User:JetLover/WikiRoom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the WikiRoom, a hub of activity that shows everything going on in the Wiki.

We currently have 2,406,527 articles on Wikipedia.

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Alerts

[edit] Bot-reported

[edit] User-reported

[edit] XFDs




For even more, see WP:XFD.

For debates going on, see Category:Articles for deletion, Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion, and Category:Miscellaneous pages for deletion.

[edit] Images

Copyright status, fair rationale use, and all that is a problem with uploaded images, so to check on them, see the upload log in the logs.

[edit] Usernames

For a log of recent user accounts, see Special:Log/newusers.


[edit] Bot-reported

  • Matches the regular expression jew(\s|-)*(boy|down). The portion that matched was Jewboy. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Matches the regular expression called IP address. The portion that matched was 31.32.33.34.
  • The string called IP address has a comment associated with it: The pattern of numbers in the name resembles an IP address. IP addresses may be potentially be used to identify people and their presence in names may be considered disruptive. HBC NameWatcherBot (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This user has edited at least one time.
  • Matches the literal pattern smelly.

[edit] User-reported

[edit] Template library

[edit] RFAs

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance).


Requests for adminship sections
Main page
edit | watch
Active nominations for adminship and bureaucratship		 Talk page
post | watch | archives
Bureaucrat noticeboard
Discussions related to RfA		 Past nominations
Successful RfAs
Unsuccessful RfAs
Successful RfBs
Unsuccessful RfBs
Nomination data
User rights log		 Nominate
To nominate an editor		 Related reading
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Guide to RfA
Arguments to avoid
Admin reading list
Admin how-to guide
Current admin count: 1,555 (list all)
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RfA
WP:RFB
WP:RBAG
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

Contents

[edit] About administrators

Administrators gain access to privileged maintenance tools including page deletion, page protection, blocking and unblocking, and access to modify protected pages and the MediaWiki interface. See Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools for a full discussion of these tools and their use. Administrative actions are publicly logged just as any other changes are, and can, if necessary, be reverted.

[edit] About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia 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.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections. 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, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

[edit] Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly.


[edit] Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:50:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

[edit] Ironholds

Voice your opinion (talk page) (9/17/7); Scheduled to end 16:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironholds (talk · contribs) - I've been editing wikipedia for around 2 and a half years as Ironholds and under a previous account name, and amassed 9,011 edits not including this RfA. Wikipedia takes up a large chunk of my time; i should be revising for exams at the moment, and have put myself on Wikibreak, but for me that translates as less edits rather than none. I'm requesting adminship for two reasons; firstly to make my central chunk of work (deleting vandalism/advertising) easier, and secondly and most importantly to make other peoples lives easier. As a newbie user i'd ask admins for advice and help when it came to deleting random chunks of nonsense, or what to do with X page, and i found it could take a long time for any reply; no criticism of the administrators themselves, but 1,500-odd for 7 million users is a large ratio, and anything i can do to help out other users is for the better.

Ironholds 16:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The other side of WP:AIV (i currently work on nominating them in the first place) and working on MfD's and AfD's would be a big one, since i feel they are currently neglected. I realise M/A discussion pages can be worked on by anyone, but i find that they can stay open for a long time after a visible consensus (keep/delete) has been achieved, wasting time. I'd also like to work on (something rather new to me, of course) page protection, particularly SALTing deleted pages. Apologies if my comments sound too deletion-friendly, but most admin tool tasks are deletion/restoration related.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say the expansion of the Pure Reason Revolution articles were quite good, but not really my best contributions. I work in a rather unknown field, and that's clearing userpages, checking them for improper text or more specifically advertisement. So i'd put the constant ad-removal as my best contribution. Userpages are still part of wikipedia and what the world see's wikipedia as, and should be kept to as high a standard as we expect articles to be kept.
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: A user who took offense to me nominating an essay on his userpage (about the nature of congress) for deletion is the only major one i can think of. I dealt with it by giving him pointers on how to improve the article, and when this failed then nominating it through MfD rather than CsD, hoping that either a consensus of editors would convince him i wasn't quote "biased" or alternately, if they found it appropriate, that i would then learn something.
Question from Dlohcierekim
4. Did you seek admin coaching or editor review after the last RFA?
A: I did, several weeks ago. I went through editor review, which went fine, but still have not had a reply to my request for admin coaching.

Optional questions from RyRy5

5. If you see two or three different IPs repeatedly vandalizing the same article, what steps will you take to ensure that it stops?
A:
6. You find an admin account that hasn't been active for many months starting to vandalize. What would you do?
A:

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Ironholds
Requests for adminship/O Keyes Requests for adminship/O Keyes 2

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

[edit] Discussion

  • Would you mind identifying your previous username? As it stands, we can only opine on the past 2+ months of edits, which isn't much time to base opinions on. Mahalo, Ironholds. --Ali'i 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I was previously User:O keyes Where i had 2 failed RfA's (i wasnt quite sure the policy on how i should've numbered this one) but i've changed a lot since then in terms of temperament. A metaphor would be buying a pair of glasses; i'm no longer lashing about wildly with my walking stick trying to get somewhere and instead hitting everyone on the shins. Ironholds 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I added links to the previous RFAs. Gary King (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say one quick thing. If I had deleted my userboxes before making the RfA, a lot of the opposition would've had much less to say; 3 users would have had no other points, and this was the central point of 2 more (as of this moment). Deleting the userboxes would not have changed my beliefs, simply the way they were expressed. An argument has already occurred over whether or not the userbox is appropriate for use; if you look at the MfD discussion for it you'll see an overwhelming consensus that it is, so why am I being judged on that? more importantly, this should not be the sole arguing point against me. Surely you should look at my contributions as much as "what I find amusing" (I accept many editors have done so, and i have nothing really to say against them). I'm studying a politics degree, of course my userboxes are going to be political in nature. Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I take it it wouldn't be appropriate for me to alter my userpage while the discussion is taking place? Ironholds 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the answer to that would be 'no' as it might be taken as trying to influence the outcome... CultureDrone (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would be inappropriate, as long as you commit to keeping the potentially offensive/divisive userboxen off your page if this RFA is succcessful. xenocidic (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you explain your belief in the right for insurgents in Iraq to kill soldiers who are trying to stabilize the country to ensure a safe future for the Iraqi people? Dunnsworth (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that relate to my admin-worthiness in any way? If you want to debate this with me then my talk page is a more appropriate location. Ironholds 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Some might disagree with your statement, such as around two-thirds of the American people :D. As far as I'm concerned, a user can express any any opinion on politics, religion, sexuality, etc., and as long as they show they are dedicated to improving Wikipedia and upholding policy, they are a perfectly legitimate editor. This does not mean I am supporting this user's RfA, merely defending him from misplaced assault on his beliefs. Any discussion about his beliefs should go on his user talk page, if any place at all. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Support, I see no reason to believe candidate would abuse or misuse the tools. --Rory096 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Has over 9,000 edits and over 2 months of experiance. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually he has half that amount, see this for details. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's probably higher if you add in the old account. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, so he has over 9,000 from both accounts combined. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    His old account has 3,355 edits, which - added to the current account - puts him at 7,951 total as of now. That doesn't include deleted contribs and whatnot, though. I'll add that, since the user apparently does a significant amount of tagging for speedy deletion, as evidenced by a sample of their deleted contribs, a total of 9,000 isn't out of the realm of possibility at all. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Correction: He has over two years of experience. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support - for whatever my opinion is worth. He's been active across a broad spectrum of editing areas - sure there have been some possible erroes, but even experiended admins make mistakes..... :-) In my limited dealings with him, I've always found him courteous and friendly. What I am concerned about is that this RfA seems to be moving towards, not an opinion of his editing and/or contributions to WP, but to his choice of userboxes. Taking that to the logical extreme, that would imply that no editor with anything other than uncontroversial WP edit-related userboxes could be trusted to give an unbiased review to any article - atheists would be biased against religious articles, LGBT editors would object to anything said against Judy Garland, Protestant editors would be vandalising Catholic articles, Trekkies (or is it Trekkers these days ?) would be adding articles on quantum flux in photon torpedo matrices.. etc. etc. - none of which I believe to be the case (except maybe the Trekkie one.. :-)) - someone please tell me if I'm wrong. Editors MUST try and retain an editorial impartiality - for those occasions where they don't, WP has multiple review processes. As I read this, the particular userbox mentioned, which the candidate did not create themselves, has been approved for use and is probably used right now by other editors - so does that mean they're all unsuitable for adminship ? If so, then presumably, anyone with a 'I believe in religion x' userbox should be excluded from adminship for the same reason ? What if an editor was given adminship and then decided to add this userbox afterwards ? Does that mean they're suddenly not an impartial editor and will start biasing their editing ? Can we please drag this back to an opinion of whether this person would be a good administrator or not ? IF he exhibits a bias against religious articles, they can be easily reverted, and his adminship removed. Ok, that's the longest paragraph I've put on WP - I need a lie down :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and for all the Trekkers out there who I may have offended - my comment wasn't intended to be taken seriously :-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think the perceived problem is the "take you er, beliefs elsewhere." But, we can't take responsibility for all users feelings all the time. Might not someone question my neutrality because I identify as German-American or because I have an MLK userbox? Of course someone might. Whether or not they would be reasonable to do so, that's the thing. Dlohcierekim 20:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed - surely we should be less concerned with the personal beliefs/preferences of someone applying for adminship (which they may not even express via userboxes), and more concerned with the actual edits/decisions they make ? Besides, what happened to WP:AGF ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Moral support. Looks like this RfA won't pass, but I wouldn't oppose for that userbox. People are people, they all have unpopular views and biases. I'd rather know about them than not know, and if you delete something that someone cares about they will be unhappy with you regardless. Having your views out on the table doesn't hurt the collaborative process, it helps - anything that introduces clarity to debate (such as knowing where editors are ideologically coming from) assists people in coming to acceptable compromise. Whether that userbox is the absolute best way to alert people to your background is debatable, obviously. Some folks might be offended, but I think fewer than some in opposition would expect. What we're seeing mostly is people who are not offended worrying about those others who might be offended. The other oppose rationales have been perhaps a bit anemic, but that can be attributed to the dominance of the userbox issue. If, before this is closed, someone comes up with a solid non-userbox rationale to oppose I'll just say this: Being an admin isn't that important, and if you wait 6 more months or a year, it won't hurt you or Wikipedia. AvruchT * ER 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I agree - this doesn't look like it will pass, but I was just trying to ensure that a policy wasn't being adopted of opposing (or supporting) RfAs based on someone's userboxes. CultureDrone (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, Avruch, that was good. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Weak support from Neutral Please be more careful, per criticisms below. Please check more carefully for assertions of notability. Sometimes it's better to revisit an article rather than tagging it to soon. You also have options of tagging for improvement, redirect, or for AFD. Found 349 articles that had been deleted after being tagged for CSD. Mistakes may have been abberation. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Moral support, and the only thing keeping me from full-fledged support is a slight propensity towards bitey behavior. Learn to lighten up on the newbies and I think you'd make a fine administrator. For what it's worth, I find opposition based on userboxes (and this RfA is not the only case) to be rather silly. Shereth 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Firstly because I can't find anything that worries me, secondly because some of the oppose votes worry me greatly. Userboxes an issue? Please. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.  Channel ®   23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support (as userbox host) if only to counteract the.. people.. that opposed simply due to a bloody userbox. I would for one much rather an admin who is not afraid to state his views and work with others regarding his biases than one who acts all smiles on his user and then goes postal with the mop. I am in complete and utter shock over some users underneath me in the Oppose section. I am on the verge of feeling sick, and I have run completely dry on words. Ironholds is a solid experienced editor that I am lucky to get behind and support. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Supporting a candidate to spite the opposition is a terrible idea. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    Not my intention. I do it to 1) try to balance out what I consider invalid oppose votes and 2) I would've supported even without this userbox nonsense. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Although I disagree with the user page deletion. Additionally, capitalizing your I's and some article writing would be appreciated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose based on last userbox in profile. Being an atheist is fine; being intentionally disrespectful towards others' beliefs is not, not for an administrator. Keepscases (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    It's not intentional disrespect. We're just finishing off an MfD dealing with exactly that userbox which seems to confirm it is acceptable; see here Ironholds 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Perhaps it's "acceptable" on Wikipedia, but it's condescending, disrespectful, and unbecoming for a potential administrator. I'm not a religious person, by the way. Keepscases (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Then i can remove the userbox. The box doesnt affect how i edit, my personal beliefs or anything else. Surely you should look at my contributions as well as personal beliefs. Ironholds 17:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to agree w/ Keepscases. Even though it isn't meant personally, it can cause problems with other editors (potentially simmering and unspoken). There are loads of userboxes, and this one is a little too up-front and I think many people can find it disrespectful considering the options. Ugh. Politics ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    In which case, surely that implies that the userbox in question should never have been approved for use - and, carrying that further, nor should any other religious/ethnic/sexual preference etc. related userbox. Then again, perhaps this isn't the forum to discuss that :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    <ec>Are userboxes like booby traps--designed to blow up the RFA's of the unsuspecting?? Why do we have userboxes that are so terrible that just using one makes one unacceptable to be an admin? No doubt the candidate is confused. I know that I am. Not one to wear my beliefs on my sleeve, I don't much care what others think of them. Sometimes people are too easily offended by userboxes, and I don't see that this one is enough to oppose for. Dlohcierekim 18:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    (e/c)I think the key difference here Ironholds is that while your personal beliefs will not affect how you edit, it can potentially and certainly effect how other editors view your edits. Say you speedy delete a church article for example from a new user. No matter how crappy the quality of the article, that userbox taints your decision in some editors' eyes. Or you page protect an article about a pro-life company. Or close an AfD about a Democratic presidential candidate. While you have every right to your opinions, and have every right to display them on your userpage, I completely understand Keepscases hesitation if you become a higher profile editor with the ability to block/delete/protect articles while at the same time displaying userboxes that hold exceedingly controversional views.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per this New users having speedy deletions on their userpage can be put off the project. Plus, there's nothing wrong with test pages in userspaces, which would suggest this user's misunderstanding of the speedy deletion criteria.(My mistake, it was nominated for MfD) PeterSymonds (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. I was looking over the contributions and I was going to support, but I read #1 and it gives me pause. I am agnostic/atheist as well, but the ubox would make me mistrust any administrator who displayed it to judge fairly on those kinds of topics. MrPrada (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am atheist and my best mate is a devout Jehovah's Witness. Interestingly, I haven't killed him yet. I think Ironholds is by far capable of showing the same restraint. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose not enough article work, You're far too eager to be an admin, your userboxes are far too political for my taste, you're an overt deletionist and I don't really trust you enough. RMHED (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I'm going to have to oppose per the diff brought up by Peter Symonds. The history shows you originally tried for a speedy before taking it to MFD. Testing in the userspace should be encouraged, not discouraged. Too bitey, I'm afraid. xenocidic (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose I sense power hunger here. Your userboxes concern me slightly, but I really shouldn't base my opinion of of that. More importantly, this leads me to believe you don't have enough experience. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I am also a bit unnerved by some of the userboxes and the candidate seems a bit too biased in regards to deletion/inclusion criteria. Plus, somewhat inexperienced (only an editor since April of this year on this account). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    April on this account, yes, if you read my statement you'll see I had another 2 years experience with a different account.Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. There are several reason for my oppose. First, as mentioned above was this edit in which you MFD'd a userpage of a user who was trying to figure out formatting in his userspace. And this occurred on the same day that that particular user created his account. And what makes it worse? That user has not returned to Wikipedia. Also, I don't think you communicate enough. Communication is a valuable trait in an administrator and you only have 6 edits to Wikipedia Talk (both accounts combined). You do have a lot of User Talk, so I checked into it. Of your last 500 User Talk contribs, 395 of them were templates via Twinkle. Also, I don't think setting up an RFA while on a Wikibreak is the best idea in the world and your userbox at the bottom of your page is definitely not the best idea in the world. You can be Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc, I don't care. You can even put a userbox stating your religion or lack thereof, I don't care. But bashing other people's religious beliefs is unacceptable. But that userbox is just an aside, my real reason for opposing is for that MFD a couple days ago and for being uncommunicative. One other note, and it's incredibly minor and had no weight when I was composing this oppose, is your consistent use of "i" instead of "I". As a WikiGnome I found it rather annoying, but know that I am not and never would oppose someone for something that petty, I just wanted to point it out to you. Useight (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you read my statement, or even look at my edit history, you'll see that i've been on said wikibreak for 2-3 weeks and am still active, and that wikibreak means less edits, not none. It's not "bashing others beliefs", I put it because I found it humourous. And that editor hasn't been back, no, but that can't be traced directly to me. That's like stating that a person has cancer because he drank water. Yes, he has cancer. Yes, he drank water. But there's no link between the two. I've made probably 40 MfD's in the last few days, I dont see why one of them is so important. We expect admins to be good people, yes, but not saints. We are all humans. Ironholds 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I did read your statement. And I did look at your edit history. I don't just add on !votes without taking a very careful look. I have bolded my main reasons for opposing above. As for that particular editor disappearing, it's a correlation not a causation. You'll also find in my RFA criteria, that I find commenting on so many of the opposes to be bad form. Useight (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. It's my policy to oppose candidates who display divisive ideological content of any sort on their user page. Administrators make decisions with real-world consequences; they must avoid even the appearance of ideological bias.  Sandstein  20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yet, those biases are still there. I would prefer an administrator who accepts and informs us of his biases, so we can work together to ensure neutrality, than one who hides himself and his views (which are usually unearthed anyway, and in less-than-flatering circumstances). +Hexagon1 (t) 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose You could worship your horses's left nut for all I care, but when you insult other people it makes you seem immature. Immature admins tend to do immature things.--Koji†Dude (C) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose. As a fellow atheist, I naturally have no problem with your userbox. However, your nomination statement says to me that you have little experience of WP:ANI, something infamously valuable as an administrator. More experience in that area and I would support next time. Thanks for self nomming, which is why this is a weak oppose. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Go for quality, not quantity. And the [[User:Davidhater] thing was not quality. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose. I think you should concentrate fully on your exams. Jack?! 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) After a nice discussion with Keeper, I am chaning to neutral. I appologize for the rushed oppose! Jack?! 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    ...and I should really be working. Got anything else? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I have to say, i have no problem with opposing but can you come up with a better reason than "if we make you an admin you wont be able to contribute for a whole two weeks"? Ironholds 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've also addressed this oppose on Jack's talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I promise this isn't about you're userbox. If I were you, I would have blown the box up to take up your entire User page just to mess with everyone. However, I am concerned with your lack of experience in basically anything non-Twinkle, especially in article contribution. I sympathize with you as an atheist, a gnome, and a Twinkle addict; but you're just not ready for adminship. Paragon12321 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - While I don't see it indicated direct by the candidate, I've seen some pretty bitey and borderline reports to WP:UAA, which I can only assume is an area where they will end up working. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Most of it's done through automated javascript tools, so i dont see how it could be bitey :S. Could you give me a link to examples? when i fail this nomination (probably through WP:SNOW) i'd like to know what i've done wrong other than express my beliefs in the "wrong way". Ironholds 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose-I don't give a damn about what the user has to say about religion, and I don't think a user's thought about religion should be a criterion. However, I am concerned about the user's lack of non-twinkle experience. If I was you, I would have waited for a reply on admin coaching before self-noming. I personally am scared about his only 32 mainspace talk edits. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    The preemptive MfD on User:Davidhater also concerns me. Admins should be welcoming and encouraging to new users.Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I was floating around on MfD earlier and my main thought on seeing your massive pile of contributions to it was that "Wow, this guy needs to relax and stop scouring peoples' userspaces for trivial violations", but it didn't bother me at the time. Upon now connecting that to an RfA, it bothers me a lot more. ~ mazca talk 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    "trivial violations" on userpages; the only userpages i MfD are either a) blatant advertising or 2) three-page essays on how awesome a person is. I'm currently dealing with a 27-year-old Finnish male who believes that jesus appeared in his mirror to tell him he's the representative of god on earth and who exhibits all the signs of schizophrenia; i wouldnt describe his massive essay as "trivial". While some violations are worse than others, all are still violations. Ironholds 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Jesus personally got me Burger King once.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Reading your userboxes, I'm not sure whether to laugh at that or hire bodyguards. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    How about both, just to be on the safe side. ;-) --Koji†Dude (C) 01:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Most of it's done through automated javascript tools, so i dont see how it could be bitey.
    If you're running some sort of unauthorised bot on your account, you don't know policy and shouldn't be an admin. If you're blaming the automated tools you're using for all of your errors, you're unsuited to a role of responsibility, and should't be an admin. If you can't understand how crap username reports are bitey, you shouldn't be an admin. You and only you are responsible for every edit you make to Wikipedia, whether you use tools, bots, divine intervention or magic to edit - trying to shirk the responsibility for edits you made yourself is a most undesireable trait. Userbox isn't great either, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes me feel comfortable giving you access to additional tools at this time. I'm also not liking the attitude shown towards the 27-year-old Finish man - you're not a bloody doctor so you sure as hell don't decide someone is a scizophrenic. That's sort of pushing me towards the "Never, ever, ever" level of Opposition here, actually. Final words of advice, stop digging and withdraw your RfA. Nick (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, wow. I think maybe it'd be best to try to stay calm here. I think what he meant is that they could not be "bitey" because he was not typing the actual message itself - it was being filled in automatically by a tool. As such, the language couldn't possibly be agressive or unkind. Granted, it is certainly possible to bite newcomers using a template, but I thought I'd clairify what I thought the user was saying - there's no need to be angry here. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How can a generic template not be bitey ? Any message left, especially inappropriately, saying to a new user "you're going to be blocked because you picked the wrong username" is one of the most bitey things anyone can do. Editors need to think what message is going to be left when they click on a button to report a username - they, and not the tool they are using is directly responsible for the message being left. Nick (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree that it is perfectly possible to bite newcomers using a template. Personally I would say the defense of "I was using an automated tool, how could I be biting?" is invalid. I was just trying to clarify that that was what the user was saying, not the significantly more invalid defense of "I was using an automated tool! It's not my fault!" CrazyChemGuy (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Nick i am not all impressed by your lack of civilty and sensativity in your inital post   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
People complain about RfA all the time, and here we're labeling someone un-civil for saying "you shouldn't be an admin". What else does Oppose mean?--Koji†Dude (C) 02:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose too... Seems he's not well enough trained in the Wikipedia ways... There's much work to do in articles... --Creamy!Talk 02:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
  1. Things generally look good, but without knowing your other account, we can only make a judgment based on your current account. I found the following reports you made to WP:AIV in the past week that were turned down: [1], [2], [3]. Gary King (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    If you compare it to the actual number of AIV reports i made in that time, however, it's fairly justifiable. 3 out of X 100 aint bad, as was so nearly sung. Ironholds 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    That's why I went neutral. Gary King (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ahh ok then. Thanks for taking the time to comment :). Ironholds 17:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. I want to think about this one a little. Contributions are OK, and I see that edit summary usage has improved greatly since the candidate's last RFA, which ended on 19 march. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Add'l comment - I believe the concern from many of the editors listed as Oppose, above, is not so much that the candidate has a userbox that discusses his personal religious beliefs (or, in this case, his lack of them), but rather that the userbox does so by linking the article Religion using the term "Imaginary Friends", which doesn't explain his beliefs so much as (appear to!) denegrate the beliefs of others. While I have no indication that the candidate would act in any way other than a neutral manner with regards to religious articles or editors, any user who has an article on religion deleted could immediately point to that userbox and scream "bias!". It isn't impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety, that causes the concern. As I said, I have no reason to think Ironholds would be anything other than a properly neutral admin in that regard, but it's enough of a concern for some to oppose on that basis. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment on the comment - surely if someone screams 'bias', then that's what the review processes are there for ? It's tantamount on judging someone on what they might do in the future, rather than what they have done in the past ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Comment on the comment on the comment. But isn't that what RfA partly is? Yes, it's judging an editor's contributions, but it is also (perhaps more importantly) judging someone on what they might do with regards to admin buttons. Notice that I have the same concern as UEZZ, but neither of us are opposing? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    NeutralFound 349 articles that had been deleted after being tagged for CSD. That's good. Unfortunately, there was a handful of declined speedy deletion taggings, some of which I agree with the declines. Please check more carefully for assertions of notability. Sometimes it's better to revisit an article rather than tagging it to soon. You also have options of tagging for improvement, redirect, or for AFD. One should really be careful about making accusations of sockpuppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 19:37, June 9, 2008 (UTC)
    Change to supportDlohcierekim's sock (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral This user simply appears not to be getting it. However, if (and hopefully when) they do get it I suspect they will make an excellent admin, and it is for this reason that I am not opposing - they are so close and yet so far. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I don't like the userboxes, but I agree with your statement, in principal, that they aren't as important as contributions. But I cannot help but feel that they certainly taint your future contributions, specifically your administrative decisions related to areas of the wiki that you will be able to edit. Keep up the good work, (I've seen you're good work, I think at MFD), happy to support next time if this is not a successful request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. I'm not convinced about the way this user speaks about himself in the opening paragraph. Issues raised in oppose (minus the userbox one) all worry me, but you are definitely a good user, and I hope you continue doing what you're doing. Jack?! 22:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. I'm pretty sure I can support after a few months. Sorry, Malinaccier (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Firstly, I would like to say I find the number of opposes based upon the atheist userbox rather worrisome. I don't think that that's any reason to oppose; the mere statement of some of the views I see on many userpages is just as "offensive" to me as the userbox in question seems to be to some of the people above. I personally chose some time ago not to display any political userboxes on my userpage because of the way I noticed I was prejudiced against some users based on their views, and I did not want other users to share similar prejudices towards me; however, I still maintain that if users choose to do so, I will do my best to make no objection or judgments based upon such userboxes. That being said, I don't see enough experience here to indicate that the user is ready for adminship, and that is the reason I can't support. Sorry, but come back later, perhaps after building some more articles and participating in more deletion discussions - I'm sure you'll do fine at that point. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Epbr123

Voice your opinion (talk page) (141/2/1); Scheduled to end 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) - Epbr123 has been active on this project since August 2006 and has made 65,000 edits in that time. His contributions to the project are not only numerous but they are also of a high quality: Epbr123 has made significant contributions to 7 featured articles, a featured list and 5 good articles. I particularly enjoyed reading the article on Birchington-on-Sea, which was virtually written by him alone.

Epbr123 has plenty of experience in the areas that administrators routinely deal with. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and deletion policy. His deleted contributions show over 1000 pages deleted following being identified and tagged by him this year. He is an effective vandal reverter and has made over 600 reports to WP:AIV. Where I have come across his reports they have always been full and accurate, with vandals warned appropriately. His efficiency in these areas generates a lot of requests for admin action, and I think the project would benefit were he able to block vandals and delete obviously inappropriate content himself.

He had a previous unsuccessful RfA about 3 months ago, where most of the opposition stemmed from an RfC about him from October last year. Concerns were raised in that RfC that he had failed to assumed good faith and badgered opponents in deletion discussions. I have reviewed Epbr123's contributions over the last months and find no issues of civility or AGF. I believe Epbr123 has learned from the mistakes he made last year and has grown as a contributor. People should have the opportunity to learn and improve, and I believe that is what he has done. I have no reservations in putting him forwards as a candidate for adminship. WjBscribe 16:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Late co-nom by bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs): I nominated Epbr123 back in March, and I'm pleased to have seen that Epbr has changed his ways for a much better way. Some of you may recall his previous RFC, due to a perceived arrogance. This and his previous RFA has humbled him immensely. His great contributions still stand, and now he has added a new depth to them with his newfound maturity and humility. I believe that Epbr has shown a tremendous new strength to learn, an invaluable trait for an admin.

Yet another co-nom by OhanaUnited (talk · contribs): As I have nominated Epbr for adminship last time, this time will be no different. Epbr is a versatile editor and knowledgeable in all areas of Wikipedia. I have no reservations to nominate Epbr to become an admin.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am pleased to accept this nomination. Thank you, WJBscribe. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to be involved with vandal fighting and speedy deletion. As WJBscribe has said, I have made over 600 reports to WP:AIV and have tagged about 1,000 pages for speedy deletion; I can only recall one occassion when a speedy deletion request of mine was rejected. It would save other admins' time if I was able to block vandals and delete inappropriate pages myself, and it is sometimes frustrating not being able to block a rampant vandal or delete an attack page when there are no admins around.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think the best have been my contributions to seven featured articles, a featured list and five good articles, the most recent of which was Canterbury, which reached GA a few days ago. I am also honoured to have been the nominator of 19 successful RfA candidates. My other activities have included cleaning up Manual of Style issues with Featured Article candidates, handing out GAN Reviewer of the Week awards at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations for seven months, adding images to Kent settlement articles, assessing articles for WikiProject UK geography and WikiProject Kent, and participating in about 300 AfDs.
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 had a Requests for comment last October due to unfriendly comments I made during an AfD. During the RfC, I received some good constructive criticism about my behaviour from editors I had a high amount of respect for, and since then I have made a big effort to improve the way I deal with conflict. I feel my last RfA failed because I needed more time to demonstrate that my attitudes had changed. I think I have now achieved this, as I have remained civil throughout the time since my last RfA.

Optional questions from MrPrada:

4a. What is the difference between WP:AFD and WP:DRV?
A:
Comment from Maxim(talk): Do you seriously think that Epbr123 doesn't know the difference between AFD and DRV? Maxim(talk) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have asked this question before, and you would be suprised by the answers I receive. I understand the candidate does not plan to take part in them, and the questions are optional, but when I see an RFA for a user whose previously had AFD-related concerns, I like to ask this one. MrPrada (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
AFD is where articles, which don't fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion or prodding, can be nominated for deletion. DRV is where users can request a deletion decision to be overturned. Epbr123 (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
4b. In your opinion, which of the two is more important to the process?
A: I think they're equally important. On the one hand, there wouldn't be a process without AfD. On the other hand, AfD needs DRV for the process to work well. It's similar to how the FA and GA processes wouldn't work without FAR and GAR. Epbr123 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have just voted to support you, but I do have a bone to pick with your answer here. Clearly, the AfD process is more important. The AfD process is, essentially, the main deletion mechanism on Wikipedia, while only a small fraction of deletion cases ever go to DRV. So it is much more important that the AfD process be designed and organized well and run smoothly, while DRV (which is basically a fail-safe mechanism) is allowed to have a few quirks and ad-hoc procedures. The GA/FA analogy is not really correct here. Rather AfD is like a car engine and DRV is like an airbag. Regarding the answer to 4a, let me also point out that DRV is for challenging any outcome of the deletion process, whether it was delete, keep or no consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends what he meant by important. They are both vital components of the process, so in a way they are equally important. Regarding your last point, I deliberately said deletion decision rather than deletion to take into account keeps and no consensuses, although I admit I could have made this clearer. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not looking to start an argument, but I agree with Epbr123's analogy, particularly with respect to GA/GAR. It too is for challenging any outcome of a GA review, whether a pass or a fail. Just wanted to clear up that misunderstanding. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Point taken regarding GA/FA, I had actually misread the original answer here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Epbr gave a fine answer. The insight I'm really looking to gain when I ask this one is does the potential administrator see DRV as AFD round 2 (which it is not), or do they understand it as a way for the community to evaluate if administrators are correctly evaluating consensus during AFD? I also like to see the candidate associate DRV with {{prod}} and CSD, which are the only means for the community to review unilateral decisions. In that sense, I think DRV can be more important then AFD. MrPrada (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Ddstretch:

5. If you had the power and means to change one policy or guideline of wikipedia to bring about an overall improvement in the quality of either the encyclopaedia or the working environment of its editors (or both, jointly), which one would you alter, what would be the alterations, and why?
A: I would like to improve the working environment by creating clearer guidelines on what constitutes incivility, and for more action to be taken against those who are incivil. I think the word incivility is currently meaningless on Wikipedia, as it's too subjective, and whether action is taken against a user who is uncivil often depends on who their friends are. Epbr123 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Malleus Fatuorum:

6. If successful in this RfA, would you be open to recall?
A: Yes, I would. I haven't decided what criteria I'd use yet though; probably something like if two admins requested it. Epbr123 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Apis:

7. There have been concerns about incivility in the past and it seems you agree with these concerns today. Why do you think civility is considered so important?
Because incivility can drive editors away from Wikipedia, and because people work better in a happy environment. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
8. One of the policies on Wikipedia is WP:IAR, what is your opinion on it, how would you enforce it?
I would ignore a rule if by using common sense I can see it's clearly wrong. The policies and guidelines are still evolving, and there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. Whenever I've disagreed with a guideline, I've tried to change the guideline rather than blindly follow it. Epbr123 (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

9. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?
A: I wouldn't delete it, but if it was a borderline case I would send it to AfD. I would only delete articles that clearly deserved to be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
10. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?
A: No, it wouldn't be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy if there is any reasonable doubt that the article should be deleted, whether or not the evidence is presented in the article or at the AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
11. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?
A: The most recent example is that when I check FACs for Manual of Style errors, I ignore the guidance given in the "Inside or outside" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation marks as the second example given there seems to be wrong. There's apparant consensus on the talk page that it's wrong, but nobody seems to have gotten around to changing the guideline yet. Epbr123 (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
12. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?
A: No, I wouldn't speedy close an AfD due to a technicality like this. The AfD should be left to carry on as normal, whether or not the nominator is clearly wrong. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
13. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?
A: AfDs aren't the place to discuss merges, so I'd close the AfD and open a merge discussion on the relevent pages. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
14. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?
A: If the entire article is a copyvio or if the article is entirely unsourced negative or dubious information. Epbr123 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Avi

15. Your comments here imply that you are of the belief that there needs to be a minimum time between candidacies for various wikipedia janitorial positions, yet you are submitting your own candidacy after a break of a similar order of magnitude. What do you believe is an appropriate length of time. Does it depend on the reasons for the initial oppose, is there a fundamental difference between RfAs and RfBs, is the time between two months and three months significant, or is there another explanation? Thank you, and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A: I think about three months was an appropriate length of time for that particular RfB. Three months is 50% more than two months so there is a significant difference between the two. Although, if there weren't also other concerns, I wouldn't have opposed solely due to the time. Epbr123 (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Hellboy2hell

16. If you become an Admin, would you eventually go for bureaucratship or will you stay as an Admin?
A: It's possible I would go for bureaucratship some day, but that would be a long long way off. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
17. If your RfA Nomination was unsucessful, what will you do?
A: If this RfA was unsucessful, I would be surprised and disappointed, but I would take on board the criticisms and try again for adminship in a few months. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Piotrus

18. According to WP:EDITS, you have been one of the most active Wikipedia editors in the past month, with about 15k edits. Why, and is it likely to last? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
It's because I've just started using Huggle. I intend to carry on using Huggle for a while, so it probably will stay at this level. Epbr123 (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from SlimVirgin

19. Hi Epbr, I have a question about your approach to FACs. I've read elswhere that you're inclined to oppose on MoS grounds alone i.e. for non-compliance. This is one of my pet dislikes, so I'd like to ask whether it's true that you have opposed an article for FA simply because it doesn't fully comply with the MoS, and if not, how much weight you accord the MoS when you're reviewing an article SlimVirgin talk|edits 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever opposed just based on MoS grounds. Whenever I just have MoS concerns, I put comment instead of oppose, although I usually fix MoS problems myself without commenting at the FAC. However, I don't think an FAC should be promoted with MoS issues, unless someone's likely to clean them up soon after the promotion. MoS problems are quick and easy to fix, so there's no harm in insisting they're fixed. They're never likely to hold-up an FAC's promotion for long, or cause it to fail. Epbr123 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. My issue with the MoS is that it's a guideline i.e. an advisory that no one is obliged to follow. Editors might disagree with what it says, and that's particularly likely to happen given that it changes so often. I feel that someone writing an FA should be allowed to ignore whatever the MoS says, and focus on the substantive content; and that, so long as the article is internally consistent regarding style (and I suppose also so long as it doesn't veer too far from the WP norm), then it should be able to pass without the MoS rearing its head. Do you disagree? SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Most of the guidelines in the MOS, such as adding non-breaking spaces and unit conversions, are the there to help the readers, so it is beneficial if these are followed. I do acknowledge however that the MOS possibly goes too far and includes guidelines that probably do not affect the reader, such as not allowing spaced em-dashes, and also that there are times when it is common sense to ignore the MOS. Regardless of my personal opinions towards the MOS, I know that an FAC will not pass unless it complies with the MOS, which it is obliged to do per the FAC criteria, and therefore I either let the editors know in FAC what needs to be fixed or fix it myself in order to help the FAC achieve promotion. When I do this, I am not necessarily endorsing that the guideline is right. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem to be harping on about this, but the MoS itself says it need not be followed, and there is no guideline anywhere on Wikipedia that is allowed to say another guideline must be adhered to; if the FAC criteria say this, they are wrong. As you say yourself, the MoS often goes too far, and indeed recommends certain things where many, if not most, good editors do the opposite. FA reviewers on the MoS talk page have said it isn't true that an article would fail only because of MoS issues, so if you have an example of that happening, I'd appreciate a link. As I say, I'm sorry to be focusing on this one point — I can see that you're a good editor, of course — it's just that I've seen some articles questioned at FA for reasons that were entirely spurious, and the culprit is usually over-adherence to the MoS. All it achieves is to discourage people from writing FAs. SlimVirgin talk|edits 23:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do feel the MOS does more good than harm, but it is unfortunate if it discourages people from writing FAs. Epbr123 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No, FACs do have to follow MOS, with very good reason (or a nominator needs to provide cogent reasons why MOS is not followed in a particular instance). If, overall, a MOS guideline does not help our readers or have another cogent reason for existence, it should be challenged at MOS. This discussion is occurring at the wrong place. And SV, discouraging people from writing FAs is not necessarily a bad thing; inflation in the number of FAs at the expense of standards would be a bad thing: there's always a risk of diluting the "currency". I suggest we discuss this elsewhere. TONY (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, no one has to follow the MoS, because it's a guideline. If we want people to have to follow it, it needs to be promoted to policy, but that would never fly. I feel an over-reliance on it is bad for two reasons: first, because I've seen people object to very good articles because of MoS non-compliance; and secondly, because I've seen a couple of very badly written articles get promoted once the MoS objections were satisfied. What the MoS offers FA reviewers is a simple frame of reference through which they can view the articles, but it's simplistic and doesn't help them judge whether they're looking at a high-quality piece of work — though some reviewers seem to think it does. That's my main objection to it. Epbr, sorry for hijacking your RfA page with this. :-) SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you are correct that nobody has to follow the MoS, in the same way that nobody has to follow anything. WP:IAR. However, if one is to make an action with the justification of "I did it because I don't have to follow the rules everyone else follows", this justification will be notably weaker. The rules apply to everyone, and people shouldn't bail out of abiding them because of personal preference or because they don't have to. To allow this would create a dangerous slippery slope. I fully support Epbr123's support of the MoS. giggy (:O) 08:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, if you are satisfied with Epbr123's response, but still have issues with MOS and FAC perhaps you could take those issues elsewhere, and place a pointer here? I share your concerns about mechanical evaluations but don't think this candidate's RfA is the place to solve them. ++Lar: t/c 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Epbr123 Requests for adminship/Epbr123 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Epbr123 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • I don't see the fact that Epbr123 has made numerous machine-assisted edits as a bad thing. He has written a lot of recognized content, as well as reverted tons of vandalism. Epbr123 has the experience and abilities to be an effective administrator. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I concur. After 68457 edits, you eventually pick up something. bibliomaniac15 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A headache? Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Nothing a pillbox of asprin can't help. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Support, quietly indispensable at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. ec I'm angry no users give me a chance, but I think you will make a good admin (like I would!). So definite support. StewieGriffin! • Talk 17:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as nom. WjBscribe 17:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as a good candidate unlikely to abuse the tools or the trust of the community. I'm seeing a lot of good work at FAC, as noted by SandyGeorgia, above, and the candidate's CSD tagging (on review of a random sampling) looks good. No objections. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support He is extremely active at WP:AIV, in an almost scary kind of way. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Joke oppose which is actually a huge support since he's always so annoyingly quick at reverting vandalism, often beating me. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I was one of the people who had doubts during the last RfA, and stated that I thought Epbr123 needed to spend more time showing that real changes in his behaviour had occurred. Since then, I have watched his contributions, and I think real changes are evident. Everyone should be allowed to demonstrate that they have learned, and Epbr123 seems to have done this. We still seem to have differences of opinion, but a healthy disagreement can lead to improvements in what it is one disagrees about, and I do not think this will jeopardise any administrative duties he will perform and learn to carry out. Consequently, I support this nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support without hesitation. An excellent user who I've encountered a couple times, and I see him all over. His vandal fighting work is terrific. Per the reasons above, as well. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Nominator last time, I know Epbr will utilise the bit effectively. Rudget (Help?) 18:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. I have had several run-ins with Epbr123 in the past – some may not find that altogether surprising – and I do not always find myself in agreement with him. Nevertheless it seems obvious that his outstanding work in dealing with vandalism and speedy deletions would be enhanced by his access to the administrator toolbelt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. Impressive article work. There was some other interaction I had with him that I was impressed by, but I can't remember, so I decided to check out his contributions to see if I could find it...which was a mistake. There's so much there that I probably couldn't find it if I spent all day. Ah well, that's a plus. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, thought he already was one. He beats me to the revert far, far too often :). FusionMix 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support I have had many, many run-ins with Epbr at AFD and I do have concerns over his (I think) overenthusiastic deletionism - but I do trust him not to delete anything he's not sure of, and a block button would obviously be useful to him. — iridescent 18:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - Has my complete trust, seen editer on numerous times, very good. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support seen Epbr around vandal-fighting a lot. Will not misuse the buttons. --Rodhullandemu 19:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - of course! - Alison ❤ 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support This candidate would be a great asset to the project. Wikipedia would greatly benefit from Epbr123 having the extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. dorftrottel (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support All of my encounters with him and what I have read lead me to believe he is mop worthy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support Very impressive contribs. Thingg⊕⊗ 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support. Excellent article contribs balanced with excellent vandalism/protection efforts. And knowing a bit of the "history", if Malleus can support this, I would be daft not to. No hesitation on my part. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support I've watched Epbr123 in many FAC discussions. He has shown a solid knowledge of policy and an ability to keep calm in the face of the inevitable disgruntled comments from FAC nominators. I'm also highly impressed by his willingness to do tedious tasks (such as copyedit FAC candidates for MOS compliance) without seeking any recognition of his efforts at all. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. Observations of and encounters with contributions at FAC have left only the impression that Epbr123 is helpful, knowledgeable and competent. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Strong support as user has never been blocked, has contributed to 7 featured articles, 1 featured list, and 5 good articles, and makes good arguments as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support - Good guy, great article writer, deserving. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. A good, second RFA support. It's good, because this how a second RFA ought to be. At first, the editor got entangled in some brushfires, had a few arguments, and failed his first RFA attempt. OK, that happens. But he's continued to show his commitment, his cool, and his desire to help in editing. I don't doubt at this point that Epbr can be trusted with the tools. Marskell (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support, a dedicated encyclopedia builder who displays great judgment. I have seen this editor make the difference on countless FACs, sneaking in with a key copy-edit when it counts. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - I've seen only good things from this user. Our Encyclopaedia would definitely profit from him gaining the tools. "Net positive" as some would say :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support Seen his name more times than anybody else's at AIV. As I said at the last RfA, his work at FAC is impressive and as Sandy said, indispensable. The project will benefit with Epbr123 armed with the sysop flag, and the issues brought up at the last RfA are evidently resolved. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  30. naerii - talk 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support A superb editor, and have had pleasant experiences with him at WP:GA. I trust him with the tools and believe he will be a great asset as an admin. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  32. Should've been an admin the first time around. Wizardman 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support just like last time. Trustworthy user, excellent content work. Woody (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support. You should've received the mop on your last RFA IMO, but all should be good this time around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support, active and encouraging contributor to the GA and FA process. Trustworthy anti-vandalism work and a thorough understanding of what makes wiki-tick. The mop and bucket can only make him more effective. Kbthompson (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - a good editor who is constructive in potentially confrontational situations. Warofdreams talk 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support Very useful against vandalism. Also support per the answers to the questions. Your mainspace edits are impressive and your deleted edit count is huge. Good luck! Razorflame 23:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support per ddstretch. Looks like this user has learned from his conflicts, and has continued to build on his considerable mainspace experience. GlassCobra 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  39. Edit-conflicted Support - Good vandalism reversions, good content creation, and I'm always encouraged to see newpage patrollers try to save pages from deletion, such as Epbr did with Kacey (porn star). It doesn't always work out (as in this case), but it speaks volumes about the editor. --jonny-mt 23:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support (Changed from neutral) Per discussion below and excellent contribution history despite excessive Mechanism. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support A pleasure to add my support, as this user's work in vandalism reverts on many articles I watch is outstanding. Worthy of being trusted with the mop. JGHowes talk - 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  42. Good user, though you will be running up that hill after this closes, won't you? Acalamari 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support A fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  44. Certainly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support a most prolific, vibrant contributor - a role model. Vishnava talk 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  46. Yep i said just yday i was going to do it and here it is Roadrunnerz45 (talk 2 me) 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support lotsa evidence of good 'pedia building. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, per SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  49. A great editor. Al Tally talk 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  50. Strong support - great work with cleaning up articles as well as writing them. Strong in the fundamentals of Wikipedia. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support Per nom. MBisanz talk 07:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  52. To be honest, I had already assumed he was an administrator, given his outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. Valtoras (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support A pleasure to as well. Good luck. Further - I've spent time today at WP:AIV and every report of Epbr's was spot on. Thanks you.Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. Strong candidate. Johnfos (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  55. giggy (:O) 08:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support There is such thing as too much vandalism reverting, but your article work balances it off. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support I've worked with this guy many times and he's a great asset to the project. ——Ryan | t • c 10:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  58. —Dark talk 11:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  59. Super support An excellent contributor. If only others contributed so little, so thoughtlessly and mechanically to mainspace. Mind you, Sandy and Raul would be pretty busy. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support without hesitation George The Dragon (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  61. Strong Support without hesitation. Good editor. Has often edited articles which are not his own to save them from speedy deletion. Will be a strong asset to the project (I'm surprised he's not an admin already). Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  62. Strong Support Excellent article writer, great work in administrator-related tasks. This user is well qualified for adminship. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  63. Strong Support - Great content work both in article building and grooming. Having worked with this editor in GA, I was always impressed with professionalism that came across in his edits. Nothing I've seen from Epbr has ever given me pause. Will make a great administrator. Lara❤Love 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  64. Edit-conflicted Very Strong Support <--Can't let anyone beat me, now can I? :P I have seen Epbr around on vandal patrol, and I have actually opened his talk page a few times to ask him for "admin" help, only to realize (again) that he is not an admin. I have no reservations whatsoever to giving him the mop. J.delanoygabsanalyze 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support - Although I expect most AIV reports are automated with Huggle and things, there are lots of great contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia-space, and also some good article building. A good candidate. Lradrama 16:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support. Neıl 龱 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support per Dweller. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support — for sure! →Christian.И 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support. A very level-headed and experienced editor with a good track record both in main space and in project space and a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies. Will definitely be an asset in managing various disputes. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support, valuable contributor who will make good use of the tools. --MPerel 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support User has demonstrated behavior that at this point indicates that he would not abuse the tools, and thus may be trusted with them, even if we may disagree as to other minor points. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support An impressive record as an editor...Modernist (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  73. Strong support wonderful vandalfighter, brilliant contributer! Good luck! --Cameron (T|C) 19:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support. A paragon of adminship. Why aren't you an administrator already? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support Of course. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support. If he would be better about edit summaries, I'd vote for him in November. Tan | 39 21:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  77. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. WP:200? Don't bet against it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support: per nom Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support Great, well-rounded user. SpencerT♦C 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support Looks like admin tools would come to good use, agree with the nomination by WjBscribe. —Apis (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support. He looks like a great editor and should make an excellent administrator. --Carioca (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support Just saw him in action on vandal-patrol. Good job! Yechiel (Shalom) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support I think you are really useful, especially anti-vandalism and NPOV. I appreciate all your contributions. Best wishes to you, Epbr123.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support All things appear to be in order for this candidate! Best of luck! --InDeBiz1 Review me! | Talk to me! 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support per nom. bibliomaniac15 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support. Hard working, trustworthy candidate. It's important to have well-rounded admins who know policy, have article-building experience, and have helped in admin areas like vandal-fighting. Majoreditor (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support - would do great use of the tools. macytalk 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  88. Support. Any concerns from the previous nom have since been addressed, and the candidate is well qualified. MrPrada (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support. Intelligent and thoughtful vandal fighter. Fairly good answers to questions and good article contributions. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  90. Support Solid and helpful contrib history. Shows great judgement. Good, knowledgable answers to questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support yeah, of course. —αἰτίας •discussion• 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  92. Support no reason to suspect he might misuse the tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support as co-nom of this RfA and last RfA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  94. Yep. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support - Solid user who will use the tools wisely. --CapitalR (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  96. Support - Ok, I finally found the time after my experiments (graduate school) to go through the contributions, and you know what? Yes, they are great things to be found amid the ten of thousands of reversions :). I still maintain that my neutral stance was justified, and I don't appreciate the swipes taken, however, that is unrelated to the candidate's overall performance, which is pretty darn good. So yes, my support is extended. Good luck, this will surely pass and you'll make a good admin. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  97. Support - see no reason to suppose the candidate will misuse the tools. KTC (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  98. Support - Solid candidate. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  99. Support Great candidate. Midorihana みどりはな 03:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  100. Support - Looks good here. Tiptoety talk 04:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  101. Support Absolutely support; great editor. Ceoil (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  102. Support Of course. Besides, if he's kept busy with admin stuff maybe he finally stops beating me at reverting vandalism. ;-)  Channel ®   10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  103. Support per gurch and nom's. — MaggotSyn 11:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  104. Support. Great amount of participation across Wikipedia, good answers to questions. ~AH1(TCU) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  105. Support. Dedicated and valuable contributor to the project. Cla68 (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  106. Support. Great editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  107. Support Solid content contributor and hard worker, and meets all my criteria. The FAs are truly impressive. Orderinchaos 16:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  108. Support. Good luck. AfD hero (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  109. Time to return the favour. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  110. Support - Looks like a good editor who is unlikely to abuse tools. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  111. Strong Support. Excellent vandal fighter & editor; could really use the mop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  112. Support Great editor, and will be a great admin. --Chetblong (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  113. Support At the prior RFA, I cast a vote for oppose due to a RFC related matter, but I've watched him working very hard, especially fighting against vandalism, and giving great contributions to articles as well. I have no lingering feeling about his ability as an admin. He will be good. --Appletrees (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  114. Support Hard-working, conscientious and civil. He'll make a good admin. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  115. Support—Excellent candidate indeed. He will be an asset. TONY (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  116. Strong Support after answering My Questions 16&17 {Hellboy2hell (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}
  117. Support Piling on support. Good recommendations above. Exceeds thresholds for experience, judgment and trust. For proficiency's sake, I'd like to see the candidate get more portal and image edits, but that should never be a deal killer. BusterD (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just to let you know, I have actually made about 200 image edits and 20 portal edits, but the Wannabe Kate tool only counts the past 45,000 edits. Epbr123 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  118. Support Well above the standards of most successful candidates - hard-working, impressive GA and FA contributions, can certainly be trusted with the tools. NSH001 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  119. Support great edits/work - going to use the tools wellTiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  120. Support With all of the featured/good content, and the massive amount of vandalism reverts, he has shown he is here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Horologium (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  121. Support After reading the various comments on the page, I see no need to oppose a good candidate. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  122. Support: Can certainly be trusted, and that's enough for me!...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  123. Support We don't always agree, but Epbr is absolutely trustworthy. VanTucky 22:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  124. Support as per above. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  125. Support per lots of the above. Trebor (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  126. Support. Looking at all the discussion, and through the editor's contributions, I see no reason to oppose. JeanLatore (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  127. Support. I see no problems, and this is clearly a valuable contributor to the project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  128. Support, no reason to believe this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
  129. Support I've done two thorough editor reviews of Epbr and have been pleased to see what progress he's made. I've looked closely and haven't seen a hint of incivility since the problem I brought up at the last RfA, and I've been impressed by his handling of several situations. Not to mention all the excellent work he does for the project. delldot talk 05:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  130. Support You are an exceptional candidate from what I can see, I see no other thing to do but support. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  131. UBER Support As my firend steve has pointed out you are an excellent candidate.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  12:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  132. Support Seen this name popping up all the time, including content writing and vandalism reverting. Will be very valueable having this user as an admin here. --Kanonkas :  Talk  14:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  133. Support. Admin-quality candidate. — Athaenara ✉ 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  134. Support Should be an excellent admin. DGG (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  135. Support I'm sure he will be an outstanding administrator. Arienh4(Talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  136. Support Good experience of the candidate at AIV, and I liked the tone of the answers to questions (content in this matter irrelevant, the consideration and respect was great). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  137. Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  138. Support A wonderful editor who will make an even more wonderful admin. Happyme22 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  139. Support I've only come across this user a couple times at FAC, but overall he's been helpful and a pleasure to work with. This user is valuable to the project and will surely be even more so with admin privileges. Drewcifer (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  140. Support. I trust this editor.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  141. Support. Great user with great contributions. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
Weak Oppose The answers to questions 5 and 8 demonstrate a mindset that "there ought to be a rule for everything, with only a set list of explicitly laid out exceptions". Quoting: there are exceptions to the rules that have yet to be discussed and written down. The implication is that all exceptions to the rules should be written down as new rules, and we just haven't thought of all the exceptions yet. This bureaucratic mindset is the source of instruction creep, and is contrary to the spirit of WP:IAR, WP:BURO, and the wiki philosophy in general. The answer to question 11 didn't help either - Epbr123's example of when he/she IAR'ed was a trivial quotation style issue. My oppose is softened somewhat by the good answer to question 12, but not enough to support. Edit: A conversation with Epbr123 on our talk pages has convinced me to change my vote to support. AfD hero (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Reluctant oppose Not as strong an oppose as last time, but an oppose nevertheless. I had intended to support Epbr123's second bid for Adminship, but this one comes before I see much improvement in some areas of concern left over from the previous RfA. There were several aspects to Epbr123's disruptions which I think need to be addressed before I would support an RfA. 1) Incivility. He appears to have shown that he can be civil when he wants to, so this concern is addressed. 2) An overly-strict and literalistic interpretation of Wiki Guidelines which all state right up front that they are to be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". This concern remains as strong as ever. Even statements he has made here show that he thinks "Ignore All Rules"-- a policy, not a guideline-- applies when a guideline is clearly in error. This is an invalid application of "IAR" because a guideline which is clearly wrong should be changed and never followed. Epr123 continues to show hostility towards any interpretation of a guideline for any exceptional case, claiming that instead the guideline must be changed to accomidate that-- and every-- exception before he will consider it. (I notice AfD hero has changed his opposed based on conversation on this matter with Epbr123. Epbr123's claim that he does not think every exception need be written down, "to avoid instruction creep" does not satisfy me. It still seems a concern with the guidelines-- i.e., keeping them nice and tidy-- not with their common sense interpretation and application.) 3) Epbr123 combined concerns 1 and 2 with a bot-like, mechanical, repetitive editing technique which can be good or bad. This technique, when employed to create valid stubs or to fight vandalism, is good. When it is done to strictly and mechanically enforce guidelines, ignoring all exceptions, and ignoring continued complaint from multiple editors, it is disruptive, leads to time wasted in arguments, and, ultimately, good editors leaving this volunteer project. It needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, which depends on its volunteers feeling welcomed and valued. A welcoming atmosphere is destroyed when "Rules" are strictly, coldly, and (because not all Admins behave in this manner) inconsistently enforced. Epbr123 and I have had many disagreements in the past, and he has characterized these as "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist" differences. I disagree with this characterization. Epbr123 has created by now probably tens of thousands of stubs, while I work very slowly, on few articles... I think our differences are in our concern with form and content. Epbr123 is an extreme formalist. The letter of the law must be followed exactly, without regard to real-world interpretations or outcomes. This is a tolerable attitude, perhaps, in an editor, but one that will lead to conflict, disruption and other trouble in the hands of an Administrator. Dekkappai (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I had the same concerns as you when I voiced my oppose - is Epbr123 a rigid formalist, or can he/she take a more commonsense approach to the rules. Here is the evidence that made me change my mind:
    • In question 12, Epbr123 explains that he wouldn't close an AfD over a technicality, even if that is technically what the rules would specify.
    • In the Eiffel tower in popular culture AfD, he defended the article splitoff, recognizing that even though notability of the section by itself was questionable, it was for the good of the project since the Eiffel tower article was far too long and needed to be split.
    • He wants to shift the civility codes from a strict set of unyielding rules towards a more commonsense community approach that judges incidents case-by-case. [4]
    • He supported the idea that a template that adds to an article but technically violates template rules should not be deleted.
    • His answer to question 6 of the last RfA addresses IAR very well.[5].
    AfD hero (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Today I had or another editor had to revert changes you made to two articles which were to the detriment of the articles. Both articles are currently Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. This leads me to think that you do not have good editing judment. Reading the rest of your nomination, it seems like you should know better. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Why would you wikilink October 11 in this edit [6]? Plus you should know that in the beginning of a sentence you spell out a number. In this edit [7] the editor clearly states his objections to the edit and he is right. You just "happened" to edit two articles I was editing today but this reflects poorly on you in my opinion. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. A quick comment. Months and dates such as October 11 are, in fact, supposed to be Wikilinked, so the date will show up formated correctly per a user's specific preference. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, in the first case, Mattisse's reversion of Epbr's changes did not conform to MoS; there's a reason I trust Epbr123 at FAC. And the second diff is not a revert of Epbr, rather someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Just so I get the FAC rules, you support using a number instead of spelling out a number at the beginning of a sentence (in the first example) and you support using IMDB as a reliable source for the article subjects name (in the second example)? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Neither of your descriptions of the edits in question is accurate; it might be better to continue this on the talk page of this RfA, where this can be clarified in detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It was discussed [8] and noted as an incorrect edit on the part of this nominee. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I could probably think of a dozen better reasons to oppose Epbr123 than over a misunderstanding over date formatting, without even breaking sweat. For goodness sake, let's treat the RfA process with whatever respect it still has left. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It was the three other lapses in judgment that I am concerned about. The date was not the overriding reason, and as you point out. was correct, but what about the stylistic changes and using IMDB as a major source for an FAC article. If I am wrong about IMDB, please correct me. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Well, to be honest I haven't looked at your diffs. As to IMDB, I wasn't aware that there was any doubt as to its unreliability. My primary concern though is your opposition to a candidate which is apparently based on some disagreement over a recent content dispute. Had you claimed that Epbr123 was abusive, or had in some other way behaved inappropriately during your disagreement, then I might have been inclined to take the trouble to follow your diffs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Using or spelling a number are both fine by WP:MOSNUM, and wikilinking the date was definitely correct. You are mistaken over the second edit, link to his diff [9] Trebor (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! This is the second diff[10] –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct: a revert that had nothing to do with Epbr123's editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You are still mistaken: Epbr13 did not introduce the IMDB reference. I linked above what he actually did (which was add a "The" in front of "New York Times"). Trebor (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This misunderstanding on the part of Mattisse is now disrupting both a FAC and an RfA; I hope someone will step in and clarify, as I need to step out now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral
Neutral - For now, but from taking a look at the last few thousand edits, all I see are huggle reverts. Mechanical. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Takes one to know one. Al Tally talk 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, Al Tally, I'm kind of ashamed to see that statement. RfA is not a place to lable people hipocrytes. All sorts of people have their own criteria, regardless of wether they themselves meet them. Does everyone in the U.S. fit the criteria to be the President? No. But they can still appoint one.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
They can indeed appoint one, but if they didn't fulfil the criteria they set for others, I wouldn't expect them to run three times. Al Tally talk 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Majorly actually makes a fairly good point here. naerii - talk 03:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
OUCH, considering whats gone on in recent days I thought people would be more willing to bite their lip and let things be. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind about the above comments. To be candid for a moment (and no offense to the candidate), comparing Epbr123's contributions to my own is absolutely laughable. There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits. The only reason I'm not opposing is because I don't fault people for using Huggle. Unfortunately, this is even stretching it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I also do not expect anything more or less from Majorly anyway. His participation at RfA is usually restricted to casting a short aspersion instead of...you know...actually putting any effort into judging a candidate or making a thoughtful !vote. If we're going immaturely play the blame game, be prepared to answer for your own foibles. Just some observations. The bottom line is this. Epbr's edits are perfunctory, mechanical, robotic, thoughtless, and seem to have nothing more to say rather than "I want my edit count as high as possible". If you do not like this opinion, please feel free to pout about it elsewhere. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"There's no thought whatsoever in any of these edits." I'm confused, by "these edits" do you also mean the page histories of Birchington-on-Sea and Canterbury? I agree the vandal reverts are mechanical - it's hard to revert vandalism in a creative manner - but wouldn't you agree that Epbr123 also has very significant non-mechanical content contributions? WjBscribe 11:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's thought into vandal reverting as well you know ^_^ though not nearly as much as actually building up an article. If it was thoughtless, he could just set it going and go off and actually do some article work. But thought is required, and it's not "mechanical" and "thoughtless" as you put it. You are quite mistaken. In any case, he has 7 FAs and 5 GAs. So-called mechanical editing won't get you 12 top standard articles. Al Tally talk 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This reply is for Majorly and Scribe. Scribe, by "these edits", I was referring specifically (I should have chosen my words more carefully as to avoid ambiguity) to the huggle reverts, of which there are thousands upon thousands to sift through. However, as I've stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:RFA), I will never oppose for such a reason, in this case, the preference of using an app for mass revert automation. Besides, as you've pointed out, there is great article work to be found. However, I haven't had the time to properly go through the contributions, hence the "for now" part of my stance. The reason for this divergence in conversation stems from Majorly's swipe, which, I admit, I became defensive against. Majorly, I understand what you were trying to get at, but the tact just wasn't there. Secondly, yes, some thought goes into anti-vandalism, however, let's be realistic for a moment. If one uses, say, TWINKLE, and another Huggle. Who is giving more thought to their reversions? Now, I don't want to stray much further from the initial topic, and as a candidate's RfA really isn't the place to discuss the pitfalls of scripts, but the answer should be fairly obvious. Huggle does everything for you, scaling up the appropriate reports and even reporting the vandal (and extending the report with diffs) automatically. Twinkle, on the other hand, makes you stop and think about which rollback is appropriate, and more or less forces you to give an edit summary. Anyway, my point is this, there is little in the way of effort in anti-vandalism huggle edits. I will be revisiting later though. As per my userpage, I am busy with grad school. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I'm with Wisdom here. Had to look through five days of Mechanized edits (several thousand as impressive as that is) to find any kind of actual mainspace work. I'm sure it must exist but I'm not seeing an inclination towards collaboration beyond vandal fighting. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to support Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm still not a fan of the vast amount of mechanistic editing (4-10 edits/min) but the work on Canterbury has me considering support. Adam McCormick (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Since two of you have brought it up, here are some articles where Epbr123 demonstrated his dedication to mainspace collaboration and his edits helped attain FA status: USS Bridgeport (AD-10) FAC [11][12], Tyrone Wheatley FAC [13] [14] [15], Parallel computing FAC [16] [17] [18]. These are just random picks from FACs from the last few months. His edits might not seem "major" but they are crucial for an FA candidate. I can find few FACs in my watchlist where he didn't help out in a collaborative environment. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, besides the seven FAs he's principle author on, I actually call on Epbr123 when an article at FAC is almost there but the editors need help bringing it over the hump; he's a jack of all trades type, and he does his work quietly, with little fanfare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against Gnomism (I'd be a hypocrite if I did). It's the mechanistic nature of the edits that bothers me. I'm having issues finding real critical thinking or creative work. Point me to that and I'd support. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I 'spose you have a point; writing seven featured articles takes no critical thought or creative ability, and is a purely mechanistic undertaking ... so, will every other editor on Wiki please write a half dozen or so? I'd like to see the stats go up; thanks :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
All sarcasm aside, that he contributed to their success I don't doubt, but "wrote" them? how much of the content did he write? How much of it was truly new content and how much the work of a dedicated application of a grammatical/syntax algorithm? Just because someone edits an FA article doesn't show any more creativity than having edited a Start article. If he alone had brought the articles all the way from bare stub to FA I might say he wrote them but short of that I'm looking at the edits and aside from Canterbury which seems to be a standout, I don't see a lot. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Adam. The FAs, GAs and FLs I have been a main contributor to are Kate Bush, Sheerness, Herne Bay, Kent, Westgate-on-Sea, Whitstable, Birchington-on-Sea, Shaw and Crompton, List of U2 awards, Sale, Greater Manchester, Kent, Vanadinite‎, Jenna Haze, Canterbury. On the majority of these, I have been by far the biggest contributor. You can see this by either looking at their history pages or using this to find the number of edits by each user on each article. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Amazing that evidence is so much more convincing than sarcasm... I can support that level of article work. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize; I was aiming for funny, not sarcastic, and obviously I missed. (And I would have left this message on your talk page, but I can't figure out the weird coding there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Uses Huggle -- Gurch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I ♥ irony :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    You'll note I'm not an administrator... -- Gurch (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yet — iridescent 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    "any more" would be more accurate [19] -- Gurch (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ouch, Irid. bibliomaniac15 16:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think I've more than used up my quota of Gurch-flattering this week... — iridescent 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanthalas39

Voice your opinion (talk page) (74/7/3); Scheduled to end 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) - Well folks, here we are with Tan again. As I said in my first nomination, this editor astounds me in his high level of clue, his dedication to the improvement of the encyclopedia, his civility, and the breadth and depth of his contributions in his time here. Back in February, I was randomly paired with Tan as an "admin coach", and was hesitant partly because of my own newness as as admin, and partly because I'd never run across this particular user before being paired with him. It was within days of "coaching" that I realized that I had nothing to offer Tan, he was "already there". At my own insistence, not Tan's, we went live with RfA#1 in March, and frankly ran into a wall of good faith opposition, (including strong opposition by Balloonman - see co-nom #2!) stating that Tanthalas simply needed more time under his belt. I was devastated as his coach, I still believe he was ready for adminship in March. However, Tan proved his merits by taking the whole thing in stride, going right back to editing and improving Wikipedia in his superb way, both in articles and in talk. Tan is active in the deletion arena, he's active in the military history WikiProject, and if you've been living and breathing inside Wikipedia, you've likely seen him around. In fact, I'm willing to bet some of you thought he was an admin already, because he already has the level-headedness, composure, and skill of one! I'm thrilled to have the chance at nominating Tan again for adminship now that the arbitrary "3 months" have passed whilst Tan gained more experience. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Co-Nom by Balloonman I was one of the leading voices behind Tan's first failed attempt. At the time, I didn't believe that he was ready. I still don't believe that people with only 4 months of active experience should be admins, but during my subsequent coaching Tan challenged that belief. Tan is a phenomenal editor with a solid track record. He's done everything that's been asked of him and has shown a level of responsibility that we need in admins. While he does use Twinkle, he doesn't do so blindly. Interspersed in his automated edits are quality content edits or personalized comments to users. He also has a knack for constructively dealing with criticism. I think it's time to give this guy the mop. At one point Keeper and I considered noming Tan after only two months, but Tan responded in a very mature manner indicating that the previous RfA suggested waiting three months and that there was no rush to get the buttons---not the response one would expect from a power hungry coachee. Balloonman (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Tan | 39 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since my previous RfA, I have had some changes in attitude here. While I don't think that I would have made a bad administrator before, I am certainly more circumspect now and am more aware of the subtle aspects of Wikipedia. I am also less "chatty" on here than I was before - I feel some people, while perhaps not even realizing it, use Wiki as a social networking site. Content is first and foremost for me, and I have been much less active in RfAs and drama-laden AN/I discussions than I previously was. My deletionist/inclusionist tendencies have also evolved. While I have never put myself firmly in either camp, I think I now err more on the side of caution. If I can save an article by referencing, cleaning, tagging, or establishing notability, I will. Especially satisfying is turning around an AfD with new evidence or arguments (here, here). I don't have a perfect track record, as evidenced here. I'm still learning - and hopefully always will be.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to take part in any areas in which I feel experienced and comfortable. Right now this includes article deletion, RPP, AIV, dispute mediation, and the occasional AN/ANI thread where I feel I can help out. This particular question has always been odd to me, and I think I figured out why. When I read it, I have an image of someone sitting down at their keyboard, cracking a few knuckles, and jauntily embarking on admin-related activities. I plan to continue doing the same content building-interspersed-with-Wikignoming edits that I currently do, and as I feel completely comfortable with the admin tools, slowly working them into my edits. I assiduously avoid WikiDrama, and although I haven't been 100% successful in doing so, I believe it's the only way to stay sane on this project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution is Landing at Kip's Bay (here's the difference) and a few other articles from the Revolutionary War Task Force. I have contributed significant content to articles from the Arizona Wikiproject also - Homolovi Ruins State Park, Oracle State Park, etc. Other contributions are on disambiguation projects, vandalism reversion, copyediting, and discussions on article deletion.
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: Although I try my best to avoid drama, sometimes it smacks you in the face. This discussion was a hard one for me, as I just couldn't understand the motives behind the belligerent (make sure to expand the archive). I had clashes with this particular user at several other pages, and occasionally thought about escalating the issue to RfC or something similar. However, I decided to just turn my energies elsewhere for awhile until the storm cleared, which worked well. While "taking a user to RfC" or other mediation forum might be a theoretical answer to a problem, they are usually predictably dramatic and even occasionally backfire. In this specific case, prudence ended up being the better part of valor, and I am back editing at the Revolutionary War Task Force with no problems. This isn't to say I will back down from every obstacle - I have no qualms about putting in my two cents or sticking up for what I think is right. However, my father taught me to pick and choose my battles, and being a history buff, I'd say it's an important lesson to learn. I "won" the Battle of Harlem Heights argument - it took a month of fortitude and patience, but it paid off. In the future, I expect I will deal with problems such as this in the same manner - always maintaining civility, assuming good faith wherever humanly possible, and knowing when to walk away.

Optional question(s) from Toddst1

4. What do you feel the role of an administrator is with respect to WP:Civil and how do you determine what is uncivil and what is not? -- Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
An interesting question. While I'm sure the short answer is that the role of a Wikipedia administrator is to "uphold WP:CIVIL", the longer answer is that I don't plan to put myself in situations where I am constantly required to do so. While I am careful to be very civil myself, other editors' incivility rarely bothers me - I have a thicker skin than some, I guess. That being said, if I were involved with, or pointed out to, a situation where an editor's incivility was disrupting Wikipedia to a point where it "crossed the line" (see below), I would act to warn the disrupter, and keep a watchful eye on the situation.
The second part of your question regarding what constitutes incivility is more nebulous. It's pretty cut-and-dry in WP:CIVIL regarding what is civil and what is not. However, one has to look at the motivation behind any alleged incivility - or accusation thereof. There are plenty of editors who come to AN/I with long, lively accusations of incivility, when the motivation behind it is merely that they do not like the POV/content-building/attitude/userpage of the accused. Every case has to be looked at and judged in its own context, and actions taken appropriately. I'm sorry this answer seems vague, but if you wish for more insight into this, perhaps giving a more specific scenario would be in order. Thank you for your question. Tan | 39 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
5. (folllowup from 4.) I've come across your edits on a number of occasions where you have tended to dismiss editors' acts where others have felt they were uncivil. As such, there's nothing wrong with this, and it attests to your statement above where you state you have thicker thin than some. However, as an administrator, you will have to understand that others may be deeply offended by actions that, were you in their shoes, you might have dismissed. Can you give an example of where you were involved in (or commenting on) a situation where the question of civility was raised and you took action identifying behavior and/or its consequences as uncivil rather than dismissing? -- Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying, if I am correct, is that as an administrator I cannot assume that other editors will have the "thicker skin" that I possess, and that I will have to deal with some "deeply offended" editors - offended that I do not take action, I presume. Well, as a non-administrator, I shied away from responding to ANI complaints - particularly claims of incivility, especially since a lot of the time I feel the "offended" editor would be much better served by learning to deal with borderline cases of incivility. Saying I "dismiss" these events paints a picture of me brushing off the pleadings of another, when that's really not the case - I've been dismissive of people being uncivil to me. It's one thing to warn an editor about vandalism, WP:V violations, etc - and another thing to bring incivility to ANI, which rarely goes well. Or rarely goes anywhere, for that matter. Sensitivity to incivility is not a good quality to have.
However, you are correct that I will have a responsibility as administrator to uphold the WP:CIVIL policy. While I don't edit in arenas where there is much tension and strife, I'm sure I will encounter it occasionally. I am unable to give an example of the situation you requested, but I can comment that if I were to decide that an editor was indeed being uncivil and the situation warranted intervention, I would give the warnings as I would any other violation - commencing with a friendly reminder, and escalating as appropriate. Tan | 39 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from InDeBiz1

6. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

Optional Questions from Nsk92:

7. Say you see an article where the deletion prod has expired but you personally disagree with the reason for deletion given by the user who added the prod. What do you do?
A:
8. Supposed there is an ongoing AfD for an article and during this AfD one of the participants tagged the article for speedy A7. Suppose also that during the AfD itself, but not in the article's text, someone presented verifiable evidence that the subject of the article may be notable or significant. Would it be appropriate to close the AfD as speedy A7?
A:
9. Have you ever formally invoked WP:IAR and if yes, could you point to a few examples of this?
A:
10. Suppose there is an ongoing AfD where the nominator gave a very poor and even frivolous reason as a deletion rationale, but where some other AfD participants put forward valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Would you do a speedy close of the AfD as having been improperly filed?
A:
11. What would you do if the article is nominated for an AfD but the nominator proposes a merge rather than deletion?
A:
12. Are there any situations you can think of where it would be appropriate to delete an entire BLP article about some person even if the person is notable?
A:

Optional question from GO-PCHS-NJROTC

13 Suppose a user with a fairly decent reputation here wrote legal threats and/or loud insults on your user talk page. What would you do? Would your response be any different if it was a well known sockpuppeteer?
A

Optional Questions from User:Geo Swan:

14. I respect people who can remember we are all, occasionally, fallible. I respect people who can openly acknowledge having made an error. It is not always easy when another party has been nasty. Even in those cases however, I believe it is important to acknowledge our errors. I try my best to own up when I realize I have made a mistake. And I feel entitled to expect administrators to do their best to do the same. Unfortunately, some administrators simply blow off those with questions about their decisions. If you are chosen to be trusted with administrator authority can you commit yourself remember you are fallible; consider challenges in light of the possibility each challenge might be the instance when you made a mistake; and commit yourself to openly acknowledging when you recognize you made an error? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
15. Will you list yourself in the category for administrators open to recall? Geo Swan (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2
  • Links for Tanthalas39: Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
  • Does anyone know why the nominee still has not answered questions 6-13 above? Sure, they are optional, but it is still good form and customary to answer RFA questions. The questions have been up for at least two days now... Nsk92 (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • As you have said, they are optional. You asked six questions at once, all of them quite wide-open and likely time consuming. If Tan exercised the choice not to respond to these, for various reasons he may have chosen, that doesn't mean he is acting in bad form. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. It is customary, even if not technically obligatory, to answer RFA questions. I have just looked through almost all the RFA cases closed in May and most people answered all the questions asked, with a few not having answered one question (usually the last on the list, probably asked late into RFA). For exaple, Ebpr123 (whose RFA is being considered now, was asked 19 questions and he answered them all). In the case of the present RFA, question no 6 was asked even earlier than I have posted mine and it has not been answered either. Yes, Tan is not required to answer optional questions, but, as I said, it is customary, and I believe, polite, to answer them. I had left Tan a message at his talk page inquiring about RFA questions and he did not respond to my message there either (even though his contribution record shows that he had been editing more than 10 hours later after my message at his talk page). It is a little impolite in my opinion. If he does not want to answer my RFA questions, he can at least say so, especially since I specifically inquired about it at his talk page. I find this behaviour a bit surprising for an editor who has been praized in this FRA for having a high level of clue. Nsk92 (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Although we may disagree on what is customary regarding optional questions, I respect that you brought your concern here to the discussion area. There is a chance Tan missed your inquiry (if he got multiple talk posts while he was off). Maybe ask again, but your concerns aren't unwarranted. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with the general sentiment of Tan’s statements in some of the diffs in the oppose section. The world, and particularly The United States, is full of people who seem to take some pleasure from being offended. What would have been brushed-off 30 years ago is now grounds for a civil rights lawsuit and proscriptive legislation. As a member of the “lighten up!” crowd, I feel that way too much is being made of the candidate’s comments. 2¢ —Travistalk 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Nom support Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Aye. Won't abuse the tools, reservations from last AfD RfA were only really over experience. Black Kite 18:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Last AfD or RfA? Pedro :  Chat  19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    We can safely say RfA. :) Enigma message 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oops. Admins for deletion? Eek. Black Kite 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I'm with you there. Enigma message 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Seems sensible and knowledgeable enough. I've been impressed by his contributions to recent RFAs. Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support Did so the first time, and nothing has changed!--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I trust this candidate not to abuse the tools. The delay since the first RfA (see nom statements) is also an encouraging sign of maturity and patience. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Per more experience MBisanz talk 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Candidate is trustworthy, honest, reliable, competent, principled, and above all, approachable. An excellent administrator candidate then. Rudget (Help?) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    That sounds vaguely familiar; if he's "a friend to animals" too, I'm in. Shocked to discover that after all this time (and it has been a very LOOOOOONG time) I still remembered the American version by heart. --barneca (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    I can almost swear that it was Tanthalas39 I just saw petting a dog outside the hardware store a few minutes ago.--Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong support - I have been waiting for this. And seeing as I would have nominated him if given the chance I know he will do a great job as a admin, now give 'em the mop. Tiptoety talk 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Absolutely. The candidate has worked hard on the experience issues form his last RfA, and every comment and edit he makes is thoughtful and unrushed. No hesitation is supporting round 2. A pleasure to support. Good Luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support wholeheartedly. I've had nothing but good experiences with this editor, he appears to be a real asset to the project that could benefit from the tools. ~ mazca talk 19:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support I don't usually (or ever) support this early on, but in this case, I know the candidate through seeing his interactions with Keeper and he impresses me with his civility and intelligence. Judgement looks good all around, I've done a deep review of his contribs and haven't found anything alarming. I can comfortably support. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support I've had interactions with Tan in various locations but the one that strikes me most is this one. While I wasn't new to Wikipedia I was new to that type of article and his willingness to help is typical of his contributions to Wikipedia. Good quality to have in an admin. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strong Support - From personal encounters with the candidate. Tan has proven himself to me countless times via his contributions and comments. Will make a fine administrator. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support. Seen this user around. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support. Lately there has been a string of highly qualified candidates at RFA and this one is no different. Looking over the contributions and communication I see no cause for concern, and there were no real issues at the last RFA other then a lack of policy experience which seems to have been addressed. MrPrada (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Strong Support (ec) Would be an asset as an administrator. Please give him the tools. Enigma message 20:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. naerii - talk 20:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support. Seems like a sensible editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support per this.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. I’ll go through and look through a sampling of his recent contributions before this closes, but in my limited experience with this user, I’ve been quite impressed with his demeanor and clue level, and am quite sure I’ll confirm this initial support. --barneca (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yep, just as I suspected. --barneca (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Like last time. GlassCobra 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support No evidence to suggest that he would abuse the tools. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  23. I should be opposing; this user clearly has absolutely no clue where to address MOS concerns. :) But seriously, I've had positive interactions with this user; he's very hard working; a prolific vandal-fighter; and a sensible editor who will not abuse the tools. It is an unequivocal support. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  24. Good luck Tan. You were one of the good ones. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  25. Strong support. dorftrottel (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support per nom. Vishnava talk 23:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  27. Two Thumbs Up Well, everyone else is saying Support and I want to be different. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just because I'm in a nit-picking kind of mood, not everyone said Support! :) Enigma message 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  28. Yep I've had a look at his contribs, and I must say I'm impressed. The answers to the questions don't concern me. I think he could certainly benefit from having the mop. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support. Nothing to indicate that the user would be less valuable or a problem with the tools. Celarnor Talk to me 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support without question —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  32. Weak Support. After sifting through his contribs, I must support. My reason for the weak support is that 307 of his last 500 contribs were automated (either Twinkle, Popups, or Friendly) and I'm not a big fan of automated edits, although I am warming up to the idea. Useight (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 04:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support - can't think of any reason not to and I trust both nominators' judgment. xenocidic (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support - roughly ten percent of the things I say are Chuck Klosterman references, and Tan is the only editor who's ever noticed. But seriously, very good answers to questions, good philosophies & attitude, and a good track record. --JayHenry (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support - anyone who uses my userpage design (well Phaedriel's actually) can't be all bad, but seriously, a net positive as long as you're careful with PRODs and AfD debates..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  37. Weak support per User talk:Tanthalas39/AC#Assignment 3 in which the candidate acknowledges one of the problematic AfDs I linked to below as one that he "could have handled...better". I still disagree with him in some AfDs, but he appears to be responding to feedback proactively and I greatly appreciate his response to the oppose section below, i.e. he responded both civily and respectfully and is being open-minded. So, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. Deserving and ready. I see no red flags besides a few admitted mistakes here and there. No one is perfect all the time. — MaggotSyn 07:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support -- Thought this user already was one. I think I had a good experience with this user a while back. I will add the diffs if I find it. If not, I was just generally impressed by the user! Good luck! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 09:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support I have seen Tan do some good work with the more....awkward....members of our project and use the patience of a saint. This gives me faith in how he would use the tools, when needed and not before. Narson (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support - He's ready for it this time. Has lingered in all the right areas as well as doing some constructive article work. Lradrama 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  42. Yes! →Christian.И 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  43. ¡Sí! - Candidate is ready for the mop. —Travistalk 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. I'm not changing my vote from last time, I still feel the same. It's time. Jmanigold (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support - trustworthy editor. Also, the answers to Q4 & 5 seem fine - under normal circumstances general incivility isn't blockable, while more severe personal attacks can result in a block. PhilKnight (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support This candidate is reasonably proficient in the running man dance. Keepscases (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support, looks good as far as I can see. Arkyan 16:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support, per Balloonman's link. I have a lot of respect for Tan, and he deserves the mop. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  49. Strongest Possible Support in the Universe Support Now it happens?!(the Rfa):)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support - no problems here, and anyone who uses the word "circumspect" properly is worthy of respect. --Rodhullandemu 01:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  51. Valtoras (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  52. PRO - Agathoclea (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support just like last time. And he's even better now. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - I think Tan has shown growth and development since the last RfA. And I think that Tan's responses to the "civility" questions and my observation of Tan's responses in other fora show an understanding of the complexity of the concept. The candidate, I think, has shown good collaborative and communication skills which will serve us well. Risker (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support. This is my attempt to balance those who have opposed over the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5, and their notion that incivility even can be simply identified. Per Geogre's Neutral, and per common sense, and to support a candidate who has given the question of civility and WP:CIVIL actual thought, as opposed to automatically disgorging the desired, and impossibly simplified, answer. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
  56. Support; everything looks good here. Including the answers to questions 4 and 5. Antandrus (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support Don't think the editor will abuse the tools and his clarification of his stance on civility.— Ѕandahl 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support Like last time. Also, I've seen the user since the last RFA and they've improved and always seemed good. SpencerT♦C 22:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support agree with support comment by Risker above. —Apis (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support. Intelligent and reasoned answers, worthwhile edit history, and I like the comments about civility; I look forward to working with this individual. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support done some checking over the last few days, and liked what I saw. Will be a good admin. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support No concerns. I spent some time looking at the civility issues raised and see more of a debate on the meaning of civility rather than uncivil behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  63. Rettetast (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support, although I would like to see an answer to my question above, if at all possible. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Including the debate on WP:CIVIL, I see no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  66. Why not? - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    Support. I also support Tanthalas39's comments in the diffs linked in the first oppose. — Athaenara ✉ 04:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, Athaenara - again ;-) (support #33) Tan | 39 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Whoops, I forgot I'd already supported! *doh* — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support. Seems to be capable of having admin tools. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support. I encountered this editor just a while ago [here]. I found him extremely conscientious and more importantly open to my point of view. He meets my requirement of 6 months or more tenure, and proved in my discussion with him and in the questions above that he meets my second requirement of a working and obvious knowledge of policy and guidelines. I'll keep an eye on this page to see the answers to his remaining questions, but at this point he definitely gets the Ferdia seal of approval. Good luck good sir. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 21:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  69. Tan39 will not abuse the tools and will not make rash decisions in areas that he is unfamiliar with. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support I trust Tan and think he'd make an excellent admin. Eahiv (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support per nom. Looking great! Tiggerjay (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support : The oppose reasons doesnt pull me into the other side. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support like last time. (I still don't think he is Archtransit) Good editor, doesn't spend too much time chatting... and appears to have the temperament and judgement to act as an effective administrator. Experienced with content, anti-vandalism, deletion and protection—what more could we want? EJF (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, if that blue link wasn't so true, I'd probably be offended by that...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    No offence Keeper, not really your fault; you're just the host/moderator :p EJF (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support. Shapiros10 WuzHere  21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose: I very seldom oppose an RfA, but in this case, I must per answer to question 5. I cannot support a candidate that cannot identify uncivil behavior on Wikipedia. I've asked for examples of behavior that differ from what I have observed and the candidate states he/she is unable to provide any. I must conclude that my personal observations of this editor are consistent with behavior. Uncivil behavior is not hard to find on wikipedia and frankly, I think it should not be ignored. To be fair to the candidate, I am posting diffs of my observed dismissals, so it isn't just heresay:1 2 3 4 5 Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    I think I owe it to Tan to present this sleuthing and decent job of enforcing WP:Civil on his part here: 6. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per questions 4 and 5. I'm not comfortable at all with the idea of admins that think that civility is no big deal and that editors should learn to 'deal with it' if they are the victim of it. Please don't take this oppose as a criticism of your record of contributions, or of your own civility, which as far as I can see are excellent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC).
  3. Oppose pretty much for the same reason as Lankiveil, and Toddst's diffs. Adminship is no big deal, but civility is.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: You are my first oppose, and it is based on the reasons Toddst1 listed. I looked at the diffs he posted and I cannot support a candidate who doesn't take civilty seriously. Nor can I support an editor who thinks one policy is more important than another. Policy is policy and wether you become an admin or not thats something your going to need to learn fast.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™ |l»  05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I agree with the other opposers concerning the candidate's answers to questions 4 and 5. I regard WP:CIVIL as one of our most important policies; every admin should be ready and able to identify uncivilness and enforce the policy. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Oppose per question 5, Toddst's diffs and Lankiveil. Civility is a real big deal.— Ѕandahl 20:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) changing to support per candidate clarification of stance on civilty.
    I'm pretty sure Tanthalas agrees. I wouldn't nominate him otherwise. I'm abit baffled by this, as I've found Tan to be one of the most civil users here. Toddst1's diffs merely show an editor saying "can't we get along and not take offense to everything?" (very rough paraphrasing admittedly.). I won't harp on this, you are of course entitled to your opinion. Thanks for your participation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I am sure he is quite civil and didn't mean to imply otherwise. This diff in particular from ANI [20] tells me that he may be too quick to dismiss incivility and an administrator needs to be able to identify it and deal with it quite often. — Ѕandahl 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems I should address this, as people seem to be jumping to conclusions regarding either my civility or my willingness to enforce it. As people have said, and a thorough examination of my contributions should show, I maintain civility at all times. If you look at Toddst1's diffs, these are not me being uncivil - these are me saying that other accusations of incivility are unfounded. Editors come into AN/I screaming "personal attack!" and citing WP:CIVIL, when in reality they are forum-shopping to try to get their way. Research of the actual situations of the diffs Toddst1 provided should show this clearly. I think my answers to 4 and 5 were also misread or misinterpreted (and possibly poorly written on my part). I do not condone incivility. Acceptable behavior is spelled out in WP:CIVIL - I didn't think Toddst1 needed me to rehash what constitutes uncivil behavior. As an administrator, when I encounter clear-cut incivility, I will act to warn the perpetrator and ensure it stops. I mentioned this in Q5, but I think that my expounding on cases of false incivility accusations sort of drowned out what these opposers wanted to see - that I would use these tools to enforce WP:CIVIL. And I will. Tan | 39 20:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Good luck finding those "clearcut" cases of incivility.  :-) Undefinable, by definition. (I'll also note that I'm very glad this discussion has remained "civil" :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    But how do you answer the real question, whether or not you trust Tanthalas39 with the tools? If he's not going to abuse the tools, by intent or accident, then I see no reason to oppose. I don't see any of the diffs above as indication that he might abuse the tools. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Let's not blow this out of proportion, guys. Like I said in the collapsed discussion below, these folks have the right to oppose. I said my piece, they can make their mind up as they will. Tan | 39 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose - I hate to do a per vote, but per Toddst1.  Asenine  07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. oppose -- I don't know the candidate, at all. But the candidate's unwillingness to answer questions during the {{rfa}} suggests an unwillingness to hold him or herself accountable to the rest of us if entrusted with administrator authority. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Just an FYI, it doesn't look like he's been online since you put up your questions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Agree. Oppose him if you wish Geo, but for him, his contribs, his...whatever. Oppose him because you don't like words that rhyme with Tan for all I care, but not answering optional questions? (and Yes, I strongly believe they are optional)...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Neutral
neutral for the moment as I have to go out. Not thrilled about this - given there's alot of hits on google. I'll keep looking later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Not really switched as neutral is a non-vote.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, really? An editor with the same name as the article creates it. No less than four editors in good standing "endorse" the prod with "Prod2" templates. A disruptive user removes the prod (see ANI). And your faulting Tanthalas for this? You've done nothing here but bolster my support. I encourage you Casliber, as your an excellent editor and very thorough in your work and dedication to Wikipedia, to reconsider your neutral. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Google hits for a song does not make for a good test for notability, unless you're actually looking at the links themselves. The number itself is almost meaningless. The song has to chart, win an award, or be covered by reliable sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, did you deliberately link COI? Old Jabo is the name of a song, not the name of a person. Surely you're not suggesting that a personification of the song wrote the article? Or that a user name that is a reference to a song indicates that said user is the singer! Should we block User:Yllosubmarine from editing about the Beatles on the assumption that she's very likely Paul McCartney? --JayHenry (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the choice of name the user adopted was possibly not a prudent one. I have never encountered the other editors who indicated the PROD was a good idea, apart from Black Kite and I have a fair idea on the divergence between his and my ideas on deletion/notability etc. and took that into account. I am not saying the article is automatically notable, just that there is enough evidence to cast doubt that PRODding was hasty. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. Sorry JayHenry, I did link COI there. Probably a bit presumptuous, and inaccurate I agree. I see your point completely, I think I was thinking "single purpose", not COI. Stepping away from it, my apologies, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, is all continuing in nice, open, mature discourse so all good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral: I cannot support, since I don't know the candidate, and I don't like very fast nominations, no matter how clued in a person may be. However, are you folks really opposing because someone recognizes what all of us old timers know to be true, that "Civil" is impossible for any single person to define, that it cannot be and should not be enforced unilaterally, that we cannot weigh the contents of an edit for their intentions? I've just written a very long winded essay on civility. It's not quite ready for prime time, but it should be enough to illustrate why, if it's hard to know exactly what to do with civility, it's blindingly obvious that what a person does not do is go around looking for bad words. Geogre (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    To answer your question directly, Tan has come down consistently on the side of "that is not a violation of WP:Civil" when he has commented on civility with zero exceptions. I'm concerned more that Tan is dismissing the diffs as "forum-shopping to try to get their way" rather than commenting on his judgement. That shows a lack of responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I do recommend my essay, then. In fact, isolating comments and trying to weigh them is a bad idea. Civility is an abstraction, and only a wide community can determine it or create it. I generally reject people coming with examples, too, because, while I don't support the teenaged, wedgie-giving, crudity of SomethingAwful or the like, I also recognize that impolite speech is sometimes necessary and sometimes actually salutary. Geogre (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Definitely inclined towards support, but I would like to see the remaining optional questions answered before committing. (And yes, I am aware that the questions are optional, before anyone jumps on me.) Horologium (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I was all ready to support, but my review of the edit count showed a lot of activity in the last few months but very little in the previous year. I would have liked to question the candidate about that, but my reviewing also found a place where the candidate said they were not inclined to answer the further optional questions than those they had. Since I will not get an answer I shall not ask, and thus I cannot support - although AGF means I will not oppose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, LessHeard, in my commentary that you read, I state that I would answer questions that are specifically geared to concerns about my editing. It sounds like your query would be very much concerned about my time on here. If you are at all so inclined, feel free to ask away! Tan | 39 21:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About RfB

Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user and can set 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, generally requiring a clearer consensus. 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 USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{Rfb-notice}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

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

[edit] Current nominations for bureaucratship

[edit] Useight

Voice your opinion (talk page) (19/13/2); Scheduled to end 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Useight (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce myself. You probably know me from Wikipedia:Highly Active Users or have seen me around WP:RFA. I have been a Wikipedian since 2006 and an admin since late last year. Now, of course I am aware that being an admin for a year is often preferred before becoming a bureaucrat, a time span I have yet to reach (logging six months of service), but this comment by WJBscribe, stating that he was going to be unable to perform any bureaucrat functions for a month, along with the surrounding discussion, inspired me to employ my services to help offset the shortage of active bureaucrats.

Aside from that, I am an active regular at RFA, monitor the inappropriate username reports, and clerk at WP:CHU. In order to serve Wikipedia in another capacity, I present myself for scrutiny. Useight (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia 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. As a regular at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship, I read all discussions there and participate in most. The key decisive factor for promotion is consensus. This consensus is often, but not always, shown by the community demonstrating at least 70-75% in favor of the candidate becoming an administrator. However, RFA is more of an art than a science, hence this 70-75% range is usually considered the discretionary range. Since RFA is not a vote, but a pursuit for consensus, the words behind the numbers carry more weight than the numbers themselves. Similarly, an RFB also has a gray area for consensus, but this is closer to the 85%-90% range.
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. In these cases, there are several options. A common one is to begin a discussion with other bureaucrats. Not a discussion as to the candidate's merits, but a discussion to gauge whether there exists a consensus to promote. Due to the sysopping of an editor being one of the few extremely difficult actions to reverse, there is no need to jump the gun on this process. Another option is extending the RFA in order to get more community input, but this option is rarely used.
If, in the hypothetical world posed by some optional questions, a 'crat chat is not an option, I tend to be conservative in nature and would take my time, cautiously weighing the discussion to ascertain whether a consensus to promote exists. I would rather err on the side of caution.
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 think that I have indeed demonstrated these traits. I have exhibited fairness and knowledge of policy throughout my interaction and communication with others, both resolving disputes and answering questions. My collaborative work at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users and, to a much lesser degree, WikiProject Bowling, both of which I started, are good examples of my ability to engage others. I've also always been quick to respond to messages left on my talk page, as I believe quick, civil, communication to be a key trait in an administrator, let alone a bureaucrat.
4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?
A. Definitely. I visit RFA and CHU many times daily. Obviously, there's not often a backlog of RFAs that need closing, but I've seen CHU get behind frequently and I'd like to help cut down on that wait time. As for flagging bot accounts, I must admit that bots are not my forte, but I'd be glad to help out any way I could if my assistance was needed.

Optional question from myself

5. Why are you starting this RFB right now?
A. Yes, I know it's a little strange to ask yourself an optional question, but I wanted to say something about this and here seemed to be the best place. As I mentioned above, a comment by WJBscribe here was my real motivation along with two discussions around that same time on WT:RFA, one regarding the shortage of active bureaucrats, and the other debunking the belief that all RFB candidates needed twelve months of experience as an admin. However, as you probably noticed, that comment was made on May 17th and now it is June 6th. There was no rush. I initially thought that Pedro was going to RFB, so I'd just wait. But then EVula submitted an RFB. Once that one ended, I created my RFB page with the intention of transcluding on Friday when I knew I had hours on end to be available to answer questions. Then, 28 hours after I created this page, Anthony's was created (I knew because I had it watchlisted for a while). This put me in a between a rock and a hard place, because I really didn't want to look like I was trying to daisy-chain or bandwagon jump. The timing just turned out the way it did.
Optional questions from Malinaccier (talk)
6. As shown in your "Associates" area on your userpage, you are a fairly active admin coach. As you are probably aware, (through multiple discussions on WT:RFA) there is a certain controversy over whether coaching should be allowed for reasons such as that it is a way to game the system and polish up a user's resume. What is your stance on this, and how will this affect your RFA closures as a bureaucrat?
A. An excellent question that brings up a sometimes controversial issue: coaching. My stance on whether coaching is "gaming the system" or not, is that it's not. I find it to be an effective way of learning what is required of an admin, how admins should act, what policies are what, etc, by interacting and learning directly from someone else. I can see where the opposite camp is coming from, though, in that the candidate may be trying to "fast track" to adminship. My personal stance on this issue won't come into play when closing RFAs because, as a bureaucrat, I won't be assessing the candidate nor the value of his/her coaching. I will instead be closing the RFA from a neutral perspective, focusing on the outcome of the community's consensus.
6a. How would you close the RFA if it was in the discretionary zone and most opposes were because of the user's participation in admin coaching?
A.I'd want to see the actual RFA for more details, but given only what I have, (and I hope I don't get demolished by the other of the two schools of thought regarding coaching), I would likely close the RFA as successful. Obviously there are going to be slightly differing opinions regarding what types of opposes carry more weight, but I don't feel that an oppose such as, "Oppose. Editor was admin coached." is on the same tier as "Oppose. Gross incivility." because opposing soley due to the candidate having been coached doesn't seem to be in regard to the candidate's merits as other possiple reasons for opposing, hence I wouldn't give it quite as much weight. However, if the community consensus shifts enough against coaching, I, as a bureaucrat would exact that consensus and would even cease admin coaching others. But now I've gone on longer than I wanted.
Optional question from EJF (talk · contribs)
7. How would you have closed this assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal?
A. As this RFA was progressing, I knew it would join the likes of ^demon's and Danny's. Considering that I had opposed that particular RFA, I would not be the one to close it. However, let's assume for the sake of the question that I had not participated. At the time of the withdrawal, the tally was at 299-85-17, or just under 78%. While according to the numbers, this is higher than the typical discretionary range. However, the words behind the numbers mean much more than the numbers themselves. As I followed the RFA, near the time it was withdrawn, several editors were withdrawing their support and opposes were being added fairly quickly. Additionally, a fair number of the supporters comments were not exceedingly weighty, such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support". Due to these factors, and again assuming I hadn't participated in this particular RFA, I would have closed it as "No consensus."

Question from Acalamari

8. What is the difference between an RfA closed as "no-consensus" versus an RfA closed as "failed"? Acalamari 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A. Sorry to have taken so long to answer, I was enjoying a rare round of golf (15 over after only nine holes, I'm a pretty bad golfer). A nice, simple question. "Failed" is for RFAs that garnered more opposes than supports (i.e., sub-50% in support of the candidate) while "No consensus" describes RFAs that finished with more supports than opposes (or an equal number, I believe), but did not reach a sufficient consensus to be considered "Successful" by the closing bureaucrat.

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

[edit] Discussion

  • Overall a good candidate, but I have some concerns. Useight has been an administrator for about half a year; I think he'd make a more effective crats with a bit more experience. Secondly, Useight has quite stringent, number-bases RfA criteria. I worry that he will use such criteria to inadvertently close RfAs according to his beliefs and not the community's (ie I'm afraid he'll see an argument such as having only 100 edits to Wikipedia: namespace (in opposition) to be always stronger to having written 10 FAs (in support). I don't think Useight will make a poor bureaucrat in regards to clearing CHU, but I don't trust him yet to close close (verb, adjective ;-) ) RfAs. Maxim(talk) 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that every editor is going to have a slight personal bias. Everyone will give reasons such as "Per nom", "Incivil", "Per WP:WTHN", "Not enough article writting", "Not enough experience", "Too deletionist", "Hard-working", etc., different weight. There's really no getting around that. Fortunately, few RFAs end between 70-75% (or close that that), making things a bit easier on the 'crats. Also, that's my criteria for supporting an RFA, not for closing one. Do I plan to jump on the first discretionary RFA I see? No way. Just like I said in my successful RFA, I'm conservative and will take things slowly. Useight (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, every user will have different biases and different reasons for supporting or opposing. It's part of life. The job of the 'crat isn't just to count them up, add them up, and divide them by comment length to find which side has the stronger argument—the job of the 'crat is to be truly familiar with the RfA process, to truly understand that a #~~~~ support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others. I agree with Maxim—I don't believe you are acquainted enough with the real RfA process (the one you find outside WT:RFA and admin coaching) to be able to make these distinctions. giggy (:O) 10:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • About Q7. Can you add a bit more about, basically, your thought process when closing DHMO/Giggy's RfA? You made a very short explanation, simply discouting supports from friends of his. Can you elaborate, please? Maxim(talk) 14:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, sure. I knew I couldn't please everyone when I answered that particular question about a very recent, highly dramatic RFA. I also stated that I knew I was biased in that particular RFA, since I wrote a lengthy oppose in it, and would not close that RFA. However, I will go into more detail on my thought process. As I watched it make a run toward WP:300, it was kind of concerning that perhaps some were "drive-by" voters who had heard about this particular RFA elsewhere and had only come along to pile-on. As you stated above, the job of the 'crat is "to truly understand that a #~~~~ support from some users means a million times more than three paragraphs of waffle from others." I looked at the RFA commenting history of some of the participants and many hadn't participated in RFA in a long time. A fair number of the people just adding their names weren't the typical hard-hitting "support from some people", but some were. This was happening on both the support and oppose side, so it was kind of a balance. The primary factor in my hypothetical closing of "No consensus", again, which I would not have done since I opposed, was that near the end there was what appeared to be a dramatic swing as people were withdrawing their support and more and more opposers arrived. Perhaps the best thing to have done in DHMO/Giggy's RFA (if it had ended normally instead of via withdrawal and at the time of withdrawal), would have been to extend it a bit, but Q7 specifically mentions that I close it at the time of withdrawal. This is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer because the RFA was so dramatic and is still very fresh on people's minds. Also, in the end, no bureaucrat actually had to make the decision and it would've been a difficult one for any of them. I don't think I can give an answer that satisfies everyone; in a seemingly conflict of interest, five of my eight opposes here supported DHMO's RFA (and two others initially supported before striking it). I hope that's not the only reason, as I'm assuming good faith, but would I have more support if I said I'd have closed that contentious RFA as successful? I don't know. I do know that I would've avoided the conflict of interest and not closed the RFA, since I had opposed it. Useight (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like the thought process. Q7 is quite impossible — an RfA with comments such as east718's were should not be closed. Things as dramatic as that should calm down before a 'crat makes his judgment. --Maxim(talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you should assume good faith, as you mention, if you look I have not included the answer to question seven in my oppose statement, I find this assumption of 'conflict of interest' I may have had disappointing. Rudget (Help?) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • My unfortunately lengthy reply to this comment can be found with my statement here in which I attempted to improve my word choice and give more enlightenment as to the thoughts I was trying to convey. Useight (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Abstaining from formally casting a vote, as I am also a current candidate for bureaucratship, but I think Useight would be a good bureaucrat, and I offer my informal support. Good luck, Anthøny 18:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. First to support! He looks like a good candidate to me. Would make a good bureaucrat. :) - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support I've seen Useight do many administrative actions around Wikipedia. Regarding his answers,his contributions, and his activity here at Wikipedia, I think he can be a very good bureaucrat.--RyRy5 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - I see nothing in this user's history that would make me think he wouldn't be able to handle crat duties. He has a solid knowledge of UAA, WP:U and RfA. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Time does not really bother me in Useight's case; I've always seen him as an intelligent, polite, and smart editor who is looking out for the good of the project. I liked his answers to my questions, and I appreciated the honesty in the fact that he stated he would close the RFA mentioned successfully. Despite the fact that this will probably not pass, I will support this in hopes that others will realize that 1 year is not a requirement, but instead is what a few editors believe a candidate should have. Good luck, Useight. Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    The answer to number 7 was also good. Malinaccier (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support I've looked through Useight contribs, logs, talk page and such, and I see nothing that concerns me. He has a good balance of the various namespace edits and is a well-rounded editor. The only thing that confused me; why are most or all of your recent edits marked as minor? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
    To answer your question regarding minor edits, I've used Help:Minor edit, where it says, "A major edit is a version that should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." A lot of my edits have involved fixing grammar, spelling, or punctuation; issuing warnings; asking and answering questions; most of which I would consider "minor." Perhaps I have been too stringent, I'm always open to suggestions and I can easily change the way I use the "minor edit" checkbox. Useight (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, ok. It just seems to me that, for example, adding a comment isn't really a minor edit, but that's just my opinion. Not a big deal, no worries. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Hell, we really need to clear the CHU backlog so another crat even if purely for that would be great. (note: I'd say yes anyway) Sexy Sea Bassist 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Dlohcierekim 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Whether or not I agree with another user is not a good metric for evaluating their ability to determine consensus. Determining consensus sometimes means setting aside one's own opinion, and I believe Useight can do this. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support. A highly active user who will help to clear the CHU backlog which I'm sure will only grow as more people jump on the SUL bandwagon. xenocidic (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support An excellent admin and I'm sure he'll be an excellent crat.Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Reliable and consistent in my observations, and answers to questions (including Q7) well considered and well thought out. Orderinchaos 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support Fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - I supported this fellow on his RFA, as he is a very helpful guy I expect him to make a termendous Bureaucrat. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support per comments below and answer to Q7. I would have issues with any 'crat that would have closed DHMO 3 as successful. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Moving to Support. I still have concerns about his attitude to RFA, as per my comments in neutral, but I do trust him with everything else. He seems like someone with enough common sense not to get involved with a controversial RFA until he's sure he knows the best way to close it. — iridescent 18:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Even though I have not directly interact with you, I trust your judgement when becoming a b-crat. Best of luck. --PrestonH (t ♦ c) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. I've been thinking hard on this one, but in the end, I've decided to support this request. First off, I'm not bothered by the fact that Useight hasn't been an admin for a year (after all, I went for RfB at nearly 8 months as an admin), as I don't think time as an admin is relevant to how qualified someone is for bureaucratship (see WJBscribe and The Rambling Man). My main concern, to be honest, is User:Useight/RFA Standards: my concern there only comes from the fact that some (note some, not all) of Useight's standards seem to be based on numbers (which can't always be relied on), such as Wikipedia-space edits or time spent here rather than a candidate's skill and experience; and I am somewhat concerned with how he would close RfAs with those sort of standards. However, Useight is not foolish, and I don't think that he would close RfAs in a biased manner, and that instead, he would separate his standards from his bureaucratship and close RfAs neutrally (like any good bureaucrat would do), and that he does do work at CHU (I've seen his name appear in my watchlist there a few times now). I would like to say that his work as an admin has been great, and I'm glad I supported him in his RfAs. Regarding my question, too many people refer to any unsuccessful RfA as a "failed" RfA, and I'm glad that Useight understands the difference between "no consensus" and "failed". Ultimately, Useight's been a good admin, his conduct is good, and his answers here are good too. I can support his RfB. Good luck. Acalamari 02:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - trustworthy admin. If this attempt doesn't work out, then I'm sure you'll pass next time around, especially if you take on board some of the constructive criticism. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong Support - I first met this user when I asked for help. He got back to me right away (really helped too) and I have ran into him incresingly. He's very helpful and resourceful. He'd make a good bearcat. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Strong support helpful and polite and an active user. Being an active user makes up for the user's time being under one year. Best of luck! --Cameron (T|C) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'm very very sorry to do this. I'm only opposing you because I feel that you have the same level of experience as I do on Wikipedia, and I would oppose myself at the moment. You are an excellent editor, a conscientious admin, and overall, a superb contributor. But it's too soon (regardless of WJBscribe's diff). Sorry Useight, don't take it too personally, and try again in the future if 'cratship is what you are sincerely desiring. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Also per the time issue, sorry. - Dureo (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    And this is why I dislike some wiki rules. Does the candle that burns twice as brigh have to wait a whole year before it is allowed to burn out? (not that I am implying he will burn out. Bad analogy) Sexy Sea Bassist 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    How exactly does time play a factor here considering Useight's longevity? It's just an arbitrary ad hoc criteria. Look at the answers to the questions and the contributions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Nothing to do with time. Opposing because 1) our admin coaching philosophies clash strongly (note to self; update that esssay)—User:Red Thunder/Admin coaching is the best example of this. 2) answer to 6a; a 'crat heavily involved in admin coaching should never make a judgement call so related to the process. 3) Minor niggling; comments "such as "One of my favorite contributors", "Duh", or said nothing besides "Support"." are generally valid arguments in support; it's the AGF position and justification isn't inherently required.
    Sorry, just not ready yet. giggy (:O) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I also disagree with numerous aspects of his User:Useight/RFA Standards. giggy (:O) 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Iridescent's comments in neutral summarise my views, even though we have reached a different conclusion. Dean B (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Base on answer to Q7. Give (in my view) undue weight to the "not exceedingly weighty" opposes while at the same time against similar supports. The question in an RFA is whether an editor can be trusted with the extra buttons. A support without all the extra explanations should be assumed to agree with the nominator and that the user doesn't find any reason not to trust. If there's concern that new information towards the end of a RFA is negatively affecting the outcome, especially for one that is "higher than the typical discretionary range", then perhaps the answer should be to wait a little bit longer. KTC (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I wasn't going to say anything to any of the opposers, but I had to say something here. Please note that Q7 said "assuming that you had closed it at the time of withdrawal". According to the question, extending the RFA was not an option. Useight (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I would interpret the question (yes I know it's not me that's standing here) to mean the scheduled ending time is past and you're coming to the RFA at that point. Either way, the second part of my opinion doesn't affect the first part of what I stated, and I am still personally uncomfortable with the answer. KTC (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Reluctantly. I appreciate your work here, but I feel this may be a little too early for you and I don't see much participation at the BN, CHU, CHU/U or CHU/SUL pages. Rudget (Help?) 11:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    It may seem a little crude, but when I first seen that Useight was at requests for bureaucratship, there was a little alarm set off in the back of my mind saying "Isn't this a little early, especially considering the low amount of participation in bureaucrat related areas?" and I have opposed, if you see above. Then I saw there was the application of question seven which seems to have brought about some 'debate' here, for want of a better word. I would like to note that I probably would not have promoted the respective candidate also, so therefore I was in the same boat as Useight, so to speak. Personally, I don't think a so called 'crat-chat' would have been needed, not least if the RfA had fulfilled it seven day criterion for any chance of being successful; with a large (and ever increasing) number of supporters switching sides after a new situation was brought to light by east, I highly doubt that if the RfA were to 'go the whole hog' then the numbers and seriousness of opposes would made it near-certain it wouldn't have been a successful attempt. However, as asked in the question on AGKs RfB (if it was to be withdrawn at this point, before 718's point was raised), then I, inversely, think that the RfA may have had a slight chance of passing. Clearly there was arguments coming from both sides; both for and against why the candidate should/shouldn't be promoted. With most users in the support rarely writing a full explanation of why they think the user should be made admin, then we can draw some conclusion that they have evaluated past experiences with the nomineee, endorse others comments or just the nomination(s). On the other hand, the oppose section did bring up some very relevant points which were to be considered, were the RfA to close without the incident which was later brought up, of course claims of 'irresponsibility' and alleged corruption are to be looked at seriously, but with only a handful supplying diffs and giving real explanations based on others or on their gut feelings, the others were cast with some dubiousness, in my opinion. At that point in time, I think the RfA would have passed. Regardless of the fact the nominee obtained a new record for RfAs or garnered some very serious comments in the oppose section, I feel that at 304/72/15 (the tally supplied in the link above) the percentage was around 80%. This constituting a promotion in my opinion, were the supporters to increase at a larger rate than those of the opposers. Others will probably disagree with this particular commentary and probably prevent any RfB I ever do in the next twelve months, but this is just my opinion. Rudget (Help?) 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Giggy. I respect Useight, but from the comments here and answers to questions, it doesn't seem like he understands how to weigh !votes in an RfA correctly. The Support section is sort of the default category, where just your name being there is enough said. It means you trust the candidate. Wether you write up a 5 page essay on how much you like the guy, or just put Support, it means the same thing.--Koji†Dude (C) 13:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    I guess I got my idea that comments with specific reasons listed instead of just a name would weigh more from the top of the main RFA page in the section called Expressing Opinions where it says, "Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence." I figured that applied to both the support and the oppose sections. Useight (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Switching to oppose per my neutral below and concern over the concept of assigning "weight" to comments made in RfAs. Ideas like that are maybe relevant in AFD and the like where we have applicable policies and guidelines, but RFA is completely subjective and people have the right to support and oppose as they please. Your analysis in that aspect seems a bit strange: What part of "One of my favourite users" (for example) indicates that the support is not based on sound reasoning? To me it implies they have prior positive experience with the candidate and thus are well placed to judge their abilities. Naerii - Talk 15:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I am pretty selective in who I "!vote" for cratship, and it is not so much that I find fault in Useight that I oppose, as it is that I am not tremendously impressed, which I feel I should be towards our bureaucrats. Prodego talk 04:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose Sorry Useight, I agree with Rudget here. Just a little too soon, and I'd like to see some more participation in crat-related areas. GlassCobra 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per Rudget - I am impressed by his attitude, so with some more time and experience he could become a perfect bureaucrat. Vishnava talk 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. I was on the edge on this one, but this comment, in which Useight commented on the situation before he fully understood it, drove me over the edge. That's only minor, though, as I share DHMO (yes, I'll still call him that after the rename)'s concerns. Regretfully, I oppose. Sorry. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Giggy and Rudget. The points that they have brought up, while I believe that you would be a capable bureaucrat, and one that I have respect for, makes it so that I cannot support you at this time. You don't have much participation in the bureaucratic areas of this Wikipedia and I believe that it seems a little bit too early for you to be requesting bureaucraticship at this time. While I think you might've passed if you had held this off for a few more months, I cannot support you at this time. Razorflame 00:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

I would oppose but I can't be bothered to dig around to find a few iffy looking diffs I could claim was evidence of bad judgement. I don't think you'd make a great crat for a number of reasons, including experience, level of clue, etc, but you're probably well intentioned enough that you won't make a bad one. I don't like that you advocate using "crat chats" which (as I've said before) are pointless and useless - you just end up having to "interpret" the "consensus" of those crats and really, if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists - it doesn't. And the fact that you participate in coaching doesn't sit too well with me either. Yeah. Naerii - Talk 22:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can support this – I am somewhat worried that Useight may possibly be a little too "mathematical" and may be more interested in the numbers than the weight of the opinions. RfA should not be a vote and consensus is the key. What concerns me most is the gaming of RfA here, although it could be argued that Useight's knowing how "beat the system" means he is familiar with what the community expects and is in touch with current standards. From what I have seen elsewhere, he seems like a nice guy and there are no civility problems. He doesn't seem to be too much of a "social-networker sysop" or "career mandarin" and still contributes to improving the encyclopaedia. I'll sleep on this and hopefully will be able to support. Regards, EJF (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right on that first note, for sure. I'm definitely left-brained. I do love statistics and numbers. And that's great for figuring out how many games to bowl (by the way, I score the highest on my second game, statistically speaking), but isn't how I'd determine community consensus. I'm familiar enough with the inner workings of RFA to know that it's not a "Hey, you got 73% support, you pass!". However, I wasn't showing Razorflame how to "game RFA", but instead was sharing my knowledge of what kinds of experience levels are typically required at RFA. I'm fully aware that it's not the quantity, but the quality, as I was dinged many, many months ago on an unsuccessful RFA for having too many edits in which all I did was add a comma. Useight (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wavering somewhat. Although I strongly disagree with setting editors number targets in order to become an admin, and indeed encouraging editing to become an admin (rather than to help build the encyclopaedia) by coaching those whose aims appear to be adminship, Useight would be useful at CHU and would be a very helpful bureaucrat. I'm not too keen on the support of 'crat chats, but I wouldn't oppose over it. I did like the answer to Q7 - to me, a no consensus close would have been correct and proper, after having given due weight to all the arguments made. EJF (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Move to support. RfA is a discussion, and Useight is correct to give less weight to # ~~~~ comments – comments should be weighed on substance, not reputation. A # ~~~~ support by Jimbo Wales should be given less weight than a well-worded oppose rationale that provides diffs and evidence. EJF (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo is a bad example. A # ~~~~ from someone with known high standards should be worth more than 3 paragraphs of "he has 299 wikipedia namespace edits, I demand 300" (another bad example, but do you get my drift?) giggy (:O) 01:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't mean the rambling "this guy doesn't have 690 talk, 475 wikipedia space and 1245 mainspace edits, he won't be a good admin because this means... he also didn't support my pet policy proposal..." opposes. I would suggest that comments that are based simply in personal opinion have less worth than rationales that show evidence of lack of understanding of policy (diffs of declined SDs and AIV reports, poor AfD comments) or rationales that show good interactions while working with the candidate on a talk page; and that evidence-based rationales should be given more weight by the 'crats. I'm not sure that comments (or simply, a signature) by those who have supposedly "high standards" should be given a higher weight when the 'crats assess at the end of the RfA. This brings more personal opinion into the close, which should be a assessment to see if there is consensus, not a "he's got high standards, his support means that this candidate must be good – I think I'll promote him"; I'm strongly against the idea of any sort of "hierarchy in commenting" in the RfX process – "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" is something that should be steered away from. In many cases, an editor with 2000 edits may have a better idea of what adminship should be than someone with 30000 edits who sees adminship as a power that gives more leverage in discussion. The 'crats cannot know and will never know how much research a commenter has put in when he/she gives simply a personal opinion based on arbitrary standards – for all they know, the !voter may just have looked at the edit count on the talk page, whether they have a "good or "bad" !voting reputation. Regards, EJF (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we can agree on some points, though I do find myself in disagreement on the "all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others" thing. I think that should be promoted, and while it doesn't form the basis of my vote in RfB (as opposing a candidate I ideologically disagree with, without any other justification, would fall under aspects of the above comment that I agree with—in short, my vote would have little value), it does play a part in it. Anyways, this was an interesting discussion, so thanks for that. :-) giggy (:O) 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I find myself in the (unique to me, I think) position of agreeing with Naerii. While I don't think at all that you'll make a bad crat, I don't at the moment think you'll make a particularly good one. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that the crat area you'll participate in the most is RFA, and that's the one crat area I don't really trust you yet in; I've seen you and me on the opposite sides in too many RFAs. (struck out per this conversation) As N says, "if you have to sit around and discuss whether consensus exists, it doesn't". I also don't really like the whole concept of admin coaching (as opposed to new admin training) - RFA is a test of trustworthiness, and I don't think that's something that can be taught. However, nothing I see is reason to oppose at the moment, and I'm more than willing to be persuaded either way. — iridescent 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I, too, initially thought I'd spend more time at RFA, but after getting to know CHU, I think I'd be spending more time over there actually. How many times have I checked out RFA and saw some RFAs that had finished and needed 'crat closing? Not nearly as often as I see username requests waiting to be fulfilled. I'll definitely be available to help out on both sides, and I'm not going to disappear from WT:RFA or from participating in RFAs, and I do plan to close RFAs, but I think CHU could use my help more. Useight (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. I do not count experiance by number of vandals blocked, number of pages protected, or even how many months of service or contributions. I count experiance on a user's attitude to becoming a bureaucrat and trustworthiness as an admin, which this user evidently shows. I would support, but your attitude as an contributor, with IMO not enough contributions in the mainspace for your time at wikipedia, and as a coach and RFA voter, of which some of my views differ. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Good user, but too new in terms of administrative tools yet. Wizardman 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Related pages


[edit] Admin pages