throwing tantrums is to ignore them when they do. FlyingToaster 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose for answer to q6. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t14:26z

   Can you elaborate on this? What did you find objectionable, precisely? GlassCobra 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

   I want admins to stop other admins from doing such things again. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-02t20:38z

   Feel free to review the blocking policy at your leisure and inform us how a punitive block for an April Fools' joke you think is off-base (though is supported by broad consensus) would be in any way appropriate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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

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

Paxse

Nomination

Final (89/3/0); Ended 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - closed as successful by —Anonymous Dissident 12:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paxse (talk · contribs) – I recently discovered Paxse when looking at highly active contributors. He is a real gem, in his lengthy Wiki-life, he has created over a dozen DYKs and has a nice healthy 63% article space contribution rate. But, wait, he is also a maintenance worker with over 780 accounts created through WP:ACC. He is very active in WP:WikiProject Cambodia and has helped to fill out our coverage of a systemically under-represented area of the encyclopedia. Through his work with ACC, and RecentChanges Patrol, I am confident Paxse has the requisite knowledge of policy to perform as an administrator. MBisanz 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Syn

I first came across Paxse some time ago with ACC, and I was very impressed. Mbisanz has said much of what I would have already, so I don't want to repeat it. I first asked him about running about a month or so ago, and he declined. He said he had some things to work on first, and I saw no problem with this. I believe he has what it takes to be a proper admin (patience, intelligence/clue, etc) and think he is ready. Synergy 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks very much to Matt and Syn for the nomination - I'm happy to accept.Paxse (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: If I get the bit, I’ll definitely use the extra flags in my work at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cambodia where we have few active admins. This would mostly be pagemoves, some page deletions, some restoring and then sourcing of deleted content (where appropriate and discussed with the deleting admin), occasional page protections, (Cambodia intermittently requires brief protection from IP vandalism) and the odd repeat vandal who needs a short block.

However, I’d really like to find an admin shaped niche to work in regularly. I’ve noticed a couple of areas where admins seem to be in short supply. One is helping to deal with potential and actual socks at WP:SPI. This sounds like interesting work requiring careful review of evidence and good judgement. I contribute a bit to WP:DYK and I feel a little guilty for not contributing more than just articles for others to review. There seem to be times when no-one is around to check and update the queues to post on the main page. I’d like to learn the process and put myself down to help out with updates.

If this nomination is successful, I’ll find myself a willing mentor in one of these areas to help me learn the ropes and then try to help out long term. Nixeagle and Synergy have offered to coach me on sockpuppet investigations at WP:SPI. I plan to approach one of the regular DYK admins to ask for mentoring in the same way.

These days a backlog at WP:AIV, WP:AN3 or WP:RM seems to be generally only 4/5 requests long and XfDs are closed pretty promptly. I’m happy to help out with these areas if required but they are generally very well patrolled. That’s why I think I could be more useful in one of the more under served areas.

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

A: I'm pleased with the work I've done at WP:CAMBODIA. I've been a member since the project started. Since then, I've kick started the assessment system, welcomed many new Cambodia editors, tagged and assessed a good 1500 articles, got various bot assisted lists going, referenced dozens of articles, expanded many micro-stubs, added GIS location data and tried to come up with some standard layout and content for geography articles. I've created 22 Cambodian articles and a couple of hundred redirects to improve linking . However, I'm not alone in all this and many other editors have done excellent work on Cambodian articles.

I'm proud to have worked with the WP:ACC team to survive the great UK ISP debacle of 2008. Together we dealt with 800+ account requests in 10 days - one hell of an effort. This was definitely not my work alone, ACC stalwarts like Matt, Maedin, Nukewar, Isabell, Neuro, terrillja and many others worked like trojans during December. Stwalkerster and Prodego managed the team and kept our jury-rigged interface from melting under the strain.

The work I'm personally proudest of is my work on Cambodia geography articles. This is a long term project of mine to create, reference, expand and illustrate articles on the major geographic features of Cambodia. This year I've been working on the 185 articles under Districts of Cambodia. I plan to photograph each district during my travels around the country (I have a commons account for this ) and expand all the districts to at least a start class. To date I've managed to get 20 of the district articles on the front page via DYK - there should be a few more this week. I'm planning to get all the district, provincial and town articles looking like Kang Meas District, (which used to look like this ) or Koh Kong (city), which used to be on WP:shortpages and looked like this .

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: In three and a half years? ;) of course. Only rarely though and nothing very major. The only 'notable' dramaz I can remember was with Domer48 in June 2007. There was much back and forth between Domer and I on our talk pages - see link to my talk archives here over an AfD debate. Eventually, we resolved it quickly through discussion and parted on amicable terms. Since then, I deal with potential conflict initially by apologizing (this is often very effective at diffusing conflict), then by discussion and explanation. If that doesn't work, I'll walk away and do something productive. If I'm stressed by the wiki, then I need a break. I think one of the secrets to surviving wikidrama and maintaining your sanity is a good sense of perspective. This is only a virtual world and nobody will take away your birthday if they don't like your edits.

Optional question from SoWhy

4. Your edit history shows huge gaps between November 2007 and October 2008, where you went from 2000 edits/month to 0 edits/month for 11 months. Are you willing to explain this (apparently) sudden drop in contributions and can you predict whether that will occur again?

A: It's fair question - I was anticipating it before the Bald One brought it up. My daughter was diagnosed with cancer in August 2007. This initially dropped my contribs significantly, then got me offline for quite a while when she started surgery. It was a big shock for the family and for my other kids and understandably Real Life trumped wiki for quite some time. I came back late last year. To answer the second part of your question, yes it could happen again. Wiki-life is great fun, but it should never be more important than family. I plan on sticking around for at least another ten years, but during that time there could be gaps for family reasons, health reasons or just for sanity breaks ;) Cheers, Paxse (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely I understand. I hope she is better now. Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld (and all you nice well-wishers) for your concern and kind words. She's doing great. She recently passed her exams, had her 15th birthday and then won the 200 metres sprint on Saturday. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Letsdrinktea

5. A user vandalizes pages by blanking out sections and inserting nonsense. After their final warning is given, the user does it again and you block them indefinitely as a vandalism only account. The user then posts an unblock request apologizing for their actions, acknowledging that what they did was wrong and promising to make productive contributions. What would you do?

A: Thanks for your question Letsdrinktea. In that situation, I wouldn’t need to do very much. The unblock request would be reviewed by an uninvolved admin – not by me. If the reviewing admin contacted me to ask my opinion on lifting the block – I’d likely say ‘no problem’. If a vandal wants to cease being a vandal, then it’s a win all round. Having said that, I’m a nasty suspicious person at heart – so I’d probably keep an eye on their contribs for a while ;) Paxse (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Jeandré

6. What do you think of April fools edits like showing on the Main page: de-admin, block, undo, nothing, leave a barnstar, other?

A: Thanks very much for your question Jeandré. I'm sorry to say, that I think we are going to disagree on the right thing to do in this situation. I read the thread on Main Page talk and checked the page history to see the various edits and reverts. The issue of April's fool's day games really seems to polarise Misplaced Pages. I noticed this last year particularly. Some people seem to think that creating a worthwhile encyclopaedia is a serious business and that jokes among the content are plain wrong. Others seem to think we sometimes take ourselves too seriously and that letting our virtual hair down once a year is essential. Me? I think the lighthearted stuff is great. As an example, I logged onto the ACC interface today and clicked the link to log into the account creators IRC channel - instead I was taken to a Rick Astley video on YouTube (thanks to User:Prodego User:Stwalkerster I believe, I'll get you for that next year!). The clincher for me was a search of Google news today. Public reaction to our April 1st front page was overwhelmingly positive - streaking Taoiseach and all. No complaints from the Irish government, no gotchas from the press for WP:BLP problems, no splutters of outrage from Brian Cowen, just appreciation of our humour. I really think that's the acid test Jeandré, if the public appreciates the fun, them maybe we do get too worried about these things sometimes. Now, I don't think you'll like it, but my answer to your question above would be: 'nothing', I would do nothing. I think Kimchi.sg's version was in slightly poor taste, but then 20 years ago, I thought fart jokes were hilarious. Taste in humour varies wildly. However, I believe that Kimchi.sg was genuinely trying to make Misplaced Pages funny, in the spirit of April 1st. I don't think that deserves any kind of sanction. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

7a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: Hi Carlos, thanks for the questions. It depends on the timing and the notability of the company. I'd research the company to see if it looked like it would survive an AfD. Let's assume the company meets our notability criteria. Then if the article had just been created, I'd decline the CSD request and watchlist. If it had been up for a while (say a day) with no progress, I'd check the author's contribs and leave them a message. A web link is not enough content for an article to survive long on Misplaced Pages.

7b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: Personally, I'd still like to give it 24 hours and leave the author a message before deleting - Someone could have lost 'net access while creating the article for example. However, I'm fairly sure another admin would pounce before then. I don't like new editors having their first contribs deleted without a friendly explanation - it drives people away from the project. In either deletion scenario, I'd leave the author a message (no boilerplate) apologising and explaining why their article had been nuked. I'd encourage them to contact me when they returned and then try to help them develop the article in userspace before reposting.

7c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: Nobody has yet violated WP:3RR even with the additional three edits you mention. At the same time, everybody needs to start using the talk page rather than the revert button. If I saw this situation, I’d probably leave some friendly messages to that effect.

7d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Consensus is important in both cases. I’d like to think that majority rule is not the same as consensus. I’d also hope that both article writing and deletion discussions could achieve true consensus through creative discussion and compromise. Unfortunately, I don’t think that is always the case, particularly in XfDs. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Jennavecia

8a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: Thanks Jen, these are excellent timely questions. There is definitely a problem with BLP articles. We are doing an absolutely horrible job of protecting our BLP articles. I’ll explain why. I’m sure the articles on Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarcozy and Kevin Rudd are quite well patrolled and watchlisted by many editors. However, the biographies of Hun Sen, Bun Rany and Norodom Sihamoni are very poorly patrolled. The same goes for articles on the Thai government and monarchy and probably for many, many other countries. In some of these countries lese majeste is a crime, in many, banning web-sites is the norm. I can tell you now, the only thing stopping Misplaced Pages from being banned in Cambodia a dozen times in the last year is pure luck. We’re lucky that government representatives haven’t seen some of the edits to these articles. We’re also damn lucky that there are a few people watching and correcting BLP vandalism in these less watched areas.

Forget worrying about whether Brian Cowen will be offended with the play on words about his ‘hanging’. In the last few years, I’ve seen Prime Ministers accused of murder, Royals accused of prostitution and Kings purported to be gay – all in Misplaced Pages articles.

I need some time catch up on the trial and the latest changes to answer the rest of your questions. I get back to them after I’ve done that. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of general statements first:

• I don’t want to place any barriers between IP editors and articles. Without them we would have very little Cambodia content at all (or Vanuatu, Cyprus or Burma content for that matter).
• However, I think we have to do something to protect BLP subjects from slander, libel and general calumny. We also have some responsibility to protect WP and the foundation from litigation and blame for diplomatic incidents.
• Not all of our BLPs are currently tagged as such – this will make effective patrolling impossible without an initial drive to tag biography articles.
• Flagged revs, semi protection etc will have an impact on our content. BLP articles will develop more slowly without free IP editing. Also many editors will need to spend time reviewing and monitoring that could otherwise be spent creating content. Huggle and some very very clever bot programming has given us back significant time we used to spend reverting silly vandal edits. Hopefully, this will mitigate the loss of editing time problem somewhat. However, I think we should consider actions to offset the likely reduction in expansion of BLP article content.

8b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: Yes, unfortunately we need them all, including liberal use of semi protection.

Request for clarification: So you believe BLPs should have flagged revisions, flagged protection and patrolled revisions as well as the liberal use of semi-protection?

Sorry for not being clearer – I have limited and unpredictable net uptime at the moment, so I foolishly tried to summarise. No we don’t need all 3 options for all BLPs.

1. Flagged revisions

I think this is the way en-wiki will go eventually after the trial has been evaluated. I have some misgivings, but I think that overall the effect will be a net positive.

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

I think these are sensible trial measures. They give the community the chance to get used to the idea and evaluate the impact and difficulty of implementation.

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

I believe semi protection should be used more liberally for unwatched BLPs. That said, I’m not planning to semi protect hundreds of articles myself without some kind of consensus that this is appropriate. Paxse (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

8c. You're patrolling recent changes and you come upon a BLP that has just seen the addition of an unsourced, mildly controversial change regarding the subject's career. While reviewing the edit, you see that the article is wholly unsourced. There are no other controversial claims, and the subject appears to a notable sports figure, but again, there's no source to establish notability. You then remember you have an appointment you need to get going to. What do you do with the article?

A: Horrible example. It leaves only two choices, both wrong. Either leave the edit in and run away or revert and then run away. I would revert with a polite message. However, after my “appointment” I would seek to add references. It’s often so damn easy to hunt down some references on Google, use the cite button and pop them into the article – why leave the problem and pass by? If the controversial change can be reliably sourced, then source it and leave it in. If it can’t, then it should be removed. The same goes for notability, the best protection against drive-by deletion tagging is references – search for some and add them to show notability. Turn on refTools under Gadgets in your preferences, learn how to use the cite template (it’s dead easy) – then bingo you can add stunning inline citations in under a minute.

<end rant>

I’m getting carried away here and I don’t mean you Jen, but I think you know what I’m trying to say. I’m off to reference something until I calm down. Sorry for the long rant and thanks for bringing up this issue (seriously). Cheers, Paxse (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

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

Discussion

• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk 01:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I’m having horrible ‘net and power problems here over the last few days, so my sincere apologies for the delay in answering questions. Cheers Paxse (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Candidate appears to be solid and should be a net positive.--Giants27 /C 12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - Clueful editor with varied experience. Will be a benefit.  Frank  |  talk  12:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Long on contributions; short on drama. No worries. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 12:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Support -He is great guy, excellent contributor and has an excllent way of staying away from wikidrama. My only concern is that on occasions he is absent for a great deal of time and that his interest towards the project may waver. For instance he left for a whole year between November 11, 2007 and October 27, 2008. Since however he seems to have become a very consistent editor and seems to have taken encouragement from somewhere that the project is worthwhile.Not sure why he needs the tools though, although he may find them useful for certain tasks, I hope it won't affect his development of the Cambodian districts!. Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, looks great. No concerns. ~ mazca 13:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Can't beat the noms, can't beat the edits, can't beat the value of this editor having the bit. — Ched ~ /_© 13:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
8. "Nukewar" ;) approves of this user. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Good experiences with this trustworthy editor, no reason for concern. FlyingToaster 15:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Nothing but good experiences. — neuro 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - excellent contributor. Jd027 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
12. Support he's an excellent contributor with a lot of experience. Frehley 15:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. An excellent candidate. Content contributor, civil (despite dropping the F-bomb nine hours ago), and has a good grasp of policies and procedures. There are some sizeable gaps in editing history, but this is a volunteer project and real life gets hectic at times. Useight (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - a good candidate with no problems I can see. The answer to his absence is understandable and no reason for any concern. I cannot share the concerns of Wisdom's oppose; admins are perfectly allowed to perform admin actions within the scope of their interests, as long as they are not involved in the dispute that needs administrative intervention. Regards SoWhy 16:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
15. Majorly talk 16:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Excellent contributions. GT5162 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Solid contributor. -download | sign! 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
18. Support My sincerest condolences on your daughter. GlassCobra 17:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Not enough administrators currently. Tan | 39 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. I don't often give a straight support to someone I don't know from AfD, because normally I want to see the prospective admin's attitude to deletion, but in this case I find the contributions are sufficient for me to decide.—S Marshall /_Cont 17:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
21. Strong Support Clean block log, civil talk and edit summaries, lots of quality contributions, (over 12,000 manual edits as well as over 2,000 automated ones). As Tan pointed out we are short of admins and I think Paxse is a great candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - Changed from oppose. See below for details. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Sterling contributions in two much-needed spheres. Steven Walling (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
25. Support: Having worked with Paxse at ACC and having stalked his contributions and talk page for a couple of months, I'm confident that he will make a superb administrator. Maedin\ 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Great contribs, and per GlassCobra. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
27. Support As nom. MBisanz 21:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
28. One need only look at his progress in the WikiCup to know this user cares for the project in ways many current admins do not.  GARDEN  21:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
29. Exactly per Garden. Absolutely impressed by work in WikiCup, clearly dedicated user. Good luck! iMatthew // talk // 21:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Looks Good. - Fastily (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
31. Support No concerns on the horizon. I really liked the answer to #4. Spinach Monster (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
32. Support per Tan. And because I fully trust the candidate. –Juliancolton |  23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
33. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Looks like somebody I would trust. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong support Excellent user. It's great to see activity on Cambodia related articles. SE Asia is pretty much dead on WP, unfortunately, well done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
36. Support per Dr. Blofeld --Caspian blue 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
37. Support per no objection found :) G'luck! Ray 02:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Nom says it all.... I like it! -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Per MBisanz and Synergy. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
40. Rather-astonished-he-wasn't-already-support - //roux   06:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
42. Support, and may you get many more DYK Cambodian articles. ;-) -- Mentifisto 09:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
43. Support. Short on the Misplaced Pages-space edits that I like to see, but clue outweighs that for the moment. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
44. Support' Really helpful on ACC. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
45. Absolutely Helped provide an outside opinion on Ice Wine, nothing but great interactions with Paxse in the past (other than getting ACC requests sniped before I could get to them)--Terrillja _talk 17:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
46. Support No complaints. America69 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
47. Support Per nominator, excelent ACC work - it seems to me this editor keeps out of the drama boards and just does what keeps them happy - and that the tools will only help further. Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concern. The opposer's comment is devoid of merit to an almost alarming extent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
49. Support. Strong candidate doing great work. -- Vary Talk 00:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support Wizardman 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
51. Support User has been around since Oct 2005 and has used Rollback very well and good track in particular in Cambodia related articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. See no reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. Jayjg 02:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Per everyone else :D--Res2216firestar 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - Great editor, will definitely be a + to the Misplaced Pages community. MathCool10 02:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
55. Support - Very nice contributions and a well-rounded candidate for adminship. Good luck, Razorflame 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
56. Support - Good head on shoulders. LK (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
57. Support I see no alarms. --GedUK  10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
58. Support definite positive, no red flags. Mayalld (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
59. 'Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 12:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
60. Support- Maybe if we give him the mop, he'll stop hogging the ACC requests :) PerfectProposal 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, but then you have to deal with me. o-;-) Synergy 14:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

61. Support because this person sounds like a real winner. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
62. Support. Good communication skills particularly; is on IRC (re ACC) regularly; no other complaints. - Jarry1250 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong support not only based on his legendary ACC work (nearly 900 accounts?!), the noms, and the enviable amount of DYK's, but also our first interaction; I asked Paxse for help and he kindly gave me what I wanted. He should be an admin both here and at ACC! →Dyl@n620 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Excellent user LetsdrinkTea 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, has numerous DYK credits, and as an adopter in adopt a user is dedicated to helping new editors (it is important that admins be helpful as they were be approached by many editors seeking help); in other words, the candidate is here to build a paperless encyclopedia and assist others here to do the same. Best, --A Nobody 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
66. Support   Steady growth in editors dictates we add qualified, sensible admins. This is such a candidate. --StaniStani  23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Erik9 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support ... but to set the record straight, MBisanz not only stole the nom from my suggestion (which is fine, because I'm a slakr), but he also didn't give me a heads up to be able to co-nom (which is total bollocks). :( I shall therefore rightfully be entitled to render copious amounts of trout unto him at my leisure. By the way, this is my first, ever, !vote for an RFA (despite lurking and rarely commenting), and it would have been my first nom, but noooooo... *eyeroll*. So yeah, Paxse. Totally don't know the person; haven't even had any interaction with him, but somehow I stumbled across him at wikicup, saw ridiculously good attitude+interpersonal skills+contribs, combined with a cheerful, fun rapport with fellow editors. It's exactly the type of thing that I think needs to spread, infectiously, among the community as a whole. Hopefully as a fellow admin that'll rub off on other admins as well. :P Cheers =) --slakr 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support, per noms, per answers to the first three questions, per content work as well as contributions to the project in other areas. Thanks for agreeing to help out in this capacity. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support, good evidence mainspace work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
71. Support, I trust this user. ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support, for the sake of Cambodia. Tavix (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. Looks like good admin material. Good content contributor with a grasp of policy. Cool3 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. Would be great admin. SD5 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support - A stone among pebbles. Tiptoety 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Excellent candidate. Dean B (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Support: Превосходный кандидат. South Bay (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support—per MBisanz. Capricorn42 01:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Looks good to me; best of luck as an administrator! Hersfold 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Paxse, you appear to be trustworthy. Wishing you well with mop and bucket! --Rosiestep (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Support. You appear to be an intelligent and thoughtful editor that will do well as an administrator. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support ^_^ Meetare Shappy 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Don't see anything wrong with this user. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Holy Sword of Support +10 Solid editor, working in an area that needs all the editors it can get. Good history as far as I can tell, and nothing in the Oppose section that concerns me. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 03:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Prodego 04:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
86. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
87. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Excellent candidate will make a solid admin. Royalbroil 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Support. Looks okay to me. — Σxplicit 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose - Editor feels it's appropriate to use protection and block functions in a Wikiproject where they are heavily active. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 13:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, of course he does; admins are expected to use their tools to protect Misplaced Pages from disruptions in all areas of the encyclopedia - except, of course, to further their position in in a dispute, which is not the same thing at all as blocking users who disrupt pages within the scope of one's project.  Sandstein  15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with that? If he said he didn't want to use blocking at all that wouldn't attract opposers, but saying he won't use it in a certain area does? Strange IMO.--Patton 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like Wisdom is saying that no one is objective about the things they care a lot about; sounds good to me, and I hope on wikiproject pages, the candidate will post at RFPP and AIV instead of wielding the mop himself whenever it's not clearly a matter of vandalism. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how I read it too. Thanks for your comment Wisdom89, I phrased my answer poorly above (and I don't know if I'm allowed to edit my answers or not). I would never block any editor over content on a page I was editing (or had significantly edited). If there was any hint of COI on my part, I would call in an uninvolved admin to make the call or simply post at WP:AIV. However, I would (briefly) block a vandalism only account (or perhaps a serial spammer) for simple vandalism, after adequate warnings, as permitted by the blocking policy. Ditto for page protection. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my comment, Paxse. Yes, you and Dan are precisely right regarding the nature of my COI concern. I feel that it's important that administrators do not wield the tools (especially block and deletion) in areas that they are passionate about and editorially associated with. In light of your stipulation to post to AIV/RFPP on pages which you are an active contributor, you have alleviated my concern. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   Thats really not a valid reason. We need and we ARE still looking for administrators so that is a redundant reason. Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   This is already being discussed at WT:RFA, please keep discussion of this oppose there. — neuro 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think it's necessary to reply to each and every oppose DougsTech makes. I'm sure by now he recognizes that his !vote holds little water. –Juliancolton |  00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Quick to judge. Occasional uncontrolled temperament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploringonions (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

   And how would you know that, what with your 4 contribs to Misplaced Pages? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose for answer to q6. The public I answered at m:OTRS didn't appreciate the childish and clearly false statements in the news section. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-03t12:04z

   So, if I may: How many negative complaints were there, compared to the number of positive mentions in the media? Also, you should know that Paxse doesn't have access to otrs, so he couldn't possibly know that there were complaints. Synergy 18:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

   Although I value your opinion and your work at OTRS (you guys are invaluable), it would seem to be that negativity bias, among others, might be at play here. For the 0.2% of the year that something remotely controversial lands on the main page resulting in a temporary spike in confusion/workload, it would seem, at least to me, slightly excessive to oppose a good candidate simply on the grounds that they wouldn't do what you would do for that 0.2% of the time, despite 99.7% of the time demonstrating everything else the community could possibly want in an administrator. Of course, that's a judgment call on your part— just saying I wouldn't make the same assessment based on the data available. --slakr 05:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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

About RfB

• WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

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

Avraham

Nomination

Final (135/6/3); Closed by Rlevse at 20:26, 08 April 2009 (UTC)

Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Approximately one year ago, I presented myself to the greater wikipedia community as a candidate for bureaucratship. I found the feedback I received those previous times to be both valuable and educational. Since that point we have had five excellent candidates successfully become bureaucrats. However, we have also lost the services of some of our more prolific bureaucrats. As such, I am still willing to volunteer my services to the project as a bureaucrat.

I had been approached by a number of people over the past six months about resubmitting my candidacy, and my original plan was to wait until a year had passed. My impetus for submitting my candidacy a month early is based on a specific need. Unfortunately, as the project has grown, the level of vandalism has increased dramatically, including vandalism that relates to the creation of inappropriate usernames—ones that defame and ones that violate privacy concerns. While there are mediawiki extensions that can hide usernames from logs, sometimes a full-out rename is called for. We have a few checkuser or oversight enabled bureaucrats, but there have been times when having more would have been helpful to protect the privacy of wikipedia editors or wikipedia biography subjects. As this need has been raised a few times recently on the functionaries mailing list, I have decided to post my candidacy earlier.

About me: I have been a member of this project since July 2005, and active since January 2006. I have over 29,000 edits, and near 31,000 if you count deleted edits. I was granted the community's trust as an administrator in July 2006. Most recently, I was appointed as a checkuser in October 2008. I am a sysop on the Commons and volunteer for the OTRS system. While the bots make clerking less of a need at the various name-change pages, I have taken the community's advice to heart and became more active at those pages. While I lack the technical ability to run a bot, I believe that I have the necessary understanding of the appropriate bot policies.

I hope that I my actions on this project and interactions with fellow contributors to this project have demonstrated the qualities and skills that the community requires of and desires in its bureaucrats and that you will allow me the privilege of contributing to the project in this fashion. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nom -- Avi (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. Yes, the criteria for promotion is community consensus. As stated on Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats: “They are bound by policy and consensus to grant administrator or bureaucrat access only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community, usually after a successful request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship.” This is what requires us to have a human bureaucrat; it is not for the times when the consensus is obvious one way or the other, it is for the gray zone. Common practice is that over around 80% is clear, and under around 70% is clear, but that zone in-between is where the community relies on the judgment of its bureaucrats to best determine what its consensus is.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. My first move would be to to discuss it with fellow bureaucrats, on an open page, where the bureaucratic consensus as to the community consensus can be followed and understood by all, as was done for my own unsuccessful second attempt. As there is bound to be those that will argue with whatever decision is reached in this kind of situation, having an open process and discussion makes the final decision more understandable which leads to much more acceptance. In the event I would be the only bureaucrat available to make this decision, I would do so with a detailed explanation of my thought process and which policies and guidelines were used to best capture the community's consensus, for the same reasons.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I have been an administrator on the English wikipedia for here for over 34 months. I have been considered worthy of that trust on the Commons as well. I have been trusted enough to be approached to mentor cases of editors as their last resort before community sanctions, and have been considered fair enough to be approached as such about editors whose issues deal with among our most difficult ones, such as the Palestinan-Israeli issues. I have been considered trustworthy, fair, and discrete enough to be allowed to volunteer on the m:OTRS list, where the most difficult and contentious issues that affect all Wikimedia projects, and are bound by the policies and guidelines of all of our projects, not just Misplaced Pages, are dealt with. Also, I have been considered honest, fair, and knowledgeable to be allowed to fight recidivist vandalism and sockpuppetry using the checkuser tool. I have done my best to both follow, as well as uphold, wikipedia policies and guidelines—both those that deal with article content as well as those that deal with inter-editor communications.

Questions 4-7

Optional questions from Jake Wartenberg adapted stolen from NuclearWarfare

4. How would you close these RfA/Bs? If you opine for a crat chat, please express what you would have said there as the final determination of the outcome.

A.

• Carnildo 3 61%:

  Unsuccessful.

• ^demon 3 63%:

  I would have brought this one to chat. There are mitigating circumstances as demon was an admin prior, but in lieu of anything else, this one would likely remain as no consensus/unsuccessful.

• Krimpet 67%:

  Unsuccessful

• Danny 68%:

  As I opined (Support #127) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would have brought this one to chat. There are mitigating circumstances in this one due to Danny's previous position as an employee of the foundation that would have likely made him have more people who would be happy to see him fail than the standard editor (OFFICE blocks, etc.) and these need to be factored in.

• Ryulong 3 69%:

  Another chat, but outside anything else, this too would default to unsuccessful due to lack of consensus.

• Gracenotes 74%:

  As I opined (Oppose #25) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not opposed, this would be another example of where the bureaucratic chat is key, as this turned more into a referendum on attack sites than a discussion about the candidate.

• DHMO 3 (at this point in time) 79%:

  As I opined (Support #280) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would likely have closed as pass at that time. Although, I should add that a chat would be helpful here too due to the number of opposes. (See question 12)

  Further question. Does oppose #74 have any particular relevance to your hypothetical closure? seresin ( ¡? )  06:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Are you asking me as an editor or as a bureaucrat? Asking me as an editor, which includes asking for opinions about the trustworthiness or non-trustworthiness of the people involved is irrelevant. What should have occurred, in my opinion, was for the accusatory information to be relayed to ArbCom who could follow up on it and either corroborate or refute it. Which may even have been done for all we know. -- Avi (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  If a release of private information occurred, the proper sanctions need to be levied. However, as a bureaucrat, one needs to take into account the hundreds of people who knew of the allegation and supported anyway. The bureaucrat's role is not to input his or her own opinions into the discussion but judge what the community feels. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hundreds of people who knew of the allegation and supported anyway is more than a mite inaccurate. In the ten hours between when the oppose was made and the RfA was withdrawn, four people supported and at least seven opposed citing east's oppose. Your response seems to indicate that you believe ten hours is enough time for most who commented to be apprised of the developments and re-assess their votes, and that in this case you have chosen to believe that they all supported despite east's oppose. Is this correct? seresin ( ¡? )  07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  The question as asked was specific to that particular diff of the discussion "(at this point in time)". If you would like to ask another question, by all means, go ahead. As an aside, please note my answer to question 6 below. -- Avi (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  Here, Seresin, I'll make it easier for you to decide:

  1. At that point in time, a chat is the best option, in which the points you raise could be discussed by the bureaucrats. As I have said many times in my years here, I am always open to being swayed by suitably convincing logical arguments.
  2. Were I the only bureaucrat available at the time of that diff, I would lean to close as pass (and I agree it is close).
  3. In the time AFTER the diff brought above, if the candidacy was discussion have not been removed, and remained open longer, and the proportion of opposes have risen, then that would have likely indicated a lack of consensus.
  4. As mentioned below, should the natural time of expiry have been accompanied by a distinct shift, the idea of extending the time should be raised in the chat.

  Note, that your question is not a logical extension of the original question, although it is related. -- Avi (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  I made no reference to time after the diff provided above; all the opposes I cited were present at the time you were asked to hypothetically close it. And of course it's a logical extension: I asked what bearing a specific oppose had on your closure, you said that it had little, because hundreds of people supported in spite of it, I asked if you thought supports remaining in the support column after ten hours indicates they have all read the allegation and decided it was not enough to oppose over (which I note you still have not answered). If you would like, I can re-ask this question as a totally separate one, so that you will have no confusion as to its logical source. seresin ( ¡? )  08:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  My apologies for not being clear. The original question by Jake Wartenberg made that reference to time, which is how I answered. You asked a question about my response to Jake, wich still had the time element. The numbered list above takes that into account specifically. May I suggest you ask a new question, hypothetical or otherwise, and specifically spell out what you are trying to uncover, so that there will be no confusion? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Riana's RfB 86%:

  As I opined (Support #91) I could not actually have closed that one. Had I not supported, I would likely have closed as pass. Although, I should add that a chat would be helpful here too due to the number of opposes.

5. One of of the bureaucrats elected in 2004 has yet to use any of the crat tools and others have used them very rarely. Do you think the bureaucrat position should have a minimum level of activity?

A. I think that bureaucrats should use the tools that they are given. I understand peoples lives change at times, and even in shorter time frames, peoples work and family lives may place greater and lesser demands on them. If the bureaucrat makes a good faith effort to use the trust the community has given him, fine. Someone who has not used the tools in 4 years should be approached as to why. A set minimum, however, can be counter-productive. I'd rather see gentle pressure placed on those not using the tools to start helping out. The community's view of bureaucrats has changed a lot since some of the earliest ones were appointed. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?

A. I have no set process or algorithm; each editor and discussion is unique. In general, I believe that discussions should not be extended; a week is usually sufficient time. The only situation I can think of as of now that would lend itself to having a discussion extended is if there a noticeable influx of comments near the end of the discussion. As the purpose of these discussions are to help the community reach a consensus, if a major shift is seen near the end time of a discussion, I would consult with the other bureaucrats as to whether or not some extra time would help the community reach a clear(er) consensus. -- Avi (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, Ugen64, and WJBscribe were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2008. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?

A.

• Francs2000:
• Optim:
• Eloquence:
• Ugen64:
• Danny:
• WJBscribe:

I think that all would have to stand for reconfirmation except for WJB as he was confirmed relatively recently and resigned in good standing. -- Avi (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions 8-10

Optional question from Letsdrinktea

8. Is 'JewsDidWTC' a disruptive username?

A: Yes, just as "MuslimsDidWTC" or "ChristiansDidWTC" would be. -- Avi (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from me...

9. How would you have closed this and what are your thoughts both then and now regarding it?---I'm Spartacus! 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A: I believe that the bureaucrats involved handled it very sensibly. This was right after, almost during, the discussions about lowering the RfB bar and Riana's RfB as well, and my case was not a compelling one for the bar to be dropped all the way to 82/83. While understandably personally disappointed at the time, I think they made the best decision under the circumstances, taking the time to discuss it. -- Avi (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

10. For each username listed below, please indicate whether it is acceptable or not acceptable on Misplaced Pages, with an explanation if you wish.

A: Answers below names.

• Dumb Democrat

  I would clarify if the user meant it disparagingly, or if they meant it as a humorous representation of themselves ("This user is a Dumb Democrat"). As can be seen from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names#FeygeleGoy, self-descriptive names like User:FeygeleGoy and User:Queer Scout have been judged acceptable. The user's editing pattern would shed light on this as well.

• ABCDEFG

  Acceptable. See WP:CHUU#Mr Senseless → 2

• UsinTheToilet

• I would approach this first by asking for a voluntary rename, and if that doesn't work, taking it to WP:RFCN. I do not think it is blatantly disruptive/offensive, but it is getting close.

• End Racism!

  While I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, this one already indicates a propensity to engage in WP:SOAPboxing, and can be considered disruptive.

• GodSucks

  This username also is unacceptable as it is offensive to a large group of people and will make harmonious editing difficult to impossible.

• Phallus

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Block/Phallus.

• Bob Hitler

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive.

• Jeffffffrey

  Depends. Is this a sock of a known vandal, or is this someone else? The former is blocked on site. A real, contributing editor who wants that name should have no problem using it.

• Mr. Abortion

  This would fall under offensive/disruptive.

-- Avi (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions 11+

Optional questions from User:Hipocrite

11. Apologies for the upcoming Kobayashi Maru multipart question, but I feel it is relevant, timely and important.

No problems. May I reprogram the computer to attack itself? Answers are interspersed with the questions in italics. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a checkuser. Will you checkuser all candidates before promoting them? No Why or why not? No need. If not, if a candidate for adminship somehow reminded you of a previous, unrelated checkuser result, would it be appropriate to checkuser the candidate? Perhaps Why or why not? It depends on whom the person reminded me of. If it is one of our recidivist sockpuppeteers (some of whom are outright dangerous) I would first check the log and see IF the candidate OR the target was checked and by whom, and inform THAT checkuser of my concerns. If there is none, I may ask another uninvolved checkuser for their opinion. If not, if a candidate was directly impeached by a previous checkuser result, but this was not disclosed to the public, how would you deal with this? Inform ArbCom.

1. If you were to run a checkuser, and the results of your checkuser were suspicious in some way, how would you address this? Depends on the some way. If slightly suspicious, I may ask another experienced checkuser to confirm/refute the conclusions. If very suspicious, I would inform ArbCom. If the results of your checkuser indicated that a user well beyond the threshold of "pass" was fundamentally unsuitable as an administrator, in your judgement, what would you do? I would inform ArbCom.

2. If you were not to run a checkuser on any given user, how do you justify promoting administrators who may very well significantly damage the encyclopedia? (Malicious and clueful administrators can cause substantial non-obvious damage if they chose to.) How does any non-CU bureaucrat close an RfA as pass according to that statement? We rely on good faith and the collective wisdom and perception of the community, who, as a whole, have been pretty d@rn good about picking their admins. Yes, an Archtransit can slip through, but in the main the admin corps have not been the issue. Misplaced Pages as it is currently formulated has a very strong culture of protecting privacy; only those people privy to privileged information have to identify to the foundation. Calling for a CU for every RfA/B/X runs very much counter to the current culture. The combined efforts of all editors, admins, CUs, and ArbCom have, so far, worked well together protecting the project from those who try to harm it. -- Avi (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies again, for the multipart and ambiguous question. Thank you for taking your time to answer it. Good luck. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Question from seresin

12.You are a bureaucrat. There is an RfA ready to be closed at this point in time. You look it over and make a decision as to how to address it (you stated above that you "likely would have closed as pass"). You stated above that oppose #74 has no special relevance to your decision, since the supporters all knew of the allegation and supported despite it. Do you think it is appropriate to close an RfA as successful with such an allegation (which was true, mind) sitting unresolved on the table? Do you, also, believe that in those ten hours, all the supports learned of the allegation and decided to support anyway?

A:This is a very difficult case. In a perfect world, the bureaucrats would have discussed this, and the points that you and others raise would be tossed back and forth, and likely the decision would have been to close as no consensus, as what actually happened. At the time mentioned, the allegation was still that, an allegation. The fact that it was later proved true would have required a prophetic revelation at the time, and alas, I am no prophet, just a human being whose judgment can and will be called into question. At that time, DHMO had not had the opportunity to respond, and allegations of that nature should not be assumed as fact unless proven (as this was, but hindsight is not foresight). As for the time element, we have a set time for rfA/B's - 1 week. Further, involved people have the RfB page in which they are interested watchlisted (just look at the history here). Unless someone is on vacation, or has a religious reason as to why they cannot access the page, ten hours, while not an eternity, is a long amount of time internet-wise, and a large proportion of people may be assumed to have seen it. This is especially true with "shocking" information that will spread via talkpage, IRC, and, as much as we don't like it vis-a-vis canvassing, external e-mail. The fact that a number of people switched to oppose is very relevant, but there is the matter of a self-selecting group as well. There is no record for those who decided to stay supporting, unless they actually posted to that effect.

However, I will state the following. I believe I erred in not answering the questions with the same level of investigation that I would have given had this been real. If you check the edit summary there is reference to a "partial answer," (the reason for which is irrelevant but I can let you know offline later if you want). After thinking this over, including analyzing the responses of the 4 hours post East, the 4 hours after that, and the remaining time until Keeper's edit, I think that the shift in thought, combined with the fact that DHMO still had not responses, would have made this one of those very rare exceptions where the time should have been extended. I do not think a no-consensus close there would have been appropriate, for if DHMO came back with a good reason, and people accepted that, the consensus would have been to pass. DHMO's actual response (withdrawal) would support the unsuccessful close. If the east information was posted on day one, there is a strong argument for a consensus to pass. It is the timing and the lack of response which leads me to think that an extension to clarify whether or not the previous apparent consensus would change based on the recent shock evidence would be appropriate, and this would likely be raised in bureaucratic chat which is the default in these cases, in my opinion. A close as no consensus, in my opinion, would be going against the apparent consensus to pass, IF the recent shock evidence was answered appropriately. There have been times where such accusations were shown to be misunderstandings or misrepresentations, and at the time at which you are asking there was no evidence; only one respected contributor's word against another respected contributor's (implied) word.

I'm not infallible, and nor do I claim to be. You have to decide whether or not my years and decisions here in wikipedia render me trustworthy, overall, to handle these situations or not. I appreciate your taking the time to investigate. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Question from Jennavecia

13. In question 10, you were asked if the username Bob Hitler was acceptable. You deemed it disruptive. Considering the surname Hitler is still found across the world today, albeit in small numbers (50 listed in the United States according to this site), do you believe it is inappropriate for users to register with their real name if that name carries negative connotations? Would you also disallow Sayid Hussein, Jose Stalin, or John Satan?

A: Before I answered regarding "Bob Hitler", I ran a check on google and there was really no reference to a real name, which is why I would view it as disruptive. If the person claims that this is a real name, I would try and convince them to pick another name, explaining that such a name would be offensive to many, many people here. If they are choosing "Bob" instead of Robert, can't they pick "BobH"? The next step would be a discussion at WP:RFCN. The same would apply to "Jose Stalin". "John Satan" may be Czech (note the URL, the people at Yahoo have a sense of humor :) ). "Hussein" is so ubiquitous a last name that there should be no issues with it at all. -- Avi (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham
• Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2
• Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion
• Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3

• Links for Avraham: Avraham (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Just to clarify, and without prejudice to your suitability as bureaucrat (an area of the project I do not get involved in), Avi, bureaucrats should not be renaming sensitive accounts. It compounds the problem, since you'll still need an oversighter to clean the rename logs, and probably the move, protection, or deletion logs for the userspace, whereas an oversighter can do all of this with a single click from the block interface. Dominic·t 02:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there have been specific instances where post-revision hiding the usernames needed changing as well. You have access to the mailing list, you know which case(s) came up very recently 8-). There are only a handful of bureaucrats who also have access to the general functionaries mailing list (former/current arbs, OS, and CU) and there is a need for more. There also is a need for more bureaucrats in general, and Kingturtle mentioned on WT:RFA. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of the mailing list, all of the calls for bureaucrats seem to be based on mixing up the ability to hide revisions individually with the ability to suppress an account entirely. What exactly is it that you think a bureaucrat can accomplish that isn't done better by actually using hideuser? I don't understand why a bureaucrat would ever need to be part of the process at all now, since RevisionDelete. Dominic·t 03:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Due to privacy concerns, I will answer you via e-mail. -- Avi (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• Editing and admin stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton |  23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Gave my reasoning last time, and nothing's changed since. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Same as Deacon. Avruch 23:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - We need more bureaucrats, and Avraham seems like an excellent choice. I see no reason to deny him bureaucratship. –Juliancolton |  23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Absolutely. Synergy 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support For sure. We need more 'crats- and Avraham will make a great one. PerfectProposal 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Best of luck in your new role. ^_^ Meetare Shappy 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Sure! Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support clear net positive - there is a need at the moment definitely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Avi is bright, experienced and hard working. He will make a good 'crat. Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - Per my rationale last time around. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 00:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - per Juliancolton and Majoreditor. -- FayssalF - 01:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Great thinker, very trusted. — JoJo • Talk • 01:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support Has been around since July 2005 and after reviewing contributions,Protects and Blocks clearly find a outstanding user and feel the project will only gain with the user becoming a crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Highly respect him, sound judgment and integrity, which is what we want in a crat. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No hesitation here, deserving editor will fill a need.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support, more bcrats with checkuser are sorely needed. Wizardman :  Chat  02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support MBisanz 02:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support, although with the same minor reservations as before. Joe 03:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Strongly support — Avraham arguably should have been a 'crat long ago; he is sane, sensible, and highly competent, as evidenced by his outstanding administrator and checkuser work. I'm glad to give my strongest endorsement to Avi for bureaucratship. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support the 'crats are few. DougsTech (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, so now this is an automatic Support from DougsTech because there aren't enough? Valley2city 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Are you a bot? DougsTech (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    You're the one posting the same thing over and over. Majorly talk 13:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    That makes me a bot, right? DougsTech (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

22. Support Trustworthy. rootology (C)(T) 05:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support I thought you were a 'crat, already. Well, anyway, he does great things on here, and if things go as they are now, it looks like the evening of April 8th you will have something extra to celebrate besides freedom from slavery. Valley2city 05:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support -per every other support here. Couldn't say it better myself. Until It Sleeps 05:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Without question. Despite my previous opposition, my interactions with Avi over the last few months leave me without reservation when I support this candidacy. Has the experience and the aptitude – and the judgement. Will make a fantastic addition to the team. Best of luck! —Anonymous Dissident 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Per Casliber and any number of other editors. Glad I was paying more attention this time around. Risker (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support. I trust Avraham's judgment and he has shown himself to be a constructive and helpful communicator and contributor over the last few years. I feel he would make an excellent bureaucrat. Rje (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. I reluctantly abstained from Avi's RfB#2, as I thought it was premature. A pleasure to support now, as the reasons for my earlier support still apply. NSH001 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, as last time. No misgivings at all. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose - Too many bureaucrats currently. FlyingToaster 13:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    There aren't enough 'crats, actually. –Juliancolton |  16:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

    Well, dress me up and call me Sally. FlyingToaster 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

32. Support. I continue my support. :) I believe Avi is diligent, intelligent and motivated and will use any tools he is granted wisely and where they are needed. --Moonriddengirl 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support I trust him. IronDuke 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support And Giggy should have passed. No concerns as far as I can see. Majorly talk 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - Screw my neutral, there's no need to abstain over something like that. The real question here is whether Avi would make a good 'crat, and I see nothing to indicate not. — neuro 14:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Fine admin, need more 'crats with checkuser. Paxse (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Anonymous Dissident says it best. This candidate (while still overusing smileys :) ) has become one of the people I most trust to do the right thing here... my previous opposition has become a strong support. Avi's many helpful and sage comments on the functionaries mailing list show that he is definitely ready for this role and then some, and his hard work shows he has the time to devote to do a great job. Also, we need crats with checkuser. Absolutely yes. ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Avi's comments have always seemed fair and clueful, all over the wiki. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support no reason to oppose. GT5162 16:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Per the 39 above.--Res2216firestar 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Keepscases (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Absolutely. Thingg 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support I'll trust his as a 'crat. hmwithτ 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support This looks like an easy one. Fair and calm, excellent attributes in a bureaucrat. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Fine worker, moderate views, should work out just fine. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Support--Giants27 /C 19:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - would be a good bureaucrat. DVD 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Support - Great editor and admin, answers to questions are good. Unquestionably has the temperament and perception to be a good crat. J.delanoy_adds 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
49. Support - no reservations, excellent editor, soon-to-be great bureaucrat. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, same as the last two. Hard to believe it's already been a year since the last one... GlassCobra 20:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support without any reservation. shirulashem (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support. The candidate is fully qualified for bureaucrat status under the traditional criteria, and his answers to the questions are satisfactory. In addition, I can attest that the rationale for selecting one or more checkuser- or oversight-enabled bureaucrats to deal with certain types of vandalism-related emergencies, as set forth in the self-nomination statement, is compelling. I have reviewed the opposer's rationale and find it wholly unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support - No concerns with his record, we need more bureaucrats, the bureaucrat tools are not very dangerous, and having a checkuser-enabled bureaucrat would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Repeat Support Agathoclea (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Of course. -download | sign! 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support faithless () 22:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. Avi is a well-respected, sensible and competent administrator and checkuser. He is clearly trustworthy and is fully aware of the responsibilities and functions that go along with becoming a bureaucrat - I have no concerns about his suitability at all. ~ mazca 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong support I have full faith in Avraham. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
59. 'Support'ДСФАРГЕГ --ДСФАРГЕГ (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)— ДСФАРГЕГ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
60. Support Interaction with this user at MedCab makes me believe that he is competent and civil. Jd027 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Avi has shown bureaucratly patience by waiting a year and bureaucratly sensitivity to community needs by lopping a month off that year. Supporting per my support last time and per His Adminship Faithlessthewonderboy's rationale. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Also based on the support by Moonriddengirl, Lar and Newyorkbrad, users whose opinions I particularly value; especially Lar's rationale. 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC). I, too, was impressed by Avi's answer to Q12.
62. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
63. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
64. Support - I thought I did this earlier. Xclamation point 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
65. I supported Avraham's last two RfBs, and I support this one too. Acalamari 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - per, well, everything above. —Ed 17 03:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
67. Support per above - Fastily (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
68. Support and I am baffled how anyone could oppose based on a proposed closure of the DHMO RfA, which had strong arguments on both sides for how it should be closed. I personally would have asked for an extension rather than close it at that point in time, but I would not argue with anyone who would choose to promote. Avraham's other qualifications are good enough for me. He's jumped through enough hoops for this and I am anxious to see how he would perform as a bureaucrat. Sincerely, Enigma 05:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Looks fine, and answered the questions well, showing the considerations necessary, even if the outcomes may have been different to mine. --GedUK  10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I trust this user not to violate the communities trust. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
71. I see no problems. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
72. Support I trust him and find him to be someone you can deal with. Yossiea 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. Experienced, sensible, and a good understanding of policies and guidelines. Axl ¤ 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
74. KillerChihuahua 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
75. Support I have no reason not to. America69 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Dedicated and trustworthy. Good answers to questions. Steven Walling (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
77. Would you expect otherwise? A pleasure to support. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
78. Support A pleasure to see a desire to seek consensus on borderline cases. — Lomn 20:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
79. Support I am impressed by the thoughtful way Avi answered the "historical" RfA/B questions - I may have not agreed with each of the responses, but 'Crats have passed many Requests where there was considerable community support which later turns out was for a poor candidate. 'Crats will make mistakes in promoting just as the community will in !voting, but as long as judgment is exercised it cannot be a reason to oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
80. Support lar. Prodego 21:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
81. Support --Stephen 01:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
82. Support -Dureo (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
83. Support - Knowledge of policies, and trustworthy. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
84. Support He seems to know what he's doing. Very helpful too, and understands policies well. Antivenin 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
85. Support - good administrator and seems to understand the RfA/RfB process as well as any admin. Good answers to questions. -- Ynhockey 10:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
86. I was impressed by DHMO's answer to question 12, and I believe he is both trustworthy and intelligent enough for the role. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 12:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

    You might want to clarify. :P Enigma 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

87. Support Erik9 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
88. Support I see no good reasons to oppose this candidate. FunPika 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
89. Support; I have confidence in Avi's judgement. AGK 17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
90. I don't know what kind of support this is. Does it matter? Avraham has expanded on his response about DHMO's RfA. I think he understands the concerns about it. I doubt he would make any mistakes in the future about it. Although I wish he would say more about canvassing and how that negatively impacts RfA (especially with such a high turnout that most likely stemmed from that), he showed that he is at least concerned by the many nuanced issues. But really, I am supporting mostly because of Lar. I have a strong faith in his judgment and if he is willing to trust someone then that goes a long way. It is not like my support will really matter, but my oppose probably didn't matter either. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
91. Support as I am convinced that having Avi as a bureaucrat w/ CU will be a benefit to the project. Fraud 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
92. - filelakeshoe 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
93. Support He has the right skills for the job, I have great confidence in his judgment.--Shmaltz (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
94. Support for reasons well outlined by AD and Lar. لennavecia 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
95. Support. No major concerns. Candidate has my full trust. — Σxplicit 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
96. Support. Dwr12 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
97. Support - This is the third time now I have supported you at RfB. Trusted and well committed, you should make a great bureaucrat. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Why not. ∗ \ / (⁂) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
99. Support.--Anatoliy (Talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
100. Clearly unplanned WP:100 support :D  iMatthew :  Chat  15:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
101. Yup; everything looks good here; I have every confidence in his judgement. Antandrus (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
102. Avi has a good head on him - he'll do well. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
103. I can't believe I didn't already vote. Oh well, here you have it.  GARDEN  21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
104. Support; no issues and there can only good coming from more active holders of the 'crat flag. — Coren  00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
105. Support You bet! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5  00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
106. Support. Excellent candidate. Jayjg 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. Do I need to state a reason? Per everyone above. Jehochman 03:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
108. Support A candidate who has earned the respect of many experienced editors...Modernist (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
109. Support a thoughtful Wikipedian with unusually good judgement. Jakew (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
110. Support Good candidate, no problems —LetsdrinkTea 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
111. support There may be a reason for some general concerns about the concentration of rights, but in this case at least it is justified. DGG (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
112. Support. I've been hearing only good things about Avraham. —Admiral Norton 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
113. Support per all the above Xavexgoem (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
114. Yeah, without a doubt. Steve Crossin /₂₄ 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
115. Support Will make an excellent bureaucrat. gidonb (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
116. Support Looks good to me. Like the answers. Good Luck! Nathan Laing (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
117. Secret 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
118. Support. No brainer. -- lucasbfr 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
119. Support Good judgment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
120. Support. About time. Khoikhoi 19:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
121. Support Good Candidate --Mardetanha 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
122. Support, excellent candidate, good answers to the questions, knowledgable and trustworthy. Will make a fine bureaucrat. Dreadstar † 21:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
123. Support. I think Avi will make a good bureaucrat. I confess the answer to Q4 re:DHMO gave me pause but I am reassured by the answer to Q12. I recommend that Avi give some further thought to the issue of evidence presented late in community discussions and the need to ensure that consensus is still present before "positive action" (i.e. granting extra rights) is taken, as I still think the answer leans the wrong way - it is not for bureaucrats to assess the validity or significance of matters that can be left to the community to consider. That said, there is more than one way to skin a cat and I certainly do not intend to oppose those who might make decisions I would not. Avi has the necessary experience, the necessary integrity and knows when to listen to advice (whether he ultimately chooses to follow it or not). He will do fine IMO... WJBscribe (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
124. Support, moved from oppose. Q12 was enough to sway me, as was Will's support just above. --Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign) 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
125. Support - Have observed Avi around and have a favorable impression. Some of the questions are hard (no surprise) and there aren't necessarily right and wrong answers in every case. On balance, I like what I have seen in the past and what I see in the answers above, even if not every answer is perfect. A definite plus.  Frank  |  talk  00:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
126. 'support Slight concerns over the Giggy matter but nothing major. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
127. Support We need crats with checkuser and he is a good choice for the work. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
128. Support Spencer 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
129. Support Certainly. Checkuser crat seems a good idea to me, and i see no alarms
130. Strong support One of our best admins. Has my complete confidence. — Aitias // discussion 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
131.  Roger Davies 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
132. Support Good admin job -Altruism 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
133. Support fully meets my standards at User:Bearian/Standards#WP:RfB_standards. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
134. Support. Avi is an excellent candidate for the role. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
135. Support per answers and the fact that this is one of the users that I would most trust with 'crat buttons. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)