Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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

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

Contents 1 About RfA 2 Nominating 3 Current nominations for adminship 3.1 Billinghurst 3.1.1 Nomination 3.1.2 Questions for the candidate 3.1.3 General comments 3.1.4 Discussion 3.1.4.1 Support 3.1.4.2 Oppose 3.1.4.3 Neutral 3.2 Backslash Forwardslash 3.2.1 Nomination 3.2.2 Questions for the candidate 3.2.3 General comments 3.2.4 Discussion 3.2.4.1 Support 3.2.4.2 Oppose 3.2.4.3 Neutral 3.3 Kelapstick 3.3.1 Nomination 3.3.2 Questions for the candidate 3.3.3 General comments 3.3.4 Discussion 3.3.4.1 Support 3.3.4.2 Oppose 3.3.4.3 Neutral 3.4 CactusWriter 3.4.1 Nomination 3.4.2 Questions for the candidate 3.4.3 General comments 3.4.4 Discussion 3.4.4.1 Support 3.4.4.2 Oppose 3.4.4.3 Neutral 4 About RfB 5 Current nominations for bureaucratship 6 Related pages

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this. For examples of what the community is looking for, read some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In close nominations, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact that positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep", "no way" and "as per."

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so he/she can make proper adjustments and possibly fair better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.

Note that the Requests for adminship process draws a variety of Wikipedians to express their opinions and help make these decisions. There are some editors who oppose many, or even most, requests, for a particular reason. Although the community currently endorses the right of any Wikipedian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this more-or-less uncommon voting pattern is perceived by some as "trolling". Before responding to such comments in an RfA, consider whether that is the best forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have a lot of experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nominating

Nominations can only be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 11:24:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

Billinghurst

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (42/14/3); Scheduled to end 13:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Billinghurst (talk · contribs) – This is my first nomination for adminship that will be accepted (unless 76.117.247.55 has a sudden change of heart). And it couldn't be for a finer chap. As a bit of background that many will not know, he had an extensive involvement in RootsWeb for 10 years[1], being the employee responsible for mailing lists and list administrators, and the spam filters, was known for smacking a few heads together as required, and contributed truckloads of material to that project.

He joined English Wikipedia in February 2007, but didn't edit until two days before Christmas. After 49 edits here, he finds his way over to English Wikisource in July 2008 and joins the fledgling s:Wikisource:WikiProject DNB (digitising Dictionary of National Biography).

He now has 14,000 edits over on English Wikisource, has been a sysop there since February of this year (RfA), has patrolled 12,000 revisions, and his bot sDrewthbot has another 10,000 edits doing all sorts of general improvements. Please review his contribs and logs over there to gain an appreciation of his dedication and competency for the role of sysop.[2] For those that are not aware, the majority of the admin corps on English Wikisource are admins here, including four stewards, so he rubs shoulders with experienced Wikimedians on a regular basis, and is familiar with administrative methods.

He has over 7000 edits here on English Wikipedia, with over 90% of those being to content. While some may consider that a negative, given his history of administrative involvement in RootsWeb and Wikisource, I consider it to be a positive. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BirgitteSB for a similar RfA, which turned out successful. If you feel the need to oppose due to concerns about his ability to navigate the Wikipedia minefield, please ask him questions and bookmark this page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence in me Jayvdb. Happy to accept the nomination. billinghurst (talk)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Continue general tidying, discouraging spamming and vandalism by agreed and accepted means. More work in {{Now Commons}} and transwiki. Thoughtful consideration of issues, and mixing with other admins to jointly advance the project. Find a niche or two where my administration skills can provide benefit, and advance the WP principles, and with the interface of WS and WP, especially where it adds to efficiencies.

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

A: Quietly disambiguating, and bringing old works from WikiSource to Wikipedia. Adding crosslinks between WS and WP. Helping to import from WP to WS where the works have been identified. My skills are systems and organisation, while I can and do write, I do not see myself as the composer of A class articles. My contributions are about reflecting on the issues, and what is meant, then thoughtful and qualitative improvements.

Supplementary Ah, my passion? That is to bring evidence of notable people and notable events of past periods to Wikipedia (and who are probably forgotten today), as what I want to see is a better understanding and context of the social history of yesteryear, and the places of the forebears. Also to unearth and reintroduce old texts to current researchers as they contain the facts and opinions of the people at their contemporary time, and have them available as living references. I have recently finished s:List of Carthusians, 1800–1879 which is full of biographical snippets to support WP articles, and I am now working on integration of content, so my best work is still to come. Concurrently working on DNB articles, Author pages, and transcribing contemporary obituary notices of the late 19th and early 20th C. Also working on s:Index:Notes by the Way.djvu for its social commentary. Crosslinking both ways between the WP/WS projects, so many of my best contributions could be links from WS to WP, something like this trio Augustus Jessopp <-> s:Author:Augustus Jessopp <-> Search for Augustus Jessopp

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

A: No edit wars here. Some involvement with early discussions about date delinking, nothing heated.

Stress? Not worth the stress, this is about enjoyment, and advancing the project. My life skills give me the ability to reason and cope. I utilise time and space. If I cannot be civil, then I don't answer in haste. Type it in draft, get away from it, review the words and post later if still happy.

I don't do blame, I look for solutions. Consult if and as necessary. My job gives me oodles more stressful situations than WP will ever approach.

-- billinghurst (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

4. Please show an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made no edits to policies or guidelines, please describe an edit you would like to make. If you feel Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.

A:There is no such thing as a perfect guideline, they cannot cover all situations and circumstances. So it comes to the application of the principle, and the purpose of the guideline. I cannot readily think of one specific edit at WP, though, there will be some at WS. I am consultative and would go via a talk page, and edit based on consensus.

Clarification: Do I understand correctly that you do not support any changes to any policy or guideline whatsoever?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A:Policies and guidelines should be regularly reviewed, and adapted and adopted as circumstance and users require. Change is inevitable, an example is the recent licence review. I was more intimating that guidelines are not absolute and cannot be absolute, they align with the overarching principle. [I am trying to not turn this into a terminology discussion]

Further clarification: The answer I'm seeking is, what specific changes to policy or guidelines do you yourself advocate?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A:At this point, I am not advocating for any specific changes. I do wish to see a resolution to the wikilink of dates, and I expressed my personal opinions at that time, though the communities decision will be what I follow. I am interested to see how we handle BLP's and patrolling of the edits, though not advocating any position (yet). I will consider the points of view, and the cogent argument. If I have something worthwhile to contribute, then I would do so. I do not come here with a hidden agenda, nor a plan to undertake transformational change.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

5. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?

A-One needs to respect the decision of another admin. Any dire concern that I have with a person would usually be raised directly and privately, and in terms of understanding their POV.

6. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?

A-I would wave my magic wand and disambiguate all pages perfectly, everyone cheers and there is no argument about any change. Oh how I wish! :-)

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?

A-A normal user, or an account primarily super-vandal? I generally don't see myself as an account blocker and the terminator, and cannot say that I have seen that behaviour (yet).

Supplementary I assume good faith as good faith is needed, though do not confuse that with a set and forget attitude, I will watch, and will act in accord with the guidelines. Wanton vandalism is unacceptable. I do use the block tool, sometimes for short, sometimes indefinitely. I do undo edits, though with consideration, and with appropriate commentary. I do look for others editing with a vested interest. I also leave people the ability to dispute my decisions and am open to review.

8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?

A-Closing AfDs isn't my priority at this point. At WS, we do Copyright violations and Possible Deletions, there I am looking for a clear decision, where clarity of the decision is better than a quick decision. If consultation takes longer, or another opinion is needed, so be it.

9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?

A-Hmm. Again not a current personal priority. As a user, I would have said that there is not a clear number, it would depend on links, variety and diversity of opinion, time open, etc. Collaboratively built, collaboratively dismantled.

10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?

A-Most definitely. My career would demonstrate that I manage stress, a most necessary skill. WP and WS is for the personal side and fulfilment, it isn't going to be my life, or domininating it. Not being a blame-monster is always a good starting position. :-)

11.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?

A-Generally I would say articles submitted in good faith should be given a chance to breathe. My subjective opinion is just that, it is not the basis for an objective unilateral action. I believe my edit history would demonstrate that tolerance.

12. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings?

A-Yes, and have done so on WS. The Ass Pus vandal is a shining example. Created accounts solely to vandalise, and there is no good faith and never an intent for good faith.

Additional (optional) questions from Toddst1:

13.. If you came across an edit that said something to the effect of "I am going to kill myself." what would you do and why?

A:I don't think that the Q.13 or Q.14 are questions specific to this RFA process, they relate to me as a person (admin or general user). As a person, I will have a normal variability in how I would respond, available time, time of day, age of edit, IP or user account, tiredness, ability to respond, possibly even whether it is a high volume page, or my talk page. Weigh up the circumstances and the evidence.

14.. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: see A.13

Supplementary Answer: Knowing that there is specific guidance to issues of threats of violence, would have been useful. Now knowing that, I would have no qualms in following the specified direction.

Additional optional questions from Seivad

15. You have stated that you do not see yourself as a Class A composer of articles, but do you have any significant edits to articles, and are you particularly proud of any of these?

A: Ah, now don't confuse composer with creator. I am a researcher and supplier of information, excellent resources and skills to tap the resources, especially with the historical perspective. That I can demonstrate! I just am a boring old sausage when it comes to fancy words, I missed creative when the skills were handed out.<shrug> This is more about knowing one's strengths. My strength is evidence, bringing resources, being analytical.

16. Other than disambiguation repair, do you do any other MOP related activities on Wikipedia on a regular basis, such as RCP or New Page monitoring?

When I disambiguate, I also do a reasonable amount of tidy and maintenance at the same time. New page monitoring, no. RCP, yes, bits of wikification, again often as I disambiguate the mop comes out, depending what I am doing on the day. Lots of adding references. As mentioned, I am keen on working on transwiki issues, where they give value to both WP, WS and Commons and there seems a need for that.

Optional question from Keepscases

17. You are to be given a high-quality jacket with a snapshot of any Wikipedia article printed on the back, and you must wear this jacket every day for the next year. Which article do you pick, and why?

A:Initial thought was Black Saturday bushfires, and for personal reasons, though as that may be upsetting for others, then probably Devil facial tumour disease. We need a solution. :-/

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

18. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Sure. Honesty. Facts. Right to access to public information. Respect. Objectivity. Occasional helping hand.

Continue to provide them irrespective of whether I am an administrator or not.

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

19. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A: For WP, this is it. WYSIWYG (and at so many levels). No games with me. I do have a bot on WS — SDrewthbot.

Questions from Rootology

20a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?

A: Just this one Billinghurst. Probably a few IP edits around where I haven't been logged in, but not purposefully.

20b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: Zilch.

20c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: I was asked this by Jayvdb (my proposer and who is ArbCom) and he got the same answer, no other accounts.

21. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: As someone who has dealt with issues of public records in the public space for nigh on 20 years, I am accustomed to 100 year rule, so I am comfortable with WP's conservative approach, and that opinion of mine is available on the web. I firmly believe in an evidence-based approach, no rumour or innuendo. I am not a celebrity chaser, and I personally have no particular interest in the nitty gritty of a person's lawful private life. Firmly in this is an encyclopedia camp, not an alternate edition of Who magazine.

22. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: Beliefs, sure. Affiliations? Nothing political, professionally yes, every employee has an affiliation. Interests? Most definitely. Of what may be a concern to this group or to this process? Nothing springs to mind. I know about vested and conflicts of interest, and can guarantee that I know when to step aside. I have strong personal ethics, I work in a profession where it is required. If you have specific concerns, then happy to address them, not sure that I want to expose my life to complete public scrutiny. I do feel strongly about the community, and a community approach, and I think that is evident from my approach at WP/WS, and my history while on the web and in the above references to which Jayvdb directed.

23. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?

A: I have no problems with being judged for my actions or inactions. I am okay with accountability and responsibility. That is how I have operated on WS. It is how I operate in life.

24. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: A block is made on the basis of added content and actions, not due to an appointment or absence of it. Administration is about the tools to administer, not special privilege. If blocked users, have a means of redress, same applies for admins. Might I think longer/again/consult wider before doing it, yes.

25. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A:Strong long black (from the beans please), no sugar; I have given up the powdered stuff! Do we want to talk roasts? Source? Caffeine content? Fairtrade?

(Vested interest) Jayvdb does owe me several virtual beers for solving some long outstanding research problems for a couple of articles. Maybe one day ... ?!?

Nominee's response to Oppose commentary

• There is a comment that I lack the demonstrated experience for issue resolution. I cannot see that specific question above, hence hadn't specifically addressed it. Can I say that I heartily disagree with your presumption. As the listmaster for RootsWeb and the substantive manager of 30 000+ mailing lists, shepherding 2000+ list administrators, and the final point of call for 500 000 odd subscribers to mailing lists, that I have probably had my absolute fair share of issue resolution matters. All happy, well obviously no, was I respected? Considered fair and equitable? I would say that I was.

• There is a hint that I ignore threats of violence and the mentally ill, umm, no. I have more experience with the mentally ill than I would wish on my worst enemy. Threats of violence? I would follow process set out and I am thankful for the pointer to the page. I would state that you have no evidence basis to make a judgment of my expertise, skills and knowledge in these areas, and unless you are professionals in that area, you should be mindful in expressing opinions. If you are following guidelines, I can follow as well as the next person. If you want a specific response to a specific example, then happy to respond directly. To a broad question, you will get a broad answer. Do I know all the answers to all the admin pols & procs, No. I do learn, I do not act hastily, I do not act precipitously, I take responsibilities and authority seriously, and readily willing to listen to feedback and other people's opinions.

• Do I come here skiting my expertise? Look at me!? No. That is not how I operate. The role of a facilitator or arbitrator is not to be the focus, but the locus. If you are wanting someone who is the focus of attention, rather than someone who looks at solutions, then I am not a person that you want, and will happily withdraw from the nomination process. Do I have experience with solutions, yes, I do. If I am unsuccessful, that is okay, I will go back to other tasks. I was truly asked to be nominated, it was not sought. I had some reluctance due to the back-biting and politics that is exhibited, however, I was asked by Jayvdb and a person for whom I have high respect and he thought that I had a good skill set to offer. I will now crawl back under my rock and await your decision-making process. :-)

General comments

• Links for Billinghurst: Billinghurst (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Billinghurst can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. No reservations. None. Billinghurst isn't the most active candidate, but you couldn't ask for a more trustworthy and reliable one. Interactions on the English Wikisource lead me to believe he is a truly great Wikimedian. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support:Seems dedicated, trustworthy & civil. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Per above. Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Contribs on WM projects show reason to trust. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. In my experience he is reliable and I have no concerns about him.--BirgitteSB 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Per AnonDiss. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   SupportCan see no reason not to. Dottydotdot (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   You already voted, indenting.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Support Antivenin 18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. User does good work, no reason to believe they'd misuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support No reason not to! America69 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support – Trusted user, will not abuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support As per Jayvdb and track is good and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has never been blocked and as I do not recall us ever having any memorable negative interactions (I tend to WP:AGF with those with whom I am not all that familiar with, but in any event, nothing overwhelming has jumped out at me upon reviewing this RfA). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support, per Jayvdb's nomination. AGK 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per answer to #11 and for being a good user. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 21:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Looks good to me. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - seems like a good contributor, who knows his stuff, with no problems in his history. No reason to oppose. Robofish (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. I forgot this step. :-) Mr. Billinghurst has my complete confidence; I wouldn't nominate someone otherwise. He has learnt the ropes on Wikisource exceptionally fast, and I have full confidence that his maturity and experience in moderating online communities will be as much an asset to English Wikipedia as it has to English Wikisource. My only regret is that he will spend more time here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I don't think I've come across this candidate before, but having checked amongst other things the candidates talk page, block log, recent deleted contributions as well as reading this page I'm happy for Billinghurst to take up the mop. 7,000 edits in varied areas, a clean block log, clue and civility IMHO outweigh a couple of the answers being weak, especially as the weaknesses are not in areas where the candidate intends to concentrate. I'm curious as to the motivation for some of the questions, one or two of which look almost like fishing to me, and I will revisit this RFA as it progresses to see how things develop. ϢereSpielChequers 10:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support meets my standards. already admin on wiki source. so far opposers have not presented anything for me to oppose over. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support. Has done well enough here on Wikipedia, and has experience elsewhere that should be good enough to ensure competence. Best of luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support, no serious concerns for me. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. Qualifies to be an Admin. Experience is very good too. Cheers!--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^Life_Death 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Looks to be a valued, if limited-purpose, admin, as he is already a valued editor. Ray^Talk 15:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support  Looked over contribs, editor would be a good admin, has performed similar functions in other online realms. --StaniStani  15:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support I see no reason why not, 6000+ contributions since 2007 is more than enough for me, maintenance work is excellent. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Seems good to me: he's been asked 25 questions, and hasn't done that bad a job of answering them. Only 7,000 edits since 2007...that's more than enough, and edit count doesn't translate to trustworthiness or suitability for adminship. GAs/FAs/DYKs are irrelevant if there is other article work to compensate for them. More than 90% of Billinghurst's edits are to articles, which shows dedication to article-building. Acalamari 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, seems reasonable, cautious and amenable to advice. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Reasoned and logical answers given, clean log, proved suitability elsewhere. To those who say that only 7,000 edits are not enough I would argue that numbers are deceptive (one could make 20,000 minor typo edits as opposed to 7,000 more substanstial edits - quality not quantity). Idem remark about number of contributions having no relation to administrative duties which require other skill sets. To those who say that his replies are vague in some areas, is it not preferable to have someone highly competent in some areas, as opposed to a "Jack of all trades, master of none"? User can grow in areas where he is less experienced.AlexandrDmitri (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Definitely.--Res2216firestar 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Good faith editor, should be great asset ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support No reason to not trust him with the tools. rootology/equality 04:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support. Maturity. Self-knowledge. Communication skills. Steady improvement of existing articles, an area that is sorely lacking now. Ability to collaborate. A very fine candidate. Risker (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Appears (to me) to have proper level of WP:CLUE, and dedicated to the improvement of our site. I'd offer that Billinghurst is welcome to "dab" my reasoning. ;) — Ched :  ?  04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Yes, please. Keegan^talk 05:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support; if only more of our admins were like Billinghurst.

    But I see RFA is more broken than ever. Note for 'crat: those who actually know this guy support giving him the bit; the opposes are from people who don't know him, but think they can cover for their lack of actual interaction with a few arbitrary metrics and ten minutes snooping around. Hesperian 06:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

40. Support. He has his head screwed on the right way. Jude (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support — Completely trusted, will do work with the tools. They're called tools because they are to aid in the performance of work. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Never met the guy but his answers and contributions look fine to me. To-the-point, dedicated, both feet firmly on the ground, plenty of clue. I have no reason to assume he'll mess things up or cause dramas. Yintaɳ  09:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: Per response to questions 13 and 14. I would expect any administrator to take some kind of action, even if if it was a quick post on ANI about a threat of violence. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, to do what? To request a checkuser and call the police that IP X is about to commit suicide? I think there is little to nothing we can do in these cases - except reverting it as vandalism. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is not the place to have that debate. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Upon further reflection, the answers are very generic and show no ability to make a call in a grey area. Re-assert previously retracted Oppose.Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Lack of audited content contributions, no observed conflict resolution experience, no meaningful noticeboard activities, little AfD participation, very generic answers to questions 1-3. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Weak Oppose Most edits are from AWB and needs more work in collaborative areas. -download ׀ sign! 01:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   Actually, only 1,500 of his 7,000 were generated with AWB. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Weak oppose per David Fuchs. Experience gained on other wikis does not automatically guarantee success here. --John (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose per David Fuchs. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 01:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose Per David Fuchs.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose Don't like the answer to #13 and #14. User might be a great admin on other websites, but supplemental answer to #14 shows they are not ready here yet. No evidence of how they would handle under difficult circumstances, does not have my trust. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose - I'm not very impressed by the answers to the questions. I may change my !vote if they are elaborated on more. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose, rather generic answers to the templated questions. Nakon 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose - question #7 concerns me. Admins have all of the admin buttons, so it would be a good idea to find out about the block button at some point. --B (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    Since obtaining sysop on English Wikisource, by my quick count Billinghurst has done 45% (79/176) of the block actions there.[3] I don't use the block button here on English Wikipedia very often; neither has BirgitteSB[4]. However we are capable of blocking, even if that isn't the glove we wear here on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

12. Oppose - basically per David Fuchs. More article work is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - only 6,000 edits to article mainspace since 2007; more article work needed. Coldmachine^Talk 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well, there goes my bit. And I'm Spartacus!'s, Newyorkbrad's, Moni3's (!), and half of all other admins'. Amalthea 15:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yeah, but he only has 7,000 edits in total... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

    Can you please clarify:

    1. Why you feel a candidate's experience writing articles is relevant to this discussion of whether he/she would use the administrative tools?
    2. Notwithstanding #1, how much experience you would feel is needed in the area, given that a large proportion of administrators did not have that level of experience on promotion, and many still don't?

    Thanks in advance. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

14. Oppose Agreed, needs more cowbell article work. Also seems to be a bit trigger happy with the block baton.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

    Compare with my own block log there[5] Wikisource tries to maintain the atmosphere of a library, and much of the work at Wikisource depends on library science experience, which means we are more willing to forcibly remove trouble makers post-haste, with only the block log to inform they why they are not welcome. The reason is simply that vandals who find Wikisource have usually already been blocked from Wikipedia, so reform is extremely unlikely. Also, Wikisource contributions dont require a lot of collaboration - the text must be true to the original, so there is less to discuss, and exceedingly few reasons to alter a page, except to nudge it closer to the original. However we do allow collaborative translations, and this is one area where a broader spectrum of contributors is desirable. And this provides one example of Mr Billinghurst demonstrating a more "Wikipedia-like" approach to blocking. Please see this (and the section that follows) and note that his block there[6] was shorter than his block here[7] He can make quick choices when required, but most importantly he understands when quick reactions are not helpful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

15. Not yet. Grounds: 1) Little evidence of participation in contentious areas such as AfD or dispute resolution, so I can't satisfy myself this candidate would consistently act in an appropriate way in a contentious situation; 2) I found the answers to the questions not just generic, but actually evasive; 3) I think that anyone who can't think of a single edit they'd like to make to a Wikipedia policy, hasn't spent enough time thinking about policy to be an admin.

    I'll happily reconsider at any future RFA.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

#Neutral: Per revision to answers to questions #13 and 14 (was previously oppose). Toddst1 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral, Q #13 and #14 worry me slightly, waiting on answers to new questions. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral. I'm not impressed by the answers given to questions, but not enough to oppose. One two three... 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral, basically per One — ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Backslash Forwardslash

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (61/6/3); Scheduled to end 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) – Ok, where to start... I'm nominating myself for adminship for a few different reasons. Firstly, I feel I can be a lot more useful to the community than I am currently. I try to edit following the principal that if I add to a backlog, I should help to reduce it - it's the reason I have worked at DYK and have been reviewing at GAN. Increasingly however, I am noticing myself add a lot more to the backlog at NPP, and I might as well stop adding to the backlog and start helping to clear it.

My first RfA was in February of this year, with errant UAA reports and a general lack of experience being listed as common rationale for opposing. Since that RfA, I changed my perspective on the way I worked on Wikipedia, trying more to fix mistakes than to point out the mistakes I didn't make. In the last three and a half months, I have made around 10 UAA reports, none of which were rejected. None-the-less, my activity in 'administrative areas' has been focused on New Page Patrol and CSD tagging. My contributions to AfD discussions has been limited, but I have chipped a few times.

At my last RfA, I was able to present one FA and one GA. Unfortunately, I still have only those articles to give as 'reviewed content'. My article writing has been focused on articles that haven't received a ranking as of yet - articles like Frederick Birks and My Delirium are works in progress. I have made a few small, stub articles over the last few months also, and received two DYK credits in March.

In short, I feel that I have learnt from the mistakes pointed out in my first RfA, and I feel that I would be able to serve the community responsibly. ∗ \ / {talk} 11:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work mainly at clearing the WP:CSD backlog of nominated articles, given that is the area I feel I have the most experience in. I will also try and lend a hand at WP:AIV whenever I can, possibly helping WP:RFPP once I gain a little more admin experience. I won't be working at WP:UAA - I don't have right amount of confidence in my abilities in that area, and I would prefer not to be making errors on a noticeboard I do not fully understand.

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

A: In terms of article quality, Bruce Kingsbury is my only WP:FA, but I have also got an article to GA status and received five DYK credits. We are, after all, an encyclopaedia and I feel quite lazy if I haven't done enough article work. In other edits, I'm generally satisfied with the way I have been helping out at NPP; I do my best to be 100% accurate and I have removed or altered tags I have had reservations with. Although I have been a bit absent as of late, I have previously been involved with WP:DYK. My attention has not been focused on that area, but my interest in it will return.

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: Since my last RfA, I haven't had a major conflict. The only thing I can think of was having an article I created, Radiopilot tagged and deleted with what I felt was an inappropriate CSD tag. The article at creation had been short, and I was in the midst of expansion when I repeatedly received edit conflicts with User:RadioFan, who was adding maintenance tags to the article. This got a little frustrating when I felt like my comments to him were being ignored, but as soon as we contacted each other we came to an understanding. Given I plan to work at CSD, that incident helped me understand a lot of how new editors could be scared off, if they come across an editor more 'forceful' with the CSD tags.

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

4. Please show an edit you have made to a policy or guideline. If you have made no edits to policy or guidelines, please state an edit you would like to make. If you feel Wikipedia policies and guidelines are already perfect, please say so.

A:I don't recall ever making a change to an existing policy or guideline, but I wouldn't say that Wikipedia is perfect. I don't have a specific edit for you, but I would like to see the notability policies somewhat condensed and 'refined'. Currently the notability practices are scattered everywhere and people are using old AfD results as a precedent. I know the BLP situation is less than ideal, but I'm not totally convinced of what the appropriate measure is. There are a few other minor fixes here and there but overall I haven't got that many issues with the establishment. :)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

5. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: Rights? Quite honestly, I believe the only 'right' editors have here is the right to privacy and the right to vanish. As noble as free speech and other ideals are, I don't feel that they are directly translated online. I think Wikipedia should be allowing editors to say their mind and express opinions (to an extent!), but I feel using the word 'right', is a bit of a misnomer.

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

6. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A User:Backslash Forwardslash, User: Forwardslash Backslash and User: Slashsock. If any others claim to be me, they are wrong.

Questions from Rootology

7a. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have ever used, or registered, on the English Wikipedia project, including any not in use currently?

A: I seem to remember I had an account in '05/'06. I'll search around to find it - it was a whie ago and I only had a handful of edits.

I have found the account name, but I don't feel comfortable in releasing as it does have a few edits with information related to my real world identity. I'm more than happy to release the name to the Arbitration Committee if anyone has any concerns, but the account had under 50 edits on minor articles/redirects.

7b. If there are some names you feel you cannot disclose, why not?

A: See 7a.

7c. If the reasons are privacy related, will you be willing to disclose them to the Arbitration Committee before the +sysop bit is activated on your account, should you pass?

A: Yes, see Q7a.

8. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: The current BLP situation is, in my opinion, quite poor. Our BLP articles are too poorly protected, and too often are real people affected. The solution, however, is something for greater minds than I. I'm leaning towards semi-protection of all BLPs, but as I said in Q4, I'm not totally convinced of what the solution is.

9. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: Not really. My political views are pretty mainstream, and I'm not passionate enough about controversial topics to cloud my judgement. I would be happy to recuse if a user did not feel I was completely impartial, of course, but I generally know my biases.

10. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?

A: Recall is a broken process; those who should step down are usually the type not to stand for recall, and those who are willing to step down, shouldn't. I'd be happy to step down if someone I respect came up with a reason, certainly, but I'm not planning to draft a detailed recall process for myself.

11. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: Of course, adminship shouldn't be a super-group of users above the law. The only problem I see is that as far as I know*, admins are able to unblock themselves, essentially rendering the blocks useless.

* I've never needed to find out, nor have I seen otherwise.

12. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A: Chicolate cake. :)

Question from User:Gimmetrow

13. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a user block without prior discussion?

A: If the user is a known serial vandal, blocking without discussion is certainly acceptable, if not necessary to prevent further disruption. Potentially compromised accounts could be another instance, but generally discussion would be preferred in those situations. Apart from that, I cannot think of another circumstance that I'd need to block without discussion.

Followup. This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. Comment? Gimmetrow 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be making civility blocks on experienced editors. Too controversial, too much likelihood of drama, conflict. If I strongly felt that an established editor needed a block, I would head to ANI and let another admin perform it.

Question from Stifle

14. Under what circumstances can a non-free image of a person who is still alive be used on Wikipedia?

A. 99.9% of the time, the image is replaceable and fails the NFCC standards. There are one or two minor examples, mainly old images of people with high historic or educational value, but most NFCC pictures of living people (TV stills for an actors article etc) are not valid.

Question from Jamie^☆S93

15. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. I touched on this earlier in Q10, and probably didn't elaborate as well as I should have. Basically, if one or two editor(s) that I respect the judgment (doesn't need to be an admin) approaches me in a civil manner, with a reasonable request that I review my suitability for adminship, I would request to be desysopped and run again. There isn't a complete list of editors I can hand over, but you get the idea. If a horde of people started calling for my head, I would be heading for advice from an experienced editor anyway, so I don't think this is an unreasonable method.

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

16. Do you drink? Have you, or would you, ever edit Wikipedia while drinking or intoxicated?

A: I don't drink.

General comments

• Links for Backslash Forwardslash: Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Backslash Forwardslash can be found here.

Slashsock (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)

---

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

Discussion

• Guys - the "this user is 4" thing is clearly a joke. Not being funny, but as the father of a three and a half year old I guarantee 4 year olds don't edit Wikipedia. People with the mindset of a four year old might, but actual physical age of four .... I think not. Havng said that my 9 month old is trying to eat my laptop keyboard as I type - that might count as editing I guess....... :) Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's the diff when it was added. Make of it what you will [8] Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I definitely did not think this would be an issue, but I can confirm that I am indeed not four years old. I'll remove the infobox if it a serious concern. ∗ \ / {talk} 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - No concerns here. Candidate is willing to clear the backlog, and a look at the contributions shows a lot of speedy work. (Whether the tagging was done correctly is for an admin to see) Antivenin 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Why not? — Aitias // discussion 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support I say yes. wadester16 | Talk→ 13:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Excellent CSD work, from what I remember. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support:See no reason why not-can be trusted. Dottydotdot (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support knows limits. Has requisite experience in requested area. Dlohcierekim 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   I see avoidance of drama-- other people's, one's own-- as a positive. He is not asking to be a mediator, and being a mediator has nothing to do with CSD'ing. Most of the opposition last time was due to the username board. An area I eschew myself. The benefits outweight the detriments. Dlohcierekim 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Support Candidate has clearly read the detail of their last RFA and learnt from it - that initself is a good start. I've enjoyed only positive encounters with Backslash Forwardslash who strikes me as civil and communicative. Well defined answers to the Q's. Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. You should've passed in February. NVO (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The retronym in the username is a distinguishing feature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support He would be a strong asset at DYK. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Candidate seems to be clueful and I see no cause for concern. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support I'm glad that the candidate realized his mistakes at UAA and recognizes that the area may not be appropriate to work in. Anybody who can admit blunders and put himself before the community again has my support. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong support \/ should have passed in February for sure. Since then, I have talked with him on and off since then and have gotten the sense of his civility, solid communication skills, and dedication to the project. All of those would make him a great administrator. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Support He will definitely be a good admin. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Strong support as his nominator last time around. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support – Excellent user, three months can be plenty enough time to improve. Will do fine. American Eagle (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Per my nomination last time and then some. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support:Seems like a reliable & trustworthy candidate who has improved as well. Dottydotdot (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    Indented, you already voted.  iMatthew :  Chat  20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Support No issues I see. America69 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Strong support. Wizardman 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support User has shown great commitment and improved since last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Need a clarification is the account being used by more than 1 user or being operated on behalf of a child.Looking at the user contribution they are outstanding but if the user has been around since 9 months than the user would have been just 3 years if he/she is 4 years now as per userpage and looking at the impressive contributions would like this to be clarified before I support.Age is not a criteria for opposing but need a clarification Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

    I can assure you the user is much older than 4. The '4 years old' thing is a joke. Benders Game 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

21. Support The user has improved since the last RFA and I trust them if they say they will not handle UAA despite these improvements. The candidate also exhibits a good clue when it comes to deletion related matters. What taints this impression is that they seem too hasty at times. There are cases all over the candidate's contributions where they tagged an article for deletion before realizing that this was a mistake. While I do not think they will delete articles before realizing their mistake, less hastiness when tagging and/or deleting articles can be strongly advised. Even a mistaken and reverted tag might bite a newbie if they see it before one realizes the mistake and reverts it. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that candidate has received barnstars and is a good article contributor whose two blocks resulted in unblocks. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)`
23. Support Contributions are good, temperament is good. The editor will be a net positive as an admin. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong Support I see no recent problems.--Res2216firestar 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Should do well with the tools. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong Support --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support I agree with NVO, you should've passed last time, even if you are only four. :) LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support 4-year admins FTW. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
29. I see no reason why User would misuse mop.--(NGG) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Per marked changes and lessons learned from first RfA. -- Banjeboi 22:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support What!? Not an admin already!? :O -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
32. \/ is an excellent vandal-fighter who's proficiency would be greatly enhanced with the admin tools. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support. Nothing wrong with a self-nom (my RfA was a rare self-nom as well). Also recently pointed out that buggy ctrl-click thing to me without a warning which indicates that \/ has the restraint necessary for an admin. Valley2city^‽ 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong support has written a FA and checkfs DYK articles for compliance. He knows how to work out if something satsfies RS, POV, V etc, which many admins who are supposedly great according to some, cannot. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
36. BackSupportForwardSupport Benders Game 01:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support -download ׀ sign! 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Supported last time no reason not to this time.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Support - Improved from last time. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
40. OK Law _{type! snype?} 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Great work at DYK, admin tools will help \ be much more productive. Discussions clearly show \ is far older than 4 years old. Royalbroil 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support - a strong content editor who has worked hard at addressing issues raised in the last RfA and is significantly improved in both UAA and CSD. Seems fine to me. And really, does anyone seriously believe this editor is 4? Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - per YellowMonkey. AdjustShift (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support as an improved editor with solid contributions. One two three... 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support. We need more Kindergarden admins. Seen him around, always solid. Contributions look fine to me, can't think of any reason to even mildly oppose. Give the kid the bit. Yintaɳ  10:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Weak support. I supported last time, but now it has only been three months since your last RfA. This is a bit worrying, but not worrying enough to get me to comment anywhere but in the support section. Malinaccier P. (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support - I for one welcome our DYK-working overlords. ~ Ameliorate! 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Support. I can't see any reason not to. User is clueful and won't abuse the tools. Firestorm ^Talk 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Yes! - 2 ... says you, says me 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support based on my history of interaction with this user plus the answers to the RfA questions here. With the notable exception of the "4 years old" claim, in my interactions I have found Backslash Forwardslash to display good judgment. --Orlady (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Support — Jake Wartenberg 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support, great work at DYK. Gained experience since last RfA, and overall I see nothing that tells me he'd cause problems with admin tools. Promoting kindergarten editors to adminship is a step in the right direction for this project. Jamie^☆S93 22:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Samir 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support Per above ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 03:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support rootology/equality 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support I believe "Slash" has the clue part, I believe he/she is dedicated to the improvement of the 'pedia, and I can't find anything to suggest that they would mis-use the tools. — Ched :  ?  04:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
57. I supported \ /'s last RfA, too. As far as I remember, the only big problem with that one was his UAA activity, and since then he seems to have more than rectified anything that people had problems with. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support - supported last time, supporting this time as well. I trust that this user will be a successful administrator. Robofish (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - I supported last time, and do the same now. Backslash Forwardslash is a good editor who has displayed sound judgement in admin related areas. I believe he will utilise the tools well. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support - we need more sysops, so my only real requirement for RFAs is having clue and not winding people up. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support - perhaps I'd agree with the opposers' assertion that 3 months isn't long enough... if I didn't think you were ready last time. I still see no problems that put me off supporting; you're a sensible and knowledgeable user who I trust to operate the admin tools effectively. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I would still like to see more experience in dispute resolution and noticeboard activity, and I'm not entirely convinced that three months or so is enough time to prove a true commitment to fixing issues in RfA rather than just sprucing up for the RfA's sake. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose I do not support granting adminship to users who are under 18. Keepscases (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   How old is he then? I can't see anywhere that tells me this.. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   To be fair, it does say that he is 4 years old on his userpage. America69 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   It might be me but somehow I doubt that this is really his age... SoWhy 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   I agree, I'm just be fair as to why he may be opposing. America69 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   A precocious 4-year-old indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   You have got to be kidding me. Do any of you seriously believe this user is only four? My username implies I'm the president of the Galaxy, do you believe that too? (If you do it opens up some very interesting possibilities...) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I at times really do feel as if I am just a nobody... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think you mean Ex-President of the Galaxy. Somebody has a some swollen head heads. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Is it Infintely Improbable to move this to the talk page:) ? Self evidently the candidate is not 4. I think a simple explanation of the user box would address this. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   You know, this is just as an aside, but I became an admin at well under 18 and haven't done anything to destroy or otherwise damage the site in my three and a half years of adminship. Even if Backslash Forwardslash were under 18, I don't see how that somehow negates their ability to be a decent administrator. One two three... 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   This is just an age-old (no pun intended) debate that rages at WT:RFA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose A fresh coat of paint since his last RFA, but problems raised there have not been fixed, or even addressed. I see limited non-automated and talk page edits indicating I can place my trust in this user. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Reluctant oppose per David Fuchs—three months is too little time since the last RfA for you to have entirely cleared up, save for "glossing over" (my version of his phrase "spruced up"...) Sorry. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose I agree. Also all the backtracking and I can't remembers in the candidate's answer to Rootology's questions, sets my Spidey sense A-Tingling.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   Rootology's Question 7a reminded me that I had made an account in '05/'06, and I tried to answer as truthfully as possible. I left a note saying I would search and try and find it because I hadn't had it for long, and because it would've looked odd to not answer that question along with the others. I'm not trying to be deceitful, I just genuinely had issues trying to remember an account I had about 20 edits on in '06. :) ∗ \ / {talk} 19:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's extraordinary to have created an account as a 1-year-old child, and remember the account information, too. --Orlady (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose: I have no inclination to award power or authority to anyone who does not believe that other people have rights. Groomtech (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I don't care enough to oppose, but your signature is potentially very confusing for a new user. --B (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Neutral — Someone who can't think of a specific change they'd like to make to a policy, probably hasn't spent enough time thinking about Wikipedia's policies. I'm also not seeing enough participation in collaborative or contentious areas such as DRV, AfD, dispute resolution etc. for my taste... but I don't feel I can oppose because I do think this candidate has the right temparament and attitude for adminship.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Newt I pre-apologize for this, but I'm going to have to use your initials Backslash Forwardslash and refer to you as my BF. It would help to get a signature change. Your current one, as stated by B, is potentially confusing. If you could just add some text in there or something... eh. I'll stop here since I haven't been active much at all since your last RfA, and have had nothing to go by in the "improvement" category, and a M*A*S*H marathon is preventing me from looking any further into your contribs. Have a great time with the tools if you get 'em, don't worry about it if you don't. [​flaminglawyer] 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   I can see how it could be confusing, and have changed it accordingly. Let me know if it is an improvement. :) ∗ \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

   Better :) . *stays neutral however, don't mind it* [​flaminglawyer] 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Kelapstick

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (44/7/6); Scheduled to end 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Kelapstick (talk · contribs) – Kelapstick is a valued editor who has created valuable content, racked up 25 or more DYKs in the process, and made many friends along the way. I have come to know Kelapstick as a very friendly and helpful editor; he has assisted me in becoming a better Wikipedian, and I see from his edits and contributions that he has a calm and friendly demeanor toward new and inexperienced users. I see him on vandalism patrol, he categorizes articles, participates in helpful ways at AfD, and writes content. As a valued member in good standing of the Bacon Cabal he has been instrumental in documenting that important food.

I have participated with him on some articles and watched him at work on many others--on varied topics such as food (Bacon mania, Steamed clams, J-D's Down Home Enterprises), popular culture (This is why you're fat), politics (African American candidates for president of the United States, Black president in popular culture (United States)), architecture (MBM (architecture firm)), mining (Ninja miner), children's TV programs (Moose A. Moose)...I could go on--this is just a selection of his DYK articles. He is a member of WP:WikiProject Mining, helps other editors (such as me) with DYK nominations, does a ton of sometimes small but always important things.

I have never seen him make rude or hasty comments, and I have learned a lot from him and can learn more. As a contributor, a vandalism fighter, a fellow editor with now almost 10,000 edits, he would make a great admin. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would like to thank Drmies for his nomination and the kind words. I accept. --kelapstick (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to start by helping out where it is needed most, for example the administrative backlog. The two categories Category:Wikipedia files on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Media requiring renaming currently have 118 items and 807 items respectively.

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

A: My contributions to mining related articles (of which six appeared as DYK articles), when I started editing here 2+ years ago a lot of the mining related articles were in pretty rough shape, while a lot of them still are, I feel they are in far better shape than they were which is in part by the formation of WikiProject Mining. I was also happy with the way Cortez Gold Mine and Batu Hijau mine turned out. I try to help new users when I come across edits or articles they have made that either do not conform to Wikipedia standards or inclusion criteria, and explain what is wrong with it and how they can fix it. Sometimes they listen and sometimes they do not, but I think that I am pretty good at explaining myself, and I try not to make things too complicated. I also revert a fair bit of vandalism (unless somebody beats me to it).

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: The most recent conflict that I have had was baseball related. A user had created upwards of 200 articles about minor league baseball players. There is a difference of opinion of how WP:ATHLETE is interpreted, both within and outside of WikiProject Baseball, some editors consider minor league players to be fully professional, I do not. I had proded a bunch of articles, they were contested (both by the article creator and other editors). The result was a collaborative effort to sort through the articles, and see what had been created. I ended up putting up 22 articles at AfD, with about a 50% being deleted. The rest were improved and kept based on the General Notability Guidelines (not WP:ATHLETE or baseball specific guidelines.) I was also in a dispute regarding the addition of commercial websites being used as a source for listing the dimensions of stick candy (a controversial subject I know).. The websites would be in violation of WP:SPAM, but not having anything to back up the claims to length and dimensions would be in violation of WP:V. I brought up the subject at WP:RSN, and suggested a solution on the article talk page that I felt would be acceptable by both parties involved, both parties rejected my suggestion. The result was keep the links out and add an original research tag. Another conflict (November last year I think) was regarding Mountaintop removal mining, and a regular editor of that page. I felt that the article was too biased towards the criticism section (and very external link heavy), so I split the criticism section to a new article, which (I was unaware of) a violation of the GFDL (I understand it far better about it now), the content was moved back and my split was deleted. I read the explanation about what I had done wrong, understood it, and went to bed.

4. Do you think IP's should be able to be blocked indefinitely for repeated vandalism? Drmies (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A: In my opinion, if it is a static IP address that is not registered to a public place, and all the edits originating from that IP for a prolonged period of time are vandalism, and multiple temporary blocks in the past have not changed anything, I think that an indefinite block the IP address may be appropriate, however there should be no prejudice towards unblocking upon request and explanation/commitment to constructively edit. If it is coming from a public place, such as a school or library (or if the IP is dynamic), the address should not be blocked indefinitely, a short temporary block will suffice until the offending editor is away from the computer, and if a somebody is prevented from editing Wikipedia because their IP address is blocked indefinitely, it may discourage them from becoming an editor in the future. Indef blocking dynamic IPs and those registered to public locations has an adverse effect on editors who are not involved in vandalism and is counterproductive to the overall goal of the project.

Optional question from User:zzuuzz

5. You have never made any edits to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Do you plan on using the protection and blocking tools, and how would you describe your familiarity with the relevant policies and practice?

A: I have not made any edits to AIV or RPP as it has not been necessary for any of the areas that I routinely contribute to (typically after a few warnings the offending editor gets bored and goes away). I understand the rationale for protecting a page (typically full protection when there are content disputes by multiple registered editors, semi-protection for excessive vandalism by anon/unconfirmed users) and for blocking an editor, mainly persistent vandalism but also (persistent) incivility, edit/revert warring, personal attacks, or other policy violations. While I do not plan on jumping into adminship by protecting pages and blocking editors (really nobody wants to have to do that), I am able to recognize when it is appropriate and act accordingly, but am open to constructive criticism, and don't take offense when I am told I am wrong.

Optional question from FASTILY

6. Your nominator, Drmies, stated in the nomination statement at the beginning of this rfa that you, Kelapstick, are "a vandalism fighter". Yet, as noted in the above question, you have made 0 edits to either Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Could you please clarify this?

A: Perhaps a better phrase would be vandalism reverter? Most of the vandalism that I revert is on articles that I have worked on in the past and have on my watchlist, or are in articles that happen to be reading. More of my time on Wikipedia is spent adding content rather than patrolling recent changes. If an article on my watchlist (or as I am reading) has been vandalized, I revert it. As I said above, none of the incidents of vandalism I have been involved with have reached the point of requiring administrator intervention or page protection (or if they had, an admin blocked the user or protected the page without notification at AIV or RPP), which is why I have not made any edits to those pages. Somebody who's primary edits on Wikipedia are vandalism reversions might not refer to me as a fighter, I believe Drmies' comment was to point out that I do revert my share of vandalism.

If it is appropriate for me to say something here: that is indeed what I meant--I didn't use it as a technical term, just loosely in the sense that Kelapstick has explained, which is also the way I counter vandalism. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional question from Keepscases

7. If you were kidnapped by enemies of Wikipedia, would you divulge your password in exchange for your freedom?

A: If they are enemies of Wikipedia, they are probably not very smart, so I should probably be able to escape with minimal difficulty. Also I can run faster scared than most people can mad (or in this case in desire of an administrators password). So no I would not (not before my attempt at escape at least). The only case in which I initially might would be if they have clowns, since I am afraid of clowns.--kelapstick (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you might want to meet User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

...who may actually have been kidnapped by enemies of Wikipedia.  Frank  |  talk  21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

8. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A: I see being a Wikipedia editor as similar to having a drivers licence. It's more of a privlidge than a right. Anybody may hold a drivers licence provided they obide by the rules of the road, anybody may edit Wikipedia provided they obide by policy. If you are issued enough speeding tickets or other violations, your licence may be revoked for a set period of time (or perminantly in severe cases or after enough violations), if you are issued enough warnings you may be temprarily blocked, and if it is persistant and severe enough you may be blocked indefinitely from the project. Therefore editing Wikipedia is not a right that can not be taken away, it is a privlidge.

I feel that Wikipedia editors ony have the right not to be suject to incivility, harassment and personal attacks. That right is upheld by the community (both administrators and non-administrators) by notifying uncivlil/harassing/attacking editors about what they have done wrong, and in the case of administrators, blocking when appropriate. However in my opinion, there should never be a case where your right to not be the subject to incivility/harassment/persoanl attacks be taken away, even if the editor themself is acting uncivil. As such I will uphold that right in the manner I stated above.

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

9. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A I have only edited under this username.

Optional qustion from TharsHammar

10. This question is in regards to a recent comment of yours that raises concerns for me, [9]. Do you feel that wikipedia is made better or worse by editors and administrators getting involved in articles that they do not know about? As a followup: as an adminstator how would you approach tricky disputes involving content in articles you lack knowledge of? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A A snarky comment on my part, and I forgot to put on a <sarcasm> tag. It was in response to someone questioning the usefulness of a contributor who has over 20,000 edits in their first year of contributing. Stating that you shouldn't create articles (or set yourself up as the creator) about something you don't have a great deal of knowledge about (such as a book you haven't read) is contrary to the expansion of the project. I have written articles about subjects that I have little knowledge about, such as Dead Hot Workshop, I heard them referenced in a song by The Refreshments and came to Wikipedia to see who they were (turns out they were a popular band in Tempe in the 90s, along with The Refreshments and the Gin Blossoms). When I found they didn't have an article I wrote one about them. Part of what I love about Wikipedia is if I can not find the article I am looking for, I create it and learn something in the process. Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines ensure the articles accuracy. This is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, if I want to edit an article about something I don't know about I can (again supported by verifiability and reliable sources).

Editors who get involved in editing articles about subjects they are unfamiliar with improve the impartiality of the subject as they do not have a preexisting bias of the subject. Administrators who get involved with disputes about articles on subjects they are unfamiliar with provide a valuable outside opinion on the content without preexisting bias. Complicated subjects may not be so cut and dry, an admin with more experience with the subject may be more appropriate, provided they can stay impartial. An example is the Ayn Rand issues that went on earlier in the year, I looked through it and just reading the article made my head hurt. I have absolutely no preexisting knowledge of the subject, and today I would not be a valuable asset to content discussions (without research). As an administrator involved in a dispute about content in an article about a subject that I am unfamiliar with I would first check the sources. The sources are the backbone of an article and if they are not there, the content should not be there as Wikipedia strives for verifiability not truth. I would make myself familiar with the subject and initiate discussion on the article talk page (if it has not taken place already). If no consensus is reached more in depth research on my part will have to take place. Upon reading all the sources of the disputed content I should have enough knowledge of the subject under dispute that I can propose a solution (including my rationale) that I feel will be acceptable to all parties. So I suppose in short, I support the editing of articles that a Wikipedian is unfamiliar with provided they follow WP:V and WP:RS, I encourage the unbiased opinion that comes from editors and administrators regarding article content about subjects they are unfamiliar with, and the impartial opinion from editors and administrators when they are familiar with the subject. I hope this answers your questions, let me know if I need to elaborate on anything.

Questions from Rootology

11. What are your views on WP:BLP as it stands today?

A: I think it is a shame that we need a specific policy about how to edit articles about a living person. I should be covered by no personal attacks (treating the subject of a BLP in the same as another editor), the reliable sources, verifiability and NPOV guidelines. Most of what is in BLP actuallly is covered elsewhere, BLP just says, "we really mean it here and with a higher sense of urgency". For example, you should not add dubious unsourced material to any article; BLP says that unsourced or contentious material (positive negative or neutral) needs to quickly be removed and without discussion. The policy is less than four years old, probably because so much of it is covered in those areas. While I am sorry that we need BLP, I understand why we do, and I agree with both the spirit and the policy itself as it stands today.

12. Do you have any strongly held beliefs or affiliations, "In real life", and would you be willing to disclose those here? Would you be willing or able to permanently recuse from using your admin tools on those areas?

A: From the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists (attributed there to Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst) - "It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs." It's one of my favorite quotes. I don't have a strong religious affiliation and am not affiliated with a political party. The only actual association that I am affiliated with is the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, at least I was until my membership lapsed (which I guess means I will stop receiving their magazine). While I do strongly feel that mining has been over vilanized by environmental groups and non-governmental organizations over the past couple of decades (as was the issue in the dispute in question 3), I do not think it is necessary to permanently recuse myself from using admin tools on mining related articles as I am able to be impartial with their use (for example I would not protect a page to prevent an editor from adding content I was in disagreement with). Having said that (and in line with my answer to question 10) sometimes peoples judgment is clouded by preexisting opinions on subjects, and if I or any other editor involved felt that I could not be impartial on a subject or would have a conflict of interest (mining included), I would be willing recuse myself of administrative functions (permanently if necessary), but would still participate in discussion.

13. Are you going to be open to Administrative Recall?

A: Yes I will, I feel that people in positions of authority should be accountable for their actions and I will be open to Administrative Recall.

14. Do you feel that admins should be subject to blocks, as if they were any other user?

A: Yes administrators should be subject to blocks as they are "any other user", just with additional tools. If an administrator is committing blockable offenses there is no reason that they should not be subject to being blocked.

15. Chocolate, cake, beer, whiskey, drama--what is your poison?

A:

1. Chocolate - Growing up I didn't care for chocolate much, but since I had two wisdom teeth removed it is growing more on me. Still I never crave it (with the exception of peanut M&Ms)
2. Cake - Love it. At one time I asked my wife if there was a place in town that delivered it. Unfortunately there wasn't.
3. Beer - I Like Beer (unfortunately the song doesn't have a page so I had to link to the singer), but I miss Canadian beer (all you can get here is Moosehead), but I like the price of American beer.
4. Whiskey - I can take it or leave it. Although I once had a jacket that had an inside pocket that could hold a 26oz bottle of Royal Reserve.
5. Drama - I don't care for it, in real life (my brother is a drama queen) or on Wikipedia. I feel there is no place for drama here, I find it disruptive and feel it has an adverse affect on the project. (Full disclosure, I took two years of drama in high school and performed in our Grade 5 production of H.M.S. Pinafore)

Question from User:Gimmetrow

16. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a user block without prior discussion? (This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. But please don't limit your response to just this situation.)

A For the most part a block based on WP:CIVIL doesn't need to last more than a few hours (with the exception of gross incivility over a prolonged period of time with no indication that the user in question will change). Blocking for incivility (or for anything for that matter) isn't a punishment, it is to encourage the user to understand what they have done wrong and expedite a change in their behavior. For example, when I was young, if I said something rude to my mother I wasn't sent to my room for a month, I was smacked in the face. Not so much punishment, more of a Straighten Up and Fly Right. If an administrator blocked a user for a month for being uncivil and I felt it was unjustified, I would not unblock the user after a day without first speaking to the blocking admin. Mainly to ensure that I was not missing anything in the admin's justification for the long block. I would hope that an administrator changing the length of a block I imposed would do the same, at least as a courtesy. Before administering a block that would be longer than normal for the infractions in question I would be sure to get a second or third opinion before proceeding. If a user was blocked indefinably for vandalism and after a couple of months convinced me that they would change and contribute constructively and requested to be unblocked I would consider it. However first I would discuss it with the blocking admin to get their take on it. If I decided to unblock the user I would monitor their edits closely following the block to ensure they were contributing constructively, and if they were not I would reinstate the block.

Questions from User:Carlossuarez46

17A. As an admin you will be called upon - without benefit of a law degree - how much condensation and re-factoring, and paraphrasing is sufficient to no longer constitute plagiarism but is not too far off from the gist of the original to constitute original research. How and where do you draw the line?

A. If there was no attempt at rewording and/or there was no citation given I would consider it plagiarism, however provided there was an honest attempt to reword the content and the original author is attributed using a citation I would not call it plagiarism as the editor is not claiming the thoughts as theirs. I would call it poor adaption to their own language, and I will call it that until there is an actual definition of what "proper attribution" and "insufficiently adapted" actually mean at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I feel that the only important issue is fixing the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again. I also don't think that plagiarism is something that can be defined with a template such as the example Ottava gave "3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted". I think that example is defiantly a good rule of thumb to use when trying to identify it, in which case you can further investigate, and even if you find that it isn't plagiarism there is cause to notify the editor that they need to spend more time rewording their contributions, and and take a look at their past contributions and fix where appropriate. When the original sentence and the editors sentence are read, there should be no difference in the meaning, if there is a difference than it qualifies as original research and needs to be rewritten or the original sentence needs to be quoted. I am not sure if I actually answered your question, if I didn't, let me know and I will take another stab at it.

17B. In light of the comments and diffs highlighted by comments in the "oppose" section below, are any on the wrong side of that line - whether your edits or others' - if so, which?

A. The diffs that Ottava provided were insufficiently rewritten on my part. There was attribution and an attempt (albeit could have been better) to rewrite the content. Personally I think that the diffs would be pretty week if one were trying to stage a plagiarism witch-hunt (not that I am suggesting that here anybody here is), but they are certainly enough to warrant the proverbial trout slap that I received. I am willing to fix any issues that people may find, and on my own go back though articles I have created or had major contributions to and fix issues, I have already done so for at least one other article. I also fixed some other issues that I felt could use some more reworking when editing the articles that Ottiva listed.

Wikipedia:Plagiarism says:

"Plagiarism is the taking of someone else's work without providing adequate credit, whether reproducing it verbatim or with only minimal changes."

There is no indication as to what constitutes (1) adequate credit (1) minimal changes and I think we can all agree what verbatim means. My interpretation of that is if I have not done dramatic rewriting of the material and I give adequate credit, I am not committing plagiarism, and in my opinion a citation is adequate credit. Further to that:

"Even if a source is cited, plagiarism also occurs when text is directly copied without proper attribution or insufficiently adapted into original language."

Which gives a pretty open interpretation as to what "insufficiently adapted" means, in fact the only place where adapt shows up on the policy page is in the lead. There is no definition of what "insufficiently adapted" means. All of those sentences (both the ones from the article and the ones from the source) are taken out of context. To use one of Ottava's examples in the article Square milk jug the 11,000 fewer trucks sentence is actually:

"Because more milk fits on each truck, shipping costs can be reduced by 50% (an equivalent of 11,000 fewer trucks moving each year, reducing deliveries to stores that require five shipments per week down to two) resulting in less fuel being consumed."[10]

and the source is:

"Redesigning milk jugs to be taller and more square at Sam’s Clubs improved refrigerated truckload cube utilization 50 percent, resulting in 11,000 fewer trucks moving each year, he said. Stores that used to take five deliveries a week now take as few as two."[11]

Only six words appear exactly as shown in the original source, "11,000 fewer trucks moving each year", when I rewrote that section per the concerns raised here I made it say "off the road" which in my eyes constitutes original research or a change in meaning as the trucks are not actually "off the road" the are just not delivering milk, however it was the only way I could think of to reword it. I would call that sentence as a whole sufficiently adapted to not be in violation of Wikipedia:Plagiarism, even though there is still room for improvement. There is a fine line between a sentence needing improvement and being plagerized. In these cases I do not think that I have crossed it although I have not gone back through all my major contributions and created articles yet. Although in that same article when I used "are said to produce a wide torrent of milk spilling out when the jug is at a shallow slant", at a minimum I should not have replaced pouring with spilling, and I should have used quotes, and that was a mistake. I do feel Ottava was spot on correct regarding the bacon and beers happy hour in bacon mania.

General comments

• Links for Kelapstick: Kelapstick (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for Kelapstick can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see nothing wrong with this user. He will make a great administrator :). Renaissancee (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per nom. Meets my standards. Article building/DYK work indicates ability to create content and work well with others. Review of talk page shows civil, helpful, clueful editor whose temperament is unlikely to lead to trouble with the tools. Review of CSD taggings showed overall good work. Answer to Q3 shows editor solves disputes through discussion, consensus seeking, and learning. Dlohcierekim 20:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support. Does good work, no reason to believe they'd abuse the tools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

3. DYK needs more admins who are actively involved there. ceranthor 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Absolutely no reason found that would suggest user would misuse administrative tools. I would love to have seen him right at least GA or FA but user seems to like to jump around a lot and help where it's needed which is cool with me.--(NGG) 21:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support per above. One two three... 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Per above.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Support Good choice!--Caspian blue 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to Neutral --Caspian blue 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - Looks quite good. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Support I see no reason Kelapstick would abuse the tools. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support No reason to see anything bad. America69 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support - The thorough answer to Q3 shows that as an admin, Kelapstick will be ready to explain his actions as well as acknowledge any possible errors in judgment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Productive and collegial editor. Good temperament to be an admin. Bongomatic 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support A wonderfully supportive editor. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
13. SupportPer my basic guidelines dottydotdot (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support Nakon 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) moved to neutral.

14. Support -download ׀ sign! 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support I like the answers (esp. to Q4) and if Drmies is the nominator then consider Kelapstick already well whetted (pun intended)! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 01:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Joining the thus far unanimous support (bravo!) per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate's lone block was almost immediately undone by the blocking admin, I did not notice anything glaring in deletion discussions, userpage seems inviting, etc. Really, I have not located anything to jump out and in the absence of any opposes below suggesting my review of the candidate's edits is off, I am pleased to endorse this request for adminship. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
18. The bacon articles were fun. - Dank (push to talk) 04:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support "I read the explanation about what I had done wrong, understood it, and went to bed" - from your Q3. Yes, I'd do well to remember that from time to time. Fantastic contributions - brilliant stuff. Pedro :  Chat  07:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

    Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) moving to neutral

20. Support Doesn't look like this user will be abuse the tools. hmwithτ 14:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support > you look very sound and have good answers to questions. Good luck! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Strong support Wizardman 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support good contributor who I do not think will abuse the tools. LadyofShalott 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support per excellent answer to question 7. Antivenin 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support We need more admins who will shrink the backlogs.--Res2216firestar 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Good luck! Metzujan (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support - t'shael mindmeld 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Positive contributions to the project. One has to wonder what the moaners in the oppose section are on about! Seivad (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support. I think you still have a lot to learn before you're ready for the admin tools, but you'll be OK learning on the job. Just go slow eh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Eased my concerns. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 12:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support – Will not abuse the tools. American Eagle (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Weak Support User has been around since Feb 2007 and is dedicated and commited to the project and feel giving the user tools will only be a net positive through I do agree with some of the concerns in the opposes .But do not see the user misuing the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support without equivocation. I have had nothing but positive interactions with the editor. His temperance and good nature are terrific qualities that benefit the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Weak support I trust the user with the tools which seems to be the idea here but care should be taken to address any content issues to keep articles policy-compliant. -- Banjeboi 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
39. support I'm not finding the problems listed in the on the talk page to be problematic and see no other reason to oppose. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong Support Definitely meets my standards. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Strong support Outstanding candidate who is an asset to Wikipedia and who can be trusted absolutely not to abuse the tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support. Answers indicate a calm, rational, collegial approach, qualities required for administrative actionsAlexandrDmitri (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Looks good, no major problems. Plagiarism is a very serious accusation in academia. For matters outside serious academic work, I regard it as akin to spitting on the sidewalk, and an iffy accusation of plagiarism doesn't even rate. Ray^Talk 00:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support hesitantly. I believe the items brought to light by Durova are very important, but the candidate appears to be addressing these issues in a calm and professional manner. — Ched :  ?  05:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) addendum Perhaps I should note that I've worked with Kelapstick once and found him/her to be friendly and enjoyable to work with. I was also impressed with his/her ability to think outside the box in search of solutions to resolve an issue. — Ched :  ?  05:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lack of audited content contributions. The user suggests they will be clearing backlogs relating to images, but there is no indication of substantial experience in those areas. Little in the way of demonstrated conflict resolution/noticeboard activity. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose - FlyingToaster was involved in a post RfA scandal about plagiarism. Looking at the DYK above, I noticed a lot of the same things. For instance: Bacon_mania Article - 'At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point people clamor for the "Bacon and Beer Happy Hours"' Original - "At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point, people clamor for the Bacon and Beer Happy Hours." Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Note, the user was stated to be involved in the article, but only made one edit, which was to put in a category. The copied and pasted info came into the article here. Some of the other pages have equally dubious things. It shows a lack of effective checking the page and letting such obvious problems pass. A bad move. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Unless I'm missing something, it looks like the only edits Kelapstick made to the article were of a cosmetic nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   As I said, it was a problem in most of the pages. I found others. I will list them on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I have made four edits to Bacon mania — Adding a picture,Changing a category using Hot Cat, Adding a pipelink, Changing from uncategorized to cagegorized using Hot Cat. Will check the diffs on the talk page when they are posted. --kelapstick (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   These are directly yours. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oh, and please note, these are all articles that Kelapstick claims DYK credit for. So, any plagiarism, whether attributed to the article by him or not is his responsibility along with all others receiving credit. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how you could call that example, or the ones you cite on the talk page, plagiarism. In the case of Bacon mania, the entire paragraph is a condensation and paraphrasing of the article which is cited at the end. This point is moot, as far as I'm concerned, and I think Wikipedia:Plagiarism agrees with me. To compare this with FlyingToaster's issues is a bit specious; after all, the important cases there, if I'm not mistaken, involve the misattribution of material or even a total lack of attribution. That's not what we have here--what we have here is paraphrase and immediate reference. You could suggest to the editor either to cite directly or to paraphrase more loosely, but to accuse them of plagiarism is far-fetched. The essence of plagiarism is the lack of attribution, the presentation of someone else's ideas as your own, and that is not what is happening here, in any of the articles that I've looked at. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm one of the original people that put together the plagiarism clean up at DYK and fought for the guideline. The four examples on the page show more than 3 words in an uncommon phrase taken from a source without being quoted, the very definition of plagiarism. FlyingToaster also put a citation at the end of a sentence but failed to quote the similar material. There is no difference between the two. And the Bacon mania line is not a "condensing", it is blatantly the same. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ottava Rima, I couldn't disagree more, but I'll explain on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   If I have not paraphrased enough than that is my mistake. For the record, I was not given DYK credit for Bacon mania. --kelapstick (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   My mistake, I went off of "I could go on--this is just a selection of his DYK articles." in the nom. There was a list of articles put forth boasting about your content contribs. Whenever that happens, I always take a close look to see if there are any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   No, my mistake--I put that in my nomination. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   By the way - Kelapstick, I'm a strong believer in "plagiarism" being fixable and something that should be corrected when pointed out. As such, I will go neutral if you clean up the problems pointed out on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate the due diligence you have done before giving your opinion Ottava, I have placed some diffs on the talk page.--kelapstick (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I struck my oppose out of Kelapstick's recent edits as promised above and a sign of good faith, as people in such situation should be given the benefit of the doubt of not realizing that there is a problem. I will re-examine the rest of Kelapstick's background and answers to determine if there is reason to resume opposing or if there is justification to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Ottava Rima. In over three and a half years as a Wikipedian this is only my third RFA oppose (later conominated one of the two previous). Yet in light of the examples at FPC talk it's clear that this editor has either insufficient understanding or insufficient concern for the issue of plagiarism. Plagiarism is not mere lack of attribution; it's the failure to either paraphrase or set in quotation marks passages that are direct quotes. Competence in other areas cannnot compensate: this candidate clearly is not ready. Writing this oppose as the editor who promoted WP:PLAGIARISM to guideline. To the candidate: please correct the mistakes and return after a suitable interim. Durova^Charge! 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "Yet in light of the examples at FPC talk it's clear that this editor has either insufficient understanding or insufficient concern for the issue of plagiarism."? I assume you mean featured picture candidates, of which I am not involved. If there is a link to the diffs that Ottava Rima has provided, I fail to see it. Or do you mean the talk page of this RfA? --kelapstick (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Typed the wrong acronym. Meant to indicate the talk page of this RfA. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. First, let me say I applaud your willingness to work on topics that might otherwise not be covered adequately (mmmm...bacon). At this time, though, I can't support this nomination. I'm troubled by the plagiarism problems (which I've also verified in a few articles listed on your DYK page), which indicates that your knowledge of content issues might need a little refining. I also don't see a lot of evidence that you have much experience in the area (image backlog) that you'd like to work in (if I've overlooked this, which is entirely possible, please let me know). I would recommend more experience in both images and content creation, and then come back again in a few months. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Reluctantly, per Durova. If the candidate fixes their mistakes and shows that they will not do so again, I will be glad to support next time. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Durova - this will probably pass, so this is more of a comment if anything. Please be careful when using sources. It's not easy by any means, but plagiarism is basically theft. It can disqualify you at college/university and on an academic level. At my university, for example, you can fail the entire course if plagiarism is discovered in your work. It is the fact it is that serious that I have to oppose this request. Majorly talk 17:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Switching from support. Also per Durova. These are serious concerns, so please be careful if you pass. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Durova, subtle plagiarism is a big problem and we don't need it from an admin. --B (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral Waiting for answer to question. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to Support

1. Neutral. Plagiarism concerns are worrying, but I don't see enough evidence either way to support or oppose. Malinaccier (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Comment regarding the nomination statement: The nom statement indicates that Kelapstick created Steamed clams. In fact, however, Kelapstick only nominated this article for DYK. Regardless, I recall concerns about this article in the DYK discussion, as the article appeared to confound a type of clam (steamer clams) with a method of cooking clams (steamed). Reading the article in its current form, I find that it still seems to confuse these two concepts, and it looks to be sloppily researched. If Kelapstick had been the author rather than the nominator, I would be opposing this AfDRfA. For now, though, I'm not sure what I think. --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, that was really sloppy on my part--old age, I reckon. Orlady is right, as I see now: the badge on his talk page was for the nomination. If I am confused in these matters, it's because very often a small group of editors contribute on some articles (and sometimes in clusters), and I don't always pay sufficient attention to each individual's effort. I'm going to go up the page and strike that through; thanks, Orlady, for setting the record straight. I'm also going to see about steaming that clam properly, and I hope this relatively small matter won't take affect your final evaluation of this editor's hard work for the project. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's easy to make such a minor error, Orlady. For example, you yourself just confused "RFA" with "AfD". That's why on Wikipedia, anyone can fix the mistakes!

   Having said that, this is a definite case of a gentle piscine caress for Drmies :P—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   • Ouch*! But I deserved that. Pity I already had breakfast; I'll save my battered trout for lunch--I think I'll wrap it in bacon. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

3. (moved from support) I don't feel that plagiarism of content is relevant to how a user will properly use admin tools, but it does raise trust issues. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral (moved from support) I like your helpful editing to cuisine-related articles and civil attitude (so could not go to oppose), but we already have a serious issue on plagiarism just recently, so I can not support you until you fix the problem.Caspian blue 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral, from support per plagiarism issues. Not enough to oppose. Nakon 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral The very verbose questions I like a lot. The stuff from Durova etc has me on the line for now. rootology/equality 04:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

---

CactusWriter

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (88/3/0); Scheduled to end 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

CactusWriter (talk · contribs) – This might be the shortest nomination in recent memory.

CactusWriter is knowledgeable, civil, communicative, and a contributor to mainspace as well as other Wikipedia spaces.

I had no familiarity with the user until following up on a BLP related edit, and randomly approached the adminship suggestion. This response is, in my view, a perfect outlook on what a mop and bucket entails. Do what you can, don't mind what you can't.

CactusWriter has written content, added references to existing articles, works with the deletion of articles. An active member of Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies, the user is familiar with BLP. Over the last several months the deleted contributions are pretty much on target of our policies and guidelines.

Even more positive for me, the user did not and was not seeking adminship; it is to be a mop and bucket to further aid in the contributor's efforts to better this encyclopedia. Not a reward for service, but a bond of duty [12].

This is not the most elegant prose I've ever written for a nomination, but I honestly feel I don't need to go that mile. It is also my feeling that this nomination doesn't even need additional questions; explore the user's history. My verbosity is familiar to many so I hope that my silence is relevant. Keegan^talk 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I certainly appreciate Keegan's thoughts and accept the nomination. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Because I enjoy wandering around Wikipedia, reading and writing new content, I have never focused on any one particular area. I'm neither a dedicated vandal fighter nor a frequent reader of the notice boards -- but I've jumped into those areas whenever the need arose. Over time, I've initiated the standard alphabet soup of reports -- SPIs, AIVs, UAAs, CVs, etc., -- but the majority of my "admin area" activity has been with Afd and Csd. So I expect those are two areas where I would initially linger to lend a hand. For those interested, I've compiled a list of some AFDs I have created and participated in. It should give you a fair idea of my approach to Afd policy.

As far as Csd goes, my deletion philosophy centers on the terms "blatant" and "obvious". Hot-button issues like blatant attacks, total copyvios, and obvious vandalism are where "speedy" really applies -- time is of the essence here and those pages should be eliminated without mercy. I think the rest can be dealt with in a more relaxed fashion. Pages with less critical problems such as notability, advertising, context, etc. should be deleted when they are obvious, blatant and non-correctable. But given any doubt or hesitation, than tagging them for issues, opening discussion, and then, if necessary, Proddng and Afd are appropriate avenues.

Looking back through my history, I noticed that a number of my Csd tags have been G12 copyright violations and I often added items to the WP:Copyright problems page. It's an area with fairly heavy traffic and, from what I have seen, the service of only one or two (obviously dedicated but possibly overworked) administrators. Since I enjoy remedying copy-paste problems, I believe that's another area where I could help out.

In general, I've found that editing Wikipedia (like most anything) only requires a willingness to listen and learn, a modicum of deliberation, and some common sense. My approach to adminship is the same. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A: Ever since I registered, I have been a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Much of my writing has been on films and biographies, especially the cinema of Denmark. (There's a list of examples on my user page.) I tend to write small articles, but I feel they are mostly solid pieces. For example, this Bio was a Csd that I was asked to save and it became this DYK article. The film A Victim of the Mormons was another article an editor submitted to DYK. Last summer I came across the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies page, took it on as a pet project, rewrote the intro, and have spent the last nine months organizing the categories and watching over the additions. It's one of those WP back waters where BLP violations can get tucked away without much notice. I like it because it's a great pathway for initiating, writing and referencing new bios. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (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 wouldn't say conflicts. Certainly there have been the disagreements and extended discussions which are standard (and necessary) for any collaborative project like Wikipedia. Good arguments are the backbone of policy creation. But problems with vandals, sockpuppets, spammers and such are only mild irritants. Stress on WP is relative. The pressure of doing good work is present is anything we do. But stress? Let me put it this way -- in real life, I've faced the wrong end of a gun, life-threatening diseases, deaths of family; I've survived hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and a plane crash; and -- horror of the horrors -- I'm raising a teenager. Really, in proper perspective, WP doesn't make the cut on my stress list. After all, like most everyone here, I spend my time on WP because I enjoy it. And for anyone who finds it truly stressful -- I suggest hitting the computer's off button, taking a deep breath and enjoying the world outside the window for a while. There is plenty of other stuff to do. The work here should be taken seriously, it requires dedication, but it ought to be enjoyable and satisfying. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. Would you delete an article with an {{underconstruction}} tag on it, and under what circumstances?

A: If an article has unequivocal problems as an attack page, copyright violation, vandalism or blatant hoax than the underconstruction tag is meaningless -- those pages should be be deleted regardless. As I've mentioned in Q1 above, my belief is that other types of problems can be approached at a more leisurely pace -- with a watch and see attitude -- giving the underconstruction page some time to develop and to see where it goes. It very well could right itself. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from I'm Spartacus!

5. Hi Cactus, I've been reviewing your CSD work. I have some minor quibbles with some of your selections, but nothing major. You did tag a fictional character as A7, but that isn't enough to get me to oppose (especially as you've declined speedies on your own nominations after rethinking them.) The one thing that I've noticed is that you will often use COPYVIOCORE instead of tagging an article for Speedy per Copyvio. Can you explain your philosophy in this regard? When would you tag an article for speedy instead of using this template?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

With that group of copy violations from the Vatican website, my sense was that there was enough of an intro, infobox and good references which would allow the articles to be rebuilt. As I am sure you noticed here that one you mentioned had previously existed and my next edit was to simply roll it back into pre-vio form. If there had been nothing worth saving and no better previous versions, I would have had no hesitation with tagging it as a G12. My philosophy is always to look for methods to rebuild content, but if it constitutes any problem in keeping it, than delete and start over. That was the sense I tried to convey in opening a discussion with the editor. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?

A:The issue of "rights" can be viewed in several ways. From the perspective of opinion, Wikipedia functions on the basis of complete equality -- everyone's opinion is given equal weight -- no one person has any greater right than another. As far as editing WP, it is the "community of Wikipedia" which has the rights rather than the individual Wikipedian. Everyone here has an equal right as long as they operate within the rules. That is, each of us has the freedom to edit so long as it does not harm, infringe or disrupt the community. Failure to do so can result in the loss of those rights through blocks or bans. As well, some people are trusted with some extra technical tools (admins, bureaucrats, etc.). It is possible to argue that these tools might embody an extra right -- the ability to act on the community's behalf -- however, it should be remembered that it is still the community which holds "rights" over the individual. Bottom line is this: upholding "rights" means the same thing for each of us -- we agree to work within the rules and boundaries of the community as determined by consensus opinion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A Not so optional question from R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

7. Would you please provide us with a list of all the account names you have or are currently editing under?

A I edit only under the account User:CactusWriter which I registered in April 2008, and I have never had any other account. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An optional question from Dr.K.

8. In your reply, quoted and linked by the nominator, you mention. among other things, that:

I'm not a gunslinger on vandal patrol. Can you elaborate on the term "gunslinger" and do you think that all vandal fighters are "gunslingers"? And if not, under what circumstances are they not? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 04:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A There are no great connotations in the term -- it was a simple allusion to the many Wikipedians for whom vandal fighting is their primary focus here, and all the imagery used comparing vandalism reversion to "combat", "sheriff's duty" and "defense". Gunslinger really came to mind during my one-week experiment with Huggle last November. Wanting to check it out, I downloaded it, started it up, and immediately had the sense I was in an Asteroids arcade game. (Umm... that dates me... let's make it Halo 3). After a week and a few hundred edits, I dumped the program -- mosly because I nearly missed this incident by using Huggle. There are some editors here who are very skilled at operating Huggle -- I am not one of them. It seems too much like firing from the hip. The vandalism fighters are absolutely crucial to the functioning of WP, but I think there are some who visualize themselves as "quick-draw artists", while others take a more contemplative approach. I'm happy to be the plodding detective type. (Maybe it's just all the doughnuts). — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question from User:Gimmetrow

9. Under what circumstances do you see yourself imposing or changing a block without prior discussion?

A If there's an SPA account whose only edits are attacks, vandalism, or persistent spam -- meaning, the only reason for their presence is disruption -- I can see myself blocking without warning. (In this case, any discussion actually begins with my reason for the block). The username policy also allows any inappropriate username to be blocked on sight. Changing a block? I would change a block I had created, if I thought better of it; but, at the moment, I don't see changing another's block without some form of discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Followup. This question is partly to probe if or when you would block a long-term user for a reason you know to be controversial without going to ANI or some other appropriate forum for general discussion first. For instance, blocks based on WP:CIVIL, especially those longer than a few hours, tend to be somewhat controversial. Comments? Gimmetrow 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. For me, controversy, by definition, is opposed and requires discussion. Blocking someone unilaterally, knowing that it will be controversial, is in itself disruptive and needlessly escalates drama. If I know a block is going to be controversial, it compels me to bring it to a forum for opinion first. Period. In your for instance, blocks for WP:CIVIL are often controversial for two big reasons: one, they can too often be punitive rather than preventative-- which opposes policy. And, two, the boundaries of civility are fluid in an international community -- one person's "damn" is another's "motherfucking cocksucking son of a bitch." This fluidity invariably requires some discussion to find whether the boundary has been crossed. I hope this blathering has made my position a little clearer for you. Let me know. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Lankiveil

10. What would you say should be done about a hypothetical user that had the following userbox on their user page:

Assume for the purpose of discussion here that the user has not made any edits supporting this point of view in the mainspace.

A: Although userpages are supposed to relate only to one's work on Wikipedia, there is a general agreement that they can be personalized -- much like one's desk at work. However, anything egregiously offensive, promoting a position, or reflecting poorly on the community can be removed. I think a userbox advocating sex between adults and children crosses the line of all three. There is also a definite history of disruption on this very issue. I would open a case at Mfd with a clear message to the user about my reasons. As far the user themself, there's no problem. Anyone can hold a different viewpoint here -- even when it's on the extreme fringe -- so long as their editing remains neutral. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for CactusWriter: CactusWriter (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Edit summary usage for CactusWriter can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats at talk page. ∗ \ / {talk} 07:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. ...as nom. Keegan^talk 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Looks good to me. One two three... 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Icewedge (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Support and strongly! Can't find anything in edit history that is even slightly concerning, answers to opening questions are perhaps the best I've ever seen. This is exactly the type of attitude and demeanor I'd love to see in all admins. (also per nom Keegan) — Ched :  ?  07:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Support looks good to me. Even the declined A7 for the fictional character (I declined that one btw) was only a mistake in that sense that it was taged 4 minutes after creation, before the creator had time to establish the context. But other than that, the speedy work, the answers here and the candidate's overall contributions look fine. And I salute any user who wants to help with WP:SCV. Regards SoWhy 08:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - contribs look good. Ironholds (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, I love your approach to editing and your answer to question 2 was great. Jozal ^(talk) 10:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Seen him around, practically flawless work. ceranthor 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support WP:WHYNOT? Looks good to me. hmwithτ 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well said. Dlohcierekim 20:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

11. Support OK. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Per Shappy and hmwith. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
13. To many administrators currently...lol just kidding. Your a pretty good candidate, a really good writer(when I read your reply on Keegan's page I thought I was reading a book), no major disputes(I don't think) and good little man work. But even as a little man, I would love to see a good candidate like you write a GA or FA.--(NGG) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
14. --Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Looks really good. Malinaccier (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Cactus writer on Danish topics? Reminds me of an Ice hockey player from Israel. Go ahead, support. NVO (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose too interested in building 'pedia. Way too many editors like that around here. <joke; irony /> Dlohcierekim 13:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

    • rotf-lmfao Thanks Dloh, that little gem will be stuck in the cobwebs of my mind for a while. Fair warning: You have released that !vote under the rules of GFDL, and I claim the right to re-use it in the future. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

18. Support Erik9 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I see no reason not to. The user has enough experience and should use the tools responsibly and effectively. Timmeh!_{(review me)} 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Support. Happy to see this RFA, I'm a big fan of CW's writing and copyediting skills, and the answers to the questions are very good. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Weak support I wish you had more article work. A few DYK's is good, but some GA's or FA's would have helped. But you seem like a fine candidate otherwise.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
22. I can support this editor. Nakon 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Well-rounded experience with nothing adverse in past history. Appears competent. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - WP:WTHN?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Solid answers to questions, not too many automated edits, overall, good editor, and would make a fantastic administrator--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Strong support. Wizardman 16:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Quick review of user talk page and recent contribs, as well as solid answers to RFA questions, demonstrate exceptional clue. Good luck. :) GlassCobra 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Absolutely -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Great answers to questions. -download ׀ sign! 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Per Keegan's nomination. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Support. Limited content creation, but generally good quality edits. Good interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
31. Support – I, too, appreciate the good answers to the questions. MuZemike 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Liked what I saw in a quick review, like the answers to the questions. CSD tagging was solid and I liked how he handles different scenarios there (including declining at least two of his own CSD tags over the past month where he decided another option was better.) The fact that he will reconsider his own tags and reverse himself is a positive, not a negative, especially when dealing with CSD.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Looks good to me.--Res2216firestar 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Seems very solid, readily admits mistakes [13] [14], and seems singlemindedly dedicated to improving Wikipedia. Scanned over most of their edits from March 2009, found no problems. -kotra (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Support — Jake Wartenberg 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Support - Antivenin 20:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support See no reason at all to oppose. dottydotdot (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support --t'shael mindmeld 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Actually I'll say strong support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards in that per the candidate's userpage, the candidate is an article rescuer who has earned some DYK credits in addition to having never been blocked. Also, good argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Julius Trumpler in which the candidate not only expresses an opinion, but also points to an external link, i.e. went beyond just glancing at the article and other comments in the AfD and demonstrated evidence of having looked for sources himself. Kudos! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support - Levelheaded, trustworthy, and hardworking editor. I see no reason to oppose that. Icseaturtles★ 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - No reason to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Support – Excellent user, will do fine with the tools. American Eagle (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Answers are great and nothing in contribs to be concerned about. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Support looks good with a good history, He'll do well. Valley2city^‽ 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, Can't see any major disputes, edit wars, or blocks. Hasn't created an astounding amount of content, but what he has created seems to be of good quality. I support.Smallman12q (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support, Looks like a fantastic editor. OtisJimmyOne 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Clearly has an interest in article work, per q2. Otherwise, no apparent issues. Majorly talk 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Can't see why not. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Solid Keeper | 76 17:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
50. I came across CactusWriter during a GA reassessment of Haraldskær Woman. (S)he responded politely and promptly to a situation that many react to defensively, and worked to save that article's GA status. Without that personal experience I might have been inclined to oppose based on a lack of content building, and in particular exposure to the independent review processes, but I'm satisfied the candidate knows what (s)he's doing, so no worries. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
51. Acalamari 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
52. Support As per track and nom.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Oppose Too many admins currently. Oops, I mean Support, fine editor, good answers to questions, no indication of tool-abuse. In short, good candidate. (EC) Oldlaptop321 (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. The candidate strikes me as helpful, experienced and level-headed. Majoreditor (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Seems to be a reasonable user. So why not? --Kaaveh (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support Impressive afd work. Would be a good help in the Xfd arena.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support Keep it up :). Renaissancee (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - No problems seen. MC10 | Sign here! 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
60. Support seeing as I have found no problems whatsoever. CW seems to have been a constructive and competent editor from the start. I also like the way of dealing with User:Willuconquer in the recent copyright incident referenced above. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support, as all that was mentioned in the nom was true.  Marlith (Talk)  04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Weak Support: As I dont see anything alarming! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Can't see any reason why not. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support I like the succinct nomination statement in which the nominator clearly shows that the candidate has a good grasp of what admin do, and should do.--Caspian blue 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
66. Support - Why only now? You should be an admin since last six months. ax (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Cactus has alleviated my concerns and provided ample evidence that he has the good judgement, a sense of humor, and the demeanor of an effective Admin. Malleus also made a good case. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
68. Support Seems like a reasonable user, a little more experience would have been desirable, but not a necessity. Ijanderson (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
69. Support No issues. America69 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Support Love the way they go on BLPs, reasons for wanting adminship, good clean record on edits and talk. Has my trust. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - per (a) content skills and experience demonstrated in approximately 78 new articles; (b) audited content contributions through DYK credits; (c) peer review of others’ contributions at AfD and CSD; and (d) participation in nuts and bolts areas such as SPI, AIV, UAA, and CV. You appear trustworthy; I think you'll do fine with the mop. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support. Good editor. --Carioca (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support No reason not to. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support not a drama magnet - yay! -- Banjeboi 08:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Overall contributions look good to me, and I was personally impressed by the level of responsibility and follow-through with User:Willuconquer's additions of text to various Catholic related articles. Said user was confused about the pd status of government works (believing they applied to all governments). CactusWriter sensibly researched it himself, sought additional feedback, and followed through after the CP listing time had passed, with good communication to the user. This kind of thing makes me sit up and take notice, and I'm glad it did, because I also noticed this RfA in time to offer my strong support. We need that kind of admin responsibility. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Answers seem good, not seeing any problems.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support per Moonriddengirl.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Support Per nom. A good user. Seivad (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Checks out okay. — Σxplicit 05:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Support largely due to answer to Q1. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Support rootology/equality 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Support Not enough administrators currently. ^{see here} - B (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
84. Support Seems fine - any candidate gutsy enough to drop the "F-bomb" in the nomination process should do well as an admin. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
85. Support for sure — JoJo • Talk • 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
86. The answer the question 8 gives me confidence. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support Project space looks solid, no harm in a good AfD admin joining the ranks.--Koji† 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support Have crossed CW's path in discussions and have found him to be exceedingly courteous and helpful. His leadersip through example makes Wikipedia a welcome place to edit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support, good answer to Q10. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Oppose

1. Oppose Lack of audited content contribs, little in the way of noticeboard edits that would show a lack of/ability to deal with disputes. Also, browsing the top AfDs he's contributed to, I'm not convinced of a strong knowledge of policies and his arguments aren't the clearest or best-presented. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose Seems like a stealth candidate. (I want battle hardened admins that have dealt with contentious issues and who have shown they can excercise restraint and keep a cool head. I'm not suggesting any impropriety, but I worry about candidates who sneak in under the radar with stealth, rather than proving themselves first in heavy combat. =Refactored to clarify my use of the term stealth and to expand greatly on my battlefield analogies=) Nom says they have limited experience with the candidate. I haven't seen them around much. Candidate has indicated they don't need the tools. They haven't been involved in negotiating any disputes. I'm not in favor of handing out tools and hoping for the best. It's too hard to take them back when we turn up a dud. But if the candidate is interested in being an Admin they are welcome to lend a hand at ANI and to seek out editing disputes at 3O and other areas to see if they can help resolve them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Every single perception you seem to have of this nomination is, in the minds of the nominator and the nominee with intent here, is entirely incorrect. Good job assuming bad faith. Keegan^talk 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, I understand your perception. But I think it may be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying. By stealth candidate I mean to say: this is someone we haven't seen in action under the stresses and pressures and difficulties involved in disputes. If there's a better way to phrase that I'm happy to ammend my comment to clarify. And I think this crazy bias against people who want the tools to use them to help is absurd. Candidates who nominate themselves and who are willing to stand on their own two feet should be encouraged. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   I can vouch for the candidate's behaviour in what for many editors can be a stressful situation, the parachuting in of a GA Sweeps reviewer, as I said in my support. Also, from a personal point of view, I prefer candidates who steer well clear of places like ANI, much healthier. Not trying to change your mind or anyone else's mind, just saying. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I appreciate your reply. But certainly there is some balance between having editors who gnome away quietly without ever involving themselves in resolving disputes and animals at the zoo who spend too much time at the monkey exhibit that goes on at ANI. I think taking part in resolving disputes and dealing with difficult issues should be a necessary criteria for those who want the tools. If we want to have a special set of tools for those who want to solely focus on gnome work and deletions, then I'm all for it, but if we're going to hand out guns, we better make sure the Admins we're giving them to know how to use them so they don't blow off their own or anyone else's head unnecessarily. Maybe this is a broader issue than with this candidate, and certainly their RfA chances are looking excellent, and I trust they will do a great job, but I don't think it's acceptable for candidates to say they've never been involved in disputes. I want candidates who says

   Yes I've been involved in some and I've sought some out and tried to help resolve them. I'm human so I haven't always been successful in alleviating them, but I understand the issues involved and what's it's like to deal with wikilawyering, with obstruction, with personal attacks, and I'm able to take a deep breath and step away and to allow it work itself out. I can deal with it and maintain a cool head and restraint knowing it's not all on me and that it's always best to talk things out and to avoid shooting first and asking questions later.

   They can even quote me on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

   My apologies for the accusation of bad faith, this further clarification makes sense now. By "stealth candidate" I thought you were implying intrigue. Keegan^talk 00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} - DougsTech (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   And Administrative backlog too ? Wow! Interesting to see templates for RFA comments too ( User:DougsTech/RFAreason1 ) :) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   You say that you oppose all candidates you do not see fit to get the mop. May I inquire what is the problem with this user? Pmlinediter  ^Talk 08:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Doug has stated elsewhere he'll only oppose a candidate who already has opposition. So, his oppose should basically be read as "Oppose per above opposers (...and because there's too many admins currently)". –xeno^talk 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Reminds me of User:Kmweber's RFA opposes :) -- Tinu Cherian - 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   Also, interesting to see that he recently nominated another editor who failed 3/39/9 (and not because of him)... So much for high standards. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

   That a silly reason. We need MORE admins. — JoJo • Talk • 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   How many more? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

   Being that I did fall into the trap and reply to Dougtech's comment in a previous RFA, this discussion jumped out at me. I find it amusing.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose the content contribs showed nothing really spectacular, and the answers seemed below par. I don't see anything in the above that convinces me supporting this user. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Comment. I do not believe one needs spectacular anything to be an admin. My content building is mediocre, for instance. All one needs is an understanding of the tools as related to the area they seek to work in and a an even temperament. Nothing in the answers to questions causes me to doubt candidate possesses requisite knowledge or temperament. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

   Content was touted above as being something they work in. If they wouldn't have mentioned content, then there would be no negative. It is a self perception which I find lacking. Those who claim content in RfA tend to suggest that they will work primarily in that area. I emphasize talent within the field of interest when looking through RfA. And you may have no doubt caused, but I feel that trust must be earned, therefore, a neutral or a negative is equally an oppose, whereas a support must be with strong evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

---

About RfB

Shortcut: WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is 90%, those below 85% will fail and the rest are within the bureaucrat's discretion. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

---

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Steward requests/Permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.