Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
BigDom	72	16	5	82	Successful	11:19, 7 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
Terrasidius	11	24	13	31	Unsuccessful	17:03, 1 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
Connormah	120	26	8	82	Successful	05:45, 2 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
HelloAnnyong	88	1	0	99	Successful	23:09, 1 September 2010	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
BigDom	72	16	5	82	Successful	11:19, 7 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
Terrasidius	11	24	13	31	Unsuccessful	17:03, 1 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
Connormah	120	26	8	82	Successful	05:45, 2 September 2010	0 hours	no	report
HelloAnnyong	88	1	0	99	Successful	23:09, 1 September 2010	0 hours	no	report

Current time is 02:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

The community grants administrator access 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, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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

Current nominations for adminship

---

Current time is 02:57:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

---

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

BigDom

Final (72/16/5). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 11:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

BigDom (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I guess this is going to be a pretty similar description to the last time I ran a few months ago. However, a lot has changed since then and I think my competence as an editor has definitely increased during that time. I started out here well over four years ago, and have come from humble beginnings writing admittedly rubbish articles about my local football team, Nelson F.C. (RIP), that were soon deleted. From then on though, I continued to learn about the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and became most interested in content creation as you can see from my contributions. To start with, perhaps I didn't use edit summaries as much as I could have, but I believe that this isn't an issue any longer.

As I stated in the last RfA, my early experiences here led to me taking an interest in copyright and fair use, and I have subsequently tagged a number of inappropriately licensed files for deletion. I am well experienced in Articles for deletion, and regularly frequent the TfD, CfD and FfD arenas as well. Most of my edits on Wikipedia are based around the sport of association football (mainly the players); I am a long-standing member of WikiProject Football and recently founded a French football task force. When the fancy takes me, I perform new-page patrols and have been known to place CSD tags on new articles whenever I feel it is appropriate and I feel that almost all of my tags have been correctly placed.

I have taken to heart the oppose rationales from my previous RfA and I believe that I have addressed the concerns satisfactorily. Many of the opposes stemmed from poor sourcing, and that is something that I have made a conscious effort to improve upon. We have all made mistakes in the past, and learning from mine has been a sometimes difficult, but ultimately rewarding, task. My edit count now stands at over 14,000 (including deleted edits) and I think that this is a sufficient amount to fully understand the ways of the Wiki. BigDom 09:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Belated co-nom

I've had the pleasure of working with this editor at WikiProject Football for much of the last year, and became familiar with his work after reviewing one of his excellent GAs. His mainspace work since I have been here is without exception excellent, and although 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season failed an FAC, it takes an extremely good writer for Tony1 to support the prose quality without comment. While we have frequently had different views, I can't remember ever reacting badly to anything that he has said, which anyone familiar with me will know is some feat indeed. When pressed on his opinion he is always capable of explaining his view, and has a good grasp of when to query someone on a point, and when it is best to agree to disagree, and allow others to provide their input. BigDom is knowledgeable of policy, and understands that the spirit is more important than the letter. He will make an excellent sysop. --WFC-- 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As Malleus says below, while I did write most of the article, it was actually him that brought it up to scratch. BigDom 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Out of the many areas where admins are required, I am most interested in the deletion process. Subsequently, most of my administrative work would be carried out in CSD and AfD, while I would also happily help out at FfD and TfD as well. Users who understand the image policy are invaluable, and as a "newbie" I uploaded several images with incorrect licences, etc, which has helped me to gain much knowledge of the system. Although I am certainly not what one would call a "vandal-fighter", I do help out in the area sometimes, and would be willing to use the tools to deal with the more blatant vandals.

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

A: It is my belief that articles are the most important part of Wikipedia, because without them it would be nothing. In addition to creating more than 1,400 articles (yes, there are some stubs, but let's remember there is no deadline for improvement), I often expand and improve existing pages. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to write a featured article as yet, but I have written six good articles. My favourite contributions are 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season (in my opinion, the best article I have created from scratch), Clarke Carlisle and Willie Irvine (articles that I expanded).

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 can honestly say that I can't remember any specific times where a user has caused me genuine stress. If I ever feel myself becoming frustrated on Wikipedia, I simply disengage from the situation for a short while until it blows over. Of course, I have had disagreements with other editors because that is a fact of life here on Wikipedia. My general course of action is usually to leave a polite message on the user's talk page, followed by a message on an appropriate project talk page if the problem continues.

The only editor I can ever recall getting slightly annoyed by is User:Gobbleswoggler, but I haven't interacted with him for some time, and it's all in the past now.

Additional optional question from Tommy2010

4. After glancing over your previous RfA, what have you changed regarding creating unreferenced BLPs?

A: I just don't create unreferenced articles any more, BLP or not. In fairness, the majority of the problem articles brought up in the last RfA were written several years ago (most were created in 2007 I think) and since then I have changed a lot. Nowadays, whenever I am new-page patrolling and I see an unreferenced article, I tag it using Friendly and often leave a message on the creator's talk page.

Question from WFC

5. My support is pretty assured, but someone has to ask this. What is your view on our current notability criteria, particularly with regards to living people?

A: I think that the current general notability guideline is sufficient as it requires significant coverage of the subject, whether that be in newspapers, books or reliable websites. Applied to living people, it is especially important that the notability guidelines are adhered to in order to avoid any trouble for the project, which already has enough detractors as it is. As you know, I am not a massive fan of some of the sub-guidelines, such as NSPORT (although it is an improvement on ATHLETE), as people often misuse them and forget that sportspeople are still bound by the GNG.

Additional optional question from Groomtech

6. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: No, I wouldn't say it was really part of the admin role to issue orders, as it is not meant to be a position of authority. Banning a user certainly would not be acceptable for an admin to decide on their own, although admins can enforce bans following an ArbCom case.

Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano

7. What would you do if you stumbled upon the following articles [1], [2] and [3]?

A: The first one (the company) is the trickiest of the three so I'll start with that one. The A7 doesn't seem appropriate as the company is purported to have the widest delivery network in India, so I would perform a search for the company on Google or similar search engine and then PROD the article or send it to AfD if I then deemed it to be non-notable.

The A1 tag on the actress is clearly inappropriate because while the article is short, it does give enough information to identify its subject. For the A2 foreign language article, I would check the Wikipedia of the language that the article is written in (French in this case) to see how similar the two pages are. If they were very similar, the A2 tag would be appropriate so I would delete the page. However, if there was sufficient difference, I would refer the article to Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English instead.

Additional question from Efcmagnew

8. You discover a sock puppet account of Jimmy Wales. What action do you take? He's probably reading this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note Generally Check Users are the only users capable of discovering such account. wiooiw (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional questions from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

9. Is there anything you would like to say regarding the comment cited by most of the opposers? Is it and was it an accurate account of your thoughts on BLP?

A: I would like to say that the comment on Herostratus' RfA was out of character, as anyone who knows me would vouch for, because I just saw red for a minute. I was disgusted at the way some users were hurling unfounded claims of paedophilia towards an editor (supposedly a living person) and then had the temerity to oppose based on BLP concerns!? It was a highly exaggerated version of my opinions. Of course I realise that we need a BLP policy, and it is a way to avoid lawsuits, but above all we need to ensure that we are respectful to those people notable enough for inclusion; that is of the utmost importance.

10. What would be your attitude towards enforcing BLP in an admin capacity should this RfA succeed and do you believe that the community is to strict in its enforcement and interpreation thereof?

A:Firstly, should this RfA succeed, I would be delighted to take up NW's offer of helping out with the OTRS queue so that I can gain some first-hand experience in that area. Another way in which I would be willing to help would be identifying/deleting G10 attack pages (this is something I have been doing for some time as a new-page patroller anyway). In clear or continued cases of BLP violation, it may indeed be necessary to block the offender(s), protect the page in question, etc. and I would gladly assist in this area (of course, we mustn't forget that BLP applies outside of article space so this extends to talk and project pages).

Second part of the question: I would say that if anything enforcement is not strict enough at times, some things go undetected for months or even years and editors blocked for BLP violation often return. Saying that, I think that some editors' interpretation of the guideline is very strict, verging on the point of too strict. That's always going to happen though; some people interpret the notability guidelines more strictly than others. My interpretation of the BLP policy page is that all potentially contentious (mis)information, or things that could be considered disparaging, should be removed if a reliable source is not provided. On the other hand, some editors believe that all unsourced material should be removed, even dates/places of birth/death, et cetera, despite the fact that the policy never states that this is the case. While I respect that view, I do consider it to be an overly strict interpretation.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/BigDom
• Requests for adminship/BigDom 2

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Um, what is with Q8? Tommy! 02:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's probably someone trying to be funny (and failing). Mr. R00t ^Talk 18:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a little friendly payback for this Efcmagnew (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Pretty funny though :) Jmlk17 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I like the reply to it. :) Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. I opposed BigDom's last RfA and it was not long before I regretted it. I regret it because it was ill-conceived and based in part on me asking an unimpressive question. I've since seen heaps of good work done by BigDom all over the wiki, particularly as one of the few genuinely competent content creators in football. I also think BigDom has the right temperament for an admin, evidenced by not just the way the first RfA was handled, but I also a tough unsuccessful FAC that was dealt with very well. BigDom is also an admin who will break the mould a bit and question quite a few conventions, which is a very good thing. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   Affirming my support, particularly in light of the answers to Questions 9 and 10.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Strong support User is even better than the last time I supported. Dlohcierekim 10:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support. Good work in a number of areas. Making progress at an impressive rate since the last RfA. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support. I supported last time, and since then all I see is improvement - including a serious effort to work on the issues outlined in the oppose section last time. Looks like a committed content-builder, and seems to understand the areas he wants to do admin work in. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
5. I've seen you around and have no reason to think you'd not be a fine admin. + Good contrbs Tommy! [message] 10:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support looks to have the right attitude about building an encyclopedia, knows how to move and upload and talk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - a fellow sports editor and long-time Wikipedian, the candidate is familiar; has shown character and fortitude in improvements since last RfA--Hokeman (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Helpful, friendly longtime editor with good contributions. Has taken concerns to heart from the last RfA and addressed them from what I can see, so I see no reason not to support. Good luck! Connormah (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - excellent contributions. Seems to relate extremely well to other users, and comes across as helpful, polite and knowledgeable. I see plenty of relevant experience, lots to indicate the candidate would be a good admin, and nothing which causes me concern.  Begoon|talk 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   In the light of recent comments, I'll reaffirm my support too. The answers to Q9 and Q10 explain. I remember that conversation at that RFA, and I can certainly understand how the atmosphere of seeing such aspersions cast with seemingly no foundation caused the candidate to exaggerate his opinions in such a way. A lot of people (including me) said a lot of things they wouldn't usually say in and related to that RFA, which I put down to feelings running very high at the time. I'm perfectly happy that the candidate's answers above support this, and I have no concerns that he would fail to enforce BLP policy as an admin. Let's not condemn a good editor for a comment made, basically to defend a fellow editor who he thought was being given a very rough and unfair ride.  Begoon•talk 09:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

10. I don't see why not. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support I supported last time, and, I'll support again. Minimac (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support Seems likely to use the tools responsibly. Townlake (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn, attitude toward BLP policy is abhorrent.

12. Support No worries. Pichpich (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support. Long since earned my respect, so it's a pleasure to land here. We often seem to be on opposite sides of the fence, especially at RfA, but every encounter I can recall has been civil and you always back your opinions up. I had a quick look at your deleted edits and saw nothing concerning and a few good G10 taggings, which shows you understand things like BLP as well as a good number of F5 tags (since it's an area you mention in the nomination). I see nothing to suggest you wouldn't do a good job and we need more admins, so good luck! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support Why not? --John (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Cannot support per Doc Quintana and Sarah. Not opposing as I trust this was a one-off. But enough to prevent me supporting. Sorry. --John (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

14. Tempted to add a belated co-nom. --WFC-- 14:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
15. As per last time, I see no reason not to support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Absolutely; a strong candidate. ceranthor 15:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Very good candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Of course. Good contributor in all ways. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Strong Oppose Not nearly enough articles created, only 1,438. Needs 1,443 before they are qualified. Support Aiken ♫ 18:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Withdrawing support. Aiken Drum 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Rats! I knew someone would pull me up on that! BigDom 18:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

22. Support - The answer to Q4 addressed BLP issue raised at the previous RfA, and overall I can't see any other problems. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - should b e fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support Trusted user. I am confident they will do great with the tools. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support - Looks fine- no concerns. AlexiusHoratius 22:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, that BLP quote is a bit of a concern. Not enough for me to oppose, but too much to support. AlexiusHoratius 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

26. Support—did so last time and will do so again. Airplaneman ✈ 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Trusted editor. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support: No major concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposer's rationale is completely unpersasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Please try to keep your comments addressed to the candidate's qualities, not your opinion of those who do not share your opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    To be fair, his opinion was of your rationale, not of you. But, I agree that comments should be focused on the candidate. Aiken ♫ 23:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    (ec, to Malleus Fatuorum:) I always carefully review the comments in the oppose and neutral sections before supporting a candidate, to see whether there is anything that another editor may have said that would dissuade me from supporting. Since an RfA is a collaborative discussion, the facts that the multitude of other editors commenting on a candidate have turned up no negatives that I find persuasive, can itself become part of my basis for supporting, and thus is indeed a reflection on, as you put it, the candidate's qualities. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    (adding)I stand by my support, but please give some more thought to the importance of the BLP policy. A Wikipedia article is typically a top-ranking Google hit for the article subject, and we need to write and watch over BLPs with that in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

30. Stephen 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support. I have examined what purport to be opposes, and find no substance in them in the slightest. Unsourced bile is no substitute for reasoned argument. However, for the sake of argument, I have also examined the candidate's contribs, and can see no reason why the mop should not be granted. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
32. Support User has addressed the concerns I had at his last RfA and I am happy to support this one. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
33. Seems to have improved from March. —fetch·comms 00:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
34. Support – Excellent article creator with enough experience in admin areas. A definite net plus. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - no probs. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - I was going to support last time, but the nomination was withdrawn before I could.  -- Lear's Fool 02:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
37. Support I supported last time. I actually agree with BigDom's position in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji. Polargeo (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
38. Support Of course. Trusilver 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Changed to Strong Support in light of the number of opposes from the hand-wringing, yet always humorous, BLP crowd. There have been a few minor BLP issues over time that have needed to be taken care of, yes. But nothing to justify the tens of thousands of man-hours of intellectual masturbation that has gone on by people that really need to find something else to do with their time. Sorry for being blunt, but it strikes me that BigDom understands that. That makes him an even better candidate in my eyes. Trusilver 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
39. Support After small analysis, I find nothing to be concerned about. --Next-Genn-Gamer 13:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
40. Support. Responsible approach, well experienced, and qualified. Concerning the diffs in the oppose section, well-reasoned and respectful dissent from a consensus position is fine, and the note that he would close that AFD against his personal opinion exhibits a healthy respect for the community. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Experienced, no concerns. I'd missed that (he?) didn't have the bit already. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    Definitely a "he" last time I checked. BigDom 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    *grin*, thanks for the reply. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

42. Support. I've interacted with you in the course of developing WP:NSPORT, and we do not always agree, but I am confident based on those interactions that you have the best interests of the Wiki at heart, and that you have an excellent understanding of how things work. I am sure that you will be a very good administrator, and I'm happy to support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
43. Support - Substantial content contributions and plenty of experience outside of article space, and good answers to questions above. -- Atama頭 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
44. Support Due to my brain suffering from overpopulation, I can't remember the former nom, so I'm voting yes since no unopposed opposes (meaning ones that have not been discussed) are visible. Buggie111 (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
45. Article writer, won't abuse the tools. Secret ^account 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

    My support withdrawn due to stance on BLPs. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

46. Support per thoughtful answers to questions, per Colonel Warden (yes, I know that was an oppose, but the linked discussion shows good judgment and thought rather than slavish adherence to subguidelines), and per excellent effort at addressing issues raised at the previous RfA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
47. Support User has overcame concerns raised in previous RFA and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
48. Support Works on content. Always need more admins who understand this aspect of things.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
49. Support. A credit to WP:Football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
50. Support. I supported last time, and things seem to have improved since then. Good luck! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
51. Support - trustworthy article writer and editor. Agree with Seraphimblade about the opposes - the candidate very occasionally invokes IAR, which as far as I'm concerned is a plus point. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
52. Support - clean talk / user pages - great answers to the questions - sound in policy IMHO. I understand and have noted Malleus in oppose - the commentary in opposition from Colonel Warden is easily ignored. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
53. Support SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
54. Support Opposes don't add up. Don't screw up? Vodello (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

    Support I trust this user from what i've seen so far. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) #::Removing comment per diff on Herostratus RFA. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

55. Wikipedia would be benefited by him having access to admin tools. I see no reason to oppose, or !vote otherwise. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
56. Support Have seem him around a bit and thought was reasonable and good editor. I share a small bit of CW's concerns but I don't that that should be deadly to an RfA. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
57.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, BigDom. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
58. Good answers to questions, good editing history without significant conflict. I see no glaring errors in judgment. We need more admins like this. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

    Did you mean to support? Tommy! 03:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

    I would assume so and have moved it to the correct section. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

59. I don't see anything wrong. I think BigDom will make a great administrator. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
60. Wait, I haven't supported yet? ~Pepper 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. Another useful addition for the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
62. Support No outstanding issues here.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
63. Support Looks ok to me, not persuaded by opposes. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Looks ok to me, has made some mistakes, but appears to have learned from them. In particular, the oppose below based on prior support for another user's RFA leads me to a moral obligation to support - we can't have open and frank discussions here if we are held accountable merely for expressing an opinion. Triona (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

    Expressing an opinion is very frequently dealt with harshly here on wikipedia, particularly if it's an unpopular opinion. Besides, casting a vote is more than just expressing an opinion, it's making a judgement, and in this case a very poor one. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

65. Support - Seems to know policy well and has a good grounding in dealing with content-related issues. Should make a fine admin. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Glad to do so. Jmlk17 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
67. Support - I left rather a long oppose speech on your last RfA. I also left a personal note on your talk page that if you you follow the advice in the opposes, I would support your next attempt. I think you did,.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
68. Support. The candidate is intelligent, reasonable, and knowledgeable on policy matters. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
69. Support wiooiw (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
70. Support A trustworthy candidate. Good luck! ---- Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
71. Support Mhm. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
72. Definite Support for sure. Mr. R00t ^Talk 02:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'm really sorry to be the first in this column, or indeed in it at all in this case, but I really can't excuse BigDom's support of Terrasidius's RfA. BTW WFC, that prose you praise so lavishly is largely mine. Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm curious; why is that such a deal-breaker for you? Here is the link so others won't have to search for it as I did. --John (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   I have more rewarding things to do than to get into another argument with you John. Anyone who cares about what I consider to be the poor judgement displayed in that RfA can look at it for themselves and make up their own minds. On the second point, I was drawing attention to the fact that the co-nominator's statement was substantially misleading, but I notice you chose to ignore that. Perhaps the truth means nothing to you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   I am sophisticated enough to know that "the truth" is a subjective quality and so is best avoided in such debates. I note that several others (including Xeno) share the same judgment on that RfA you hold to be sufficiently poor to exclude the candidate from consideration, hence my clarifying question, which it is totally fine for you to decline to answer. I did indeed choose to ignore your second point. --John (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   You did indeed, hence you clearly care nothing for the truth. You confuse the scientific method of attempting to disprove null hypotheses by experiment with "truth", but truth in a social context is that what you just just said is a lie, which can be easily proven to be a lie, as in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   I don't think that this is that unreasonable of an oppose. If Malleus feels that BigDom's judgment is faulty in supporting that RfA, then maybe BigDom's judgment in nominating himself is also faulty. I don't share that opinion, but I think this is at least no more ridiculous than objecting because of a high automated edit percentage or not creating enough articles from scratch. -- Atama頭 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   This is not the sort of oppose we should be fussing over. Malleus F has opposed in a civil way, expressed his opinion on the candidate's suitability, and that's all there is to it. He's explained himself, we may not agree, but so what? He's even apologised for opposing, which is hardly necessary. Aiken ♫ 22:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   Fairy nuff. Per Atama, Malleus is perfectly entitled to oppose on whatever grounds he sees fit; I didn't mean to imply he had been uncivil, but was merely asking a clarifying question. I consider it clarified now. --John (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree with any oppose based on an editor's history of !voting in RFA, because it creates a chilling effect on participation. Triona (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   Why is it any more "chilling" (what an overused word that is here) than an oppose based on an editor's history of CsD tagging, or AfD participation? Malleus Fatuorum 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   I believe what Triona is implying is that a user might come a long who may possibly wish to nominate themselves for an RfA later down the line and may subsequently avoid commenting on present and future RfA's as they could gather the impression that they may be censured for their opinions on others nominations when their own nomination comes along. That's just what I gathered. It's a legitimate concern in my opinion, but a person's opinion is a person's opinion and I'm not one to stand in the way of that as long as it is civil, which, from my perspective, this has been. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I understand that point but I reject it as implausible. What is much more likely are the "you support me, I'll support you" supports, which may go some way to explaining what's wrong with this place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

   I would like to hope that editor's do not vote support in some (potentially mis-guided) sense of Quid pro quo, but that would just be naïve of me to believe that at least a small minority of editors do not. That said, I personally find both probabilities plausible, though with a slight leaning towards the latter as being more plausible than the former. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose - I feel high regard for our policies is needed in Administrators and don't think User:BigDom,s comment here reflects that position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose Checking his contributions for Oct'09, we see him creating lots of stubby footballer articles such as this BLP. But in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Kudjodji he invokes WP:IAR to !vote delete contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   I fully respect your oppose, but to be clear, Dom was not calling for consensus to be ignored. He was arguing against the majority position (as you are) and explained his reasoning eloquently (as you have). --WFC-- 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   He invokes IAR here. My objection is to the contrast between this case and his own perfunctory stubs. It does not seem proper for him to be arguing for deletion in a case which seems so similar to his own creation(s). As a contributor, this is not a big deal, but I prefer a higher standard of consistency and tolerance in admins. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   BigDom does say IAR there, but is not saying "per IAR let's ignore consensus" - I just want that to be clear, since your original note might make it seem like that was the point. The point of IAR here is to challenge wp:ATHLETE on an edge case where the player only played one minute of fully professional play. This is a legitimate thing to do. wp:ATHLETE even says "occasional exceptions may apply" at the top of the page. That's what IAR is all about. Additionally, BigDom doesn't seem to like wp:ATHLETE much, and these guidelines can get modified if at AfDs they are routinely found to be problematic, so a la jury nullification I think this is a reasonable way to call this guideline into question. Now, an interesting question is how would BigDom have closed this AfD? ErikHaugen (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   Well, if I hadn't been involved in the discussion I would have closed it as keep in spite of my own opinions, seeing as that was clearly the consensus. BigDom 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   If the only thing you can find is a questionable (but not unreasonable) application of IAR from a year ago, then I would ask if we're being a tad too stringent. If there were multiple cases of BigDom running all over WP doing whatever he wants, and quoting IAR as the excuse, then I'd say you have a point. I don't see any indication of that. Nobody is perfect (even admins). SnottyWong ^chat 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

   What you're talking about are things from before his last RFA. I think that assuming from what he's done after his last RFA would be a more appropriate judgement. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   Colonel Warden, those edits you are referring to took place 11 months ago. Do you have examples of this behavior from the last few months? Kingturtle (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   It's possible that (s)he hasn't yet realized that this is BigDom's second RFA attempt. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

   I hadn't checked the previous RFA which I did not recall. I find that I opposed that on the grounds that the candidate was creating poorly sourced BLPs. I check his contributions since then and find that not much has changed. For example, see Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957). This is sourced to a fan site which does not appear to be reliable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   The homepage of the Neil Brown website states "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books", so I would argue that the site is reliable. BigDom 06:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please see our policy on reliable sources which explains that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". In this case, you are taking it on trust that this fan web-site has used the Barry Hugman source and has transcribed it accurately. Note also that this site states that "The English League player's appearances and goalscorers statistics are drawn primarily from Barry Hugman's 'The Premier and Football League Player's Records' series of books, for which I am extremely grateful for his permission to use". Did you likewise ask Barry Hugman for his permission to copy this information to Wikipedia? Do you realise that by copying these records to Wikipedia, you are implicitly claiming ownership and giving the world a licence to copy this further? My impression is that you are quite naive about these matters because our sports articles get a free pass when it comes to notability and so they haven't been regularly roasted at AFD, as other topics are. I caught you out on this at your previous RfA but your comments and behaviour indicate that you are still quite unfamiliar with our rigorous policies in this area. This doesn't make you a bad person but it means that you lack the knowledge and experience of sourcing, copyright and BLP issues which we expect of an admin. If, as an admin, you were to become involved in some topical matter like the current furore about William Hague, you would soon be out of your depth and might easily make a wrong call. This could be an expensive mistake and so it seems best that you get some wider experience before becoming an admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Implicity claiming ownership? Now I've heard everything. I do understand the BLP policies that Wikipedia has, and I know what you're getting at on the reliable sources front. I refer you to WP:BLP, which clearly states that only material that is "contentious" or "likely to be challenged" should be attributed to a high quality source. Do you consider football statistics to be contentious? So it appears that it is the two guidelines that are contrary, which might go some way to explaining our slightly different views on the subject. The bit about self-published sources on the BLP page only warns in detail against the use of blogs or tweets, etc, although admittedly websites are mentioned. I certainly do understand copyright, and what you're saying is that every time someone uses a source they should ask permission; that's just not true is it? Every single admin on this site will have used a non-PD source without "permission". By the way, I have no interest whatsoever in William Hague or controversy (I have no idea what the current "furore" is about) and wouldn't get involved in anything like that, I can assure you. BigDom 10:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   One of the facts which you put in this particular BLP was the person's date of birth. This is sensitive personal information because it tells you the person's age and may be used for personal identification. The football statistics have commercial value as Mr Hugman seems to make his living by publishing them. As you seem to have copied them without permission or significant transformation, there seems to be a copyright issue here. You seem to be adding large quantities of this information to Wikipedia and this goes beyond fair use. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Do you propose removing statistics from all sports biographies then? Because someone must have collated them before they were put on Wikipedia and it's pretty difficult to "significantly transform" stats. BigDom 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Please see sweat of the brow which explains that, if you rip off someone else's hard work, then, under UK and EU law, you are potentially liable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   But nobody is trying to pass off the stats as their own. Nobody on Wikipedia adds stats to articles in the hope of making a profit from somebody else's work. Surely if Wikipedia saw a problem in people doing this, they would have put a stop to it years ago? BigDom 11:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   The Foundation which hosts Wikipedia has a hands-off policy so that they are not legally liable for the content which the editors create. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Hi, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is September '10 now. Is it impossible for us, as humans, to learn from our mistakes after almost a year? Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   The Mike Conroy (footballer born 1957) article was created two months ago. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   The Hugman Players' records books are based on numerous other books like the Soccerdata, the Breedon and Yore publications (page 7 of the 2005 edition) . It's a comprehensive source, but certainly not the only one. Cattivi (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

   Colonel Warden, your thoughts on what's a BLP issue may be your own opinion (though birth dates are commonly added, especially if already publicly known), but your thoughts on the statistics are factually incorrect. In Feist v. Rural, the Supreme Court quite unambiguously decided that simple lists of facts are not copyrightable. The layout, presentation, or commentary on the facts may be copyrightable if creative enough, but the facts themselves are not. It appears your sweat of the brow doctrine is a feature of European law, but Wikimedia is based in the US and is subject to US law. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   The candidate seems to edit from the UK and so is subject to UK law. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   I would that would be their problem, not Wikipedia's or WMF's - so long as the servers, and legal entities are here, those are the laws that apply to our content. Triona (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

   It may be a general problem. Please see the current case of Darius Dhlomo - a sports fan with a casual attitude to plagiarising the work of others. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I'm sorry, because your answers were, generally, good; however, Off2riorob's diff is really a dealbreaker: BLP is one of our most important policies and admins should enforce it as strictly as they can, because what we write here can have serious consequences in real life. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 08:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough. Someone asked me about that diff on my talk page where I have tried to explain myself if anyone's interested. BigDom 09:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the pointer, I'm going to read your response! Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 09:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

   I've read it and I uderstand your position better; however, I have still qualms: in my opinion, BLP is not only there to avoid lawsuits... However, you've given me something to think about; I may still change my mind. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 09:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose Some more experience needed in my opinion. Too may examples of questionable judgement and policy/guideline knowledge. Epbr123 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Off2riorob and Salvio. I have read the follow up explanation, however it's still a dealbreaker for me. BLP is extremely important, and it's not just about avoiding "misrepresenting people who could possibly sue". Regardless of whether or not someone may be able to to sue, we have a duty and responsibility as a top ten website to take the time and care to get biographical material right. Having seen through OTRS work the distress and suffering caused to BLP subjects when BLP isn't followed properly, I cannot support a candidate who doesn't seem to "get" BLP. Sarah 02:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose per "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia and some people really need to get a life" No, BLP still, even after all this time, needs to be taken more seriously. I can't support anyone who demonstrates a lax attitude towards BLP policy. Courcelles 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose BLP. Townlake (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose over BLP concerns. If those of us who stand up for the principle of doing no harm to living individuals are to be derided as hand-wringing, yet always humorous by the candidate's supporters, then we probably need to stand up for ourselves. Sorry BigDom, but this policy is not up for grabs. --John (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Sarah. The BLP policy is not just a means to avoid lawsuits; it is an ethical imperative founded in respect and fairness. Kablammo (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Sorry to join in here, but your explanation shows you really don't seem to understand what we're trying to do here. Wikipedia policies aren't about "preventing us from getting sued", they're all (with varying degrees of success) attempts to make a working system of ethics that's applicable to Wikipedia's unique situation. To me, that explanation reads like someone who's thinking in terms of "what can we get away with?", not "what is the right thing to do?", and that's not an appropriate attitude in an admin in the Wikipedia context. Don't read this as a "never", but as a definite "not now". – iridescent 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

    I'm glad that our policy on living people has a strong ethical dimension to it, but it's an undeniable fact that legal considerations were a catalyst for its development, as evidenced by the fact that there are still thousands of several-year-old unsourced BLPs on the site. In relation to Dom's comments, given that an unsourced, on-wiki allegation of a named user being a p(a)edophile was raised on the page where Dom's initial offending diff came from, it is not at all surprising that he saw red. I don't defend his words in any way, but in fairness to him he was pointing out a double-standard. --WFC-- 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Underlined comment added late. --WFC-- 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

12. I would have to agree with Iridescent. There are already far too many administrators who do not value our responsibility to individuals in the world who by no choice of their own have been been placed in what we term to be an encyclopedia, but can sometimes be better labeled a libel mill. Hell, I probably was one of those people who undervalued BLP myself before (to be honest, I probably am such a person now, though I try to recognize that and improve). I realize that this RFA will likely pass regardless of what I say here. BigDom, might I ask that after you do pass, pop me a note on my talk page. There are quite a number of emails (76) in the info-en-q queue on OTRS right now, and many refer to articles that need to be radically fixed, which you could certainly assist with and thereby possibly gain a better understanding of the importance of BLP. NW (Talk) 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    I find this a strange oppose. Firstly because nobody is accusing Dom of not recognising the very real legal concerns that BLPs pose. But secondly because, paraphrased, part of your rationale seems to read "I am an admin that does not have a good level of understanding of BLP policy. I do not think you should be an admin due to your level of understanding of BLP policy." Apologies if this is a mischaracterisation, but reading through it, that is how it appears. Regards, --WFC-- 02:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    I just got back from a very long day out, so my apologies if I horribly misrepresented what I meant. I meant something more along the lines of this: "BigDom does not appear to properly understand our ethical responsibility to subjects of biographies." The other part was a recognition of "I am not perfect, but I recognize that fact and work to improve." NW (Talk) 02:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

13. Some of the arguments in this column are poor or hair-splitting, but really, our admins need to have a good understanding of the importance and background of BLP, and BigDom doesn't seem to have such an understanding. Ucucha 03:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Sadly though that will make no difference, because this is just a popularity contest cum vote. The bureaucrats have no authority to refuse a "promotion" just because the candidate completely misunderstands one of wikipedia's most important policies. Malleus Fatuorum 03:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Fun fact: When Off2riorob posted the link to the BLP quote, his was the third oppose against 68 supports (including mine). Since that quote was pointed out, this RFA has certainly changed direction. I'm fairly certain I know what the 'crats will do with this, but I'm still a bit intrigued to see if we get an explanation that discusses this. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    I think we all know what the crats will do and how they'll explain it, don't we? Malleus Fatuorum 04:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    I know the most likely result, but I haven't seen an RFA situation quite like this before - a late turning RFA, where the turn is based on concerns directly related to policy interpretation, on a US holiday weekend. Could be an interesting close. Townlake (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    As it says on the main page, "In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days..." This might well qualify. They could extend discussion an extra day, at least to have BigDom respond to Q9 and Q10 (or indicate he declines to respond) and give time for people to react. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    ... and of course pigs might fly. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

14. I cannot support someone who thinks "BLP is taken far, far too seriously here on Wikipedia" —Dark 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
15. I opposed last time on sourcing, and was hoping not to oppose again. But the BLP policy is crucial: we have an obligation to insist on getting it right. The answer to Q10, "some editors believe that all unsourced material should be removed, even dates/places of birth/death, et cetera, despite the fact that the policy never states that this is the case" isn't an overly strict interpretation unsupported by the policy. It's exactly what WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources and WP:BLP#Misuse of primary sources says we should do. Whether this RfA passes or not, please take seriously the comments made in this section. Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Again, though, that's your interpretation of the law. The policy that you've linked to, and that I've read many times, clearly states "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Yet some editors remove this information despite a lack of complaint from the subject. I will take the comments here seriously, just as I did last time. BigDom 09:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    That's certainly my interpretation of the preceding sentence: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." (my highlighting) I see nothing which says it's OK to publish unsourced personal details and only remove them if the subject complains. Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I never said it was OK to publish dates of birth that aren't included in any reliable sources. What I meant was that , if the date of birth has been published in reliable sources, it does not have to be cited directly in the article. If the date of birth has been published in reliable source and the subject still complains, then it should still be removed. BigDom 09:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

    I'd have thought anything specified at WP:BLP as usable if "widely published in reliable sources" etc would necessarily require proof that it actually had been. But I realise this must be a difficult environment in which to express oneself clearly, and if I've misunderstood you on this particular matter, then I apologise. My oppose isn't based just on that one bit of a reply, but on how I perceive your attitude to BLPs in relation to what I'd hope for in an admin candidate. Sorry. Struway2 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

16. Oppose - On BLP related concerns. It's much broader than a single comment made, but on an overall impression that given the recent BLP shake-up, I think the criteria's elevated. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral – At the moment not willing to support, for the most part per Iridescent in the "oppose" section, but might reconsider based on responses to Q9 and Q10. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
2. Off2riob NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
3. The BLP related comments are of concern, but I'm unsure if it enough to outweigh his other administrative ability attributes.--PinkBull 05:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral I would like to see answers to questions 9 and 10 before I make a firm decision, and I, therefore, hope that the crats give this RfA a little more time. BigDom does a lot of good work, and I would like to hear a properly formulated account of his opinions regarding BLPs - the comment cited by several opposers was ill-advised and is worrying, but I am unsure as to how it might affect his work in admin areas. Rje (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral It's all good apart from the take on BLP... Aiken Drum 11:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

Terrasidius

Final (11/24/13); Withdrawn per candidate's request at 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC). Regards SoWhy 17:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Terrasidius (talk · contribs) – Hi; I've been on here for a while now and after hearing about a lack of Admins on a recent Signpost article[4] I thought I would have a go. I enjoy being on here, adding to the work in my own way (Music related articles mostly) and helping out with other things like reverting vandalism, correcting random spelling and grammar mistakes as I come across them and as my new semester starts soon, I will be on alot more from now on. PS:I don't know whether I'll get this or not, probably not because of edit count maybe. But I'll keep this up till the end out of curiosity and to see what users say, any tips you may have etc. I would say that I know I may not have vast policy knowledge but the first thing I would (will) do is consult the New admin school and all the other policy pages before making any big Admin desicions and to fully immerse myself in it as I am serious about it, for the good of the project as a whole. I have 5000 odd edits but because I don't make loads of small edits to pages and try to consolidate I think thats why my edit count isn't as vast it it could (should?) be. (ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 04:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has voted (either way), I will indeed be spending alot more time here; continuing with music related articles and I am going to start improving historical pages, Roman pages and in particular the Romans in Scotland related pages (so if anyone wants to help me with those...:)). I hereby request that this vote be closed and I will try again after 4 - 6 months maybe. I have found all your comments useful and helpful and I will indeed spend more time on policy related happenings and lending my voice to AFD and MEDCAB, etc. Again thanks to everyone!:) ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: Mainly with helping others with disputes, being a calm, level-headed influence, I reckon I'm a pretty good listener and understanding; fixing problems as I come across them which is pretty much what I do now. Also checking the Recent Changes and AFD pages to help out there.

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

A: In terms of articles / templates created and added to I have so far been working on music related articles alot. Working mainly on the Elliot Goldenthal and Future Sound of London related pages, among others.

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

A: I've never really had any conflicts with anyone, if I have it was sorted out fairly quickly. Like I mentioned before I am pretty laid back about being able to compromise and listen.

Optional question from Townlake

4. Forgive me, but I'm not seeing this addressed in the above... why do you want to be an administrator? What could you do as an administrator that you can't do now?

A: Do my best to improve the project and help others out in any way I can aswell. Basically I want to have a deeper involvement here.

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- Well, if I was indeed watching what was going on and about to do something I would talk to the other Admin about it and make sure the editors involved were satisfied that the dispute was over. I wouldn't pursue a case once its been sorted out reasonably.

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

A- This may be a bit controversial but I would not allow any random IP editor to edit articles, or at least give a non-user account editor a finite amount of edits before they either can't edit anymore or create a user account. As most of the vandalism is by random IPs.

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

A- I would never arbitrarily block a user in that way without consulting both them and another, more experienced Admin.

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- Find out for certain that they are indeed puppets and go from there for both cases.

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- Around, maybe 20 to 30.

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- I reckon I thrive under pressure, just one of those types of people I guess. I pride myself on being an understanding person and a good listener. One of the things I would like to be here (as an Admin especially) is a good helper / mediator.

11. Why do you want to be an administrator?

A See above.

12. 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- I would give any article a chance to be a good article. Unless it something obviously silly / vandalism.

Optional question from Amatulic

13. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, etc.

a. Would you require escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?

b.Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?

A:

Additional optional question from Groomtech

14. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A:

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at talk page. Diego Grez (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Candidate seems to have a good head on their shoulders but would definitely benefit from additional experience in admin-related areas. Terrasidius, please accept my moral support and sincere thanks for your offer to serve as administrator. –xeno^talk 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Why not. Per Xeno. Diego Grez (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support been here long enough to know whats OK and what's not. If this is successful I would caution the candidate to start slow. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support per Xeno, while the candidate may be slightly inexperienced, they're a good faith user and I'm sure would contribute positively to the project and be willing to learn. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 07:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support candidate is a longterm clueful user with a clean block log and diverse contributions. Experience is nicely diverse and more than adequate, if rather more spread out than is fashionable at RFA, however I'm not convinced that that is a problem. Answers to questions imply that the candidate might make an overcautious admin, but I don't see a particular problem in that, and I'm not convinced of the value of that question. When I became an admin I'd probably have said that all vandals merit multiple warnings, that hasn't stopped me doing the occasional block with zero warnings; I think its difficult to judge that sort of behaviour until someone has actually been in the appropriate situation. ϢereSpielChequers 12:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Terrasidius appears to be well-meaning and willing to learn, and that's a good combination. The edit count is not too low in my opinion, although perhaps he could perhaps use a bit more experience in some admin-related areas. Can't foresee any problems if the user became an admin. BigDom 12:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support No reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Support: Not quite there yet, but don't give up! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Per WereSpielChequers. Katerenka ^[talk] 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Moral support, per Xeno. Tommy! 02:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
11. Moral support, also per Xeno. Airplaneman ✈ 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry to be the first one to oppose. You seem like a good faith editor but the answers to the questions shows lack of experience, also your last 50 edits go back to March. WP:NOTNOW applies here I recommend withdraw and try again in several months, sorry. Secret ^account 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose Adminship is a permanent appointment, and you don't have enough of a track record or apparent familiarity with adminship for me to determine how you'd do with the tools. I'd certainly encourage you to try again in the future. Townlake (talk) 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose None of the reasons cited for being an admin actually require the tools. Very very low activity levels recently; not sure how well you've kept up with the slew of policy changes that accompanied the winter and summer months. You also have only about 100 edits to projectspace and projecttalkspace combined. The last AfD you participated in was in mid-2008. You have 125 user talk edits, which also seems low if you wish to be patrolling recent changes (in which case you should warn all vandals). Everything else you listed can be done without the tools (they shouldn't be used much in dispute resolution anyway). —fetch·comms 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose Concerns with experience, policy knowledge, and lack of recent activity. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Thank you for submitting your RFA. You are clearly interested in helping the project, and I think you have a good personality for adminship. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience. But that does not mean that we will never have confidence in you. A candidate for RFA must be conversant in the related policies and guidelines. One should read and understand thoroughly--

   • Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
   • WP:Admin
   • the admin reading list.

   Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 6,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to gain enough community trust to attempt adminship. Also, candidates returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 6,000 edits and 6 months before trying again. Candidates need to have contributed a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.

   • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. At the minimum, candidates will do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things. One may also need experience in WP:RFPP and WP:UAA as well.
   • A clear understanding of WP:BLP is essential and of growing importance. Certainly, one must be especially careful to see to the removal of negative, unsourced material. WP:CSDG#10 should be taken as an opportunity to do so when it applies.
   • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution.
   • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience.
   • Should an RFA be unsuccessful the candidate should wait at least another 6 months and 6000 edits before trying again. They should review the unsuccessful RFA comments and show that they have remedied any deficiencies identified there. I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

6. I'd have to say not now, maybe later. I congratulate the candidate for stepping up to volunteer. I like the fact that most of the 3000+ edits have been to main article space. However, from the somewhat vague unqualified answers to questions (particularly 9 and 12), I am not seeing a demonstration of familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or experience working in the areas that admins tend to be involved in (article protection, blocking, dispute resolution, deletion discussions, prods and CSD, etc). That may be the fault of the questions; most aren't really specific. In any case, I don't see activity that requires the use of administrative tools. I recommend some actual experience in dispute resolution (like Wikipedia:Third opinion) and try again in six months or so. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose, concerns about breadth of experience, and answers to the questions. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Not enough experience. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose I'm concerned about the lack of detail on Q12. Also not enough experience or activity. I know you've been on Wikipedia for quite a while now, as fetchcomms mentioned that you last AfD was back in 2008. Minimac (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Sorry, the answers to the questions confirm the lack of experience necessary to be confident of giving the candidate to the tools. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Though candidate has been around a long time, there is little or no evidence of sufficient knowledge or experience of policies, guidelines, the community and the general ethos of Wikipedia. The nomination and answers to questions are very thin, and the nomination is mainly asking the community for feedback. Wikipedia:Editor review, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, and Wikipedia:Admin coaching would be useful for the candidate, along with some time spent becoming familiar with various areas that admins might get involved with - WP:AfD, WP:Dispute resolution and Category:Wikipedia backlog for example. A period, say 6 months, of useful and committed engagement with the project as a whole, with evidence of consensus building, good judgement and a basic grasp of ethos and guidelines would mean the next RfA should be more likely to succeed. Not everyone passes first time (I didn't). Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 08:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose - I'm sorry, but your answers to the above questions are enough to convince me that you do not have sufficient knowledge of the various policies and guidelines to justify giving you the admin tools at this time. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose - A long-time Wikipedian, but relatively dormant for the last 2 years. Not enough experience in the administrative areas.--Hokeman (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW and because I think you lack experience in admin-related areas. I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Extra buttons don't seem to be required in order to do what this editor enjoys doing here? As far as I can tell, closing AfDs is the one specific administration activity this editor is interested in doing, and per q9 I'd rather not see this editor working on AfD backlogs. Usually, but not always, the outcome of an AfD is very clear long before 20 !votes. ErikHaugen (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - per ErikHaugen. Yeah, the answer to Q9 jumped out at me. Suggest a WP:SNOW close, with all due respect to the candidate. Let's not drag this out. Jusdafax 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose - Q7 & Q9 show some fundamental misunderstandings. Content work is also a bit iffy - Goldenthel article isn't sourced too well and has "not in source" tags. Come back in a few months when you're more experienced and know policy better. Claritas § 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Doesn't appear to need the tools, or know what he would do with them if he had them. If this user had as much experience in AfD's as he/she claims, then he/she would know that having 20 or 30 !votes is not typical. Needs more experience with policy-related matters. SnottyWong ^confer 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose - Overall the candidate seems willing to help and has made a positive impact on the project, but the answers to the questions above indicate that the candidate doesn't really know what being an admin is about. I would recommend spending several months at AfD, AIV, NPP, etc and gain more experience. Also, it can be helpful to hang out around RfA and see who's succeeding and who's not. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose I am sure that you are ready and willing to help, but your answers to the questions, especially 7 8 and 9, indicate a significant lack of knowledge of policy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose simply too soon :) I look forward to a future nomination though :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I really hate to pile on but I have to agree that there is a serious lack of experience. Just one example, suggesting that 20-30 comments would be a good minimum amount of participation before determining that an AfD has had enough participation for a consensus shows that you must not have been in many AfDs (personally, I think that if 3 people agree that an article should be kept or deleted and they have good arguments that it would be enough to close it). This is a big problem if you want to close AfDs as an administrator. You did mention above that you're "a pretty good listener and understanding"... Have you considered MEDCAB? You don't have to be an admin to participate there and they could always use help. It's also a good place to get experience in solving disputes, if you still have a desire to be an administrator in the future, it's a good place to get experience in handling problems between editors. -- Atama頭 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose – You are a great editor, no doubt about it. I, however, find a lack of experience in admin-related areas, given your answers to your questions. You do not need to be an admin to participate in many areas of Wikipedia; being a sysop just gives you a few extra tools (although powerful) that you can use. I suggest getting some more experience in admin-related areas and have a future nomination in about 4-6 months. I look forward to supporting you in the future. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose A good attitutde and a willingness to learn but more evidence of policy knowledge in admin areas is needed to be trusted with the admin tools. Please help out around the place e.g. give opinions at WP:AfD, help out with new page patrolling or any number of other things and come back here in a few months if you get on well with it. Polargeo (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Long term contributor with plenty of article contributions, but less than 40 edits every month since October of last year. Haven't decided which way to side. ceranthor 01:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for your input, on that point I've been very busy 'irl' the last few years. That means I've not had much time for being on the net. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ)

2. Moral support. We deeply appreciate your offer of help, but you're not quite ready. Yet. A few months and a bit more experience and I look forward to your long and productive future as an administrator, but I can't fully support right now. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Not really active, but in my situation now, I'm not the one to be talking. Lots of article edits, that's a good, but very few Wikipedia-space edits. Those are the ones involved in most admin work. I again, am at around the same edit count as you (by a long stretch of fancy on my part), so take this as a grain of salt. Good luck in the future. Buggie111 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Moral support - I admire your courage and your article contributions, but low activity lately plus shaky answers to questions prevent me from supporting at this time. Give it a few months of increased activity, and I'd be happy to support.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 02:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

   Alas, it would seem that you also need to gain a bit more policy knowledge as well before your second RfA... Especially regarding Q7 (See WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings) and Q9.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral. Due to relative recent inactivity. I would like to see a future nomination as I believe this editor would be an asset with a bit more activity. Tiderolls 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Moral support per HJ and Unionhawk. I'd be happy to support when you've gained some more experience. ~NerdyScienceDude 03:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Moral support. It's great to have an offer to help in the admin department, but I don't think you have enough experience of admin-related things or enough knowledge of related policies just yet. I'd suggest doing some work at AfD, watch some CSDs, do some anti-vandalism work, etc - and I look forward to being able to support a future RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)
8. Neutral: Four and a half years may be enough, but your activity has recently been dormant. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Moral Support I see no indication that the user would abuse the tools; however, I would happily fully support the candidate after they obtain broader experience. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
10. No objections in principle but lack of activity and relevant experience makes me say "not yet". Do please reapply in future, however, because your mindset seems to be in the right place. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
11. I'd advise applying again in a few months when you can satisfy voters that you have more recent activity, and some additional experience in the areas where you wish to work as an admin. You seem like a fine editor, and I'm sure I'd have no difficulty supporting in those circumstances.  Begoon•talk 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
12. Impressive contributions, certainly, and I expect I will support at some point in the future... but you need more experience in admin-related areas before you can become one. 64 edits to project space just isn't enough, and you need more evidence of sustained activity rather than sporadic periods. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
13. Moral Support Good temperament, great contributions, and i respect the interest in making a Wikipedia a better place. My only concern is a admin-related/project-related experience, and I hope you will look at a few areas, participate and come back, so that I can give you my full support in the future. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

Connormah

Final (120/26/8); ended 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) - Closed as successful - ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Connormah (talk · contribs) – I'm stepping up to nominate an editor who missed narrowly, fairly recently, but who I think deserves another shot, Connormah. He's one of our go to guys on images, including signatures, and has uploaded over a thousand to Wiki. Now, some concerns were expressed at the last RfA about content contributions. Connormah has ignored the recent debate on that subject and spent his time working on content areas, and has racked up a nice brace of GAs and a few DYKs. No matter how you slice it, he's a useful all around guy in these parts and would make an excellent administrator. Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination, thanks for the kind words. Connormah 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Late Co-nom

I hope nobody minds if I just squeeze myself in here a little late. Now, in general, I wouldn't support a candidate a mere six weeks after their last RfA. However, never in all my time at RfA have I seen somebody respond so well to constructive criticism as Connormah. Several issues were raised at his last RfA and many opposers raised valid concerns, leading to a closure of no consensus, with a final percentage of approximately 76%. In the last 6 weeks, however, Connormah has worked tirelessly to address those concerns not to give himself a better chance of "winning", but to make himself a better editor. The biggest concern that was raised was the lack of content work. Well, since then, he has taken himself off to the library and produced 2 outstanding GAs on 19th century Canadian politicians—Herbert Charles Wilson and William Egbert and even got himself an ITN as well as 2 DYKs that will have appeared on the Main Page by the time this RfA concludes. He has also made a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you can find it in you to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to take part and reduce backlogs in the two places I occasionally dip into every now and then, AIV and RFPP. Many times I've been vandal fighting, and I'll encounter a vandal who just keeps going that's reported at AIV that takes a couple minutes to block - I'd like to be able to perform the action myself. Of course I'll take things slow at the beginning, but I'd like to be of help. I also intend to use delete function to perform non-controversial moves that require deleting a redirect once in a while, but I am not really interested in CSD or XfD, in terms of deletion.

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

A: Recently, I've performed some expansion work on Herbert Charles Wilson and William Egbert, which have been listed as GAs. I've also done some work on expanding William Kneass, Christian Gobrecht and Bryan Hall. I also am quite proud at negotiating releases of images from Flickr users to replace low-quality images currently in articles, namely (off the top of my head) File:Larry O'Brien by James Maclennan.jpg, File:David Swann - April 12, 2010.jpg and File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman less noise.jpg (now an FP). Also, (as some may recall from previous RfAs), I've uploaded various signatures of various people in vector format.

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

A: I've been in a conflict before (as some may recall from my previous RfA), though I won't state it again (for redundancy's sake), in any future conflicts I will remain calm and engage in a constructive discussion over the dispute. Though I don't intend to invoke drama as an admin (should this pass), the dispute resolution process would be no different than my process stated above.

Additional questions from Connormah

4. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A: Sockpuppets of banned/blocked users, users, gross username violations, making legal threats, open proxies and single purpose disruption accounts may be blocked without warning. Most of the time I will warn (or warnings will be present for SPAs, but a block is in order if they're out solely to disrupt). In case anyone was wondering, I still stand by an answer for my opinion on the warning system from my previous RfA, though I'm a bit more lenient on IPs now, I will escalate warnings, though for them.

Additional optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

5. Have you ever been in a conflict with me? If not then why not?

A: Not that I can remember - we don't really hang around in the same areas, but gveb my more recent involvement with content writing, it's possible, but I typically avoid conflicts. I remember only once where I disagreed with you on an oppose rationale, but I backed down in your respect and to avoid such a conflict :)

Could I possibly impose on you to rewrite that in English? Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask what particulary unclear? Connormah 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A typo is not unclear. Back off Malleus. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep out of it Shadowjams. What is unclear to me is what "but I backed down in your respect and to avoid such a conflict" means. Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing - I meant that I didn't continue to badger your opinion - I respected it and left you alone. Connormah 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that some people see badgering Malleus as grounds for strong support. (Sorry Malleus, but it's true.) ;) Dlohcierekim 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. No doubt Shadowjams was trying to make himself look big and tough in preparation for his own RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

6. You see an article tagged for speedy deletion (A7). The article itself does not assert the subject's significance, but it contains an external link to an article from a national newspaper about him. What would you do?

A: First, I would take a look at the link, and perhaps a news search on the subject. If significant coverage is found, and notability is established, I'd probably decline the speedy and work to expand the article. If the subject is does not have significant coverage (excluding the news article), (keeping in mind policies like WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E and the subject specific notablility guideline) I would probably PROD the article. If I do deciude to get involved with CSD, though however, I would most likely start with more obvious deletions, like attack pages, vandalism, and copyvios. I hope this answer is satisfactory, but please do keep in mind that at this moment, I don't intend to get involved with CSD.

7. Under what circumstances would you begin by giving a level 2 warning to an IP, rather than a level 1 warning?

A: If an IP has a past history of blocks and warnings in preceding months, or vandalizes in an extreme manner, I usually won't hesitate to jump to a level 2, or even a 3, depending on severity and persistence.

Additional optional question from Shadowjams

8. Let's cut to the chase. Your last RfA failed largely because of some BLP creations and opinions. Could you speak to those concerns, your reaction to your last RfA, and what's changed since then.

A: Since my last RfA, I've taken some time to work on some of my creations - I have since redirected many that I couldn't find enough coverage of, and have sourced a couple, namely Bryan Hall, which was on the DYK template a couple days ago. I recognize the importance of sourcing BLPs, and will continue to do so in the future. addition - I've also written two GAs, and am currently working on a another, along with 2 expansions and 1 (hopefully 3!) DYKs. I've also continued my work as a Wikignome, correcting/adding templates, rewriting portions of articles, and adding images.

Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano

9. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?

A:

Note: He asked himself this. Tommy! [message] 12:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Idiotically enough, I hadn't noticed... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

10. When, if ever, would you indef an IP editor?

A: IPs shouldn't be indeffed, as some are dynamic and change owners frequently, though I wouldn't normally hesitate to block a long term vandalizing IP (e.g. a school) for a long duration of time.

Additional optional question from Tommy2010

11. Six weeks is not a long time, so I'm also judging you on the thoroughness of these questions. What do you make of WP:IAR? How would you use it to say, protect a page that has not been vandalized or block a user who has not been warned with 4 warnings?

A: IAR, in my view does not state "Do whatever you want" - if you invoke IAR, you should be prepared to justify your use of it, and do it with common sense. If a user is here to deliberately damage the project by vandalizing, they should be blocked ASAP as we shouldn't waste time by giving 4 chances. Page protection is a bit harder, but I think common sense is essential - high risk templates, controversial news topics, and move protection for highly visible pages could be protected under the spirit of IAR, but it would certainly need justification, and involve common sense, as I stated above.

Additional optional question from Tommy2010

12. What have you, in your own words, learned from the previous RFA, specifically regarding WP:BLP?

A: BLPs are sensitive subjects, so it is essential that they must be sourced with reliable sources and written in a neutral manner. I now take particular care with adding any info to BLPs, sourcing majority of the info I add, and will enforce the policy by reverting any unsourced edits to BLPs.

Additional optional question from Dlohcierekim

13. Thank you for submitting. Please critique the following statement, "I am but a humble servant of the Wiki, implementing consensus where I find it and abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines as I go about my tasks."

A:

When critiquing it, the first thing I noticed was that it doesn't have a closing quotation mark. :) 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from BigDom

14. Wikipedia claims that its goal is to collate all human knowledge into one encyclopaedia. However, through guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, its editors have decided that the majority of human knowledge is not "notable" enough for inclusion. What is your view on this apparent hypocrisy?

A:

Additional question from Connormah

15. Why have you decided to run only after a mere six weeks?

A. I feel that I've adequately addressed all concerns raised in my last RfA, and I feel that I can be of use in places, as I mentioned above that I notice backlogs occasionally, like AIV and RFPP, especially with vandalism levels likely on the rise, as school is started/has started.

Additional question from Diego Grez

16. What is the area of Wikipedia you like the most?

A: Honestly, it would have to be the mainspace - I, along with many come here for info, and sometimes (okay, most of the time) just surf randomly at my leisure. The project/template spaces, however are still very important as they help maintain the encyclopedia, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, so I'd say the mainspace is the most important, and the one I like most. Just my opinion, though.

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Connormah
• Requests for adminship/Connormah 2
• Requests for adminship/Connormah 3

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 05:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Normally, I'd automatically oppose anyone running an RfA six weeks after failing one, because even though I supported you last time and believe that you would be a good administrator I have to wonder just why you are so eager to run again, but I have to have some sympathy for you because of how torturously close to passing the last RfA was. And because if this one fails, your chances of passing RfA ever again are much less than they would be had you not run. —Soap— 10:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Beat-the-nom support—I opposed weakly last time based on the answers to some of the questions and concerns over his content contributions. Connormah has definitely addressed those issues (see the nomination and question 4, for instance), so I'm more than happy to support. Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Support Like people who work images---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Good nom - yes the last RfA failed but it was very borderline. As I supported then I will obviously support now for the same reasons.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support - I supported you last time and I'm happy to do so again. Work in images is excellent. Opposers last time were unconvincing, even overly fussy. Best wishes, Jusdafax 05:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support - Exploding Boy (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Was going to oppose or go neutral based on the fact it was so recent. Then I thought how stupid that would be. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Support as I did last time. Solid candidate who deserved to pass last month. Pichpich (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support for the third time in a row per my reason in the first RfA, but also the concern has been released as Wehwalt mentioned. Minimac (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Support I've only interacted with this user once, but does seem friendly. I see a net positive with this user. wiooiw (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Absolutely. Jafeluv (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Longterm user, clean block log and his last RFA shows an ability to handle flak. Yes the last RFA was relatively recent, but it was also unusually close. So if he has since addressed the concerns raised by the Oppose !voters I see no reason for him not to run again after a shorter wait than would have been appropriate for someone who'd failed clearly or for reasons that take longer to fix. ϢereSpielChequers 10:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support supported last time and my rationale still stands. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Sleepy nom support Of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support Yes. Supported last time, very much respect this editor and belive them to be a net benefitOttawa4ever (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support I like that he said in his answer to 4 that he'd block anyone falling under the category "users" without warning. Takes chutzpah. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Lots of progress since last time round, especially on the content front, which was my main area of concern. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. I supported last time, and I'm happy to support again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
18. As co-nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
19. This editor has more than enough article work to alleviate apparent fears they may misuse admin tools. Getting an article up to GA standard isn't easy, and FA is even harder. With regards to the single oppose so far, I think it's off the mark. I also think that counting article creations is inappropriate on RFA. The candidate could have created over 9,000 articles but they might have all been unsourced BLP stubs. It's quality over quantity on Wikipedia. Aiken ♫ 13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Looks good to me. Derild4921☼ 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support - Same as last time - don't see anything that would change my mind. AlexiusHoratius 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
22. 6 weeks is generally a bit low to try again at RFA, but Connormah seems to be on the right path. Although I opposed last time, I shall support this time in recognition of the work you have done to improve your editing. NW (Talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support, per the two nominators who summed things up rather well. Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support as a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - good track record of positive contributions, a clear desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason to believe that he would abuse admin tools. Thparkth (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support - though I agree that this is perhaps a bit too soon, I believe that the candidate has learned and improved since his last attempt. I would, however, gently suggest that he consider re-reading WP:RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 15:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support – In spite of only 6 weeks between this RFA and the previous one, I am supporting based on your improvements. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support – congratulations on raising your content game so quickly (e.g. improving Herbert Charles Wilson). - Pointillist (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

    BTW I don't object to the six weeks in this situation: it is long enough to confirm that a candidate can put together well-sourced content without stepping on other editors' toes. Re-taking the "content" part of the exam makes perfect sense for someone who was borderline last time. However, this is probably the only admin area that can be re-taken quickly: most of the back room skills need to be assessed over a longer period. - Pointillist (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

30. Looks fine to me. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. I supported the last time and I'm supporting again. It would have looked better to wait a bit longer after the last RfA, but I do not blame the nominee for having accepted the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - almost 20,000 edits, sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. P.S. I did not take part in the last RfA. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support - No concerns and frankly, someone opposing an editor with a GA and DYK because they aren't a content contributor is being ridiculous. -- Atama頭 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support Satisfactory answers. Tommy! [message] 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Strong Support Absolutely. Great, trustworthy editor. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Support. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support I supported last time, I see no reason not to now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
41. Support if only because the opposes make so little sense. I'm all for admins being content creators, but article creation is a poor metric for that, and this user has actually done good content work. Then there are those who say he is hasty, or something, but I don't see why we should care how long ago the previous RFA of a good admin candidate was. Contrary to DGG, I find his answers concise and to the point (though a few are indeed a bit vaguely worded). I have no reason to doubt that he'll make a great admin; good luck! Ucucha 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support per Fastily. --John (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Yeah, it's been six weeks. So what. Connormah's sensible, civil, and professional. I don't see why anyone wouldn't trust him with the tools, even if he doesn't do a lot of content work. ceranthor 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Strong Support - Worked with this user on an FAC. User is knowledgeable, knows the systems and policies in place. Will make a good admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support Yes! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
46. Supportsure. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Support Taking a chance here, but I think you have grown. Good luck...Modernist (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Great editor, no problems here. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 00:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Strong support Yes yes yes yes yes. Great editor, i see no reason to oppose. Pilif12p :  Yo  01:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
50. Support I supported last time, and have only seen more good work since, so I support again.  Begoon^talk 04:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support: The Candidate has great potential and will be a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

    Hi, could you possibly elaborate as to your concerns of my understanding of core policies? Connormah 19:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I took a second look and changed from weak support to support. You are handling yourself well - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

52. Support - candidate has shown they can turn their hand to new tasks and do a great job of it; they can find their weak spots and address them. The 6 weeks thing doesn't bother me at all - I might have leant towards Oppose in the case of some self-nominated brat desperate to gain more power, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Support per convincing nom by Wehwalt, fine contribs, and because I find the "time elapsed" rationale for opposing wholly unconvincing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I find snipes at people that question the judgement of doing so an equally unconvincing reason to support. But hey, bureaucrats do not have the courage to discount spurious supports. --WFC-- 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not a snipe, WFC. Merely a disagreement. Furthermore, my support is not spurious (please see my other two reasons). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

54. Support. More time between noms may have been the tactically correct choice if the goal was winning. Tiderolls 10:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support, this user seems to have necessary experience and contributions, and Wehwalt's discussion of BLP issues from last time is also encouraging. I don't see any good reason to say that Connormah will misuse the tools. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
56. Pro I donna see problems. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
57. support, per oppose rationales below. In particular, I have no problem with sysops that just do janitorial work or whatever. Having this sysop does not mean fewer sysops with content experience. Small backlogs are good. I don't see the downside. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
58. I cannot in good conscience withhold support in this RfA. See my last edit though where I admit to feeling uncomfortable at first. —Soap— 22:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support Although I hesitated because of the short time since the last one, that one was close. I have no problems with an admin who doesn't contribute majorly to article creation (don't we have thousands and thousands of editors who do?) and I am in favour of janitors wielding the mop rather than tenured professors. My only advice would be that if Connormah ever does venture into CSD, to start with really obvious ones (copyvios and the like) - and feel free to ask for advice from experienced admins (hell, you can even ask me if you want to!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Weak support I was leaning neutral until I looked at the individuals who were supporting and those that were opposing. GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I may switch to strong oppose based on your rationale, so I'll see you and raise you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

61. Support - Didn't last time but will this time because the concerns the last time have been taken to heart. Not loving the tone of this RfA though (through no fault of Connormah). Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    The hypocracy of me lecturing anyone else on tone is duly noted. But the tone of a discussion has a tendency to be set by the tone of early exchanges. --WFC-- 09:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Ugh...thick irony, I was reacting to the beginning of what is in full throw now. Nothing was unclear about that answer, and if I run for RfA I'm sure I'll start by annoying as many people as possible before I do it. The tone issues started well before, and they've continued well after. Insofar as I'm responsible for responding to what I thought was an unfair response to a loaded question: my mistake was taking the bait. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

62. Support On merit from looking over a few days, and anyway because a nom by Wehwalt is good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Contribs since Aug 1 look fine. -Atmoz (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Knowledgeable, productive contributor. No concerns from me that the tools will be abused. Deli nk (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
65. Support I was a conflicted neutral last time. Lots of positives, but some concerns about content creation. While the content in the intervening six weeks isn't enough to move candidate into the ranks of strong content creators, I've seen enough to alleviate concerns. I am puzzled at the timing. Candidate has participated in enough RfA's to know that three months between attempts is often viewed as a minimum, and it is not uncommon that three months isn't viewed as sufficient. I fear that this tactical blunder may be the difference between success and failure. Six more weeks, and this might be a shoe-in—unfortunately, the clock gets reset, so if this fails, it isn't just a matter of waiting six more weeks. --SPhilbrickT 17:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Really good contributor, these admin tools would be put into good use for sure. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Not without concerns, but my primary concern in the last discussion (I'm a stickler on BLPs) seems addressed. I wish the candidate had waited a bit longer, but I also respect the enthusiasm. And without meaning to call anyone out, I would ask that folks opposing using questions of "content creation" would (as a favor to me) consider a different choice of words. Images are content, too. I do understand and sympathize with the idea that article creation and test are our primary product, and mean no disrespect to that idea. But the candidate's contributions are signficant and have made Wikipedia a better resource. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support per HJ Mitchell. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Looks like a decent editor. We're handing him or her a mop, not a cranial saw.--Danger (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Hyperbole rarely helps. You're handing him or her the ability to block you and me, delete articles, and various other mischief, with almost no recourse whatsoever. You may feel comfortable with that but I certainly don't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Adminship really isn't as exciting as you make it sound, Malleus. ;) Yes, if given a mop, he could delete every FA, for example, in 3 clicks, but that doesn't mean he would. I agree that it's far too difficult to get rid of a "bad" admin, but that doesn't make all of us evil. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oh, you'll have to forgive my ignorance then. I was sure that administrators had the ability to block editors and delete articles. Silly me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    They (we) do, yet, for some strange reason, the contents of Category:Featured articles isn't deleted on a weekly basis. Just because someone has the ability to do something (and, trust me, that would be disturbingly easy) doesn't mean they would. What makes that more true of an editor with 10 FAs than one with more modest content work? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    This drifting off topic, but my opposition is based on the candidate being too keen to join the hallowed ranks of you untouchables. It's absolutely nothing to do with deleteing FAs, which can easily be reversed. What's not so easily reversed is blocking established editors. Sure, the block can be technically reverted, but not the collateral damage it causes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Untouchable is a little extreme (though only a little). I do agree we need a better system of getting rid of admins, but that's not Connor's fault. It has nothing to do with hallowed ranks either—trust me, you only get shit for carrying a Cabal membership card. As for established editors, sometimes it has to be done. I've blocked several, for a variety of reasons, including an administrator. I know you have a philosophical objection to administrators in general, but we're not all evil and there are a lot of things that don't get done if no admin is around to do them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I don't intend to make any controversial blocks, I mostly just plan on blocking vandals. If I do, though, I will certainly seek second/third opinions regarding it, though I can't imagine myself performing such an action. Connormah 02:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    The truth is though that what you say here and now is irrelevant, as you may later change your mind and there is no recourse if you do. I could give you examples of administrators who have made similar promises, only to ignore them once given their cloak of invulnerability. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Good point, however, in the occasion that that does occur (which I doubt, but, hey, what do you know) , I'd happily resign my bit if consensus shows that I'm no longer fit for the tools. Connormah 03:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    As I said, you can make whatever election promises that you feel are expedient now, but you can't be held to them. Malleus Fatuorum 03:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's not entirely true. I remember an admin removing himself from CAT:AOR after agreeing at his RFA to be in it. People protested at his talk page and he put himself back in the category.--Chaser (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

70. Support I see no reason to change my stance since the last RfA. Jarkeld (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have carefully considered the opposers and neutral commenters' concerns and find them unpersuasive. (In particular, I consider "he wants to be an administrator too much so he shouldn't be one" to be a rather weak basis for opposition.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Rather similar perhaps to the way in which I consider your knee-jerk support of all underage candidates, including this one. Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I had, and have, no knowledge of the candidate's age. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Neither do I, but where you see maturity I see childish behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'd like to note that childish behavior does not confirm that one is a child. Likewise, adult-like behavior does not give solid evidence that one is an adult. Airplaneman ✈ 04:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    In much the same way that the pretence of mature behaviour in the run up to an RfA, in this case for only six weeks, proves anything other than that the candidate is aware of how to game the system. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    This is Connormah's RfA, not your soapbox. Do you have diffs to share of the candidate behaving immmaturely prior to six weeks ago, or is it just some unfocused foaming at the mouth about RfA? --John (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It's about time you stopped being abusive and trying to pick fights with all and sundry John, else you may find that you've bitten off more than you can chew. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Honestly Malleus, I could say the same about you. Airplaneman ✈ 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

72. Support per HJMitchell. Shiva (Visnu) 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support happy with the answers now, no issue with the Six weeks, the last one was a very close call. Codf1977 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Support no problems. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support great candidate! --Stickee (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support. I supported last time, this time is no different. Three months is a good time to wait for a candidate who fails an RfA: Connormah's last RfA fell within the closing 'crat's discretionary area and I feel a shorter wait before the next RfA is entirely appropriate. TFOWR 10:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
77. Support - problems raised in last RfA, problems solved quickly, people interpret that in itself as a new problem to oppose over. In my view Connormah will be a definite asset as an administrator at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support in the role of dealing with vandalism. Is sufficiently ready to perform in that role. I would suggest demonstrated ability and undergoing mentorship before going beyond that role. expanding also, per Mazca, per Joe Decker, per Phantom Steve, per nyttend, per Bob Rayner. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
79. Weak Support While I supported in the last RFA, this time round I feel that you reapplied too early since your last RFA. However, improvements have taken place since then, so I feel that I can support again. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
80. Support - After careful consideration, and in particular, investigating the points made by HJ Mitchell in his co-nom, I came to the conclusion that the candidate did make a valiant effort during the six-week period to address the concerns raised in the last RfA. He deserves a chance.--Hokeman (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
81. Support Seems to be qualified. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
82. Support - knows what he's doing, seems like he would do a good job as an admin to me. Also, I have to add opposes along the lines of 'too soon since last RFA' strike me as particularly weak - if the worst thing about Connormah is that he's too keen to become an admin, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It has more to do with the judgement of doing so. Make no mistake, an admin being willing and able to make controversial calls is a good thing. In fairness, Connormah doesn't claim to be one of those admins. But if you're oblivious to the fact that your actions might prove to be controversial until a dozen people have complained and more than a dozen questions have been asked about the decision, I question whether you'll end up being a net positive. --WFC-- 08:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

83. Support- clearly knows what he's doing, and by all rights should have passed the one in July (which was as borderline as you can get), so I'm sot impressed at all by the people who reckon it's too soon to renominate. Reyk _YO! 23:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
84. So it's been since weeks since the last one, who cares? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
85. Article writing isn't a necessary part of being an admin. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 02:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
86. Strongest possible goddamned support, because it's the only way to boldly (ho ho) make up for the rampant stupidity of most of the oppose section. You've produced GAs, that's good enough on the content side for me. You've got AV and similarly admin-related experience, excellent. Done. Anyone who feels different can drop a note in my suggestion box *holds up waste paper basket*. Ironholds (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
87. Support. A positive contributor with a substantial track record and reasonable grounds for wanting the tools, and I see no red flags. The many opposes for "too soon" after the last RFA are surprising to me. The result was "no consensus" and the candidate made a very reasonable effort to address the concerns of the opposition. If he had done the same thing for a no-consensus FA or XFD nomination, I would not consider six weeks too soon for a new nomination, and I see no good reason why it is too soon for this one. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
88. Strongest possible support per [5] --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
89. Strong support per Shirik. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
90. Support The opposes are unconvincing and in fact make me make me want to support more. Looks to be a net positive James (T C) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
91. Support per WP:GETSSHITDONE (I know, it doesn't exist... but shouldn't it?) I see no legitimate reason why this user shouldn't have the mop. He has a demonstrated use for the tools. He is unlikely to break the wiki, delete the mainpage or accidentally block Jimbo. As I have said before, it all comes down to trustworthiness and competence, everything else is standard RFA political asshattery. Trusilver 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
92. Support Qualified. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
93. Support per my comments on your editor review. I normally oppose users in RfAs if they have no real major content contributions to the encyclopedia, but you've contributed a great deal unlike what some of the opposes are stating. Although I'm a little bit wary of an RfA coming so soon on the heels of a failed one, your dedication towards improvement and your quality contributions lend me to support. Nomader ^(Talk) 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
94. Weak support It is quite soon since your last RFA, but I do see content work since then. Plus, image admins are always important. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
95. Support - Garion96 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
96. Support. I didn't read or participate in this person's previous RfA's. I find the Oppose votes, generally, to be extremely weak. Who cares if he had a recent RfA? What does that tell us about his likely performance as an admin? He ate the burger and went back and changed. Isn't that what we're supposed to do? It takes a big man to accept good advice and change his actions based on it. Who cares if he appears to really really want to be an admin? Good for him. In your job (if you're a manager) and an employee really really wants a promotion and does the things that make this possible, do you go "Nah, wants it too much"? We're supposed to be working to take our skills and responsibilities up the the next level. As to content creation, good grief. First of all, he is a perfectly adequate content creator, and second of all, administrating is not about creating content. "Only" seven articles created, give me a break. Everyone can't be good at and interested in everything. His answers to the questions are perfectly fine. I'm looking at a lot of oppose votes that basically seem to be "Oppose: Not perfect." People, please. And we need admins. Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
97. Support per all the reasons below used to oppose. Let the record reflect that the previous RfA almost passed, the criticisms were noted, and the candidate addressed them. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
98. Support. I think RfA has lost the plot. None of the opposers say he can't be trusted, so what's the prob? If he stuffs up (doubtful), what's the prob? Easy fixed. Re contributing/creating content, I suggest everyone read User:Trusilver's comment way down below in the oppose section. Moriori (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    In what way would it be "easily fixed", and at what cost? Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Rouge admins learn from their mistakes (problem fixed) or they are defrocked (problem fixed). Cost? If we all had a crystal ball there would be no cost, but we haven't so we can expect an admin to occasionally disrupt or even damage Wiki. Essjay for instance. Bit like the cops really. A couple of baddies among them, but overwhelmingly they do a great job. Moriori (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your faith in the present system is very touching, almost brought tears to my eyes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Ahhh, the "system" -- the unfathomable be-all and end-all of Wiki. To people like me, who has never used chat-email to plot or lobby, the system is inconsequential because it doesn't rule my life. People who introduce "system" into a wiki conversation are usually it. Moriori (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Malleus, the spot above where you had the guts to accuse someone else of hyperbole was humorous. You are aware that we are only talking about giving someone the admin tools and not the nuclear football, right? Any mistake any one admin makes can be undone by the other thousand or so admins. Trusilver 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

99. Support. Not convinced by the opposes. There's no real reason to not give the tools to this fully qualified candidate. He has the clue and a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia, that's good enough for me. -- œ^™ 23:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
100. Nothing wrong with being keen to help. --Stephen 01:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
101. Give the guy a chance to prove he was born to be an admin. ;) Diego Grez (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
102. Support Seems to have a reasonable grasp on the project and no reason not to WP:AGF. Triona (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
103. Support. I have no concerns. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
104. Support per nom. I don't see a reason not to give him a mop. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 12:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
105. Strong support Nice collegiate approach, responsive, works with images, good mix of content building and content defence skills. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
106. Support I don't seem to have any history of interaction with this user, but I like everything that I see in his responses to questions here and in his recent edit history. --Orlady (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
107. Support - Responses to questions are good. Seems overall to have dealt with the issues raised in the previous RfA. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
108. Support. The main concern is how long you waited. I'd perfer if you waited longer (~4 months) but so far it looks like all concerns in the last RfA have been resolved. AutoGeek (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —I-20the highway 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC) - Silly me, was in the wrong account! (I need to look more closely)—I-20the highway 23:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
109. Support; although six weeks is usually to short a time between RfAs, that last one was so borderline as to raise the question whether candidate has since successfully addressed the issues addressed there. In my view, s/he has. Article creation is not the be-all and end-all here, and I see nothing to indicate that Connormah would misuse the tools. Accordingly, support I must. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

     For the record, it's a 'he' - you can call me 'Connor". Connormah (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

110. Support - I see no problems to not give him the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
111. Support - per OlEnglish.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
112. Support. Opposition is entirely based on RFA etiquette rather than editing practices. Chick Bowen 05:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
113. Support As per Newyorkbrad whose judgement I fully trust.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
114. Support Clearly has learned from the criticism of previous RfA attempts. Seems level-headed with a good understanding of policy. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
115. Weak Support, been considering this for a while now and taken several looks at it. On balance I would say it would be a net positive promotion, as the user has clearly learnt from previous mistakes and thus has the qualities to be a long term benefit. ---Taelus (Talk) 18:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
116. Support - For same reasons as last time, except that this candidacy is stronger than before, and meets my RfA criteria. Like last time, I can find no comments from the candidate on this RfA which meet the definition of "To pester, to annoy persistently". 6 weeks is a perfectly reasonable time between RfAs, and while more time is needed in some cases, given that I supported last time, no further waiting is needed as far as I'm concerned. As long as they don't disrupt the process, I have nothing against users running for adminship frequently, nor against candidates politely responding to opposes to ask questions, apologise, clarify e.t.c. CT Cooper · talk 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
117. Support We need the help and Connormah is qualified. Jmlk17 19:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
118. Support Time since last RfA is a non-issue to me; I don't buy into people putting themselves through this process just to get a God-like sense of power. Calls for content creation make some sense to me, as an admin is asked to judge the extent to which articles/content comply with policy—inferring that someone who has created "good" content is more likely to be able to make these judgements in the admin role. So here we have an individual with policy experience, content creation experience, and the knowledge to stay away from things he/she doesn't understand. Net +++. --Livitup (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
119. Support Opposed last time based on content/BLP concerns, confident that those have been dealt with, and have no concerns. C628 (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
120. Support - Although six weeks is a little short, he has done a lot of good work since then. Nolelover 00:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: I'm sorry to be the one starting this list. The user seems well intent to fight vandalism, and that's good. However in my opinion a great content provider is the best qualified person to have admin tools. In my experience in Wikipedia the most time consuming issues are content related. Per his userpage this user has a DYK, and some help in one FA and one GA under his belt [6]. This is way too little: The user also has only 7 started articles [7]. I continuously incite users with incredibly high contributions to become admins. We should have more admins of that nature: academic scholarship and content related qualities is what I value the most and, unfortunately, this user is not part of the strongest people in those areas. I am aware I might stir up controversy with my vote, but in my time in Wikipedia, the only problems that I've had with admins relate to their poor knowledge of content or inability or unwillingness to read well the articles and the epic wars related to it. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   That's two GAs. And I've got 26 FAs and am an admin (though that and three bucks buys a cup of coffee at Starbucks) and I not only support him, I nommed him. Doesn't that count for anything?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Your nomination and sponsorship, without mentioning your own scholarship surely counts. However, although I don't know very well neither of you, because I contribute in unrelated areas, I look at the numbers as offered by the user himself or the soxred93 tools, and I am not happy with what I see. In general I vote oppose for all those who aspire to admin positions, and who, in my opinion, are not qualified to give enough content to the project. --Sulmues ^(talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Didn't mean to blow my own horn too much, which is why I put in the self-deprecatory comment! While I respect your oppose, I think the editor has sufficient work in the content area to be sensitive to concerns of content-contributing editors. You are of course entitled to your own views, but I think he'll be a net positive as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm going to be blunt because, to be quite honest, I'm sick of this crap. I do not respect your oppose, despite the fact that some people seem to feel the need to say this when they don't. Until you can give me a good reason the admin bit helps with creating articles, then to be quite honest, I think your oppose is just awful. Don't feel like I'm singling you out here, as this is more of just the "straw that broke the camel's back", but seriously, this is the reason RFA is failing, right here. Because we have incredibly competent users that use the admin bit for what it was made for and we refuse to give it to them because they don't do stuff that it wasn't made for. Seriously, that you were the first oppose may actually say something. The next time you (or anyone) opposes, think again. Is there a reason for this oppose? Or is it just that we've lost the WP:NOBIGDEAL mentality. Obviously, we know the latter is true (and has been for some time), but that doesn't mean we should just let the former get out of hand either. I'm not a bureaucrat, and I never will be (I have no desire to go there), but if I were I would look at each one of these kinds of opposes and burn it in fire. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not sure you could burn it with much else than fire, anyways.  IShadowed  ✰  15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

   I can count on one hand the number of times I have challanged an oppose over the last four years or so, but this one is just the straw that breaks the camel's back. Only seven articles created? Is that it? seriously? This will go down in my mind as one of the most ridiculous opposes I've ever read. Therefore, I propose the counter-question: Who is a better choice for an administrator? Is it someone who is creating large amounts of content and featured articles or is it someone who is fighting vandalism and reviewing new content? Now, in your mind, the obvious choice is the person who is creating the large amount of new content. That sounds like a fantastic idea if you consider adminship to be some badge of honor that should be bestowed upon the mighty and noble (someone cue to dramatic organ music and beam of heaven light), the academic elite among us. If you consider the mop to be nothing more than a set of administrative tools to manage the encyclopedia, then it doesn't take a great genius to see the necessity of giving the tools to the person with whom they will be the most valuable. There are many great contributors who are also great administrators, however how many of these great contributors immediately move over to start manning the WP:AIV or the WP:CSD desks after they get their bit? Not a whole lot of them. Why? Because they are busy creating content, which is a damn good thing, but the gritty and often tedious admin work STILL needs to get done. Given the choice between giving the mop to a long-time content creator and some guy who's been here for six months but is a class-A vandal whacker (obviously... I would give it to both of them if I had a choice but...) I would pick the vandal-whacker every single time. Why is this? Because I'm pragmatic. If you were to drop off the face of the project tomorrow, then sure, some articles wouldn't get created as quickly as they otherwise might, but they would eventually. If the vandal-fighters all dropped off the project tomorrow, it would be chaos. We could survive without content creators for a good long time, without the projectspace maintainence people, especially the anti-vandalism people, this place would cease to be a functioning encyclopedia within the space of a month. Trusilver 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose Per Sulmues. 7 new articles doesn't cut the mustard sorry. Not enough of a real content contributor. Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Because we admins are primarily there to create articles...? I understand not supporting someone because they have little-to-no work with content, but opposing on an arbitrary number of created articles doesn't seem very rational. Oppose for whatever reason you want, but I doubt your oppose is going to hold much weight. -- Atama頭 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Rational? What's rational about voting somebody to become one of the sites representatives when over their entire time on wikipedia they have done relatively little to improve the encyclopedia itself? I want adminstrators who have a balance between admin duties and have a passion for developing wikipedia (which believe it or not is the most important). Come back in six months and if I see more evidence of content work (even a tiny fraction of the sort of standard work accomplished by another candidate named Dana I'd support this individual, although a mere six weeks between one failed RFA and another makes this candidate look desperate. I become highly suspicious when editors a desperate to become admins. It is good to see two new GA articles from this user but to me is looks like an attempt to make this candidacy look better. If I see evidence of prolonged improvements to wikipedia DYKs/Good articles/New articles over several months I would probably support this candidate. If Connor produced content like Robert Brett regularly I'd support him. Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   With no disrespect intended, the admin bit is really not much use for content creation and there is much more to do in improving the encyclopaedia than creating articles. I've created a few articles, but only one of them has ever got as far as GA. Most of my creations are about "start" class, but I have put serious work into several GAs and an FA. Your oppose seems to suggest that my contribution in improving an existing article is worth less than if I'd contributed 1500 characters of prose to a new article, not t mention the thousands of images Connor has created (granted, not as much work as a GA, but valuable nonetheless). You're entitled to your opinion, but that seems odd to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   I should also mention how valuable Connormah has been to me in getting my last couple of articles to FA, and in my current FAC and forthcoming ones. I am not very good at images, it takes a load off my mind to have someone willing to do image chores which are easy for him but difficult and time consuming for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose No o serious attempt to answer the questions, just like last time. fortunately, he doesn't have any real need for the tools, so he can continue the good work he's been doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose per DGG and because this RFA is too soon, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose I supported last time, but this is too soon subsequent to the July failed RFA... and of more concern to me, it's obviously leveraging the Chicken Little path to adminship. Townlake (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   So what? It means we have a qualified admin for that much longer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   The bureaucrats just declared him unqualified last month. If this one passes, it is for the wrong reasons. Townlake (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   It's not the job of the 'crats to declare someone qualified or unqualified. They interpret consensus and, six weeks ago, the consensus was that there was no consensus. If this one passes, it's because the community thinks he could do a good job. If you supported last time, I would guess you thought he could. Why would that change just because he hasn't waited for some arbitrary amount of time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the explanation of how RFA works. A sufficient degree of community support is a necessary qualification, as is evidenced by RFA's existence. To answer your other questions: I am no longer confident that he would not misuse the tools. Townlake (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. A mere six weeks between RfAs displays an unseemly haste. Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
7. NO NO NO Failed last month, Coming back a month later pushes me awful close to a no never.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   In all due respect, this seems unnecessarily harsh - I have addressed concerns from my last RfA, which was borderline, and I wished to try again - I'd really like to help out with admin tasks in the areas I've specified. Connormah 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Harsh but apparently necessarily so.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I remember a time in which a month was acceptable for a candidate to retry RFA, we have to look for if the user improved since the last RFA, and he clearly did. Six weeks in perfectcally acceptable to retry, that's coming from an editor who been in the project since 2005. Secret ^account 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   The last 2005 admin I dealt with didn't know the difference between an IP and an account. Pardon me if I don't equate longevity with wisdom.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose. The short time period between this and the last rfa doesn't sit right for me. That this one was started the day after the two GAs were promoted also doesn't feel right. I personally don't particularly care about the whole content creator thing, but I do care about adminship appearing to be "levelling up" in the game of wikipedia. I just get wary when someone seems to want it too much. Quantpole (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I did request reviews for my GAs, to clarify - I wanted an assessment of my writing skills for both of those GAs, just to see how I was doing. I'm fine without the tools - don't get me wrong, but I feel I can be of more use with them. Connormah 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I agree with DGG, address the issues in your last RfA and come back after a dignified effluxion of time. MtD (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Without wishing to badger, I have a question on which I am generally curious - what else is left from the previous RfA to address? I believe I have addressed all concerns, but if you don't feel I've addressed something, please do notify me. Connormah 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well WFC answered this below. Your content creation (an issue from last time) needs work. Your untimely return to RfA hasn't allowed you to demonstrate the fullness in that particular area that I would like to see from you. MtD (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose - Agree with MtD --Gian (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose - In my opinion, six weeks is too short of a time span to determine if the issues from the last RfA have been addressed. Also, one of the issues in the last RfA was a possible lack of understanding of some core policies. CSD for example. You didn't answer the (admittedly optional) question 6a. That does not help your case in my opinion.--Rockfang (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Was this intended for the neutral section? Airplaneman ✈ 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I have stated many times that I do not intend to touch CSD, so I didn't feel the need to answer. Connormah 01:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Just a suggestion - if you don't feel you need to answer a question (and I agree with you on this one) it might help to at least answer to explain why you're not answering. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

12. Regretfully. It should be noted that I supported last time, which in itself is rare for me for candidates with little or no content experience. But content experience was a legitimate concern last time. The fact of the matter is that while your recent creation record is impressive, a few weeks is not a long enough time to deal with things such as people making edits you do not agree with to articles you have an emotional attachment with. This RfA itself demonstrates at best questionable judgement on the part of the nom, late co-nom and candidate. Last time I was prepared to gloss over your lack of all-round experience on the grounds that would mainly stick to non-controversial, technical decisions in an area we could do with an extra admin in. But given that anyone could see that this was going to be controversial, I can no longer assume that you will stick to non-controversial calls. And given that I am now weighing up your ability to make controversial calls, I find myself here. --WFC-- 04:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose Speedy renom and answers to questions are perfunctory or absent. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose I stayed out of RFA #2 because I couldn't form a strong opinion either way; I have no such problems this time. Coming back after a mere six weeks isn't the best judgement, but I could have overlooked that, but you either knew or ought to have known it would be raised as questionable. The answers to questions, then, should have been outstanding and through. Instead we get one sentence answers with no depth of reasoning, no heavy thought processes, and even a refusal to answer a basic question on A7. That comment pushed me down here from the possibility of being willing to tactfully ignore this RFA. Courcelles 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Striking. I may support, or I may merely abstain, I'll have to think about this a bit more. Courcelles 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose was leaning towards support as I do not feel the "six weeks" between RfA is an issue and the last one was very close. I was however waiting for the answer to question 6. The answer Connormah has given troubles me as like it or not with the mop he will be able to delete articles (even though he does not intend to do now), the very least he should have done was answer the question to show he understands policy, and it is for that reason I feel I need to Oppose. Codf1977 (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Moving to support. Codf1977 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Okay, I guess you've swayed me - I'll think about it in the next few days, the points you raise are good points. Connormah 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    FWiW, I specifically stated in my own RfA that I would generally avoid CSD in general and A7 in particular. I don't see a problem with that since (contrary, it seems, to popular opinion) there are many, many other areas that need admins, most of them I would consider more important than deciding the fate of an article on someone's myspace band, which makes my promise to avoid those areas a very easy one to keep. You would be amazed at some of the incredibly trivial things that require a mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    It was not the fact he said he was going to keep out of CSD that was the issue. It was the way the question was answered that I had an issue with - by answering it as he has done now he shows he understands policy and if called upon in the future he can make the correct call. Codf1977 (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

14. Oppose I have had so many concerns about Connormah (as stated in previsous RfAs) to do with CSD, understanding of policy and other issues that repeat RfAs with slightly altered reasoning has just gotten me in a knot and as this new RfA unfolds I can only see a reason to oppose a candidate who changes their intentions over such a short period of time in order to get the bit. Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose Six weeks since last failed RFA. Vodello (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - This RfA is very premature and the decision to go ahead with it rather hasty. I like eagerness in my candidates for adminship, but this is just coming off as bad judgment and a desire for status. That's just my perception. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    #Per Polargeo. Diego Grez (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Oppose – I've actually thought long and hard about this, maybe longer than I have with any other RfA. I did indeed "tactfully ignore" (as Courcelles aptly puts it) your second RfA, and have tried to do the same here. However, something is niggling me which I can't ignore and neither can I sit on the fence with it. I believe you have the commitment to the project, I don't think anyone can deny that, and I have no doubt you will make it in the end, but it's just the sense of urgency you seem to have about getting There – this mythically positioned place in the echelons of Wikipedia. It's not just the fact that this is only one month after your second RfA, it's your third in 6 months and 3 weeks – the time it, arguably, takes for just one to come and go. Now, I think this is because you have become very good friends and colleagues with your nominators Wehwalt and HJ Mitchell, for whom, I stress, I have the greatest respect, and you maybe feel you are missing out on something if you are not a fully-fledged member of The Club. I don't really see in your contributions a need for the tools. In your second RfA, you were opposed on the grounds of content contribution versus vandalism fighting. So, in your third RfA you have worked on the content contribution (for a month), but seemingly forgotten what it is the tools are for. Now, I know that may seem like a "FFS! Damned if I do, damned if I don't!" situation, but it is all about balance. And consistency. If you are Vandalbane the Great or Sherlock Sockpuppet, have little content creation to speak of, but I often find myself blocking or deleting on your behalf, I will support you; if you are Mr GA 2010 but find it frustrating when someone has plonked a great big redirect where you want to move a more appropriately named article with a rich history, I will support. Or any mixture of the two is welcome. However, since this RfA started it seems you have avoided contact with anything and everything at all (apart from userspace article work) – this doesn't really tell us what you want or intend to do; only that you are perhaps scared to do anything in case it has an adverse effect on this Request. There's no consistency, and vitally, no character to assess therein. Nothing more to say, I'm afraid. – B.hotep •talk• 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    In case this is TL;DR: 3 in 6 months, 3 weeks. – B.hotep •talk• 20:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I assume the candidate is trying again so soon for the reasons outlined in the answer to Q1; frustration at AIV backlogs, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Interesting armchair psychology! I'm hardly the guy to go to to be part of the admin club, my admin cape is at the cleaners being repaired for moth holes. I spend my time creating content, with very little glamour into the bargain. I could see Connormah associating with me and wanting to take articles to FAC, but becoming an admin to be part of my club? Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Then tell him that, W. Instead of urging him to re-RfA so soon. Come on, we're on the same page. – B.hotep •talk• 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I apologize if you'd assume that I;m avoiding contact - I've been a bit busy in the past few hours - I'll try to be active as much as I can for the following days, though. Connormah 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Due to the short time that has passed since the previous RfA, it appears that the user is far too keen to become an admin even though it is supposed to be no big deal. Should concentrate more on regular editing, and less on trying to impress people in the hope of passing an RfA. BigDom 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

18. Very Weak Oppose I'm sorry but 6 weeks is simply not enough. This nom shocked me when I saw it because it seemed like just yesterday when you ran for the second time. Just give it a few months and I'll support. It does not appear that you've really fixed all of the issues from RFA #2 in that short amount of time. Just the fact that you decided to run again so soon makes me question why you want the bit.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    I have to agree with everything you've said. However, if the candidate is willing and able I don't see why not. But that's just my opinion. Tommy! [message] 21:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    Wow. Having just read my oppose, I've found out that it's just full of some sentences that don't really fit well together. Sorry for that! In reply to Tommy, I understand but it seems like Connormah is just a bit too willing.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

    How can one be "too willing" to help? Trust me, the one thing I've learned in my 4 months of adminship is that good help is hard to find! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'm more concerned about being not competent enough more so than "too willing." Net positive, I'd trust him. Tommy! [message] 22:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

19. Oppose Only 6 weeks since the last failed RfA. I might support you if you wait another 6 months to 1 year and you can do more articles (about 30 or more) and do more DYK articles, more FAs and more GAs. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 02:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's quite the list you got there!--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 03:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'd go further, and say that most editors who met that criterion would be lucky to get out of this bear pit alive. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    6 months to a year would be appropriate advice for a complete newbie or someone who'd lost the trust of the community. But for a candidate who 6 weeks ago almost passed RFA that advice looks rather odd. Especially when accompanied by a requirement for multiple FAs - if that became the standard we'd be lucky to get one new admin a month! ϢereSpielChequers 08:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps Connormah can also solve world hunger and settle the Israel/Palestine dispute while he's at it? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

    You have to wait more than 6 weeks between attempts at solving the Israel/Palestine dispute. Otherwise you look too eager to solve it and that's a bad thing. Pichpich (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not that I expect to change anybody's mind, but I'll say it anyway. When I passed RfA (~four months ago), it had been less than 6 months since my first shot, I had (and probably still have) created less than 30 new articles. The only criterion of December21st's I met was that I had a handful of recognised content. Connormah has 2 GAs as well as 2 DYKs (for expansion, and expanding an article fivefold is a lot harder than adding 1500 characters of prose to a blank space), an ITN, a lot of useful images. In addition to that, he knows what he's doing in the areas he wants to work in (like RfPP, where he's one of only a very small number of editors to make consistently useful non-admin comments). He knows RfPP etc better than many current admins and could only be a net positive if he were given a mop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    And anyway, at least a third of every day's DYKs seem to be absolutely pants, so they're by no means an automatic badge of merit! - Pointillist (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Have you looked at Connormah's? I have. They are a bit short but they make the best use of the information he has, about obscure Canadian politicians. Let's face it. Connormah had an RfA six weeks ago, yes, it ended in the discretionary zone. There is nothing wrong with him trying again after having addressed significant areas of concern, in this case content contributions. Frankly, I believe that the opposes that do not speak to Connormah's qualifications to be not well made. As for the latest complaint, that Connormah, like Barkis, is willin', gee whiz so what? --Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Actually I already supported Connormah (at #30) and I've no problem with him re-taking the content part of the exam so quickly. I was just questioning an assumption which seems to be creeping in: that DYKs are in some way comparable to GA or FA contributions. I don't see how they can even be mentioned in the same breath and frankly I'd be more inclined to vote for someone who 5x improved an article but didn't try to hang a lame DYK hook on the result. On a totally unrelated note, did Mr Barkis express his willingness more than once? - Pointillist (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

    Been a while since I read David Copperfield but I think he says it about 4 times. I am hoping Connormah will not need to match that. I find DYK a fairly harmless pastime, I have 58, but I concur, they look for very limited things there and it in no way can be compared with GA (which very much depends on the reviewer) or FA (which is a strong, but idiosyncratic process).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose I dont know what the record is for most failed attempts but I am rooting for my little retarded trainspotting buddy to break it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.36.242 (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    IP !vote stricken. Airplaneman ✈ 01:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

20. I do not believe an editor could satisfactorily deal with all the issues in their last RfA within 6 weeks. The fact that you addressed my concern regarding the sourcing of fair use images a day before this RfA is also problematic, to say the least. I would've hoped that a candidate would take criticism on board immediately, and not a day before the next RfA started. And the fact is, you haven't even sourced all the images either. [8][9][10][11] Sorry, but I do not believe it is acceptable for a candidate to address their concerns for the sole reason of passing an RfA (sorry to be blunt, but that's how it looks like to me). WP:NFCC is important. —Dark 10:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I agree NFCC is important. It also is difficult to understand, with the result that even experienced editors bring non-free images to even FAC and have them knocked out. Since Connormah works so much with images, it would be great if he became a NFCC expert, but I don't think it is required for admiship.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    So is Connormah supposed to sit and twiddle his thumbs between addressing the concerns of his last RfA until some arbitrary amount of time has passed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    That seems to be the feeling of the opposers who state no other reason than "too soon". The major strikes against Connormah last time were complaints of a lack of policy knowledge (which he has now shown) and a lack of content creation (which he has addressed). I respect the opposers, but their rationales seem far weaker than last time. To say "I will gladly vote from you six months from now for content creation today" seems peculiar. Especially since Con is nominated by a content contributor who very much has a dog in the fight of wanting admins with sufficient content contributions, and has said so in the past.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    I knew I'd probably miss some, unfortunately. I'll address them shortly. Connormah 17:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Addressed. Thanks for noticing. Connormah 18:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    HJ Mitchell - I was not aware that my comment was solely based upon a generic time limit. I urge you to read my entire response, and not just the first sentence. —Dark 05:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

21. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    As the nominator, I'd like to be able to advise the candidate as to which areas he should gain more experience in. Can you tell me which he seems too inexperienced in?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe he could remove his userbox which says "This user believes that articles are useless without images". Failing that, he could click on random article a few hundred thousand times to see that wiki contains a wealth of very useful articles without images. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    That one was added when I first started my userpage - it'll probably get pushed back soon. I'll reword it however, though. Connormah 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    That's interesting, but I am still hoping the colonel can explain to me the areas in which Connormah is inexperienced, having to do with his qualifications as a admin. So I can guide him as his nominator, of course, though no doubt the closing crat will be interested too ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Most of the candidate's edits seem to be less than a year old and the bulk of them seem to be minor busywork so my impression is that he lacks experience in most areas. As a specific recent example, I noticed Snow pea. In this edit, the candidate changes a picture and caption and it's not clear that this is a change for the better. No edit summary is provided nor is there any discussion on the talk page. The article still has a large improvement banner tag and is surprisingly neglected for a significant topic. What is he doing here and why? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

22. Weak oppose This is, without question, way too soon for another RfA. For me being an administrator isn't a big deal, but this push so soon makes this appear to be something that is a big deal to Connormah. He does good work, but I think DGG and Polargeo raise some good points. Take a couple of months, at least, before applying again should this fail. The wiki isn't falling apart, and will survive should you not become an administrator this summer. AniMate 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    I must say I agree with your "no big deal" statement and, indeed, the place won't crumble without one more administrator, but, I have to ask, if he has addressed all the concerns raised in a previous RfA, but that takes him very little time, why must he wait until some arbitrary amount of time has passed? That's a genuine question, I'm not just badgering. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    You're badgering. Townlake (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    No he isn't. Aiken ♫ 14:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

23. oppose. No doubt that you are not a typical vandalfighter-sysopwannabee. You contribute real content. I wouldn't care too much about the sneaky nomination practically immediately after the failure: thirty opposes is a lot but not an overwhelming veto. But why do you have to confront every opposing voice? And do you realize that Wehwalt's too-evident support makes more harm than good? The way you handle the process is not a good sign. I see poor judgement and agression. No, thanks. East of Borschov 15:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    To be completely fair, it's much not me this time around - last time I made the mistake of responding to majority of the opposes. Connormah 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    (edit conflict):Not to badger, but I think Connormah has been responding to many of the opposes because he wants more feedback on how to improve. Airplaneman ✈ 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Whatever the reason, it might be better if he ceased doing it. - Pointillist (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

24. Oppose – "Final (88/30/11); ended 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)" ?? Surely an editor with a modicum of judgement would feel that attempt 3 is premature? (I see the average is slightly better at the moment, so perhaps attempt 4 or 5 in mid-October or so will succeed.) Occuli (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Not to pick on you in particular, Occuli -- you just happen the the be latest Oppose vote at this time, and what I have to say applies to many if not most of the above Oppose comments -- but I call bullshit. Who gives a gosh darn if had a recent RfA? What has that got to do with his likely performance as an admin? I want to see oppose votes like "Oppose, because (optional: based an x and y and z), I think as admin he will do such-and-such bad things". If he will be too quick to block. If he will be too quick to delete CSD candidates without thinking. If he will protect articles in which he is involved in a content dispute. If he will inappropriately post deleted material. If he will screw up history merges. That sort of thing. Also acceptable would be "Oppose, lacks the maturity/people skills/deportment/whatever to hold a leadership position representing the Wikipedia to new editors and distinguished expert editors". But nobody is saying any of these things. It's like Ooooh his RfA is too soon. Hey, maybe he's got a photo on his user page and we can be like "Oppose, don't like his tie". People: there is a problem with the Oppose voters at RfA, and this has been discussed on the mailing list, and we are not promoting enough admins, and you need to chill and get with the program. The Wikipedia need you to stop being so negative. Herostratus (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Weren't you an administrator once Herostratus? Perhaps an alternative argument might be that wikipedia needs fewer but better administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Your "perhaps an alternative" argument works best if there is a distinct "vandalfighter" or "first aider" role, with the power to block unconfirmed users and/or semiprotect pages for a few hours. You can comment on this proposal here. - Pointillist (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    I am sympathetic to the proposal, but I recognise that it has no chance of being accepted, hence no point arguing over it. Administrators accrete power to themselves, they don't unbundle it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    Such power. How long did you stay blocked last time someone blocked you, Malleus? Twelve minutes, I think? Doesn't say much for adminly power!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    Do I have the power to block the incompetent administrators' whose blocks are almost immediately overturned? No I don't don't, hence that's power. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    You don't understand what power is, Malleus. You have power. You are a very accomplished editor. That gives you power. You are also sociable, and so you have a number of wikifriends that will come to your support. That is also power, as any gang leader could tell you. You have the power to say and do things that weaker people would be banned for. You are clever, and you do not doubt yourself. These attributes also give you power. You can get away with things that many admins could not. Are you not more powerful than them, then? What is power, Malleus? Herostratus (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    If someone brings the same nom back to cfd within 6 weeks it is summarily sent packing, on the grounds that it has just been discussed. Why is this any different? This editor has just been discussed and found wanting ... why are we going over the same ground again so soon, without a decent interval for reflection and the onset of maturity, or for consensus on this editor's suitability to change? Occuli (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    It's a fair point, and touches on why I was willing to nom. We do not require an editor who lost an RfA narrowly, indeed, the crat easily could have gone the other way, to be treated the same as a NOTNOW. The concerns regarding Connormah were fairly narrow, and he's addressed them. They were not maturity concerns, or concerns because of blocks. Connormah's qualifications required mild enhancement; they did not require a six month wait so he could prove he would refrain from disqualifying behaviors, because that was not what his last RfA was all about. The community was free to reject the nomination, and it may yet do so. Connormah, though, has responded seriously to concerns, without whining, and then come back to the community and said "look at me again, what do you think"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

25. weak oppose I think on the balance it is more likely he will be a benifit rather than a negative. But quick re-RfA and lack of solid answers to questions (or any at all in some cases) lead me to have doubts about judgement and communication skills. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose per above, mainly with the RfA being premature. Plus, oppose badgering is annoying as hell. BLGM5 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - I'll be overly fussy again, but a bit less severe: I !voted oppose last time based on lack of understanding of the need for his own recent unreferenceed BLP stubs to set an example to others, and the fact that he promises to do everything right if he is promoted. I still say that admins should be a role model and a breezy six weeks down the line isn't enough to convince me of a change. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt though, and assume he is in the process of improving, and I move from oppose from last time to neutral this time. And please note that neutral is neutral - it's not a weak oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I share your concerns, but I asked the question above. I sure[think] we all sleep at some point, and I eagerly await Connormah's response. I'd suggest we hold off until we get an answer. There's plenty of time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Shad, I most certainly have not ignored your question, which is probably one of the most intelligent, pertinent, and poignant of the ones on this RfA. However, if simply deleting and redirecting unsourced articles is 'a fantastic effort to source the BLPs he created which were a big concern last time' it does little to assuage my concerns: fantastic: imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality - Oxford American Dictionary. --Kudpung (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   While not 'fantastic', I do believe I've done a good job at cleaning up my articles created - most were created during the time where I had limited knowledge of certain guidelines, and I've cleaned that up. Connormah 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral I voted oppose the first time and neutral the second. I don't appreciate another RfA occuring so soon (the last one ending less than 6 weeks ago) so I am not inclined to spend time reviewing this user's contributions. That said I will not oppose on this. Polargeo (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Leaning oppose I supported last time. That is the only reason that I'm starting off neutral. A ridiculously short time has elapsed since the last nomination, and I see that as bad judgement on the nom's part. Equally I consider accepting it to suggest either bad judgement on the candidate's part, an attempt to benefit from the current RfA honeymoon without having had enough time to demonstrate improvement in the previous areas of concern, or a combination of these two things. --WFC-- 12:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Moving to oppose --WFC-- 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral, would not normally post a Neural, I really would like to see the answer to Q6 before making my mind up (hope that Connormah reads this and answers it) but want an opportunity to comment on the concerns about the "six weeks", normally I would agree that six weeks is not long enough, except in this case as the last one was so close I do think it is fine to ask again so soon. Codf1977 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Given answer to Q6, my !vote stays here then. Codf1977 (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC) On reflection moving to Oppose. Codf1977 (talk)

2. Neutral Six weeks is a short time. I'm not convinced that accepting a nomination so early after the last one was the best decision. Almost over-eager, to me, but I suppose that's up to opinion. I'm not trying to bash the nominator's judgment either, but I think that six weeks can't possibly mean everything has been fixed, and lessons fully learned. —fetch·comms 16:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   I voted neutral less than six weeks ago; I'm voting neutral again. Six weeks is simply not enough time for any meaningful improvements to occur. moving to support--Hokeman (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral, will support if Q6 is answered satisfactorily. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral (from Oppose in #2). Because on the one hand it seems unfair to oppose due to the candidate being eager to improve and stand for adminiship again. Still, it almost feels like yesterday that the candidate ran last time. I like Connormah's honest and straightforward stance on blocking and the warning system. His somewhat diffident approach to deletion and questions regarding deletion, not so much. decltype (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Neutral I think there are quality arguments to oppose and support here, but this is a quality editor and I hope they don't become disheartened from this process. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral I voted support the last time around, but would have preferred this candidate wait a bit longer to reapply. That said, I think he's capable and has shown a desire to improve on the areas where he was found wanting the last go-round. I'd support if he reapplied in a few months, and kept up the good work. Right now I can't bring myself to support nor oppose. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral leaning oppose. Plus, opposes are weak imo. Minus, quickly RFA since previous one. Minus, why so much emailing? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Some convincing opposes. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

HelloAnnyong

Final (88/1/0); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) – After hemming and hawing for a month or so, I'm nominating myself to be an administrator. I first joined Wikipedia in February 2006 but didn't really become active until early 2007. Since then I've racked up more than 21,000 edits, with more than half in article space. I'm a longtime member and the second highest contributor to WikiProject Third Opinion, where I've helped settle disputes between two editors as best as I can. I've also been active at WikiProject Japan, and I translate articles from the Japanese Wikipedia when I have time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I think at first I would help out in article protection, disruptive editing and vandalism issues, as that's closest to where I have the most experience. Perhaps after some time I would explore other issues on the backlog like move requests, but certainly not before I feel comfortable doing so. More than anything else, I want to keep giving third opinions. There are always editors who need help out there, and if I can aid in solving a dispute, that's where I'll be. But being a sysop should not and will not affect my judgment there, and I would obviously never use the tools to aid in an opinion. I am not particularly involved with AfD, though, and if I ever stepped into that territory I would do so lightly.

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

A: I think I'm most proud of the articles that I've started and those that I've translated. The one that stands out the most is tanbo art. It's not a particularly long article, but it was started as a translation, filled in with more sources, and then eventually promoted to DYK, where it got just over 9,000 hits that day. I'm also proud of my work as a third opinion editor by helping two disagreeing editors come to some amicable solution so that editing can improve. I think that in doing so, I've helped to improve the overall peace and harmony of many pages, particularly small ones that have gone unnoticed by the larger community.

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

A: In my work at 3O, I've dealt with plenty of conflicts between other people, and keeping cool while trying to help other people is critical. I can't remember any times when I've lost it at an editor or anyone; incivility doesn't solve any problems.

Of course, not all third opinions end peacefully, and that can turn into conflict. For example, I recently gave an opinion at Talk:Akins that I thought was decent and followed Wikipedia policy. Despite my opinion (and those of several other editors) that were all in agreement, one editor still stayed combative. The issue ballooned into several ANI threads, blocks for the editor, and eventually sockpuppeting that spilled over into Commons. The situation did cause me some stress, but I stayed civil throughout.

But in other cases where I've been stressed out, I've asked for further help through dispute resolution, and occasionally I've had to walk away from a conversation altogether.

Additional optional questions from wiooiw

4. A user (Tommy3020) vandalizes an obscure article and eventually you block it as a vandalism only account. The next day, you see a new user (Tommy3020 is back) editing the same article but with seemingly good faith edits. What action(s) would you take if any?

A: I'd probably leave a note on the new user's talk page reminding them of the rules about sockpuppetry and block evasion, and how if they want to continue as an editor they should head back to the first account and request an unblock. It's possible they're not aware of the rules, so a nudge in the right direction could help. Where it goes from there is really up to the editor's actions.

5. Under what circumstances, if any, would you block a user without any warnings?

A: Honestly I think only the most egregious vandalism accounts and sockpuppets should be blocked without a warning. At least one warning should be issued in most other cases, if only to remind the editor that what they're doing is unacceptable.

6.What is your view on the current BLP policy? Do you think that it can be improved in any way? Why or why not.

A: It's a good policy that helps to keep the quality of BLP articles high by ensuring that claims are backed up, rather than running into libel and slander issues. I would always rather have less information that's well sourced - especially for BLP pages - than the converse, and I think the policy reflects that. I don't really have any ways to improve the policy.

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

7. What is your take on IAR?

A: I think IAR is basically a guideline to use common sense and judgment when editing. It doesn't give an editor free rein, but rather serves as a way to cover instances that are not specifically stated by the policies. It's also meant to stop people from getting overly hung up on the rules when they're editing; after all, we're here to edit content and move the project forward. Should a circumstance come up where the rules cannot be directly applied, IAR allows editors to continue editing so long as their work is in the spirit of the project, i.e. the spirit of the rules.

Additional optional question from Kudpung

8. Correct referencing is of course crucial to maintaining standards. Non English web pages in langauges that probably most of us don't understand are sometimes used by contributors as sourced references. Although they are not disallowed, they are apparently not encouraged (I believe WP:VUE has some info on this)- do you think policy should be tightened up regarding their use?

A: Overall I agree with the policy. Sources in other languages should still be held to the same criteria that we would use here for reliability - i.e. a blog in Swedish is still a blog, and a Japanese newspaper is still a newspaper. If I were to suggest an improvement to the policy, it would be to discourage the use of machine translation. Services like Google Translate are good, but they're not perfect, and the potential to misrepresent the source is high. I think it's okay for editors to use non-English sources, so long as they're careful with the translation.

Additional optional question from Látches

9. Do you see it as part of an administrators role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If yes, what process would you employ?

A: No, I don't think it's up to an admin to unilaterally restrict where an editor can edit. The banning policy has a clause in it that admins may not directly impose bans on editors, and I agree with that. Being an admin is supposed to be no big deal and admins aren't supposed to be any different than regular editors, so using the tools to state where an editor can or cannot edit isn't in line with policy. Now having said that, if there's an ArbCom ruling in effect for that sort of article, then I believe an admin can enforce the rule.

General comments

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

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit statsposted to talk page. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Since it's been mentioned several times, I think it should be stated: I am male. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Looks good to me. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Very impressive. Tommy! [message] 22:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Support—yes. Airplaneman ✈ 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Having had WP:3O on my watchlist which i sometimes contribute... Half the time HelloAnnyong has already taken it within minutes of being posted! (s)he has Helped hundreds of wikipedian both new and old. He even checks up on me and lends assistance if I am out of my league! Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   additional comment: I predict the biggest Blizzard in Wiki-history Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Err...WP:SNOW isn't exactly the policy to invoke in this case... bibliomaniac15 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps he meant WP:RIGHTNOW!... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

5. As I said in a recent RfA, substantial 3O experience is invaluable - it requires good communication and negotiation skills, solid policy knowledge, and clue. Sounds like all the attributes required of an administrator. And bonus support for the self-nom.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support. I see no reasons not to. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - Your contributions are varied, substantial, and of quality (4 GAs) but beyond that I've seen your participation firsthand on numerous occasions and always felt you'd be good at the role. I'd have nominated you myself. -- Atama頭 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Yep, although mind me asking why your name includes annyong yet you translate Japanese? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   Not at all! My username is a reference to Arrested Development (TV series); it has nothing to do with my nationality or ethnicity. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Also informal hello in korean :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   In the show, there was an adopted kid from Korea who introduced himself by saying hello in his native language, they assumed that was his name and refer to him as "Annyong". The joke is that when the English-speakers around him greets him by what they think is his name, he repeats it back; to him they're saying hello and he's repeating the greeting, to them it looks like he's just parroting his own name back to them. By the way, I'm a massive fan of that show (that didn't bias my !vote, I swear...). -- Atama頭 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   List of Arrested Development characters#Annyong Bluth -- Atama頭 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks. hehe NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Seems to be a good candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support Activities at 3O suggest that HelloAnnyong will make a fine admin. Rje (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support—yes. Temperament and content production, and length of time here indicate will likely be an unequivocal net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Sure. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 01:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Strong support. I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's work on Wikipedia:Third opinion. Active, helpful, and prolific contributor. After my own RfA completed, I was going to make an unsolicited offer to HelloAnnyong to nominate for RfA, but this self-nom beat me to it! ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - looks like a clueful editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Stephen 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support wiooiw (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
19. 3O is not always the funnest place. Good work writing as well. —fetch·comms 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Support. Prolific contributor to the WP:3O who has helped keep it focused and on task, excellent understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, more than qualified for adminship. – Athaenara ✉ 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support. Tiderolls 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - a Wikipedian since 2006; trustworthy; superb translation work and at Third opinion--Hokeman (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Support - Lots of edits to article space. regular contributor in many areas. Knows how to properly create pages. Sound judgement, and stays incredibly calm even when goaded. Absolutely no reasons not to give her the tools.--Kudpung (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support. Nsk92 (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - Seems knowledgable, reasonable, and helpful whenever we've crossed paths. Will make a good admin. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Exploding Boy (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support - Excellent answers to the questions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Support - Good editor. Ready for more. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    Reconfirmed after investigating the opposes' reasoning
29. Support. Great work at WP:3O - more admins in that area can only be a good thing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Support - Great work. IQinn (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Support —DoRD (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support Good worker. --High Contrast (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support per WTHN and net positive rationale. All the best. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support I am familiar with HelloAnnyong's great work at WP:3O, which I think demonstrates a great deal of patience, cool-headedness, and neutrality. A good track record, a desire to improve the encyclopedia in small but important ways, and absolutely no reason not to trust with admin tools. Thparkth (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Won't abuse the tools Secret ^account 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 21,000 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, surely will be safe with the mop, etc. Zen-like userpage. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Add: also has autoreviewer, reviewer, and rollbacker already. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support Clearly wont abuse the tools, excellent answers to all questions. Látches ^{Lets talk!} 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Most definitely An excellent editor with a temperate disposition who has done wonderful work helping out at WP:3O. Good 3O editors become well versed with policy as well as with negotiating through a variety of disputes and HelloAnnyong is an excellent one. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
39. Support I really thought you were one already. Great answers to the questions so far, great editing history, and strong knowledge of policy. ThemFromSpace 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
40. Support Plenty of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
41. I love seeing long-time editors run and be recognized for their behind-the-scenes work. A wonderfully qualified candidate. ceranthor 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
42. Support -- No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
43. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
44. Support No concerns, no problems. Inka ⁸⁸⁸ 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
45. Support. Extra points for the selfnom, not that the candidate seems to need them. Bishonen | talk 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC).
46. Support. Good answers to questions, excellent contributions, wide experience, seems strong with positive interaction skills. Net positive.  Begoon^talk 09:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
47. Strong Support: Active, helpful and a solid contributor. A great candidate in every way. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
48. Support I like all the 3O experience. It suggests that the candidate has seen lots of different bits of articlespace, encountered lots of different content-related policies, and dealt with an astonishing variety of disputes - and the awkward people that fuel them. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
49. Support: This contributor is exactly the kind of admin I would like to see. Involved in RfCs and Third Opinions. Those are the biggest concerns in Wikipedia. If we want WP to be reliable, admins should be mostly concerned with content disputes. We have way too many admins that are concerned with wp:npa exclusively, but fail to see who is right and who is wrong academically in the first place. Will do an excellent job: I wish more people like him would apply for adminship. My full, strong vote. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
50. I don't often make my personal RfA criteria explicit, but the main one is that I'm reasonably familiar with the candidate even if I haven't interacted with him personally (which allows me to get a feel for his suitability far beyond trying to tick boxes looking through his most recent contribs). From what I've seen of HelloAnnyong's edits over the years, I'm satisfied on that front. It's also important to note quite how awesome HelloAnnyong's user name is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
51. Support I trust this editor to use the tools responsibly. Townlake (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. Sufficient experience, see no reason to think she will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
53. Strong support. Recent dealings with this candidate convince me that HelloAnnyong would be an excellent admin. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
54. Strong support. Long overdue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
55. Support – Definitely. No problems here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
56. はい、いいです - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
57. Support—looks like an excellent candidate to me. –Grondemar 17:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
58. Support Works for me. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
59. Support Absolutely. Good work at 3PO and not afraid to get stuck in. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
60. Support I can't find anything wrong here. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
61. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
62. Support - no problems here. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 09:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
63. Support Why not?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 13:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
64. Support Sure, why not. Great, active contributor to Wikipedia with long experience, a good sysop in all ways. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
65. I have full faith that he'll do a great job. Good luck. Connormah 19:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
66. Support Candidate looks suited to adminhood. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
67. Support Trustworthy for sure. Steven Walling 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
68. Support of course - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
69. Support Have had limited interactions, all good. No problems raised, so I'm pleased to support. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
70. Support. Fully qualified "generalist" candidate who has experience in many fields. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
71. Seraphim♥ 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
72. Support Deserves it. Has a lot of experience. We can trust him. Yousou (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
73. Support. Impressive. Has my trust. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
74. Support Have quite a bit of experience with him as a fellow Third Opinion Wikipedian at WP:30 and know that he's steady, considered, responsible, and a self–starter. The very kind of sysop that we need. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
75. Support Jmlk17 18:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
76. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
77. Support. Well qualified, and I don't find any problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
78. Support - Have seen his vandalism reverts turn up on my watchlist, and in detail, no concerns present themselves. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
79. Support - Another good one for the mop.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
80. Support a strong candidate. Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
81. Support I was involved in the Akins thing, and HelloAnnyong's handling of that messy situation helped sort things out. He'll make a good admin in my opinion. Anyone who works hard at 3O, and helps solve disputes between dedicated editors has my respect!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
82. Support I see no problems with this user. Polargeo (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
83. Support See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
84. Support Seems to be very level headed with a good knowledge of policy. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
85. Support. I have always been impressed with how HelloAnnyong handles himself. I don't always agree with him, but I respect him. He'll make a fine admin. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
86. Support Excellent contributions, exemplary civility, excellent answers. Game, set and match. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
87. Appuie. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
88. Support Not an ideal candidate but I am happy to support. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. oppose Not going to change much at this point, but I can't support this user. [12] He joined in a conversation, made claims he couldn't back up. When called on it, he tried to back out and even insist he hadn't made claims he did, then insisted it be taken to a notice board. He then accused me of coming after him for simply asking him that he cite the consensus he twice claimed.[13] Shows a lack of maturity in debate and not someone I want with the tools.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a conversation that has been conducted in a number of different places, such as here. HelloAnnyong is not the only one who disagrees with your interpretation of policy on the SVG issue and here he is trying to mediate.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And there are others that agree. The problem was not that there is a disagreement over the policy. The problem is how HelloAnnyong conducted himself during the debate. The result of the debate is immaterial to the issue I have. The issue I have is that HelloAnnyong twice claimed a consensus and when asked to provide a link to a discussion demonstrated that consensus he failed to do so. And in fact when I actually took the time to go and try to find it for him, I was unable to do so and found several discussions which didn't indicate any clear consensus. When I brought this up he just back tracked and insisted it be taken to a noticeboard. that's the problem. Someone offering a 3O and throwing around claims like consensus who can't back them up when asked to do so who then starts making borderline bad faith accusations of other users when they just want a straight answer about his claim and position.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr I think your point is valid. HelloAnnyong made some claims that couldn't be backed up and then didn't back down. In my view, people(including admins) generally don't back down(admit they screwed up), and so I think in a way maybe your expected standards are a little to high here. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

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

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

I think that I should be a wikipedia admin because I often do good edits. This is to a non-profit organisation so you feel good that you are doing it. This will also help the community, and I have found out that you need help. Canterbury21 (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

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.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship