Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AKMask

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] AKMask

Final: (70/25/8); ended 19:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AKMask (talk · contribs) - It is both a pleasure and an honor to be chosen to nominate AKMask for adminship. To those unfamiliar with him, I'll start by saying he has a long editing history that goes back to November '05, with substantial participation in our project since March '06. Many of you will recognize his name from his regular participation in discussion at AfD and AN/I, where he's a respected and thoughtful voice, often displaying keen judgement at complicated and delicate situations [1] [2] [3] [4]. His continued activity aiding new users understand IP range blocks and signing up account requests on the unblock mailing list, an ungrateful and tedious work, also speaks volumes both of his technical knowledge and his helpful and patient attitude, as does his participation in the #wikipedia-en-help channel on IRC answering questions from new wiki users. AKMask also displays a knowledgeable approach to Fair use, both in theory as proved by his insightful general thoughts commented here, but also through the long, boring, but necessary Wikignomish work of cleaning up dozens of Fair use galleries, as even a cursory look at his contributions can prove [5] [6] [7]. Few of us have the perseverance he has shown in his effort to keep this a truly free encyclopedia. All this work, however, doesn't mean he has neglected contributing contents, as Republican Moderate Party of Alaska or Alaska Electric Light & Power, which he created and expanded into the informative articles they are today can attest.
I won't end this without thanking AK for his will to accept the duties of adminship. I have the utmost confidence that his demonstrated abilities will benefit greatly with the tools - just as we all will. Phaedriel - 08:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom: It's my pleasure to co-nominate AKMask (I had planned to nominate, but he was stolen from me) ;). AKMask has shown a remarkable temperament for adminship, through his willingness to learn about policy, his dedication to performing thankless tasks, and his true desire to use enhance the project. I can attest that he is more than willing to ask for help when he needs it, accept decisions he doesn't like, and seek other opinions and consensus before entering controversial actions. AKMask has been a familiar face to me for some time, and I was surprised to realize he wasn't an administrator. Even before my shock at that was over, my first thought was that he should be nominated for the job. The project will be better with him in possession of the tools, it's that simple. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I quite happily accept, although I'm blushing from all the nice things said about me :) -Mask? 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would focus mainly on the work I am doing now, utilizing the extra tools to better facilitate my work dealing with the blocking matters. By this I primarily mean evaluating unblock requests to deny/approve them based on the situation and lifting autoblocks that cause excessive collateral damage after the damage has ceased. I would also appreciate the chance to volunteer with WP:RFPP, evaluating attempts at resolution and placing [semi,full] protection when it seems rational to do so. -Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, the best contribution in my mind revolves around my clearing of fair use galleries in articles where not appropriate and/or missing fair use rationales. I came to this project from my participation in and use of open source software software projects, so I understand fairly well why we want to use this content only where the use can be defended unquestionably. I regularly look at things as to how they impact the distribution of the encyclopedia to downstream users, and making sure instances of fair use can be held to be unquestionably appropriate so as to ensure the unfettered distribution in all instances where that distribution complies with the necessary requirements. -Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
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: Conflict follows wherever people go, so I have had my instances of bumping heads with other editors. In most cases I recognize the absurdity of holding on to a position at the cost of everything else, and frequently use a bit of sarcastic, self-deprecating humor. I find poking fun at my own arguments encourages others to step down from an all-or-nothing approach as well. We can do incredible things when we don't frame the debate as good vs. evil and allow for the debate to take place in a fully amicable environment. When all else fails and I'm stuck in a conflict I cant get to deescalate, I fall back on a user-specific version of the old IAR phrasing, 'When a user makes you depressed or annoyed, ignore them'. There are almost 2 million articles on the encyclopedia, theres no reason for me to stay hung up on one of them, and I go work on something else. The same would apply to administrator actions. From what I hear, plenty of backlogs out there.-Mask? 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin
4.What do you think will make a good/bad admin?
A.I'm afraid I must request a bit of a clarification from you on this. Do you mean what would make myself a good or bad admin, or traits I see in others that make them good or bad admins? -Mask? 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Explain I mean the traits of them please list them.Arnon Chaffin
A.Thoughtfulness and communication are always good, because it vastly helps assuming good faith when you can understand another's position and explain your own. If Phaedriel has taught me anything, it's that a small amount of kindness returns to you exponentially when it comes to dealing with others, and often keeps things quite civil. One of the bad traits I notice is thin-skinned tendencies. People who let others get under their skin, or quit when a decision goes against them or such tend to be unable to handle stress well, which is never a good trait in an administrator.-Mask? 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
5.What does the policy IAR mean to you? (from Matthew)
A. WP:IAR is one of our most important policies. Within it is shrined the concept that the rules lag behind the practice a bit, the principle behind the Be bold motto, and the grease that keeps wikipedia functioning from day to day by allowing us flexibility. In conjunction with Use common sense, IAR can be used to solve any problem you run across when you kick the idea around with others. The other rules provide a handy guide to what others have noticed works when they encounter a situation, and as such need to be respected, but there are always new situations, so there will always be a need for IAR. -Mask? 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sort of idle optional question from TwoOars
5A. Since your answer above seems pretty standard , can you think of any particular instance where you think IAR could have been applied or where you did apply it?
A. Didn't realize it was standard, it was kind of off the top of my head. IAR applies mostly when the letter of the law gets in the way of the spirit. Edit warring with out breaching 3RR is the canonical example, but my personal one is a bit different. There was a user whose name had been a bit iffy for a couple years, it was a British insult to an Irish republican. The irony was that the user was an Irish Republican himself, from Ireland, and was using it to poke fun at himself a bit. In this case it violated the letter of the username policy (no slurs/insults) but not the spirit (dont be an asshole with your name). The discussion ended with him being allowed to keep his name. -Mask? 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Optional question from Ryan Postlethwaite
6. Could you please explain what this mass AfD was all about? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
A. Simply put, I did not believe the pages to be encyclopedic, and noticed that a rather large numbers of keep votes were along the lines of 'it's useful' without much backing. I discovered it about a month after the first AfD had closed, and thought with a better explained rationale, they might be trimmed. This did not happen, the will seems to be that they were encyclopedic despite my concerns, and so I haven't really thought of them since. If the question is trying to get at my reasoning, I assure you there was nothing pointy about it :)-Mask? 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Though I support you, I would ask that if you become an admin, that you refrain from closing the AfD discussion if the articles ryan asked you about are nominated for deletion again. BH (Talk) 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree, that would reek of Conflict of Interest. -Mask? 20:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin
7.Why was you banned from the Anti-vandalism channels?(Please explain further and the details)
A. Sure. Just to note here, I requested and had that ban lifted, and participate in that channel at this point at times. We were having a discussion about the CVU in general at the time, and I expressed the opinion that the CVU presented this militaristic, everlasting battle that did not seem helpful. I was also, however, praising the IRC bots that they used, and essjay encouraged me to fill out an app, saying that I'd be able to use them. He walked me through the process, helped me out with questions, then showed me which channel to join, were to submit it, and promptly banned me from the channel and when I asked why he hadn't just told me 'no', he said he wanted some fun. To note, because this incident occurred off-wiki, I don't really want to shove it around, but it is why I opposed essjay's RfB. --Mask? 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from AldeBaer

8. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite articles are, ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: Romania, Boris Yeltsin and History of Slovakia. I've been father fascinated with Eastern Europe and politics-as-theater for a while, and all three articles provided great material for late night reading and were incredibly informative. -Mask? 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from Matthew

9. When should fair use be used and why? Also, please state your opinions on our present NFCC.
A. Fair use should be used when the article would be severely impaired without such image. Our criteria themselves are perfectly fine for the project, the breakdown with many users seems to be in understanding its purpose. The documents which lay down our EDP do so because we were granted the ability by the foundation to decide if we would accept non-free content under limited circumstances. That there is the key. The content criteria are there to tell you how to add these images when the article requires the image in order to be useful, it's not a list of requirements that you gun for in order to get to put an image in. We base image use on the needs of the text, we dont write text in order to justify an image. -Mask? 07:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Follow up: You state "Fair use should be used when the article would be severely impaired without such image", many celebrities or convicts are possibly not photograph-able, or not easily... do you think a fair use image is appropriate then?
Possibly doesn't cut it. if they aren't photograph-able, like a death row inmate, then fair use is fine. It's hard, however, does not. One of the Five Pillers of our project is that we are a Free Content encyclopedia. Celebrities who don't live on their own islands and are alive should have fair use pictures.-Mask? 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Optional question from BABOON MAN (indef blocked)

10.In regards to your wikipedia philosophy, where would you put yourself on this chart Image:Nolan-chart.svg?
A. Heh, at least im not getting boring questions. On this one, it very much depends. I have my own feelings regarding issues, but for the most part I'm fairly strongly in the 'let people do whatever' camp in real world politics. The wiki, however, is a project, so that reduces the range of possible choices. Now we're down to 'do whatever you want so long as it improves the encyclopedia'. We then have the issue of the project being run/owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, who have policies, most notably limited fair-use, as described above that some consider detrimental to an encyclopedia. So in the final run down, my personal wikipedia philosophy is 'do whatever you want so long as it improves the encyclopedia and falls within the Foundation directives'.
Comment - Are you asking about his Wikipedia philosophy or his political persuasion? MoodyGroove 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
Comment - Although this question purports only to be about "Wikipedia philosophy," I would not want to see this type of question become ordinary, nor encourage candidates to feel obligated to answer it. I would prefer we get back to issues of character, willingness and ability to engage the community, civility and good and impartial judgment. None of these are politics-dependent. -- Cecropia 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

JetLover's question

  • 11. Can you explain the 24-hour block you once got? Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A. It was a 24 hr, 3RR block 9 months ago. The only thing in my block log. I really think that's all that needs to be said. It was stupid, I was stupid, it happens. The fact that it only happened once for an editor that frequently edits controversial subjects (originally scientology, now the fair use lists) is probably more then I could ever say about my general ability to let things that don't really matter in the scheme of things go.-Mask? 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Optional Questions from Arnon Chaffin
12.Since it has been 9 months do you understand the 3R rule?(Yes/No)
A: I understood it then as well, just got rather caught up in the topic. The whole situation was a stupid mistake on my part, and the reversions got me blocked by the admin who kept reverting it. I was blocked, he was warned, I'm assuming we both got on with our lives after realizing the whole thing could possibly have made WP:LAME. In any case, with it being the only block I've ever had, I believe the proof has shown itself in the pudding with regards to my understanding.-Mask? 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment,I'm sorry sir I just wanted a Yes or No so?
And I felt like fleshing it out. Life can not always be distilled to yes and no.-Mask? 22:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm pretty sure he indirectly said "yes" in his first response. Wikidan829 16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
So I'm asking now do you understand?(Yes or No)
I do, Yes. -Mask? 22:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 13. What do you think about Category:Administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Isn't this RFA over? Wikidan829 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Reply No. Majorly (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    A. It's a solution to a set of problems seen in the system, one that is potentially a great asset, but until there are some sort of universal standards for when someone should then stand for recall, it wont be that effective. -Mask? 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/AKMask before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Ninja first co nom supportSee above co-nom for my reasoning. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nom, happily and without reservations! :) Phaedriel - 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Note: This is a standard "this is really a vote not a consensus building discussion" support. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Think it would have been better to ask them to emphasize? Wikidan829 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Note: This is a standard don't make this RFA an extension of the Fair Use Wars support. /me coughs. We could use some more clueful administrators. Sean William @ 19:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I believe that this candidate will make a good admin. --rogerd 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. I've seen this user around a lot and even thought he was an admin a few times. No opinion on the 'fair use in article lists' thing. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. This user enforces the fair use policy, and I like that. Seriously though... anyone that active on the unblock mailing list needs the tools. Like what I see. Good luck :) Riana ⁂ 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support per answers to the questions. Cheers, Lanky TALK 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Peacent 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Note this is a standard I think this ser will make a good admin support, sincerely BH (Talk) 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per all my questions.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support-Seems to be ready for the tools. One Night In Hackney303 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support - all in all, you're a very good editor, knowledgable about policy and obviously dedicated to the project. I've got to say, some of your comments in the Kelly Martin RfC really did p*** me off, I had a fairly serious concern and although you weren't the major player in it, some things you said got to me. Anyway, despite that, and the AfD above, I think you will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Switch to oppose. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - I see no objections. I feel that the candidate's mass AfD referred to above was justified, as the notability of the articles was shaky. --Agamemnon2 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - If she supports, I support. Mystery message 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Good answers to questions, trustable user. Good luck Changed to neutral, see below Changed my mind again (last time thats happening) I would trust AKMask with admin tools, and the 3RR I changed to neutral about was 9 months ago, and the admin did it improperly. Good luck! Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Cautious support. Some of your deletionist tendencies worry me, but otherwise you seem alright. Good answers to the questions. — CharlotteWebb 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, because it's clear that he'd be beneficial to the project. ~EdBoy[c] 20:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Adminship is no big deal.--MONGO 20:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support. Reasonable person, have seen him around in admin-related areas, always had a good impression of him. Willingness to tackle fair-use issues is a plus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support User has showed attempts at diplomatic efforts and trying to keep people at a cool tone. Keeping an eye out for other users. This demonstrates that the user will not become outraged with emotion and ban people just because he doesn't like them. I liked all the responses to the answer above. More importantly, being an admin isn't a big deal. I don't feel this user would abuse the tools. Wikidan829 21:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support per above reasons. Whsitchy 21:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Switched to Neutral Whsitchy 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support This user has the best interests of the project in mind, should certainly be promoted. GDonato (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - per all reasons stated above... :)..--Cometstyles 21:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. Good user, but I don't like his userpage – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Plus you don't even have 1.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Don't worry about Gurch. Wikidan829 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - Looks good to me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Strong Support - if Matthew doesn't like the guy then he'll make a bloody good admin. Lollipops indeed. Nick 21:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    So you are supporting because Matthew opposes? Or is there another reason? Majorly (talk | meet) 21:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps there is an unknown statistic that every admin that Matthew opposed has ended up one of our finest. ;P Wikidan829 22:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    No, that's silly. And guess who nominated me? Majorly (talk | meet) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just a little curious, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly doesn't seem to exist, nor does it have a deletion log. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Try this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Yes. Miranda 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support. If a user as fabulous as Phaedriel trusts him with the tools, I can't do anything but support. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 22:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support As state above. Good editor. --Wikihermit (Talk • HermesBot) 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support - good answers & fine track-record. Previous block was long enough ago & things have clearly moved on since - Alison ☺ 22:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support looks like a helpful dedicated user. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Need to think on this one. Majorly (talk | meet) 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I agree with Majorly. Captain panda 23:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Admin tools for an editor user doing grinding policy work as useful as this can only be beneficial. EliminatorJR Talk 23:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support absolutely, even though I had to deal with the consequences of that mass AfD (assisted by User:Wimt for the last stretch).  ;) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support - I have had nothing but good interactions with the candidate. --After Midnight 0001 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Bit foolish thinking he was already an admin... We need more administrators strict on the fair use policy. --Dark Falls talk 06:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support. Nothing but helpful and supportive in IRC. Knows policy well. — Taggard (Complain) 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Well qualified and helpful. I'm convinced this users has what it takes to be an admin. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. I'm Moreschi and I approve this message even before Mailer Diablo does! 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Per silly opposes.
  39. Support per Moreschi. No offence, Samir Will (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support —Anas talk? 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support - Nothing to suggest he will misuse the tools. PGWG 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. I have total confidence in anyone nominated by Phaedriel. WaltonAssistance! 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is that so? I mostly agree with you, but not here. —AldeBaer 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. --Tone 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support. Good user, and I don't care about his userpage.--Endo(Exo) 01:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely. Phaedriel - 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support. His admirable work has forged a name for him on and off the wiki. That is deserving of approval. - Vague | Rant 07:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. I trust this user with admin tools. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  46. Weak support based on contributions. In addition to the edits highlighted by the nominator, I sampled some of his contributions myself. Here he's doing an admirable job of cleaning up an utterly banal article [8], here he's doing his best to defuse a conflict [9], here he's salvaging a neglected Wikipedia-space essay from its former crufty, vandalized state [10], and this one just made me laugh [11]. But I found a couple things I didn't quite agree with. Here he leaves the edit summary "try to sound somewhat intelligent" in response to the dialect word "nowadays" [12], which I feel was unnecessary, and this edit [13] led me to a dispute of his that doesn't exactly put him in the best light. Reverting with "See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" is no way to find consensus. I'm also concerned that it's hard to examine his contributions, because many of his edits contain nothing more than an automatic edit summary (and I'm not counting repetitive fair use edits). But in the end, I think the positive aspects of his contributions win out, in particular because all the opposes seem to be based on a social gaffe he made on IRC, which is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support per Matthew. (Yes, I know Matthew opposed, however, the diffs shown indicate a good understanding of the fair-use policy and its requirements.) The other incidents brought up are long ago, unclear, and in at least one case (IRC) not even on-wiki or available for detailed review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support The IRC issue is a bit concerning but it's not recent and the idea of using off-wiki behavior to oppose or support is tricky and probably should be avoided in most cases unless terribly extreme. JodyB talk 16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support answers show a clear grasp of policy and there's nothing to indicate to me that he would abuse the tools. This appears to be an excellent editor. I can't state how deeply concerned I am about any oppose vote that is based entirely off something that happened on IRC. Wikipedia's strength is its openness. Normally with an RFA everyone has access to the same information about a user. Who really knows what happened on IRC? To me this is about as relevant as if the user were banned from KMart for some conflict with the night manager. --JayHenry 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support - Always pays his bills on time. --Stephanie talk 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support AKMask has been very forthright with his answers. In particular, I am baffled by why people are bothering him for getting banned temporarily for IRC. I have never used IRC and I never will. I don't really consider it an essential part of Wikipedia (though it does come in handy from time to time). YechielMan 23:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support I think he will make a good admin so why not vote to support him?--James, La gloria è a dio 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support Based on interaction with the user and impression from seeing the user around, and sysop is not a big deal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support despite some civility issues mentioned below in the oppose section, i believe you would still make a good admin and your contribs appear good ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support politics don't concern me so much. I am sobered (maybe) one of the comments in the oppose section, but am otherwise amused by the creativity employed in assuming the worst possible faith. GracenotesT § 14:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support A great editor. No problems here as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Your edits are seductive, I mean in the literary sense, because what else could I mean, right? ~ Infrangible 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support, he'll make a fine admin. --Rory096 21:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support, adminship is not a big deal. TimV.B.{critic & speak} 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support: A good solid editor. « ANIMUM » 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  62. Strong support I am sure this user will make a fine administrator. Acalamari 22:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support - I have weighed the opposes, and reviewed the user's contributions, and feel that it comes out with an overall positive. In addition, I trust the nominators' judgment. Philippe | Talk 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support, seems to be a trustworthy user.--Wizardman 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support - understands fair-use policies, and the reasoning behind them, better than many admins; this is long overdue. I also trust AKMask to take the opposers' (minor, in my view) concerns about civility seriously. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support, the opposers' concerns do not convince me. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support, will make a fine admin. —Angr 14:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support, reasonable and responsible person. -- Cat chi? 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  69. Strong Support- His answers were good. He knew what he was talking about. I do agree his demeanor is totally incorrect, but overall he will make a good admin! Politics rule 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  70. Weak support per convincing noms over the weighty but not lethal objections below. What's with the last minute avalanche, eh? Just asking... -- Y'a pas de cabale! 22:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just replying, just for myself. I needed to think and decide. Sometimes deciding becomes easier when you're bumping up against a deadline, you know? I have no idea about the "avalanche". Is it supposed to have been conspiratorially contrived or something? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
    Yeah, that's usually the case. -- Y not? 00:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose — I do not believe granting this user the sysop flag would be beneficial to the project. The user has totally the incorrect demeanor, which leads me to the conclusion that they would not only make stupid mistakes, but harmful ones. It's my opinion, which I know is shared, that this user does not understand our fair use/non-free content policy,[1] or for that matter the recent foundation resolution,[14] this is not counting the fact they're under the impression fair use is banned within LOEs. Nor does this user understand our blocking policy, having made veiled threats previously.[15] Another problem I foresee with this user is that their edit summary usage is low, and when they do use them they give misleading edit summaries,[16] then there's the point they're an edit warrior.[17][18] Oh, one more thing: is there any need to make repetitive edits to remove images? Can you not do it all in one go? I do believe he is here in good faith and can, if he decides to, be an asset to this project to create a comprehensive encyclopaedia.
    Summary: AKMask has clearly fallen in with the wrong crowd -- and thus fallen on to the wrong path, I do believe that eventually he can become a good Wikipedian... and someday a good administrator. At present, however, granting him the "mop" would be akin to making Cyde a bureaucrat. Also remember that if you're going to enforce "policy" that you must be 100% compliant yourself, otherwise it's just hypocrisy. Matthew 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (Oppose re-instated per the opposes that are occurring below, a bit too uncivil Matthew 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
    Note: This is Matthew's standard "this user enforces the fair use policy, and I don't like that" oppose. – Steel 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's a standard because I prepared it yesterday? Riiight. Lolipops. Matthew 19:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    At least he gave specific reasons and actually provided diffs. This is a good precedent. :) Wikidan829 20:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    And the diffs are entirely uncompelling. Rather, the opposite. AKMask acquitted himself appropriately. The "wrong crowd" bit further supports Steel359's above comment. I've had tanglings with you over fair use in the past. You disagree with our fair use policy. This doesn't make AKMask a bad nominee. --Durin 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I didn't say they were. I haven't voted either way yet, I was just commenting on the fact that he did look at the candidate, maybe not for ideal reasons, but that he did. His vote was more than "I just don't like him" ;) Wikidan829 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    I note that the "implicit threat of a block" was addressed to Matthew. DGG 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose civility concerns. My brief interactions with him have all been negative -- Samir 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Mind giving us some diffs illustating this please? --Dark Falls talk 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Mind giving us some diffs illustrating your support reasons? Majorly (talk | meet) 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Since you asked.. A brief look at the user contributions will show his strictness towards fair use. Some diffs are [19], [20], [21]. If the comment was suppose to be rhetorical, sorry if my tone on the original question was a bit harsh, I was merely curious. --Dark Falls talk 06:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose Civility concerns are just the beginning here. This user has shown poor judgment, displayed poor respect for other users, and has even harassed other users, especially on IRC. Be sure to see this diff, which shows him as being banned from our antivandalism channels since March of 2006 (this was released earlier this year per consensus of the VCN staff). My interactions with this user, especially concerning channels that are necessary and beneficial to the project's operations, have been nothing but negative. Someone who cannot show respect towards others, attempts to slander a beneficial organization to the project, and resorts to harassing other users, regardless of their ideas, beliefs, or operations, should not and can not be trusted as an administrator on this project. -Pilotguy hold short 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    That's nice. Can you provide an example of any incivility ON-wiki? I think that most people would agree that behavior on IRC should not be poured over into actual, loggable(is that a word?) wikipedia.com. The IRC channel, and the website, are completely different things, and should never be crossed. That's just as good as saying he gave me the middle finger at the store, so I'll oppose. Wikidan829 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Your still talking to other editors on IRC, if you can't be civil there, then it's not great that you want to be an administor. I wouldn't have a problem with it usually myself, but to get banned for harrassement???? That must have been bad. I'm waiting in awe for the answer to question 7. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    So I actually took a look at your diff. It's interesting that the ban occured when he was actually a newbie, and not completely initiated in the way this site works. So much for WP:BITE, eh? Wikidan829 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not really, I had civility issues with him last month but put it down to a one off, but looking at this - possibly not. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    AKMask has been here since 11/2005 so that was like 6 or 5 months later.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Arnon, I think you missed the part right after that, that said he wasn't really participating until March '06.
    To Ryan, diff please? Wikidan829 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I've been editing on several anon IPs from home, work, wherever I am, for years. I created an account in February 07, didn't start participating in anything until May, and I would still consider myself a newbie. Wikidan829 14:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ok I see now, but anyway go on I waiting for the answer.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Banned by Essjay, the hypocrite? I am not sure I trust his judgment, esp. after I heard Terence Ong was banned capriciously. My point being, I want users to behave on-wiki and nowhere else, if there is not a single diff to support incivility on Wikipedia, then you have not got a legitimate reason to oppose. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    The hypocrite? How about liar? I wouldn't trust his judgment, or credibility. Wikidan829 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, it was NOT Essjay who banned him, so don't use that as an excuse. See below. -Pilotguy hold short 13:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Okay so the link you provided above where it says "Banned by Essjay" is complete BS? Wikidan829 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    You are so naive. If you took the time to read what we're writing, you would've noted that he was banned by Pschemp with Essjay filling out the entry. banned. banned! BANNED! Do you not know the definition of "banned?" -Pilotguy hold short 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. When we were implementing the change for UAA, we gained consensus at AN, consensus at RFCN and consensus at AIV, we went back to AN to alert everyone that the change had finished, and low and behold, AKMask jumps in and rejects it, [22]. He then precedes to revert all the changes that were made [23][24] completely going against the conensus that we already had. That meant we had to continue pathetic discussion for more days when we already had the support to go ahead with the proposal. I also don't like the idea of being banned from a wikipedia IRC channel, regardless of the fact it's off wiki, your still dealing with the same editors that you are doing on-wiki so should repect them, harrassment is certainly not a good attribution for an administrator. That coupled with incivility in the Kelly Martin RfC means I now have to oppose (sorry, I can't link to diffs as the RfC's been deleted). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose- If you read Above I have a question which was,"What do you think will make a good/bad admin?", AKMask say the folowing:Thoughtfulness and communication are always good, because it vastly helps assuming good faith when you can understand another's position and explain your own. If Phaedriel has taught me anything, it's that a small amount of kindness returns to you exponentially when it comes to dealing with others, and often keeps things quite civil. One of the bad traits I notice is thin-skinned tendencies. People who let others get under their skin, or quit when a decision goes against them or such tend to be unable to handle stress well, which is never a good trait in an administrator.-Mask? 19:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC) and which 1 trait was assuming good faith and due to the ban on IRC I will have to oppose.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'm staying out of this 1 goodluck:)-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per ignoring consensus and being banned on IRC. —AldeBaer 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    He's been unbanned you know. Not to mention that was in 2006, and he's unbanned now. Whsitchy 21:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    Then make that "getting banned". That still holds true, doesn't it? —AldeBaer 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Ehh, I had promised myself not to respond to these, as people are perfectly entitled to hold opinions of me without my badgering them. Just want to note though, that I wouldn't have been banned without applying, and I applied because I was told that my feelings on CVU mattered not for channel access, which is a bit funny when you consider that the reason listed for the ban was 'users who oppose the existence of the CVU do not get to benefit from it', I may have paraphrased the second part a bit, but thats the reason. There weren't behavioral issues behind it. -Mask? 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. I've found AKMask to fail his own "admin qualifications" as put forth by his answer to Mr. Chaffin's optional question. He is not thoughtful, nor does he possess good communication skills. To wit, this conversation leads me to believe that he does not possess the good natured ability to admit when he's erred. Everyone makes mistakes (myself very much included, hehe), but to act so snarky as to twist around what a sockpuppet is and isn't for the purposes of argumentation is rather silly. I wasn't going to comment, as I thought this might have been an isolated incident, but given the concerns raised by the opposition, it appears as if this fellow does not have the necessary social graces and/or communication skills to effectively work with others gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The incident Ryan flags up above concerned me but not enough to oppose and the IRC ban seemed a long time ago. But I don't like the answer to Q.7, which appears to me less than full. It appears that it was Pschemp who had to kick you from #wikipedia-en due to your behaviour and not Essjay [25], something that Pschemp confirms [26]. Essjay then made the entry here. No doubt other ops would have spoken up had the kick been unfair and I have difficulty seeing a justification for the harassment of multiple users. The CVU ban makes sense as a result of that. But instead of owning up to this mistake (which was distant and I'm sure the community would have overlooked it) you decide instead to blame Essjay of somehow misleading you into applying, when he is no longer around to defend himself. That I find highly problematic. WjBscribe 04:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Frankly, because I did nothing wrong. Pschemp kicked me for enquiring about why I was led along the application process when a no at the beginning would suffice, and essjay banned me from the channel. I frankly hold nothing against either, but it was some WP:BITE things going on. And really, this was all offwiki, so... *shrug* oppose on it if you want. -Mask? 04:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Inquiring in a rather uncivil and brutish manner as I recall. But, you haven't internalised that this isn't about your offwiki behaviour. It's about your onwiki claims. pschemp | talk 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose The previously raised issues trouble me, especially the borderline incivility. When I went through this AKMask 's contributions, I saw a lot of good work. However, I also saw evidence of disregard for WP guidelines and policies. For example, I am troubled by this comment, where AKMask states that warning anonymous IPs on vandalism "is a pointless edit that does little but bump an editcount." Does this mean AKMask would be blocking anonymous IPs without warning if AKMask became an admin? I'm also troubled by AKMask's opinion that giving warnings in this situation is merely a way to run up an editor's edit count. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe that endless warnings need to be given to anonymous IPs and if someone wants to wait to warn an anonymous IP only after that IP makes more than one vandalism edit, that's ok (I've done that myself). But to state that such warnings are pointless and merely to run up an edit count is wrong. Another concern is raised here, where AKMask reverted an edit by an established editor (User:Minderbinder) and called that editor a "blatent vandal." When AKMask was asked about this, he responded at User_talk:Minderbinder#Revert by repeating that this was vandalism and telling Minderbinder to not "make pointless comments on my talkpage." I am not defending the edit Minderbinder made, but it appears to have been in good faith and instead of being incivil AKMask should simply have explained why the edit wasn't appropriate. --Alabamaboy 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think you are poorly interpreting his "anonymous warning" message. I think it's pretty clear that when he says a "one off experiment" isn't worth the trouble of giving a warning, it doesn't equate to "I'll just block them and be off with it". You seem to be just stuffing words in his mouth there. Wikidan829 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Also to say that the pointless warning only bumps the edit count, which it does, and to say that he's accusing editors of doing it for no other reason than to bump their edit count, are two completely separate things. In all honesty, I would expect better judgement from an administrator. Wikidan829 15:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry to disappoint. The block comment was a rhetorical question extrapolating from his comment; I doubt any admin would do such a thing (except in a few, very limited situations like legal and personal threats). That said, it is not pointless to warn an anonymous IP over vandalism even after the first edit and AKMask's comment definately implied that AKMask sees such warnings as only used to run up an edit count. But I can see how interpretations would differ on this, so people can take or leave that issue as they will. But I notice you had no comment on the other concern I raised about accusing an editor making a good faith edit of vandalism, then being incivil to the editor when questioned on the matter. This matter is further explored here on the Admin noticeboard. As you can see, AKMask repeated tried to drive home that Minderbinder was a vandal, even though a other editors said that how AKMask was handling the situation was "clearly not acceptable." It was this recent incident that made me have to oppose. --Alabamaboy 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    I commend your cool response to what I said. Anyone with a sense of humor would understand that he was just illustrating that such a warning would likely fall on deaf ears, and made an exaggerated comment to illustrate this. As in, it would give the user a warning and increase your edit count. Without the user seeing the warning, all that's left is increasing the count. So, the comment appears to be a lot simpler than you made it. I wouldn't look into the meaning behind it so much. Like you said, it can be interpreted either way. I just wanted to make both sides obvious for people to analyze. :)
    As far as the other comment, I didn't mention it because I cannot dispute it.. Simple as that. I'm letting it stand as it is. Wikidan829 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Diffs provided by rspeer ("See talk, I pretty much blew up your argument" and "try to sound somewhat intelligent") may not strictly be incivility but they are the kind of comments that will certainly aggravate situations. The incidents mentioned by Alabamaboy (about labelling Minderbinder as a blatant vandal and the subsequent defense at ANI) and gallimh (about sockpuppets) also make me think twice. Lastly, I agree with WJBscribe about the IRC incident. All (arguably) weak reasons to oppose individually, but together, good enough to oppose. Sorry. - TwoOars 19:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak Oppose Majoreditor 19:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Majoreditor (cool name btw) could I ask of your reasons for opposing? Yes, I know some of the supporters haven't given reasons, but it's generally considered good form especially for opposers, since adminship is no big deal. Thanks for your time. :) Majorly (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    My weak opposition is due to civility concerns and bans. He may very well make a fine admin on eof these days; however, IMO, he's not yet ready. Majoreditor 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I'm sorry. I agree with AKMask's position on fair use, and the IRC thing is no big deal (though Pschemp raises an issue about how forthrightly it has been presented here). But this troubled me at the time, and it troubles me now. We already have a problem with the word "vandalism" being thrown around inappropriately. The "vandal" in question, User:Minderbinder, had a long history of constructive, good-faith contributions. While he was both wrong and stubborn about the particular issue in question, stubborness is not vandalism. Content/policy disputes are not vandalism. On the ensuing AN/I thread, other editors seconded that "vandalism" was an inappropriate charge. I guess we can't stop the user on the street from using the V-word inappropriately, but I'd expect more from an admin. So who cares? Why are incorrect charges of vandalism a problem? Because a) they show a lack of familiarity with a vital policy, b) labeling something "vandalism" puts the vandal beyond the pale and frees the opposing editor to disregard 3RR, potentially block the "vandal", etc and so should never be misused as a lever in a content/policy dispute, and c) it harms the good-faith contributor who's mistakenly labeled a vandal (I haven't seen Minderbinder around recently). I think this user's made a lot of good contributions, but I can't support someone for adminship if they misapply the vandalism policy and refuse to admit their mistake when called on it. MastCell Talk 23:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment So just because someone has had some minor incivility issues he can't become an admin? That seems a little tough. You have to remember that we are humans and we all make mistakes. Also I have seen no major incivility issues with this person and I know from talking with him on IRC that he can be civil. Forgive and forget.--James, La gloria è a dio 04:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    I think you've misunderstood my reasons for opposing. I think AKMask's civility is adequate if not exemplary, and the IRC thing is old news and doesn't bother me (though a more forthright presentation of it in Q3 would have been nice). I'm talking about a recent (< 1 month ago) episode in which a fundamental policy was misused as a lever in a content/policy dispute, and worse, AKMask refused to admit he'd made a mistake when called on it. I consider those are red flags for entrusting someone with the block/protect/delete buttons. There are plenty of good reasons to support his candidacy, which are detailed in the noms and support votes, but that's a deal-breaker for me. Nothing to do with civility, ancient history, etc. MastCell Talk 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. I won't address the block for violating 3RR and being banned from IRC as I consider those "old news". However, a few recent edits worry me. None of them individually would make me oppose, but taken together they prevent me from supporting. They are: this overly hostile edit summary telling someone to "try to sound somewhat intelligent"; this edit summary involving an inappropriate label of "blatant vandal"; and this subsequent discussion where AKMask shows no sign of accepting that the use of the label was inappropriate. The dismissive comment of "I'm just giving the process wonks a reason why I reverted his edits when they demanded one." in particular did not sit well with me. I don't know whether these are indicative of a particular pattern of behaviour or not, but since the incident with Minderbinder was only last month, I am opposing for now. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Per Gaillimh, Albamaboy, Black Falcon. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - Some of the concerns raised above indicate to me a lack of maturity. Friday (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose(changed from neutral, below) Joe's comment in the neutral section below persuaded me to change. There are still civility concerns. Also your user page is a bit much for my taste. Wikipedia is not a webhost for pictures of yourself. AKAF 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    A photograph is clearly listed at WP:USER#What may I have on my userpage? as an acceptable thing to have. —Angr 14:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    WP:USER is a guideline. This part of the guideline conflicts with the official policy in WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Not everyone agrees with my view on this, and I would never oppose for this reason only, but it's part of the haystack. AKAF 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    From my modest point of view, that view is a little harsh: there's a difference between treating Wikipedia as a repository of personal pictures and using one to put a face on one's edits. There are literally hundreds of user who do so, myself included - and many admins, even members of ArbCom as well. Yet, this is a comment on that view, not on your general rationale for opposing, which you are of course entitled to have and which I respect, even tho I may disagree with it. Best regards, Phaedriel - 15:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I would love to support - someone who understands FU and is willing to do the work is highly valued, and needed. However, due to the diffs and rationale provided by MastCell, above, I cannot possibly support. Calling a productive and valued editor a bv is unacceptable for anyone seeking the block button. And this was no ancient incivlity, but a recent event. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for civility concerns. The IRC ban sounds like a murky mess where AKMask may have not been too out of line, so I will disregard. I do think that off-wiki behavior is pertinent to RFA, but that is a discussion for another place and time. My biggest concern from a civility standpoint is the Mindbender "blatant vandalism" issue. Fair use rules are difficult to understand. As AKMask claims that is one of the key areas he wants to work, its worrisome to see name calling over fair use issues. This is a rather weak oppoe, but several little things kind of add up, and I do respect the hard work the user has contributed. —Gaff ταλκ 14:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Admins need to keep a cool head be civil. The incident shown above is too recent to ignore. Sophia 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Overall, as other have said there's no one issue that's a show stopper. But there's been so many different issues brought up here that I think he should wait a little bit. I'm not crazy about the combative and aggressive tone when commenting, truth is, we have enough admins that comment in that way. We should be a little more careful about what we consider acceptable means of communication among admins (and editors in general). "process wonks" is not a meaningful/civil way to talk to each other. RxS 15:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC) (and actually, using social engineering to "get" information and goods is close to a show stopper. That's generally regarded as theft, and admins do represent part of the public "face" of Wikipedia.)
  20. Oppose. Absolutely not. Simply does not get it, supports wide charters for abuse (Q5). We need less administrators like this, not more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose on the grounds that he does not appear to actually edit the substance of articles. Skimming his contributions I see a lot of marking articles without refs, a lot of image removal, and a lot of AFDs but very little (at least proportionally) to the substance of an article like adding actual content/prose, adding references, finding free images, or even contributing images. I firmly believe that admins must be contributing editors to the substance of articles and as time goes on I see a lot more admins who don't and I don't think the project needs another one who doesn't. Cburnett 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Oppose because of discussion on ANI in which he had falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" in an effort to attack the person making them and to justify harsher actions than he had any right to make. When called on it he refused to admit he was wrong to label the actions vandalism and became quite unreasonable. To be an admin someone should understand basic policies, such as what vandalism is and is not, and work to support them instead of trying to wikilawyer his way into doing whatever he wants regardless of what the policies say. Giving him admin access would just make things worse, in my opinion. This was a relatively recent incident, so perhaps if he reads up on policies and follows them he might make a good admin at some future point. DreamGuy 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Regretful oppose. Overall I think this user's contributions are great, and just based on what I've seen from him personally I'd likely have chosen to support. However after going over the diffs provided by some of the above users regarding fairly recent civility issues I have no choice but to oppose. Civility is a prerequisite for collaboration, and Wikipedia is at the core based on collaboration. I simply cannot support admin candidates who have demonstrated recent civility issues. Arkyan • (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Sorry, but this bothers me too much, and there are other problematic diffs given above also. Please try again in a few months. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
  25. Oppose. Too many concerns for comfort. Zaxem 00:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. Good user, but I don't like his userpage Changed to support to keep Sean William happy – Gurch 21:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't be a dick, Gurch. Sean William @ 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
hehe Wikidan829 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice Whsitchy 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per Gurch. - 68.106.140.79 21:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could you please explain why user pages are important to Admin?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Leave him be guys. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

#Neutral (changed from support) I just noticed, He was blocked for a 3RR violation nine months ago, this normally would make me vote oppose but I feel that AKMask learned from his mistake and I feel he would be helpful to Wikipedia. But a 3RR violation makes me say neutral, sorry Urdna 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Neutral While evidence for support is good, evidence for oppose cancels it out. Sadly I can't support, but I also will not oppose. Whsitchy 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I do like most of what I see, but the issues raised above just sorta flatten my support out. Jmlk17 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral he has good contribs but as have been mentiond there are civility concerns. I would also like to see a bit more vandalims reversion. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 22:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment If you take a look at the civility issues they are very minor. If someone is a good editor then why should a few minor issues get in the way of him becoming an admin?--James, La gloria è a dio 04:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    Not that it necessarily applies here, but incivility has a tendency to be coupled with some degree of arrogance, which is definitely one of the things not desired in an admin. DGG 18:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    [27] and [28] are a couple nice examples of why I wouldn't classify myself as arrogant. Im forthright with admitting I've been stupid when it turns out I was being stupid :) -Mask? 19:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, both sides make good points. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, balanced between both sides. Seems like a good editor, but the civility concerns raised above are legitimate, and a bit too recent for me to support just yet. - Zeibura Talk 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral (Changed to oppose) Per civility concerns. Also your user page is a bit much for my taste. Wikipedia is not a webhost for pictures of yourself. Still, it's not enough to oppose you. AKAF 08:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    haha Why don't you tell this guy that? Wikidan829 16:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    Jimbo is not an ordinary user, but (effectively) an employee of wikipedia. The picture on his page is already hosted by wikipedia as part of the article on him. When AKMAsk is the subject of a wikipedia article, then I'll have different feelings about using a professional headshot on his page.AKAF 07:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I cannot recall ever having had occasion to object strongly to anything that AK might have done, and I have generally found him to be a rather affable individual (but does one ever meet a libertarian who isn't exceedingly bright and pleasant?); I find, indeed, much to commend him for adminship. I am non-neglibly concerned, though, about his replies to questions 5 and 5a, from which I apprehend an inclination to IAR a bit too freely qua admin (one's IARing qua editor, and one's acting generally in whatever fashion he might think to be beneficial to the encyclopedia [even where consistent with Foundation directives], is quite fine, but when one acts as an admin, he acts only ministerially [and, for what it's worth, as well, as, I guess, in any other situation, acts outside of policy only where it is quite plain that there is an overwhelming consensus for such summary action (not, that is, only where one thinks there should be such a consensus)], to determine for what courses of action exists the support of the community and then to act to carry out those courses of action), which quality is the most pernicious, unfortunately, one can find in an admin. Even, then, as his AK's conduct has given no grand hint of his being likely to rely untowardly on IAR (although his submission that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive ought to have been closed as delete strikes me as perhaps consistent with what I might perceive as overreach), I must, with regret, say that I can't conclude with sufficiently great confidence that the net effect of the project of AK's being sysopped should be positive. Joe 06:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    I'd just like to make the comment here that despite not taking a side, this is the most thoroughly fleshed out positions I've ever seen on an RfA, and you really deserve some commendation for that.-Mask? 07:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. While his edit history is impressive & his nominator is a highly respected admin, his opposers have so many good points that I must withhold from taking either side. TML 23:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. I asked AKMask a few months ago to lose the image in his signature. He refused; he'd been using the image since before they were forbidden. He's since gotten rid of it, but a wise Wikipedian once said something like if you make a reasonable request and the other person complies, great; if they don't, you've learned something useful about their character. I hold no hard feelings and don't want to oppose because of this little issue, but it does prevent me from supporting this candidate. WODUP 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.