Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Islander 2

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

[edit] Islander

Final (56/3/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Islander (talk · contribs) - Hi, I’m Islander, and I should like to nominate myself to be an administrator. I discovered Wikipedia around the end of 2005, though didn’t create an account until mid 2006. For a few months I didn’t do a huge amount of editing, but mostly looked around the encyclopaedia, learning how it worked. When I started spending more time on Wikipedia, I learnt of the various procedures and systems in place to keep the place in proper order, and articles following all the relevant policies. During the Summer of 2007 I started RC patrolling, and for a month did some fairly heavy vandal reverting and reporting, hence the spike in my contributions. I then prematurely applied for adminship at the end of August 2007, as I felt that the tools would help me with the work that I did. The community reached no consensus (when in fairness it should probably been an outright oppose) quite rightly due to my lack of experience. Four and a half months on, I feel that I am now ready to try again, as I feel that the extra time has enabled me to learn the policies of Wikipedia to a much greater depth than I did at my previous RfA. I am still an active RC patroller, and I would now like to have the opportunity to help the community in a much more involved way, making this encyclopaedia as good, reliable and in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia as much as is possible. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. _TalkIslander 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Rudget (talk · contribs) - I was surprised, actually no that would be putting it lightly, I suppose astounded would be a better word – when I just found out that Islander, probably a user we've all come across, was up at RFA. I've come across him many's a time and I've always been left with a deep impression that has been consistently good. I have never once had to turn down an AIV report, and I see that that he has excellent knowledge of the page protection process [1] and contributes constructively to AFD discussions [2] [3] [4]. A user with a civil temperament (not only with those who are kind in return, but also those who have presented arguments such as here), a dedication for Wikipedia, and a user with excellent clue and judgement (not viewable by non-administrators), I have absolutely no doubt that the Islander will make it all the way as not only an administrator we will respect, but also admire. It is with this that I wish the very best of luck to him. Regards, Rudget. 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note: In order to avoid any potential confusion, I'll point out that I changed my username on 11 January, from 'TheIslander' to just 'Islander', which I had wanted at signup, but was already taken. My first RfA can be found here. I can guarantee that this will be my one and only name change _TalkIslander 00:45, 14 January 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: Though my experience and knowledge of Wikipedia has vastly improved since my last RfA, the work that I intend to take part in should I succeed more or less hasn’t. Though in general not as bad as when I last went through RfA, the CSD category still encounters a backlog fairly regularly. My RC patrolling, and now specifically new-page patrolling, has shown me many an article which qualifies for CSD, and so I feel I know the policies well enough to make an educated decision as to whether an article really does qualify for deletion or not, and would thus be able to aid in the clearing of this backlog. Secondly, AIV. Again, RC patrolling throws a lot of vandals into my path, and it’s frustrating to have to report a vandal who has maxed out their warnings to AIV, and then watch them continue vandalising whilst sitting in a queue. Finally, AfD. I have participated in a fair few AfDs, and read through many, many more. I feel that this places me in a good position to read through a finishing AfD, determine the consensus (or lack of), and close the discussion correctly. Of course I would also be more than happy to turn my attention to any particular backlog that exists and needs urgent attention, either straight away if I know what to do, or if not after first carefully making myself fully aware of the systems and procedures in place. _TalkIslander 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

A: On the one hand, there’s my RC patrolling. To this day I cannot understand why a vandal does what he or she does – it’s beyond me how someone can actively destroy a resource as good as Wikipedia. For this reason I believe that the work of all RC patrollers is valuable, as it keeps Wikipedia in as clean a state as possible for those that value what it is. Entirely separate from that is the work I do to specific articles. For example, I worked on the Legoland Windsor article for a number of months, and took it from what was effectively an advert which used slightly odd English to what I believe was a much more NPOV account of the park. I intended to get rid of the bullet lists, but other editors managed to beat me to it, and did a very good job of it. Another (smaller) article which I rewrote was At-Bristol, and I am currently looking at Young Dracula - I had a large editing session on that article recently. Finally, I am a member of the BBC Wikiproject, and do a fair amount of editing of related articles. _TalkIslander 01:00, 14 January 2008 (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: I have been involved in a fair few conflicts whilst here. The most notable was probably at the end of August 2007, right in the middle of my last RfA actually, over at Talk:Docklands Light Railway. A user insisted that Passenger Service Assistants, PSAs, had been renamed Vehicle Operators, VOs. He stated that he knew this as he worked for Serco, who run the DLR. Having travelled by DLR recently, I knew that, because the signage had not changed, this was not true, at least from a passenger’s point of view. As he did not source his claims, I reverted. He placed a message on my talk page stating that he knew this to be true as he worked for Serco, and he reverted. I tried to explain the importance of citing sources, but he would not listen, so I transferred the discussion to the article’s talk page, and eventually requested a third opinion. The third opinion fell to my way of thinking, and at that point the user started a flat-out edit war with a large number of other users who were reverting to my version. Eventually this user, and a few of his socks were blocked. This whole event taught me a lot about dispute resolution, and the systems in place to sort it out, such as WP:3O. This ‘inside’ knowledge from having been through the system would certainly help me no end should I become an admin. (It should be noted that, had I already been an admin here, I would not have instigated a block against this user, as, being heavily involved in the dispute myself, it would have been a clear violation of WP:BLOCK). _TalkIslander 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

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

A: A ban is the official removal of editing privileges on Wikipedia (all of, or just part of). Dispute resolution is the most common reason for a user being banned. A ban can be temporary or permanent. However, in itself, a ban does not actually take away the users ability to edit – it’s more like a rule, “because of such and such, you may no longer edit Wikipedia”. It requires enforcement, and the usual way to do this (for bans for the whole of Wikipedia) is a block. A block is the technical mechanism Wikipedia uses to stop a particular IP or user editing – when one or the other is blocked, they cannot edit Wikipedia using that IP or account. Like a ban, a block can be temporary or permanent, but unlike a ban, it’s mainly used for vandalism, not dispute resolution (though a block would often be needed to enforce a ban). Another main difference is that whereas a ban is a penalty for undesired behaviour, a block is merely a mechanism to prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia. _TalkIslander 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: Well, most importantly of all I would certainly not replace the material without discussion; the most important factor to consider when editing bios is verifiability – all material must be fully sourced and referenced. Back to the question, I would first take it up with the administrator in question – ask them precisely how they feel it violates WP:BLP. If we reached a consensus, great, if not, I’d take it to the BLP noticeboard, where consensus would hopefully be reached. If, after this process, consensus was not reached for whatever reason, I wouldn’t re-add the material – it’s better to omit a dicey fact than leave in something that is potentially libellous. _TalkIslander 02:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

3. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

A: If I’d seen it a while before thinking of closing it, and consensus appeared to be against current policy, I would probably vote in it, and let another admin decide the outcome. If, for whatever reason, I hadn’t voted in it but was still going to close it, I would close it per consensus and probably list it at deletion review. Having said that, a) if an article is truly against current policy, consensus really should show as much, as many editors who hang around AfD are experienced editors, and b) for the first few months of being an admin I would steer clear of such AfDs, and leave them to the more experienced admins, whilst I gradually gained more experience on less controversial discussions. _TalkIslander 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

4. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: I have to say, I’m not sure. Certainly if I become an admin, I will be ‘answerable’ to the community, and if the community as a whole feel (i.e. consensus is reached) that I’m doing anything incorrectly, then I would take whatever action deemed necessary by the same consensus, most likely de-sysop-ification (of course I certainly don’t plan to do anything that would require such drastic action, but if for whatever reason the community felt it necessary, I would follow their wishes). Having said that, the whole process of creating criteria for editors to request recall, adding oneself to the category etc. seems overly bureaucratic. In my opinion every admin should be ‘recallable’, and as such the category shouldn’t be needed. If my actions really did warrant closer examination, or de-sysop-ification, then someone should start a discussion at WP:RFC/U, or, if serious enough, go to Arbcom. This isn’t to say that I won’t add myself to the category, or that I won’t literally be open for recall (I certainly will) – I’m just undecided, and would have to think about it and investigate further. _TalkIslander 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

5. What do you think are the concerns that other editors will raise about you during this RfA, and how would you address them ahead of time?

A: I think concerns from my previous RfA are bound to come up. The main concern was a lack of experience, but I seriously do feel that I now have that experience. In retrospect, as stated in the introduction above, my previous RfA was premature. A small niggle that as an outsider I might have would be wondering why my edit count the month after my last RfA was so low. Someone in my last RfA suggested that I might ‘Wikibonk’, and the edit count might actually suggest as much, but in actual fact there is a real-life reason for that. I moved back to university, and as soon as I did, the hard drive on my laptop died spectacularly, and as such I had limited access to computers for a few weeks whilst I tried to get it repaired. The only other main concern that I might see is the lack of intensive edits to a particular article to elevate it to GA or even FA status. I realise that I haven’t edited an article to quite this level yet, and realise that this might count against me. However, I don’t feel it should. I do carry out a lot of work on articles, such as my edits to Legoland Windsor, Young Dracula, and others. My editing style is more to bring, in my opinion, poor articles to acceptable standards than acceptable articles to FA standards. Having said that, I don’t feel myself that this should hinder an RfA – after all, all major admin tasks are based around maintenance of the encyclopaedia, hence the symbol of the mop, and not the furthering of articles to FA status (though of course that is the primary aim of Wikipedia, and all actions eventually lead to that). _TalkIslander 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Dihydrogen Monoxide

6. What's your opinion on the GA project (in relation to FA and PR)? Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A: I think that the aim of any article is to bring it up to the best standard possible, in terms of content, written English, verifiability etc. and the easiest way to determine whether an article is at this standard is the FA process – having an article reviewed by competent editors (PR), and then having it assessed against standard criteria (FA). However, I think that were GA not to exist, the jump from what could initially have been a stub to FA status would be huge, and would appear extremely difficult. GA adds an extra ‘middle’ standard. GA articles are, by definition, of a ‘good’ standard – not brilliant, not FA-class, but better than something that hasn’t been assessed at all. Say I was breaking WP:COI big-time and decided to write ‘Islander’, an article about myself. To aim for FA status initially would be an extremely daunting task, so daunting in fact that it might put me off continuing altogether. However, there is a slightly easier-to-obtain standard, GA. To aim for that would be less daunting, and I am less likely to be put off by it, and more likely to put my best efforts into it. Once I pass this standard, the next step from GA to FA is much more manageable than that from nothing to FA. A peer review here is also much more useful than before GA, as it’s less likely to come across small blatant problems, such as a lack of sources, and more likely to dig out more obscure ways in which an article could be improved. _TalkIslander 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Icestorm815

7. What is your opinion of Ignore All Rules, and when should (or shouldn't) it be invoked?

A: I think that the idea behind ignore all rules is fairly simple, though in my opinion the name is somewhat misleading (suggesting to new users that the rules are there to be broken, with or without reason). I think that the idea of aiming for one goal, in this case to write the encyclopaedia, and not letting rules get in the way of that is great. Having said that, if particular rules are often getting in the way, their merit should be questioned. The rules are there to aid the achievement of the final goal, not hinder it, so in theory ‘Ignore all rules’ shouldn’t even be needed. It is, however, a very good fail-safe in case certain rules are getting in the way of the final goal. With this in mind, it’s fairly easy to determine when ‘Ignore all rules’ should and shouldn’t be invoked: if a particular ‘breach’ in the rules is actually uncontroversially beneficial to the encyclopaedia, then the policy should clearly be followed; if it is controversial as to whether a particular ‘breach’ benefits the encyclopaedia, then more likely than not ‘Ignore all rules’ should not be followed – consensus should be found, and further actions taken from there. _TalkIslander 11:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since, you've been pounded with lots of questions, here are some fun ones!

8. What is your favourite colour? (There is a correct answer, get it right and you get mega brownie points!)

A. Err… *looks ‘round worriedly, and wonders if a wrong answer here will cost him the RfA*… difficult – it always used to be red, but then I went through a phase of liking purple. As you may be able to tell from my userpage and signature, I now kinda like blue, so it would seem I’m slowly going through the spectrum :P… still have a soft spot for red, though. _TalkIslander 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Be sure not to answer Blue. No, yel... , as then the bridgekeeper may not allow you pass ;) Pundit|utter 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

9. If you only had a one match and went into a cold and dark room, which contained an oil heater and a candle, what would you light first?

A. Candle. I’d prefer to be warm and in the dark than be able to see, but freezing, but if I light the candle first, I can then use that to light the heater. Having said that, a match lasts for a small amount of time – surely I’d be able to light both with the match if I were careful… _TalkIslander 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional Question from Useight

10. What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

A. Would that be an African or European swallow? Regardless, see here ;). _TalkIslander 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a great answer. Enjoyed the link. Your answer to the previous question by IceStorm815 is incorrect, however. Useight (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

11. Who stole the cookie from the cookie jar? Dihydrogen Monoxide 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A. Err... one of the 'crats? Wasn't me, that's for sure... _TalkIslander 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from John

12 What is your opinion of WP:SPADE? Discuss how it coexists with WP:AGF on this project. --John (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A. I think WP:SPADE is, on the whole, sound advice. If it is very clear that a user is a vandal, there’s no point in calling them anything else – same with a disruptive editor etc. I think the important part comes when making sure that everything is done civilly. Say you were to go on a vandalising splurge, it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to say “Stop being an outright vandal, or else you’ll be blocked”. Better would be “Please stop editing in a disruptive manor; it gives you the appearance of a vandal”. Both are effectively the same, and yet the tone of each is so different. As far as it’s coexistence with AGF goes, I think I inadvertently covered that above – I stated “If it is very clear that…”. If it’s blatantly obvious that a user is a vandal, there’s no point stating anything else. If, however, they have a number of dubious edits, that’s not enough for the immediate assumption that they are a vandal, hence they certainly shouldn’t be labelled as such. _TalkIslander 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

• See Islander's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Islander: Islander (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

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

[edit] Discussion

1. I view near-unanimous support (such as 35/1/0) as prima facie evidence of a good administrator candidate.
2. I remember seeing the name around, but not anything negative about it, which is prima facie evidence of not being a bad administrator candidate.
3. I really, really like the answer to question 4 (admin recall).
4. Islander did make kind of a big deal about Redvers' shameful edit summary, and the great logic sarcasm was really helpful.

These are my observations and thoughts. I'm not really neutral, just undecided. I'll revisit this within the next day or so. WODUP 09:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Five days later, I went neutral. WODUP 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support. I think that this is probably one of the most clueful self-noms I have ever seen. The answers to his questions more than make up for any issues that I have with borderline projectspace experience. I found his answer to O-4 refreshing - I think that a lot of people say they are in support of admin recall because it looks good that they are willing to let the community recall them on a whim. I like to see an honest answer from someone that has reservations about that optional process. Trusilver (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Okay, enough questions already. Islander knows what's going on. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Based on answers to questions. ^Avruchtalk 04:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong Support The user knows more than enough based on the numerous questions. My last two questions were just to make sure that your not just a robotic admin! Best of luck! Icestorm815 (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. The candidate's answers to the questions have been (rightly) cited as thoughtful and well-informed, and I can't do anything but agree. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support. This guy knows what he's doing. Not a whole boatload of Wikipedia namespace edits, but he has a clear understand of how we roll. Useight (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good and good luck! And don't let some superiority complex takeover once you are admin - which I hope you will be soon --Niyant (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Clearly knows policy, has experience with admin processes AND article work. No concern about misusing (accidentally or intentionally) the mop. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Put him to work, ASAP - The Transhumanist 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - fellow member of WikiProject BBC, proved he could clear large backlogs after assessing 1000's of articles in a few day. Always civil and helpful. Very unlikely to abuse the tools. Great guy! Tiddly-Tom 07:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Extra-mega-strong-super-support - Extremely good editor, and the tools would be used well. // F9T 09:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Strong support Oppose this user and I will get mad. NHRHS2010 talk 10:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Please don't appear to threaten editors who disagree with you. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    What an utterly ridiculous statement by NHRHS2010. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    I think it's fairly obvious that this was a joke and they weren't serious? Lankiveil (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Eh, no. NHRHS2010 has a torrid history of making seriously-intentioned yet ridiculous comments like this one. Daniel (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Seriously, don't announce it, that's childish. Just start flaming away, or don't. User:Dorftrottel 14:13, January 14, 2008

    I am feeling offended of what Daniel said about me above. He calls my comments ridiculous, and I dislike it. NHRHS2010 talk 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Well, you being "offended" or "hurt" easily isn't anything I didn't know before: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/NHRHS2010/Questions for the candidate#Questions from Daniel. Daniel (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Discussing this at WP:AN. NHRHS2010 talk 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    Rant at AN like that and I will get mad. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

13. Support, solid user, will be an asset to the project with the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC).
14. Support A good user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support Remember to light the match first... - Dureo (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

    Ah. Fair point... :P _TalkIslander 12:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

16. Support. Looks good to me. Good luck, Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support I supported last time, after your answer to my optional question was answered in such a pleasingly civil and informative fashion. This leads me, with the greatest repect, to believe the candidate has the communication skills so essential as an administrator. I had no other concerns at that time, and three and a half months more work here has only confirmed that my support then was justified. Good luck and, as ever, Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  13:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Despite favorite color not being blue, user seems otherwise reasonable, knowledgeable, articulate. I'm afraid I don't find REDVEЯS oppose rationale sufficiently convincing. (If anyone opposes I will agreeably respect there right to disagree and be happy if they do so agreeably.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support per the below exchange with REDVEЯS. Wikipedia could do with a more civil tone, and clearly experienced users who will help bring that about will obviously get my support for adminship. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Yep. Is ready to take the responsibility. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support good A's to the Q's. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support by Keeper. Good use of the word whilst above. One of my favorite words. But seriously, you're a great editor with a good temperament, well-spoken, and thoughtful. You will not abuse (or misuse) the mop or the bucket. Great answers to questions above, especially optional Q5 (Avruch) and Q6 (DHMO). BTW, I used to like red also, but now that it has forever become a Link to Nowheresville..., not so much. Keeper | 76 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I'm impressed by the work that this user does. GlassCobra 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Cliche support - Rudget. 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
25. An Oh No! Not a self- nom! Support - Looks ready to grasp the mop. EJF (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Good luck :-) Dustihowe  Talk  19:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support - Impressed with answers to the questions. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support A great editor, very good answers to questions. Great job! Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Support - experienced, meets my standards, bold, humorous, and will (probably) not abuse the tools. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support meets the standards, has his wits around him. Pundit|utter 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Support - I especially agree with Trusilver, per nom. Spencer^T♦C 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support ...and there was much rejoycing.... --Mhking (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Jmlk17 06:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Support, seems like a good user who'll do well to have the extra tools.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Oppose, wrong favorite color. —Random832 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Despite poor answers to questions 8 and 9. In all seriousness, I have no doubt that Islander will be a trustworthy addition to the ranks. --John (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support I have no reason to object, doesn't seem likely to abuse the buttons. Lawrence Cohen 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
41. 'Support - I like to think I've had a relatively large ammount of interaction with Islander and from what I can see, he's fine admin material. What I particularly like is the way he asks for advice if he's at all unsure - to me, that shows he wouldn't abuse the tools. He's a very friendly chap as well which is always a plus. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - Very good candidate, will not abuse admin additions. BrianY (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Sensible editor who makes thoughtful contributions. I was waiting for this to come round.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support C'est moi ^Parlez 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Obviously trustworthy. VanTucky 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Support - Answers to the questions looked good. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Support - No problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Support While I agree with Rudget somewhat, I still think the editor can recover from this minor stumble and be more courteous to users they interact with in the future. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Just for clarity, I assume you mean Redvers below, and not Rudget who co-nominated me? _TalkIslander 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

49. Support - Per Rudget. Gromlakh (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
50. Support - Supporting after considering all the comments. --Bhadani (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Support Great editor and see no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
52. Support - Very friendly and civil; I've always found Islander a pleasure to work alongside. Seaserpent⁸⁵ 12:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - Most certainly yes all the answers to the questions are very good. Harland1 (^t/_c) 17:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - In my experience, straight talking and not afraid of taking action. But not too cocky for self-improvement, either. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
55. Support --MoRsE (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Support, seen the user in action and believes the user will be a good addition to the admin corps.
56. Support - With the good answers and good contributions.--JForget 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose. Communication skills are vital in administrators. The candidate has a poor record with me - attempting to pick a fight over the word "shameful" in an edit summary [5] and then trolling to provoke a response when dismissed [6]. I cannot, in all honesty, trust this user with the tools. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment With respect, I don’t think I was trying to ‘pick a fight’ with you, and I certainly wasn’t trolling. My comments were civil and thought out (though I’ll leave the community to judge that – here’s the first comment, and here’s the second). I maintain that shameful was the wrong word to use – to me it implies a lack of good faith. Regardless, according to WP:TROLL, “Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia”. My comments were civil, and an attempt to convince you to my way of thinking – they certainly were not attempts to disrupt anything, and they weren’t rude in the least. _TalkIslander 11:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you see nothing wrong in the comments you made, but that only proves my point about your poor communication skills. The first comment was an odd thing to waste your time picking a fight about and I worry about how you will communicate with new users if you were promoted. The second was trolling, a pointless attempt to provoke a reaction, and your wikilawyering over the definition of trolling to prove that you weren't is unbecoming of an admin candidate. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

   Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion, but I still feel that my first comment really wasn't an attempt to "pick a fight". As for wikilawyering, I genuinely don't believe that I was trolling, and as such don't believe that citing an essay on Wikipedia to back myself up amounts to wikilawyering. Regardless, thanks for your input. _TalkIslander 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose As per above diff in conjunction with User:Daniel_Quinlan/gaming#Be_nice. Substance over politesse. Fossa_?! 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose A clean track record is very important to me. If you get flustered with other editors easily, I don't know how you will handle actual trolls talking down to you when you block, delete, etc. Trust me, it's not fun! However, it's clear that this RfA will pass at this point, but just remember to keep a level head. нмŵוτнτ 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

1. I thought about this for a bit and decided that I'm neutral. Everything else seems okay, but the issue with Redvers concerns me, though not enough to outright oppose. In my opinion, the edit summary didn't warrant any of this. To me, shameful doesn't imply any sort of intent – it implies a result – , so to say that something is shameful doesn't assume bad faith. Again, everything else is fine, and at 53/2/1, this RfA does look like it'll be successful. I offer advice to choose your battles wisely – don't sweat the small stuff – along with my anticipatory congratulations. :D Cheers, WODUP 06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

   Comment Well, it would appear that we regard the word 'shameful' in different ways. Having said that, I fully appreciate what you have said, and will take it on board. The same goes for Hmwith's comments above in oppose #3. I hope that, should this RfA be successful, (and at this stage I would be upset if it wasn't :P), I can show you both that this was a one-off incident, and does not reflect my usual 'style' on Wikipedia. Thank you both, _TalkIslander 17:26, 20 January 2008 (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.